Well before the rise of the Nazis there were multiple parties, yes

And only one remained

But the Straserites were faction within the nazi party that were hard core socialists

That eventually got killed off by the traitor hitler

https://images.discordapp.net/attachments/333331001956630529/336598518217310218/download_4.jpg

Anyway, in 1934, Hitler ended up killing off the Strasserites and limting the power of the brownshirts during what was called the "night of the long knives"

Lol

Because he was backed by industrialists who didn't like the fact that he had so many socialists in his party

During this purge Otto Strassers brother "Gregor Strasser" was killed

Otto Strasser had left the Nazi party prior to that because he knew what was going to happen

Is the National Democratic party in Germany really national socialist?

not sure about that

but I have a good understanding of the early history of the nazi party

and Hitlers betrayal to socialism

anyway

Otto and Hitler never really got along

After Hitler killed his brother Gregor, he started his own national resistance group called the "black front"

Here is their flag.

I should photoshop this into the Red Phoenix.

As I stated previously, he wanted the elimination of private property, the end to the war in Europe, a European confederation and workers councils under an elected lifetime president which would essentially be a strongman

He wanted elected managers within industry. The managers would own 1/3rd of profits, the state 1/3rd and the workers 1/3rd

Much better than sword and sicle.

It's a nice flag

Very aesthetic

I wonder if @I have Moved is still here tbh?

otherwise I'd be going over this for nothing

Is of ok. You shall tell us more tbh

Alright comrade, I shall tell you more of this misunderstood socialist hero

Anyway, he is widely misunderstood because he was a member of the nazi party originally

the wikipedia article about him literally says he just "hated jews"

when infact that's not true

He worked with many Jews to try to kill Hitler

In 1940 the "Jewish Question" was a big thing in Germany

He advocated 3 solutions

1. to make them a "national minority" with their own representation in Germany

Couldn't remember it all

anyway here's a good quote

>Unlike with Hitler's regime, Otto Strasser supported the right for German Jews to do one of the
following: 1) They may stay within the greater nation of Germans but be marked as foreigners
and thus only enjoy the rights of such. 2) They may be deemed national minorities and given
their own autonomous states within a federal Germany where they will be able to exercise a
degree of autonomy over their own people. 3.) They may repudiate both their Jewish religion and
identity and assimilate into the German nation. Otto Strasser made it clear it should be up to each
individual Jew what he or she wishes to do.

Lol

Yeah I'm drunk

anyway he recognized that people are different but he wasn't a discriminatory man

Which leftwing 3rd position websites you ever been to?

quite a few, debate fascism sub on plebbit, /pol/, iron march, probably more

Anyway, Strasser tried on multiple occasions to kill Hitler, He had to flee to Czechoslovakia in the 30s

Where he did a radio broadcast against Hitler

and convinced many brownshirts to join his new "black front" which was a national socialist resistance group against the fake national """"""""socialist""""""" hitler

>/pol/ >leftwing

You said "third position" but you're right, /pol/tards aren't even 3rd position

He eventually fled to canada

Not sure what else I can say about Strasser except that he was a national syndicalist, a confederalist, a market socialist, a nationalist, and a heroic revolutionary against Hitlers fake "national socialism". I'd also recommend you check out this video, skip to 6:15 for the reference to the national revolutionary Otto Strasser https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cjsizk7fucw&t=1169s

I need to make a webm of this to show the BO of /leftypol/ that Strasserists shouldn't be banned tbh

I'm drunk but his national struggle against capitalism brings a tear to my eye

>dies as a footnote of history
>claims theories work though never put into practice

doesn't make him a bad man tho : (

he did a lot to fight for liberation

@Dusseldorf#2806 What you think of Marxism? Marxism thinks you are idealist.

I know. But Lenin had workable theory. Putting theory into practice is the fundamental measure of good politics.

@Firefly I've read Marx and I take a lot of influences from Marx but I don't agree with his internationalism

Internationalism?

@Dusseldorf#2806 There are national options too. Both national and International.

Is of combination.

@Deleted User He very well could have put it into practice had he been able to keep hitler out of power. With that said, Gaddafi's and Tito's systems were VERY simlar to Strasserism

They were pretty much Strasserism with Libyan and Yugo characteristics

Is very flexible combination.

History is the perfect measure of theory. Hypothetical and 'could haves' are the refuge of bad theoreticians.

For example, Hitler picked a fight he couldn't win. It reflects badly on his ideology.

Picking fights is inherent to the shortcomings of his ideas.

@Deleted User Well like I said, Tito kind of emulated it even if it wasn't called "Strasserism" and Gaddafi's system is practically a carbon copy of Strasserism

Not much you got from Marxism it seems.

Gaddafi existed because he appealed to the uses of America. That is a separate dynamic. If you want to be a professional lapdog, you will have limited success.

I agree with his ideas of class war, and his criticisms of capital, I also agree with the labor theory of value @Firefly

But what you lack it being able to put it into practice.

Did you read Kapital?

@Deleted User Bullshit, he got killed by the west because he was willing to stand up to them

@Firefly I've read the manifesto but not Kapital

@Revolutionary Nationalist The interests of America changed. And yes, he was killed because he only stood up to them in the end. In the other times, he was unknowingly supporting their interests.

Without capital you shall not agree on labor theory as you don't know it.

Is of complicated.

Only anti-imperialism matters.

@Deleted User So you disagree with him because he didn't stand up to them soon enough. lmao.

I don't understand. Of course a Marxist is supposed to fight against imperialism. And he didn't.

@Deleted User He absolutely did. Otherwise he wouldn't be dead.

So why didn't he die sooner?

Because he wasn't planning on removing Libya from the petro dollar before that. You're essentially engaging in a logical fallacy. It's like saying "why weren't you a socialist as a baby"

He also worked heavily with Tito when he was younger

Not really. You are saying that Gaddafi is a good example. Even though he wasn't for the longest time.

Not to mention, he also supported the Socialist IRA

A good example, not only has a long history of anti-imperialism, but also survives because they understand the practical application of theory.

Like Stalin.

What I'm describing is literally anti-imperialism

Where? Gaddafi only cares about Gaddafi.

Or 'Libya'.

He heavily increased literacy, housing and the overall living standards in Libya. He also had democracy on a local level.

I agree.

People literally lived longer in Libya than they did in the states

you can't say he didn't care about his people

I didn't. I said he didn't fight imperialism.

This is global.

He did when he tried to remove Libya from the petro dollar and get all of Africa on a gold backed currency. He was essentially trying to liberate the entire african continent from American imperialism

How many revolutions outside of Libya did Gaddafi support?

With success.

He failed because of trying to establish a currency system. Everybody knows the modern currencies have to be the end of all currency. Nothing can replace them and they must be dismantled systematically and permanently. Any currency that takes its place will eventually become imperialistic in its nature.

The Denar was a revolution all of it's own. I can't name them all off the top of my head but I can say with absolute certainty that he supported the IRA along with other revolutions. You're essentially saying "lol if a revolution doesn't win, it's not socialist"

tfw you miss the enigmatic Gaddafi, if just because he represents an older terror in the news than ISIS

It's not socialist because of his capitalist intentions.

No I am saying that practice is important. You have to walk the walk. Theory must meet practice otherwise it is unscientific. Gaddafi was all talk and thus useful to the imperialists.

If he was useful why did they kill him?

Gaddafi was a crazy scumbag and that's pretty much all there was to him during my lifetime.

They'd keep him in power like every other crackpot dictator such as Pinochet

Because his usefulness expired.

Than he wasn't useful

That's not a very good argument.

You're both imperialists

Eh?

Can you not tell the difference between useful now and not useful tomorrow?

That's not the point

Imperialists have their own games.

You know who made a new place after Gadaffi? Islamic militants. They have the new use to imperialist policy.

@Deleted User What's your point? that doesn't make Gaddafi an Imperialist puppet

No, no, his craziness and ease of provocation did that.

Imperialist

Don't project stuff.

I'm not, I'm calling out liberals for what they are

You are projecting.

>There will never be another dictator who suggests we split Switzerland

>muh projectuion

You don't know me at all, man. I've said like, six things to you.

I can still tell you're an imperialist

THAT IS PROJECTING

>I'm a psychiatrist xD

Man, you're as bad as righties on Twitter.

Okay

Sorry I don't support the liberal west

Yeah, neiter do I, fuck face.

You clearly do

Sorry, just had to add some inflection there.

Fair enough

I'm sorry

No, it's okay.

I will end it here. I am saying that Gaddafi was allowed to exist, because the moment he wasn't useful he died. When you review the recent history of Libya it is clear that is did not have strong effect to turn others to Communism. To imperialist powers, Gaddafi was a lesser evil, because he was a basic dictator, with no effect on others, and only interested in his own land. On every level he was a very poor theoretician, because he did nothing to help the international working class. Yes, expectation is high, but because it has to be. History is a tough judge.

Isn't it less Orwellian to just say he was stupid and really easy to troll?

Yes but Dusseldorf would never understand that.

Do you support Gaddafi, Dusseldorf?

*did

@Deleted User But you're essentially calling him an imperialist based on the fact that he wasn't "assassinated sooner"

Did you say that, Chopin?

It's a silly argument to make @Deleted User

You also have to factor in the fact that the U.S. wasn't always able to Justify a war with Gaddafi

If he did not actually name Gaddafi as an imperialist, I would advise you to check your argument a little bit to make sure you aren't projecting again.

They were only able to do so in 2011 because we had reached a point to where the population had become complacent with regards to the idea of perpetual warfare

Remain on point in your dialectic.

I'm pretty sure Gaddafi was always "asking for it".

@Revolutionary Nationalist said that he was always fighting imperialism, my response that the moment he did (in not being useful) he was killed. I made the point that if he had been a good Communist, he would have his whole life to defend against Capitalist assassination. But in reality, he never had to defend against it, because he was not targeted. I am finished with this.

Was he ever not an insane war criminal?

Communism isn't the only enemy to Liberalism

It's silly to believe so

Liberalism also killed fascism

They've also killed many other dictators who weren't communist

not to mention, you don't have to be a communist to be a socialist

Hmmm.

Honestly, I think you are confusing liberal and neoconservative.

Neoconservative is a subset of liberal

At least in the context of today.

In 2011 as well

No, it is vastly different from liberalism.

*Vastly*.

No it's not

Liberalism refers to the capitalist economic system, neoliberalism is the evolution of that. Neocons are essentially the right wing of the neoliberal establishment. That's why our only choices are neocons and neolibs

It's essentially liberalism on a global scale

Not really?

Liberal doesn't refer to capitalism specifically. Civil liberties are more important.

The Obama administration wasn't much different than the Bush administration when you look at actual policy

Civil Liberties are a spook

Stirner was a crazy fool.

They're still an illusion. The fact is, additional civil liberties are only a band aid to appease the working class to their economic oppression

Liberal nonsense

Even when you vote you're engaging in violence

Spooks are the super-ego telling the ego that something might be a good idea.

Doesn't matter, the fact is civil liberties are technically privileges, they can be easily taken away by whomever has the most guns (or force) in this case the government

Stirner died the year Freud was born. People didn't know this stuff and Stirner was not trained in psychoanalysis, so his answer for moral convictions was "spooks".

Individualism is willing slavery.

Liberty is not given, it is self-evident.

You do not grant a person their personhood.

Neither does society.

It exists with them, and that is sacred.

That's why tankies are sick fucking bastards who should be locked up for being dangerous sociopaths.

My point is still vaild with regards to "rights" being privileges. They're based on a so called "divine right". God does not exist. Not to mention it doesn't matter if they're "self evident" if no government is willing to grant them. "rights" have to be earned. They are not given.

Tankies are the most authentic in the Heideggerian sense. Anarchists lie about creating a stateless society, meanwhile they built gulags under the CNT-FAI.

At least Tankies are honest about their intentions.

Honor in ripping peoples' lives away is probably one of the scummiest and most degenerate ideas of honor I have ever heard.

How am I "ripping peoples' lives away"? I'm protecting the revolution from demagogues who want to hijack democracy to advance their own narcissistic interests.

Yeah except none of that actually happened and the people running it were just as narcissistic.

I'm literally protecting the revolution.

I guess you're happy with your 1 year of "real socialism" kek

Stalin protected the revolution from reactionaries yet the CNT got easily crushed by the meager armies of Spain

Who did Stalin have to protect his shit from? Emaciated peasants?

National Capitalists calling themselves national socialists

i.e. Nazis

I'm also happy Trotsky got the Pick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpP7Jv-0jNU

I'm talking about after World War II. The Nazis just wanted to dominate the whole world. Stalin was an asshole afterwards too.

Asshole =/= not a socialist

Also a fucktard with a tenuous grasp on theory.

A great man who defended socialism and built soviet industry

If it wasn't for scumbags like Khrushchev we might have socialism today

Never happened.

Pure ideology.

Pure memes

Where is the Zizek emote

Oh yeah, remember Stalin's creepy Lenin death cult

counter revolutionaries go to the gulag

Remember how Lenin's perfectly preserved body is still viewable today because of Stalin's creepy death cult?

It's really fucking creepy, you know?

It's a memorial

Death cult? Don't you mean the most practical and effective expression of Marxist theory?

It's wholly against materialism.

^

It's just an opiate.

It's called socialist patriotism

The most practical and effective expression of Marxist theory is a public reading of the Communist Manifesto.

Patriotism is not Marxist.

I know. But Socialism in One Country is Marxist

No it absolutely is not.

That is literally Stalinist only

Wew. Let's dance Kulak.

Marxism is necessarily global.

Lenin literally said he was a nationalist as it promoted socialist patriotism

Trot scum

Socialist patriotism is hot air.

Once again the day he got the pic was the best day of my life

Even before I was born

I agree that Marxism is global, and only a strong socialist state can secure and protect the successes of the working class.

^

Russia, uneducated peasants with no infrastructure, was not the place to start it.

It was the perfect place.

>workers are uneducated peasants

Lenin and Stalin were both uneducated peasants.

You're sounding like a liberal comrade :^)

The weakest link in the Capitalist grasp.

Most people are uneducated peasants. Sad but true.

Also it probably would have happened in America if Russia hadn't made it look so bad.

Emaciated peasants on dirt farms are not going to convince Americans that communism is the way to go.

Then again for a time we had that very issue.

It's going to be a few more decades before that's far enough back for Americans to think about it.

Everyone forgets the Dust Bowl

We're going to need another.

I'm not sure who is merchanting who anymore.