I know my shit

Nope.

Have you even read MK

If that was the case, why did hitler allow blacks in his army?

Or anything by Dr pierce

Pure biological materialism

And here we go with the revisionism

Of course I read MK, infact I read the reich approved STALAG edition.

By my guess, you read the editions that were rewritten and editted nearly entirely by major publishing companies.

i read the murphy edition from 1939

sold by an nsbm record label

Kikeitalism

Wow, how trustworthy.

thats the real reason N"S" will never go anywhere

hybrid revisionism

with the hollywood narrative

Hmm?

Is the reich approved stalag edition that was published in 1922 not trustworthy?

i'm sure it is

the murphy translation was co-opted with the nsdap as well

Was it a paper or PDF version?

paper

So that means it was a republished newer version, meaning that it was open to edit's deletions, and rewirtes.

i was a hitlerite for years i know all about it

its not real socialism

and its not practical

And also, you just doxxed yourself.

too racially autistic

how

Personal location was preset....

Too late pal, I screenshotted it.

oh ok

Of course, I hear this argument by both alt-rights, and socialists.

It is not marxist socialism, and was never designed to match it.

syndicalism is not marxist socialism but generally accepted as socialism

No?

3rd way is arguably a form of socialism as well

I have not heard that claim.

no one believes that hitlerism is socialism but hitlerites themselves

and normies of course

Not in a marxist sense, for natsocs.

bakuninites are anti marxist and socialist

strasserites like myself are not marxists but socialist

juche as well

falangist italian fascists

moseleyites

all socialists

hitlerism is not socialism

Falange was never socialist, mosley was never socialist , and neither was hitler.

And, what makes hitler not socialist?

the fact that all the real socialists were purged and exiled in the night of the long knives

What makes them real socialists?

and moseley wrote a book titled european socialism which was a call for a british take on syndicalism

workers owned the means of production

abolition of private property

abolition of wages

guilds

Wait a minute.

How do you know that is the real definition of socialism?

by anyone thats not some asshole berniecrat or a hitlerite

abolition of private property/workers own the means of production

So you don't know.

well you ask 10 people with 10 different political identies you'll get more than a handful of different answers

but to anyone who identifies as a socialist but not a hitlerite it will be along those lines

And how do you separate the true definition from them?

obviously the people who know their shit

And so do I, and I call myself a socialist.

Wow, google, what a good source.

and i bet you'd call syndicalism a jooish invention as well

you can't have private property and socialism at the same time

N"S" germany had private property

Nope, if I did, I would be calling the falange and franco jews.

not socialism

How do you know that?

oh i've seeen it before

alt retards

and no

What?

You don't know it?

franco wasn't a syndicalist he betrayed the falange

True, but the falange also supported franco at first, but this is an attempt to set me off track, so let's get back to the original topic.

Ask any none Hitlerist in this server if Hitler was a socialist everyone will tell you no

In the context that he is a leftist and marxist socialist before, but this is another attempt to derail the question, so let's go back.

How do you know that workers have to own the factories, in order for it to be socialist?

if they don't that means its private property and not socialist

How do you know?

You clearly don't, do you?

Sorel, Bakunin, Strasser, Codreanu

to name non marxists

Kim il Sung

Cordreanu believed in legionaireism, something I doubt you know anything about.

clerical fascism

and yes a good friend of mine is a romanian fash

And, you are only giving me a list of non marxists, nothing that confirms your belief.

non marxists that would agree that private property is capitalist

you're grasping at straws

That is quite the generalization there.

And, I would disagree with you.

clerical fascism, italian, falange etc

were all derived from sorel

Nope.

Sorel is what turned mussolini away from the reds

I don't think evola or mousillini even mentioned sorel in their interviews.

Mussolini went to Sorels funeral

Okay?

Sorel approved of mussolini for his syndicalist views

Didn't hitler attend some of the RAF funerals?

Cultured Thug did a whole presentation on Sorel and his link to fascism

So in that case, woulden't he be fascist?

Sorel is often considered a proto-fascist

but he's a weird one he'd go back and forth from being an ansyn to natsyn

Okay? If he was ultimately considered a fascist and a national syndicalist, then why would you even cite him as a socialist?

because syndicalism is a form of socialism

>Falangists destroy CNT FAI
>Mousillini purges communists and anarchists
What?

because they were'nt the same kind of socialists

By that definition, WW2 was leftist infighting.

and radically different views on social issues

Fascism is not a left or right worldview

Now hold on, there is no way that a socialist would be somebody like cordreanu, or mousillini, because, they fight for both their race, and nation, and an economy that benefits the NATION.

their economies were syndicalist

de facto socialism

So you call it socialist, but in reality it is just yours by claim?

its not marxist socialism

but its socialism

every great nationalist movement has had some socialist ideals if not a very socialist economy

every great socialist state has been somewhat nationalistic if not atleast patriotic

To the fascist state comes first but had syndicalist economies

So you then admit that national socialism IS socialism? You have no good reason to believe that socialism means that workers own everything, and afterall, the people you have provided have worked against you, because some allowed private production methods, meaning that national socialism has every reason to call itself socialism.

To the socialist the likes of Stalin, Mao, Kim il sung etc class came first but had very strong patriotism and nationalism

That is true.

...a little.

Hitlerism is more akin to social democracy and is the forebearer of the current nordic model

Nordic countries used to be mildly ethnocentric as well

So while its not you're waspy capitalism

Its still capitalism

So in other words, you cocede that it is.

@Krieg#0336 I've always thought that Nazi Germany was a corporatist economy where the Government had a lot of influence over capitalist monopolies, nowhere near a social democracy ala Nordic countries. Also, on Mousillini being a National Syndicalist, from what I heard he abandond Syndicalism quite quickly. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.
And for the record, I would personally accept Strasserism as a form of socialism, albeit a bastard child of socialism and fascism.

@no kill i

@Builderelf You thought wrong.

Corpratism was more of a mousillini and pelley thing.

Any IWW member in here?

@stratagast Hi Doom.

@Krieg#0336

What is your reading list of Strasserism?

@Builderelf corporatism by definition is the organization of society based on collectives ie like in italy businesses of the same industry would be merged into one. They called it fascist syndicalism.

@Тхе Западни Србин#1770 https://revolutionarynationalsocialism.wordpress.com/

@Krieg#0336 But I thought the key thing of syndicalism was that it was owned by the workers, not the government?

Yeah, I’m in the IWW. I’m new though, just joined last month @stratagast

Also @Deleted User @kriegsmariner VA lemme do a bit of research here, I’ll try and find the people that said Germany was corporatist, and look at some of their sources. I’ll be back

@Builderelf Sources?

Germany? Corporatist?

lulz yeah germany was basically a racist social democracy

mussolini was a staunch sorelianist

I disagree with that.

>mixed economy

>welfare state

>wages

>Welfare state
What do you mean by that?
>Mixed economy
If by mixed, you mean both government and owned properties with a common goal, then sure.
>Wages
What relevance does this have?

@Builderelf I think that when people mention fascism, they usually get the idea of italy, and how it had some corpratism, but they forget, that italian fascism, national socialism, legionaireism, falange, and more, had many differences, with a common idea.

all of those except hitlerian NS yes

capitalism is to individual

communism to class

fascism to state

N"S" to race

Unless it is somewhere like vichy france where it was a german/italian occupied place, it would most likely have an independant system.

Okay, from what I see and what I'm researching right now, I could definetly see @Krieg#0336's arguement for Germany being a "racist social democracy". For instance:
-Taxation was high
-Government spending was through the roof
-Private business was allowed to operate
-Healthcare was a thing
-Keynes himself LIKED the Germany economy
-Pensions were even given out, apparently

However, I'm also seeing elements of totalitarianism in there. For instance, State-Run Trade Unions designed to squeeze out productivity in factories. Also, military spending took was as high as 32% of the budget-- that doesn't sound like a Social Democracy at all! Additionally, the reason that public projects such as job programs and industry protectionism seems to be mainly for the sake of increasing productivy of home industries, not for the sake of basic human rights, as it is in Nordic countries.

So in other words, I'd place Hitlerist economics as an Authoritarian-Right version of Social Democracy. Not quite corporatism, not quite social democracy, a strange kind of militaritic totalitarian welfare state.

@Krieg#0336 Fascism and national socialism do not believe in devolution of the class, which is something that communism and socialism want, but rather they want both the worker, and the owner, and the government cooperating for the benefit of the nation.

why yes, this is true. I know a fascist friend that claims that fascism calls for "Class Collaboration, not Class Warfare", so thats correct @Deleted User

well duh its easier to work together when one class isn't fucking the other

@Builderelf That is one of the biggest characteristics of national socialism, as well as the italian, romanian, spanish, and more, is that it cannot be mapped on a simple political scale that is determined by an alogorithm.

I would also agree that fascist economics has more diversity than people give it credit for.

fascism isn't an economic system more of a world view

or principles

Then again @Deleted User , thats because political compass tests are actually cancerous ways of viewing politics

closest thing to experiencing fascism in america would be like being in the military or a sports team

yeah, fascism has more roots in politics if anything. Probably why history classes don't cover it's economy very much and why fascist economics are so diverse.

i mean Mussolini called Stalin a fascist

@Builderelf Ah yes, according to MK, next leap, and a squires trial, a person needs to do what they are best at, and using that skill, they produce products and more, to benefit the state, or that is the very generalized and summarized version of it.

@Krieg#0336 Citation needed.

Red Fascism

@Krieg#0336 big oof

@Builderelf History classes hardly teach you anything.

true

but then again, my latest history classes have been a lot better

for instance, my current history teacher is W O K E af

I don't think that makes the course inhereintly better, however.

he legit knows what Mutualism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Marx's Labor Theory of Value etc. are. I have NEVER seen a history teacher talk about any of that. He's pretty fricking lit.

hell, he's the sponsor for my socialist club

so overall a pretty cool dude

i mean true @Deleted User

but I still think he covers a lot in his US history classes

I sure learned a lot.

Interesting, it seems that more predictions are coming true.

what predictions did you have?

Oh I was referring to GLR's and the elder's of zion's predictions.

Anyways, I seriously doubt that you will still cover that much within US history, granted you will learn some more info, but not *that* much more, since like previous classes, you will have to cover around 400-200 years of history in less than a year.

well, as far as America is concerned it can cover a lot. obviously I won't learn shit about, say, South Africa or something.

But I learned about some pretty major Labor Unions within the mid-late 19th century up to the early 20th century.

Okay?

That isn't really much to go off of....

I mean yhea, there were labour unions..... haven't they always existed since the early industrial revolution?

well obviously, I just didn't know that the AFL or the Knight of Labor were a thing.

Specifically those labor unions.

but I see your point nonetheless, the American education system is in desperate need for reform.

If not a comeplete overhaul.

I'm just saying that it's not 100% terrible, because sometimes you get a good class (like my AP US history class)

I like it.

Then again, I am in a super funded school.

Fair enough.

either way, hope you have a nice evevning.

See you mate.

anyone in voice channels

http://historyreviewed.com/index.php/2018/01/12/renegade-jared-taylor-and-zionist-friendly-nationalism/

hello bruddas

burzhui

Bonjour

bruddas or comrades?

idk whatever

МАТЬ ЕБАЛ

thats a mountian in asia

Fascism has never collapsed on itself like communism did to many countries

And has not ruined any countries

(((Pinochet)))

oy vey goyim

I mean the privileged relationship between Italy and Russia goes back to Mussolini and Stalins mutual respect

Italy only got dragged into the war because of an autistic Austrian apart from that they both saw the capitalist west as more of a threat than eachother

Then weirdly enough Himmler once praised Stalin and the Soviets over the Italians as the Italians weren't "revolutionary like the fuhrer"

He killed gorillions of his own people goy

yes,stalin did that

Lol

2 to 60 million wtf

@Krieg#0336 It's like the holocaust numbers now!

@Biermann#5625 hilarious and original meme

very original @Biermann#5625

@Krieg#0336 Population of Russia 120 million. 60 million killed. Population became 140 million. This is American mathematics mate.

I agree

even as an anarchist, I still think that the death toll under stalin is ridiculously exagerated

its more like 25 mil if you count from both famines AND from ww2, and even that is pretty exaggerated.

but population growth and population in general would've boomed under this period due to Stalins high amount of industrialization

for instance, before stalin life expectancy was around ~37 or so

it became like 60 something by the end of the reign