Message from @snake
Discord ID: 681661782841884698
Again, to your last comment, I’ve explained why they’re different in pretty good detail. But I guess nationalism is the same as globalism to you. As you don’t seem to think it’s a important difference
You can’t switch out Aryan and Proletariat 100%. The Aryans were put in a victim revenge narrative sure, but they’re still a ethnic group with a common culture, language and history
And again, yeah with production, so economics...
>mrw reading this crap of ultimate reductionist straw grasping to equate Hitler and Stalin
1. Communists advocate for worker control of the means of production, eradication of all hierarchy, including identity, ethnicity, race, gender, sex, class, heritage and history, abolition of Nation states in favor of internationalism and legalization of all kinds of degeneracy. Fascism is culturally Far Right and Economically Centrist, with a Corporatist (different from Corporatocracy) style economy, with military endeavors limited to Irredentism and self defense (Nazis reclaiming greater Germany, for instance).
2. Communists view the Nation state as illegitimate. They want a global world order of a rootless shopping mall, inhabited by hedonist, deracinated, atomized individuals. Fascists are Palingenetic Ultranationalists who see the Nation state as a people tied by culture, history, tradition and blood and an extended family where the people feel they are in the same boat to pursue a greater destiny.
3. Communists are Materialists devoid of any guiding spiritual principles. Fascists see Nations as a Civilization having a grand destiny beyond the Individual and have a vision for the spiritual rebirth of the Nation to achieve this ideal.
You could say that both in some ways are Collectivists, which I'll agree with. But to equate them in any meaningful way beyond that is absurd.
You see that? That’s the difference between the two without economics
Maybe you can read
All the crap you see today with Pink Capitalism is directly linked to the ultimate agenda of Anarchists to destroy gender, sex and race
Methods of wealth distribution are but a means to an end to an eventual society devoid of hierarchy
Well except that they are all wrong. For instance Stalin (who's treaties on politics was *Socialism in One Nation* immediately proportioned his conquests into nation states. Ethnic ones at that because he moved people to E Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia etc. etc. based on ethnicity.
And you're also wrong about degeneracy and hedonism. The Soviets outlawed pornography and were highly restrictive of any expression outside the narrow construct of the state. As to these differing heroic visions as you see it again if you swap the word 'proletariat' and 'aryan' once again you get remarkably similar glorified idealistic vissions.
I mean it's not like the heroic soviet man was any less common in the propaganda than the ubermensch. If you are saying they differed in the propaganda they used to express their socialist ideas we agree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society
> In Marxist thought, communist society or the communist system is the type of society and economic system postulated to emerge from technological advances in the productive forces, representing the ultimate goal of the political ideology of communism. **A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless, implying the end of the exploitation of labour.**
> Marx also wrote that between capitalist and communist society, there would be a transitory period known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. During this preceding phase of societal development, capitalist economic relationships would gradually be abolished and replaced with socialism. Natural resources would become public property, while all manufacturing centers and workplaces would become socially owned and democratically managed. Production would be organized by scientific assessment and planning, thus eliminating what Marx called the "anarchy in production". The development of the productive forces would lead to the marginalization of human labor to the highest possible extent, to be gradually replaced by automated labor.
Any "Nationalism" (a misattribution since Marxists hold the view of tabula rasa and multiracial and multiethnic states, so the correct term would be statism) of Marxists is a transitional state to create the "New Communist Man" for an eventual global Communism devoid of state.
Well sure but Marx's description doesn't describe either the Soviet Union **or** Nazi Germany. Turns out almost all of Marx's ideas were wrong...
Once again, read my thorough paragraph on the differences in the theoretical underpinnings of Fascism and Communism. They are diametrically opposite.
Do you think Nazi Germany, and the USSR were the same by the same belief systems? The same visions of the future?
They were formed from the same root idea. Ford your argument would also mean that the USSR wasn't communist because it did not fit Marx's vision.
No, they were.
I mean, it wasn’t, communism is impossible
Nothing, in the real world, fits Marx's idea because Marx had no understanding of the world.
Sure, so the only reason the USSR ended up looking like Nazi Germany is because Nazi Germany was more based in reality?
Whatever deviations existed were due to human imperfections. The ideals that motivated the Bolshevik Revolution and the brutal killing of the Tsar family were motivated by Marx's Communism and would be impossible were there a Fascist revolution instead.
No. They both turned out murderous and dehumanizing because that is the nature of socialism.
It is like talking to a brick wall lmao
Yeah
Anyway, I gtg for now
Cya
In that when your ideology strikes a wall it is not the wall that gives....
So the only reason nazis were violent was because of a economic doctrine? That’s interesting
Maybe if Hitler was a free market type, he would have had his realm without firing a single shot
Before going, I'd like to recommend this great video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d9vlqoERco
Because of ideology. Socialists do not recognize the human nature of production. They see it as some natural phenomena that can be harnessed and directed by the state. This leads to envisioning people and things in a certain way. And that leads to the violence.
Exactly, if Hitler only realized this and abandoned his retarded market ideas. Then there wouldn’t have been any violence.
I don't see how that is possible. Outside of the thought that if Hitler were not Hitler he would not have been Hitler. I took that as a given.....
Yeah I agree, if Hitler adopted free markets there wouldn’t have been a Second World War.
still would of happened. Even if hitler did that
I forgot what the word is but they had to give money to acouple or afew countries for ww1
not only that alot of countries were suffering after the war aswell
Technically true. Hitler, like all socialists, was an abject failure in the market and likely would have died in obscurity...
War isn't something that happens when peace fails, peace is something that happens when groups or individuals are preventing war. World war 2 would've happened, whether germany was socialist, communist, or even capitalist
There was a lot of forced labor (i.e. slavery) under Hitler. And slavery contradicts capitalism because slaves have no freedom, instead they're treated like they're means of production, not workers with agency. Hitler justified that with his collectivist ideology (fascism): "it's for the good of the people" (where else have we heard that before). Essentially Hitler had gulags under a few different names.