What’s the same ideal? And what ideas did they still from each other, other than economics? @Jym

Socialism. I like Hayek's conception of simply calling them 'Russian Socialism' and 'German Socialism'. But political officers in the military was one thing they model after each other. There are also these funny accidental copies. Like Hitler's plan was to depopulate the Ukraine to gain control of the farmland but Stalin beat him to it with de-kulakization.

Yeah....I said *other* than economics. So socialism doesn’t count. And with Ukraine, Stalin killed them yeah but it was because of shitty policy, whereas the Germans did it on purpose.

You said they had the same **ideal** which they most definitely did not. The Nazi Ideal was one of a Third Reich for the German people to last a thousand years. It was a great nation or realm for the Germans and them only. They would inherit all of Eastern Europe also, to have the prefect master race. The soviets on the other hand wanted a global utopia, where there is no class, race, sex, state or even money. After a workers revolt against capitalists. These are pretty different my guy.

You can say “oh they had the same actions!” But you specifically said they had the same **ideal**. Also, other than economics, what ideas did they copy off each other?

The communists wanted to create a worker's utopia by having the workers seize the means of production.
Hitler wanted to create a race utopia by having the "Aryan race" seize the means of production.

Both is a form of socialism, just a different end goal, but the same fundamental idea.

Same socialist practice of indefinite centralized control over the market.

My point is that one is much more nationalistic, and irredentist, the other is internationalistic globalist. These are important distinctions

Yes. Socialism can happen internationally or nationally. That's why Hitler coined his socialism "national socialism".

And even with that said I don’t think hitler wanted to end all hierarchy and money like the Bolsheviks did.

And he defined his nation as that of a state belonging to the Aryan race.

Hitler didn't want to end hierarchy, he wanted to get rid of the Jews. He thought the only thing that mattered was to "save the Aryan race".

Capitalism was the enemy to his ideology, because he believed in the shrinking markets.

And, I mean, I can be like a super theocrat who claims all atheistic/secular ideologies are the same.

“Hitler didn't want to end hierarchy, he wanted to get rid of the Jews. He thought the only thing that mattered was to "save the Aryan race’”. Yeah, exactly, the commies actually wanted to end hierarchies

Wtf is a shrinking market?, btw

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.

The idea of the shrinking market that Hitler had was that, if one market grows, another one must shrink, and if one market grows indefinitely, all other markets will die, ultimately leading to the annihilation of the human species.

He didn't believe that markets could simply grow together, or remain unchanged if one of them grows.

On one hand, wow that’s FUCKING STUPID. On the other, yeah it kinda makes sense.

Yep lol

I mean it makes sense, there is a limited amount of resources and materials, so having one market grow would shrink the others as there is less material going there

The idea that you could make it just one market though is kinda dumb, idk see how that’s possible

how many markets are there on the pitcairn islands, snake?

now, if the rest of the world died instantly, how many markets would exist in the world

Yeah in the most technical sense it makes sense, although when you realize that most resources in the world have yet to be touched, and that scientific/technological discoveries impact the efficiency of the use of existing resources, then Hitler's idea falls on its face.

🧐 you guys make good points. I can’t respond to Cass, but with Brood my only point is that I think we’re running out of resources (on planet earth*)

It'll take easily hundreds of thousands, if not perhaps millions of years before we run out of resources, and that's assuming we don't conquer space.

Which we will, almost certainly.

Also cass, their markets would shrink if the rest of the world blew up, as there isn’t any trade and specialization from the outside @Cassiopeia

I think it's much more likely that humankind will have evolved multiple times before it even needs to start worrying about Earth's resources.

Resource management like forestation and clean seas is our only real concern.

Oil, coal, natural gas, rare earth elements, fertile land, clean water, clean air, sheer space. Just to name a few

Yeah that's what really matters, that we don't ruin what we already have,.

Also we are destroying the environment

Yeah we are, that's the main concern.

Anyway, it's bedtime for me. Nice to see the direction of this channel is looking up. There's no emote that properly expresses how I feel about that, so here's a <:angrypepe:497157904743268363> for a subversion of my true feelings.

No Stalin actually set quotas for the systematic killing in Ukraine. You could say he was more *organized* than Hitler but they had the same plan. And as ET points out you can switch the word 'proletariat' and 'aryan' and get the same result.

Beyond that they both had a socialist concept of what production is and it showed in their approach. Ideas like "What could we trade to Ukraine" and "How can we increase Ukrainian yields and efficiency" never entered their thinking. Outside of a faith based idea that collectivization or Aryan farmers would somehow produce this result.

You can say, "Outside of socialism doesn't count!" all you like. But when two sweets taste similar it is hard to explain why without mentioning they are both made of chocolate and sugar.....

<:cuckertarlson:462285973724856320>

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.