Politics Aussie Fascists and Nazis

Remove this Banner Ad

sdfc

Club Legend
Feb 15, 2019
2,400
2,424
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Swans
Yes I know... the Zionist Party did a deal with the Nazi party as far back as 1932, from what I've researched about Zionism. Hitler and the Nazi party only used the term Socialist in the name of the party to get the German workers and unions onside so they could take over.

Maybe I should have put quotes around my comment.
The Nazis were kind of socialist. They kind of proved that socialism doesn't necessarily have to be left wing.
 

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 11, 2007
19,430
17,628
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
The Nazis were kind of socialist. They kind of proved that socialism doesn't necessarily have to be left wing.

Where in socialist thought and ideology does it call for racial separatism and racial supremacy though? It was THAT side of Nazi thought and deed that rightfully cast them as villains to this day. Did socialistic thought or deed murder all of those people for the 'crime' of being a different ethnicity or holding different religious beliefs or practices?

No. Socialism didn't kill those people. Far Right racial separatism and supremacist ideals did.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
40,078
38,591
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Where in socialist thought and ideology does it call for racial separatism and racial supremacy though?

Socialism is 'ownership and control of the means of production by the State'.

Socialism - Wikipedia

There is nothing for or against racial separatism or supremacy inherent in that definition any more than there is in a capitalist system where the means of production are privately owned.

A Far Right wing tyrant could direct the State to seize control of the means of production, and nationalize and tightly regulate every single industry in a unitary party socialist State, implementing a universal basic income for all, and banning private property and capital.

They'd then (being Far Right) round up ethnic minorities and LGBTI people etc and the purge would begin.

You can be Far Right wing and a socialist. You cant be Far Left wing and a Capitalist though, because Capitalism infers a hierarchy to some extent, and Far Left wing oppose all hierarchies no matter the social benefit they might otherwise provide.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sdfc

Club Legend
Feb 15, 2019
2,400
2,424
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Swans
Where in socialist thought and ideology does it call for racial separatism and racial supremacy though? It was THAT side of Nazi thought and deed that rightfully cast them as villains to this day. Did socialistic thought or deed murder all of those people for the 'crime' of being a different ethnicity or holding different religious beliefs or practices?

No. Socialism didn't kill those people. Far Right racial separatism and supremacist ideals did.
I did say kind of socialist. Socialism doesn't live in that little box you think it does. Most high income countries have socialist policies to some degree, are we going to say they don't because they don't live up to the ideals of pure socialism?

Nazi socialism was only for a certain group. In fact they were prepared to starve 30 million people to build a utopia for that group. They were collectivist, anti-individualism and anti-capitalism.

Socialism's been killing people in large numbers since at least 1917.

I say this as someone with socialist tendencies myself. It doesn't mean I'm a Bolshevik or a Nazi, or that Karl Marx was.
 

maroon and blue

Club Legend
Oct 5, 2004
2,974
704
melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
lions
I did say kind of socialist. Socialism doesn't live in that little box you think it does. Most high income countries have socialist policies to some degree, are we going to say they don't because they don't live up to the ideals of pure socialism?

Nazi socialism was only for a certain group. In fact they were prepared to starve 30 million people to build a utopia for that group. They were collectivist, anti-individualism and anti-capitalism.

Socialism's been killing people in large numbers since at least 1917.

I say this as someone with socialist tendencies myself. It doesn't mean I'm a Bolshevik or a Nazi, or that Karl Marx was.
What I find curious is Hitler was very careful of German public opinion. Here is a monster who would kill anyone who stood in his way of his horrific beliefs but would cower to German social norms. Knocking off the old and the handicapped as an example.
 

Gethelred

Spec Moderator
May 1, 2016
21,536
44,542
AFL Club
Carlton
I did say kind of socialist. Socialism doesn't live in that little box you think it does. Most high income countries have socialist policies to some degree, are we going to say they don't because they don't live up to the ideals of pure socialism?

Nazi socialism was only for a certain group.
In fact they were prepared to starve 30 million people to build a utopia for that group. They were collectivist, anti-individualism and anti-capitalism.

Socialism's been killing people in large numbers since at least 1917.

I say this as someone with socialist tendencies myself. It doesn't mean I'm a Bolshevik or a Nazi, or that Karl Marx was.
That's not socialism, that's nepotism.
 

Richard Pryor

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 6, 2013
11,407
15,118
AFL Club
Hawthorn
What I find curious is Hitler was very careful of German public opinion. Here is a monster who would kill anyone who stood in his way of his horrific beliefs but would cower to German social norms. Knocking off the old and the handicapped as an example.
On this it's interesting Hitler backed the Nazi platform away from a lot of the occult reimagining of German culture. Something I found darkly ironic is that some of the Nazis in the early days took issue with Charlemagne being respected in German culture because he slaughtered pagan Saxon chieftains. Nazi's taking issue for massacres of religious minorities is bizarre, Hitler later 're-endorsed' Charlemagne. From wikipedia:

Hermann Gauch, Heinrich Himmler's adjutant for culture, took the view that Charlemagne – known in German as Karl the Great (German: Karl der Große) – should be officially renamed "Karl the Slaughterer" because of the massacre. He advocated a memorial to the victims. Alfred Rosenberg also stated that the Saxon leader Widukind, not Karl, should be called "the Great". In Nazi Germany, the massacre became a major topic of debate. Massacre of Verden - Wikipedia
 

Richard Pryor

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 6, 2013
11,407
15,118
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I did say kind of socialist. Socialism doesn't live in that little box you think it does. Most high income countries have socialist policies to some degree, are we going to say they don't because they don't live up to the ideals of pure socialism?

Nazi socialism was only for a certain group. In fact they were prepared to starve 30 million people to build a utopia for that group. They were collectivist, anti-individualism and anti-capitalism.

Socialism's been killing people in large numbers since at least 1917.

I say this as someone with socialist tendencies myself. It doesn't mean I'm a Bolshevik or a Nazi, or that Karl Marx was.
Yeah, I think the Nazis highlight the whole "political compass" thing where there's two sliders. I don't think society can be simplified into left and right wing, economic and social policies are completely independent of one another and left wing social policy can be combined with right wing economic policy and vice versa. Generally they coincide on the political spectrum but just someone advocating for some level of socialist economic policies doesn't necessarily mean they are socially left (this I think is the main downfall of party politics particularly in two party systems, where you basically have to sacrifice social convictions to vote on economic policy or vice versa since you can't vote for one party for the economy and one for the social policies).
 

maroon and blue

Club Legend
Oct 5, 2004
2,974
704
melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
lions
On this it's interesting Hitler backed the Nazi platform away from a lot of the occult reimagining of German culture. Something I found darkly ironic is that some of the Nazis in the early days took issue with Charlemagne being respected in German culture because he slaughtered pagan Saxon chieftains. Nazi's taking issue for massacres of religious minorities is bizarre, Hitler later 're-endorsed' Charlemagne. From wikipedia:
Murders and massacres, in the thousands. Loss of blood that effected people from cradle to the grave. Thank god for democracy.
 

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 11, 2007
19,430
17,628
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I did say kind of socialist. Socialism doesn't live in that little box you think it does. Most high income countries have socialist policies to some degree, are we going to say they don't because they don't live up to the ideals of pure socialism?

Nazi socialism was only for a certain group. In fact they were prepared to starve 30 million people to build a utopia for that group. They were collectivist, anti-individualism and anti-capitalism.

Socialism's been killing people in large numbers since at least 1917.

I say this as someone with socialist tendencies myself. It doesn't mean I'm a Bolshevik or a Nazi, or that Karl Marx was.

Yeah it's a spectrum more than a singular box that political beliefs are placed in. Even I forget this sometimes!
 

Royce Hafey

Premiership Player
Mar 6, 2013
3,576
11,849
Point Cook
AFL Club
Richmond
Socialism is 'ownership and control of the means of production by the State'.

Socialism - Wikipedia
I don't agree with that definition of socialism. If you look at the origins of the term "socialism" in the early 19th Century, it referred more to abolishing private property, at least of the means of production, and replacing it with collective ownership. Obviously if this vision is not accompanied with an anarchist idea of having no state then some version of state ownership is necessary to achieve it, but if the state itself is not democratic (in the fullest sense) then state ownership of the means of production is simply another mechanism of class rule, rather than a way to achieve equality. Most, obviously, in Stalinist states, but even in regimes like Marcos's kleptocracy in the Philippines.

In any case, of course, with regards to the Nazi regime, they didn't even do much nationalisation, and, to the extent that they intervened in the economy (especially during the war) it was no more than the regime led by the arch-Tory Churchill did. Ultimately the argument that the Nazis were socialist boils down to the fact that they called themselves "socialist", which makes about as much sense as calling the old East German regime democratic because it labelled itself the "German Democratic Republic".
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sdfc

Club Legend
Feb 15, 2019
2,400
2,424
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Swans
I don't agree with that definition of socialism. If you look at the origins of the term "socialism" in the early 19th Century, it referred more to abolishing private property, at least of the means of production, and replacing it with collective ownership. Obviously if this vision is not accompanied with an anarchist idea of having no state then some version of state ownership is necessary to achieve it, but if the state itself is not democratic (in the fullest sense) then state ownership of the means of production is simply another mechanism of class rule, rather than a way to achieve equality. Most, obviously, in Stalinist states, but even in regimes like Marcos's kleptocracy in the Philippines.

In any case, of course, with regards to the Nazi regime, they didn't even do much nationalisation, and, to the extent that they intervened in the economy (especially during the war) it was no more than the regime led by the arch-Tory Churchill did. Ultimately the argument that the Nazis were socialist boils down to the fact that they called themselves "socialist", which makes about as much sense as calling the old East German regime democratic because it labelled itself the "German Democratic Republic".
No one said that the Nazis were socialist because it was in their name. The Nazis were collectivist, they weren't a hands off government as you seem to be saying. They had a social program, a pretty shitty one, but a social program nevertheless.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
40,078
38,591
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
No one said that the Nazis were socialist because it was in their name. The Nazis were collectivist, they weren't a hands off government as you seem to be saying. They had a social program, a pretty shitty one, but a social program nevertheless.

When (far left) socialists get in power, they go after the wealthy, educated and the bourgeoise. Confiscate their s**t and send them off to gulags or murder them in the killing fields, in an effort to establish and maintain 'equality'.

When the (far right) socialists get in power, they go after the ethnic and religious minorities, immigrants, women and the disabled. Strip rights from them or ship them off to extermination camps, in an effort to purify the nation State.

It's just who gets it in the neck that differs. Otherwise they're pretty damn similar.
 

Royce Hafey

Premiership Player
Mar 6, 2013
3,576
11,849
Point Cook
AFL Club
Richmond
No one said that the Nazis were socialist because it was in their name. The Nazis were collectivist, they weren't a hands off government as you seem to be saying. They had a social program, a pretty shitty one, but a social program nevertheless.
Not that much. There's a bit of mythology about this. First is the "they built the autobahns" thing. The autobahns were actually already under construction when the Nazis came to power (not that building infrastructure is in any way necessarily "socialist"). Then there's the idea that they ended unemployment which they sort of did but only by a simple conjuring trick. They expanded the German military from its restriction to 100,000 (Versailles Treaty) to five million which just happened to have been more or less the number of unemployed when they took power. They also destroyed the trade union movement and drastically reduced wages so that in 1938 Germans were still consuming less calories per person than they had been in 1928. The economic "recovery" benefitted the employers and the middle class but was built on the immiseration of the working class, achieved with the aid of terror. So what does it mean in the light of this to say they were "collectivist"? Nazi ideology is collectivist in the sense that it argues for the subsuming of individuals to the state, but that's not "socialist" any more than the collectivist ideology of (to bring up another random example) Catholicism is. Having a shitty social program is not socialist either - unless you think Bismark, the inventor of the old age pension, was socialist. Finally, I never said they were a "hands off government", just that government intervention in the economy, something that was the a characteristic of the allies during WW2 as well, is not socialism. I would call it state capitalism. Though, again, the extent of this in Germany has been exaggerated - they never nationalised any of the main German corporations for instance.
 

the_interloper

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 1, 2006
20,432
19,841
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
When (far left) socialists get in power, they go after the wealthy, educated and the bourgeoise. Confiscate their s**t and send them off to gulags or murder them in the killing fields, in an effort to establish and maintain 'equality'.

When the (far right) socialists get in power, they go after the ethnic and religious minorities, immigrants, women and the disabled. Strip rights from them or ship them off to extermination camps, in an effort to purify the nation State.

It's just who gets it in the neck that differs. Otherwise they're pretty damn similar.

I agree with you, though you could say the far left go after white people and the far right go after poor people, you're pretty much talking about the same groups.
 

the_interloper

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 1, 2006
20,432
19,841
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Where in the world is anyone going after white people?

My point was that conservative policies often advantage the rich, which has a disproportionate amount of white people in it. The left side would in general have policies which advantage the poor, which has a disproportionate amount of minorities.

So it depends which way you look at it, through the minority lens or economic lens.
 

FireKrakouer

Why are you booing me? I'm right.
Jul 5, 2011
13,102
19,168
AFL Club
Collingwood
When (far left) socialists get in power, they go after the wealthy, educated and the bourgeoise. Confiscate their s**t and send them off to gulags or murder them in the killing fields, in an effort to establish and maintain 'equality'.

When the (far right) socialists get in power, they go after the ethnic and religious minorities, immigrants, women and the disabled. Strip rights from them or ship them off to extermination camps, in an effort to purify the nation State.

It's just who gets it in the neck that differs. Otherwise they're pretty damn similar.
A beautiful summary of horse shoe theory. Long live the centrists!
 

Soft Downhill Skier

2008-2010 wasn't me.
Sep 21, 2004
43,440
45,362
AFL Club
GWS
When (far left) socialists get in power, they go after the wealthy, educated and the bourgeoise. Confiscate their s**t and send them off to gulags or murder them in the killing fields, in an effort to establish and maintain 'equality'.

A beautiful summary of horse shoe theory. Long live the centrists!
Meh, it's a relevant summary up until the Cuban system was found to be largely bad. Now the far left is likely to give people free health care.

Now it's the thing that the far right and 'liberals' agree on.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad