genuinely braindead, he believes Ian Kershaw is a communist

>>18733109
>says National Socialism is socialism
True, nazism is evil because it is a left wing big government ideology

>>18733109
What happened to him, he last went a randroid cult meeting and hasn't posted since

>>18733183
He had a burnout.

File: 1741393290632933.jpg (320 KB, 2000x1352)

320 KB JPG

The nazis WERE socialists and horseshoe theory is real.

File: nazi labour.png (111 KB, 962x697)

111 KB PNG

>>18733109
>>18733187
roads lead to slavery, ect.

The Nazis and the Commies both built anti-democratic one-party states, which is where the overlap happens. Nazi policies regarding labour are known.

>>18733198
Honestly is all that different from the commies?stiff like banning trade unions and establishing corrupt cartels sounds like ''state capitalism'' or soviet to me

I like his battlestorm series on North Africa and Stalingrad. probably the most detailed ww2 breakdown available on youtube (they are like 60 hours long tho lol).

On the topic of NS and Fascism however, he is extremely flawed on some points.

Whenever he tries to explain fascism, he says its simply a combination of nationalism and syndicalism, which is bullshit.
Then he says syndicalism is the same as corporatism, which is also bullshit.
Syndicalism means the workers organise themselves into groups that controls labour and production for themselves.
Corporatism means the state organise it for the state.
And fascism is corporatism, not syndicalism (with the rare exception of Spanish Falangists who were syndicalists).

I have no doubt that Hitler started off as a socialist, but as things progressed and when Hitler eventually took power, he clearly modeled Germany after the fascist corporatist economic structure, whether he did this because of ideological convicition, or simply to appease the German elite in order to create stability is left to be debated. Far too many people simply quote Mein Kampf as an answer to everything but Nelson Madela was a stone cold ideological communist but when he became the head of state he moderated himself in order to preserve stability and I think Hitler did the same thing since the army (which was packed with conservative aristocratic burgouisie junkers "Von" names) along with German businesses would have coup'ed him if he tried to go full-on socialist revolution.

But anyway, Hitlers Germany mirrored fascist corporatism: private businesses was tolerated along with private accumilation of capital, but only insofar they served state interests and were subservient to state ambitions. The state would organise businesses, labour, market and production for its goals and objectives. This is textbook Corporatism (or state-capitalism as reddit troons likes to call it).

File: life in a society.jpg (45 KB, 912x696)

45 KB JPG

>>18733205
>Honestly is all that different from the commies?
It isn't. That's because they're both anti-democratic, totalitarian one-party states.

>>18733221
This an ancom coded post
>Syndicalism means the workers organise themselves into groups that controls labour and production for themselves.
How? Isn't this why they inevitably advocate for a state as in
>Corporatism means the state organise it for the state.
It's honestly understandable for TIK to mix the two up, any socialist variety that pretends to not advocate for the state has shown to be contrary to its own rhetoric.
>Madela was a stone cold ideological communist but when he became the head of state he moderated himself in order to preserve stability
He left a country that was actively worse off from when he started, i sincerely doubt he cared a lot about stability. It's more likely that like Lenin, he essentially cucked when he came to power because his ideology genuinely didn't work
>private businesses was tolerated along with private accumilation of capital, but only insofar they served state interests and were subservient to state ambitions
Is socialism, if you go further from this you have outright communism. This leads me to believe more so that the fascists were socialists of another Hegelian variety rather than a genuine third way desu.

>>18733253
>It's honestly understandable for TIK to mix the two up
He shouldnt tho.
He is obviously academically trained and has knowledge.
The differences is very simple and very clear:
Syndicalism = organised by workers
Corporatism = organised by state
These are very stark and fundemental differences that makes it impossible to confuse them.

>Is socialism, if you go further from this you have outright communism.
Wrong.
Socialism is when the workers owns the means of production.
Which then means there cannot be any private ownership.
Which then means there cannot be any private accumilation of capital.
All enterprises are owned by the state. All revenue made goes to the workers. All excess revenue goes to the state which then distribute it back to the workers through welfare public sector (pensions, healthcare, education, housing, infrastrucutre etc).
This is socialism.
Communism, like you said, is a step further. Communism wants to abolish state altogether. It wants to abolish class altogether. It wants to abolish kapital altogether. Communism is only achieved in a classless, stateless, moneyless/propertyless society.

The problem is that socialists themselves seems to compromise a lot on these criterias, especially the point where the workers owns the means of production, even tho that part is essential to socialism on paper. To many socialists, it seems to be enough if the state owns the means of production, as long as no private individual does.

>>18733270
>Syndicalism = organised by workers
What does that exactly mean in a collectivist framework besides the state? The organization Geist?
I won't really get into why by your definition communism and in turn socialism would be unironically reactionary ideologies that advocate for a return to pre-state and pre-property society but more importantly, has there been a single socialist country in human history by those criteria?

>>18733280
well like I said, socialists themselves seems to compromise on the criterias, especially on the 'workers must own the means of production'.
Instead the defining factor that defines whether a state is capitalist or socialist is if private individuals and private enterprises can accumilate large volumes of capital through the work of others solely for themselves.

By the first definition: No there has never been any 'real' socialist state since there has never been a state where the workers owns the means of production.
By the second definition: Yes there has been, since in the USSR everything was state-owned and private enterprises were illegal.

>>18733292
For any meaningful discourse the second would have to suffice then because well, that's what they are desu.
> the defining factor that defines whether a state is capitalist or socialist is if private individuals and private enterprises can accumilate large volumes of capital through the work of others solely for themselves
Wouldn't that indeed make Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany socialist since one has the nation-state and the latter has the race-state as the ultimate owner that nullify any meaningful gains in society made by private individuals for themselves? On another note, what even would be
>large volumes of capital
I'd say enough capital to make a societal effect in the state hence Nazi Germany and Fascist italy would be varieties of socialism

>>18733221
>This is textbook Corporatism
Except it isn't. And Nazi Germany is often used as an example of a "fascist" country that was not corporatist. They also actually surpassed corporatist movements. Corporatism is also quite a but more than just "the state organise it for the state." For example it requires that the corporations have representation in government, like was done with chamber of fasces and corporations, so that they can actually be fully submerged into the state apparatus. And with the end goal being total nationalisation. The DAF was in turn nothing but a way for the government to have greater control over labour, with no real further corporatist ideals behind it.

In practice Germany was an extreme form of dirigisme, though this was not the end goal. It was mostly for practical reasons since they pursued rearmament, not reorganising the economy fully yet. The long term plan for many industries could be seen in the occupied territories, like nationalisation of resources with the Reichswerke Hermann Göring, or direct oversight of larger companies via the cartel system. Hitler also didn't really believe in class cooperation, with him stating his desire to get rid of the old nobility after the war. Hitlers socialism was thus at most partial form of socialism, but it was also a racial socialism. With the eventual goal of replacing the role of the economic class system in society with a racial class system. And thus also a new nobility not based on wealth but on blood and soil.

>>18733109
>National Socialism is socialism
And that's a bad thing? A welfare state exclusive to the members of an ethnostate is a good thing. You care about your fellow countrymen, don't you?

>>18733270
>This is socialism.
no it isn't what you described is just state capitalism.

File: consider the following.png (121 KB, 400x273)

121 KB PNG

>>18733295
>Wouldn't that indeed make Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany socialist since
the fundamental prerequisite to being socialist is accepting that the proletarians have political class interests that they need to represent.

Which the Nazis openly denied per their racial ideology and the Fascist denied on grounds of their totalitarianism having no room for class interest.

His libertarianism and knee jerk rejection of anything he deems "authoritarian" makes most of his content unwatchable.

>>18733306
>the fundamental prerequisite to being socialist is accepting that the proletarians have political class interests that they need to represent.
No it isn't, it's that they need to overrule everything hence socialism naturally evolves to communism. It's also not a fundamental prerequisite for all but the most orthodox. Socialists of all varieties can substitute proletarians for something else, and they have done so by means of race socialism or nation socialism alongside other smaller varieties Such as ''woke'' which is race socialism resulting from the extreme racial egalitarianism in western socialists. Don't you think this would be more in line with what socialists are, It's appropriate to avoid calling them just socialists, but they are ultimately some variety of socialist

>>18733187
>the boomer, the chad, and the virgin. Trinitarian "I'm the chad" memes are an untapped treasure, guess it's requires too much IQ to do properly

>>18733320
>No it isn't, it's that they need to overrule everything hence socialism naturally evolves to communism.
If we're talking about natural evolution, as in creatures changing in reaction to environmental pressures, then the only one we've seen were former Socialist and Communist activists moving towards Fascism after the utter failure of reformist Social Democratic and the no-show of the revolution as projected by Marx and Engels had become too obvious to ignore.

These people emerged because Communism and Socialism had failed.
These people denied the basic political concepts of Communism and Socialism.
These people actively opposed, fought and destroyed Communist and Socialist movements within their countries.

They didn't just substitute "proletarians" for another proper noun, they completely denied the legitimacy of Socialism and Communism.

>race socialism or nation socialism
White Nationalism isn't a Socialist movement, my friend. White Nationalist-like movements were pretty much everywhere in 1848, when the Manifesto was published. Even outside of the US, mind. Like in Vienna, the Czech delegates were openly told that they were to be a subject race to the future Germanic democratic Austrian state.

As for National Socialism - that's what Social Democracy is, which was nothing like what Hitler put into practice in Germany, mind. The NSDAP even openly admitted that they picked the moniker to trick the rubes.

>>18733295
>Wouldn't that indeed make Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany socialist
No because in Germany and Italy private ownership and private accumilation of capital was still tolerated, so they never went full socialist. They had a hybrid system (third way) that mixed capitalism with state organised planned economy.
In order to be socialist, there cannot be any private accumilation of capital. Everything must go to either the workers or the state, not a seperate individual owner of the enterprise.
I dont know why this is so hard to understand.

Nazi Germany had plenty of people who made a fortune through their businesses during the NSDAP reign, even if the state was the dictating hand in the economic planning and execution.

>>18733296
>Corporatism is also quite a but more than just "the state organise it for the state."
It is.
Corporatism means workers and owners organise themselves into groups of interests, which are then mediated by the state for the purpose of the state.

>It was mostly for practical reasons since they pursued rearmament, not reorganising the economy fully yet. The long term plan for many industries could be seen in the occupied territories, like nationalisation of resources with the Reichswerke Hermann Göring
This is an interesting argument and I dont disagree with you but I also dont think the answer is solid.
We dont know whether Hitler chose the economic route that came to be simply for pragmatic reasons because he knew a full-on overhaul would spark instability, so he may just have had those ambitions but chose to be more pragmatic and 'ease into it' so to speak and let the frog boil slowly.

But it could also be that industries abroad such as in Czechia were nationalized because 'technically' Czechia wasnt part of Germany even after March 15 1939, but Germany desperately needed the Czech armament production, so the quickest loophole was to excplicitly nationalize them. This also followed with other industries.
It's also the fact that Germany regarded Czechs and Poles as subjects rather than citizens who were meant to merely serve as surplus labour, not fit to govern themselves, even less to be the owners of industry. The industry was to be German.

>Hitler also didn't really believe in class cooperation, with him stating his desire to get rid of the old nobility after the war.
Hitler was extremely wary of creating disunity and instead he wanted stability. The aristocratic burgouisie junkers were still very powerful in the traditional German society, and the army even more conservative and powerful.
Yes half of Mein Kampf is practically a rant against the German conservative class but like I said, Hitler moderated himself once he actually become head of state

>>18733296
Btw I agree with you on the point that Hitlers socialism wasnt based on class, but on race, and that was the key reason he called his ideology "national-socialism". It was Hitlers interpretation of socialism exactly as you describe it.
It's not much more different than why North Korea or Congo calls itself "democratic". It's their interpretation of democracy: that the state is the will of people and the will of the people is represented by the state; ergo democracy.
But any sane man knows this intepretation of democracy is a sham, and likewise was Hitlers interpretation of socialism.

>>18734509
Hitler didn't invent the term national socialism. The austro-hungarian DAP called itself national socialist back in 1903. They renamed themselves DNSAP (german national socialist workers party) back in 1918 before WWI even ended. Hitler borrowed his ideology from the german DAP, not the opposite.

>>18734509
>It's their interpretation of democracy: that the state is the will of people
That's just the normal interpretation of the function of the state - the manifestation of the general will. The rub's in how the general will's made manifest.

But I recall that the Italian Fascists and other Totalitarian One-Party States denied that the State was the will of the people. They were specific that the State is a political actor in itself and its needs and its power supersede its constituent people. They usually set the ruling party or the dictator as the nexus in which this manifests.

>>18733221
>But anyway, Hitlers Germany mirrored fascist corporatism: private businesses was tolerated along with private accumilation of capital, but only insofar they served state interests and were subservient to state ambitions. The state would organise businesses, labour, market and production for its goals and objectives. This is textbook Corporatism (or state-capitalism as reddit troons likes to call it).

This is in a way how to an extend all wartime economies operate. FDR literally seized gold from private citizens.

>>18734504
>It's also the fact that Germany regarded Czechs and Poles as subjects rather than citizens who were meant to merely serve as surplus labour, not fit to govern themselves, even less to be the owners of industry. The industry was to be German.

True for Poles, not for Czechs. Czechs were enthusiastic collaborators all numbers considered, modern revisionism is wrong on this point.

>>18734604
>not for Czechs
They've been considered a subject race to the Germans since at least 1848. We have that on the record and it's why their politicians decided to cooperated with the French and British Freemasons in the production of atrocity propaganda against the Central Powers.

>>18734466
>These people denied the basic political concepts of Communism and Socialism.
I disagree. Socialism is derived from Marxism but the fundamental premise of idealistic leftism is older than both and almost all modern leftisms are a variety of socialism. If we were to simply call Hitler a leftist then the word socialist would lose all relevant meaning. Hence, you're having a Freudian slip and saying:
>Social Democracy
Instead of leftist democracy or just democracy despite these sorts not being orthodox communists either. This is because it is what socialism is for all intents and purposes besides Marxists coping with failure of their ideology
>White Nationalism isn't a Socialist movement
He was specifically a German nationalist and yes it is a socialist movement. It is irrelevant that Marx wrote his specific dialectics in 1848, people almost identical to him in all other aspects and socialists, especially of the utopian sort, existed beforehand. People which included the nationalists. What Hitler did was to read Marx, become a communist, fail in his Bavarian statelet, seethe, read into nationalism and invent his own branch of leftism from these influences

>>18734495
>private ownership and private accumilation of capital was still tolerated
To what extent? This is just a strictly impossible description for socialism in a civilized society.
See
>In order to be socialist, there cannot be any private accumilation of capital. Everything must go to either the workers or the state, not a seperate individual owner of the enterprise.
while for any meaningful purposes it's more useful to describe socialism as
>the defining factor that defines whether a state is capitalist or socialist is if private individuals and private enterprises can accumilate large volumes of capital through the work of others solely for themselves.
The problem with the first definition is that it's literally communism but with the state and classes. Something that is strictly impossible in civilized society. This can be due to communism inherently advocating for a primitive, pre-property and pre-state existence for humanity or commies seething and making up a strictly impossible definition to rhetorically absolve themselves of blame. The problem with the second definition is that it's a rather subjective term directing people to leftism or communism for objective definitions.
>(third way) that mixed capitalism with state organised planned economy
This is literally what socialism is in the real world, anything further socialist would be outright communism.

>>18733187
The horseshoe theory is retarded.
National Socialism and Marxian Socialism aren't polar opposites that somehow turn themselves closer to each other.
They are competing branches that share the same roots.

>>18733270
>Socialism is when the workers owns the means of production.
Is it though?

>>18734495
>No because in Germany and Italy private ownership and private accumulation of capital was still tolerated,
And that ownership was conditional on loyalty to the state and could be revoked if it was detrimental to the state's interests.

>>18734651
>He was specifically a German nationalist and yes it is a socialist movement.
Do you have some kind of brain bug that forces you to equal nationalism with communism because the French Revolution's heritage was the emergence of Nationalism?

>>18734739
"Own" isn't the right way to put it. What they have is the right to dispose of the specific means of production they directly control - which happens to be all of them as they're the only class actually doing stuff with said means.

>>18734748
That's because they were totalitarian states based around the idea that the state's needs and rights supersede that of all of its constituent parts. Were they Socialists tolerating private ownership, they would've shifted control to a collective of all the wagies working said factories.

>>18734774
>Were they Socialists tolerating private ownership, they would've shifted control to a collective of all the wagies working said factories.
Why. Couldn't the state that totally represents the people do it however it wants.

>>18734739
That's the Marxist branch of it, not the whole.

Tik calls racism socialism. He is a retarded english libtard.

>>18734784
The Biennio Rosso had set some guide rails regarding that, aside from the Fascist platform being explicitly anti-Socialist. Realpolitik considerations also played a part, seeing how the Fascist state systematized and strengthened the political representation and rights of Capital owners. A lot of leftists did remark that the organizational basis of Fascism were in fact the small-time business owners that had come under pressure as part of the ongoing upwards concentration of capital. Meaning that the party had to be somewhat judicious and roundabout when confiscating industrial capital.

>>18734793
Retard.

>>18734857
Fascism is derived from French Syndicalist and Anarchist theories. You'd have to be terminally WASP to classify that as being part of the Orthodox Marxist branch.

And I don't mean that figuratively. Syndicalism also was big in the US, after all, and its ruling class hates the Union movement, so the slander makes perfect sense as a bit of US right-wing politics.

>>18734897
>Fascism is derived from French Syndicalist and Anarchist theories.
Can't be because Fascism is pro-state which is antithetical to Anarchism and Syndicalism.

>>18734901
Apparently you're trying to imply that Marxism isn't anti-stateist? How come?

What it inherited from Syndicalism and Anarchism was the theory of political violence and the necessity of direct action, also the main bulk of political activists in Italy traced their lineage through Anarchism and were influenced by Anarchist forms of social activism. Some folks here also seem to insist that Nationalism is part of the Socialist movement by way of the French Revolution.

I'd personally group the National Socialists with the SocDems as both of them are Nationalist movements that planned to attain victory within the existing political system before abolishing it for their own.

>>18734925
>Apparently you're trying to imply that Marxism isn't anti-stateist? How come?
Because the state isn't going to wither away.
>socdems
>nationalist
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

>>18734965
>Because the state isn't going to wither away.
Then what is the Marxist position on the future of the State?

I'm not asking about reality but about political theory here.

>>18734965
6.5 million foreign workers imported under the Nazi Regime vs 867.000 Turks granted work visas in the BRD seems like a clear cut case.

File: fascism explained.png (125 KB, 886x1322)

125 KB PNG

>>18733205
>>18733240
at least you get to own your home

>>18735136
No you don't. The government ''geist'' does

>>18733109
What happened to TIK? I used to love his documentaries 8 years ago, checked on him recently and he hasn't uploaded for a year.

>>18734734
They make it so the bipartisan dynamic muffles the reasonable more centered parties that actually make their countries a place worth living in, so either the socialist or fascist get elected and ruin everything

File: 1769984305204.png (8 KB, 868x935)

8 KB PNG

>>18734734
The root truth is that the ideology of National Socialism is socialism with German characteristics, and the ideology of the Nazis was no less socialist than Maoist China. But it is also true when Marxists claim that Hitler's Germany was not actually Socialist.
Hitler rode the wave of German Socialist sentiment and then betrayed all socialists in his party during the night of the long knives. He was from the beginning an asset of the German military aristocracy.
That's not to say that this was conscious on the psrt of Hitler. He was just a super vague wishy washy ideas guy who was easy to manipulate, because he didn't have a strong grasp on the details to begin with.