this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
468 points (96.1% liked)

Political Memes

1137 readers
1 users here now

Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scorpionix@feddit.de 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They weren’t actually socialist, it’s just the name they chose

Technically, they were, at least to some degree until the Night of the long Knifes during which all left-leaning SA Leaders were purged.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Yeah, to claim that people like Ernst Roehm weren't socialist is revisionist, to put it mildly. Dude was anticapitalist and wanted to nationalize most industries.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There is nationalization, and there is nationalization.

Mussolini/Gentile stated that the goal of fascism was the merger of the state with the corporation, eg their economic theory of corporatism.

Or, to put it another way, "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."

The Soviet Union's obsession with nationalization as the means of socialism was one of the many reasons other leftist thinkers coined the term "red fascism" to describe them.

What, after all, is the functional difference between a state taking 70% of your productivity and a capitalist splitting that 70% with a statist?

(Well, hopefully it's infrastructure and social benefits, including a army strong enough to defend yourself from all the real fascists, but power and weak oversight corrupts)

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago
[–] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Fascists aren’t socialists. Jesus Christ. Rohm wanted social safety nets, he didn’t want the workers to control the means of production, he wanted a corporate state - because he was a fascist, not a socialist.

You’re confusing the left wing of a fascist party with the left wing.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

On what planet does "socialism" refer exclusively to worker-owned means of production? That's communism. Nobody uses socialism that way unless they're manipulating wording to fit an agenda.

[–] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

this planet

Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a wide range of economic and social systems which are characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

it's always amazing when people like you are SO CONFIDENTLY INCORRECT about basic information that can easily be determined with a simple search.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have to break it to you, but that just as well describes state-owned companies. It has nothing at all to do with worker ownership. Your own definition makes Roehm a socialist lmao

[–] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

moron. learn what private property means. fascism is not state ownership of corporations, it's corporate ownership of the state, a very different dialectic.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Name-calling now? Keep eating those muffins buddy. It's OK to admit you're wrong once in a while.

Edit: directly from the horse's mouth!

Erich Koch, who would eventually become the Gauleiter of East Prussia, maintained in an a 1931 article "Sind wir Faschisten?" that the key difference between Mussolini's Fascist party and the NSDAP was that the former was capitalistic, while the later was socialist.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3vdkls/comment/cxn4p61/

[–] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

fuck off nazi lover. make like your heroes and fucking die.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hope you can get the help you need, friend. BTW see my edit to my previous post.

kill yourself. saves us the trouble of having to do it eventually.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is there a book I can read? I've fallen for this oversimplification, yet knowing about the night of the long knives, and incorrectly underatood this bit of history.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Sorry, it's been ages since I read up on WWII in general, and I don't have a specific recommendation for you. Roehm wrote a memoir but I think it's Mein Kampf-esque) rambling and incoherent). Mind you, from the mid 30s onward the Nazis were not especially socialist, so people aren't necessarily wrong when they point out the "socialist" is a misnomer.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not revisionist. Most people see the atrocities committed by the Nazis, and then say "yeah that shit isn't socialist". It's a historical blind spot most people have about post-Weimar Germany.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It also helps that the socialist wing of the party was wiped out (literally) before the party became, er, internationally famous. If nobody had heard of the USSR until Stalin's purges, they might have said they weren't socialist either.

[–] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Also, the "left" wing of the party were still fucking unhinged.