Philosophy National Socialism: Far Right or Far Left

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
The far right are nothing more than the same sort of authoritarian busybodies, with totalitarian ideologies, we're fighting against currently who control the left. It's Hitler vs. Stalin; whoever wins, we all lose.

The current 'alt-right' crowd that the left tries to smear the right in general with, are in fact ideological leftists who've fallen out of favor with the mainstream left, because they aren't anti-white racists.

They only thing they tend to have in common with the right, is some sense of nationalism. On basically every single other issue, they are leftists.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Hitler was a fucking commie, there is no such thing as right wing socialism.


Hitler was a fan of that fellow loser and fellow Anti-Semite Marx
 

Duke Nukem

Hail to the king baby
The current 'alt-right' crowd that the left tries to smear the right in general with, are in fact ideological leftists who've fallen out of favor with the mainstream left, because they aren't anti-white racists.

They only thing they tend to have in common with the right, is some sense of nationalism. On basically every single other issue, they are leftists.
Ironically National socialists, Eurotrash in particular go on about hating multiculturalism when they want to unite Europe into some Super white ethnostate Lol.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Hitler was a fucking commie, there is no such thing as right wing socialism.
It's actually a bit of a complicated question, as the underlying "selling point" of the National Socialist framework is the government working very hard for the Nation's benefit. It's specifically not the "transitory" Dictatorship of the Proletariat of Marxist theory, nor is it the weirdly representative stuff the Democratic Socialists try to tell people they're working for.

The big thing is that Nazism describes a somewhat utilitarian mixed market. Keep Capitalism as motivation for the public to work, use command economy to force shit in the direction it needs to go. As I've said before, Fascism explicitly rejects morality of means and focuses utterly on morality of goals.

The Nazis abridge this sort of thinking heavily, thanks to Hitler being an autocratic fool, but very much still operated as a mixed market wherever the State didn't see a use for laying down comprehensive demands.

This is also why so many people who pay attention to the details call China Fascist, because they operate their economy almost exactly the same way the Nazis did before they went to war in earnest.

TL;DR: The Socialism described by Hitler hold a key divergence from Marx in recognizing the value of a mixed market, and is more a "code of ethics" for the nature of the economy instead of a hard policy position. Consequently, a mild variation of it can very much be "Right Wing Socialism", in the same way the Scandanavian countries are Socialist today; the overall operation of the society is bent towards benefiting the society at large, rather than benefiting individual members of it.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Hitler was a fucking commie, there is no such thing as right wing socialism.
Okay? That's not really important to what I was talking about. The specifics of their ideologies are irrelevant; my point was that both men opposed each other, but siding with either is a losing proposition for anyone who isn't interested in having their faces stomped in by jackboots. In that same vein, siding with either the far right or the regressive left is also a bad idea.
 

Shipmaster Sane

You have been weighed
It's actually a bit of a complicated question, as the underlying "selling point" of the National Socialist framework is the government working very hard for the Nation's benefit. It's specifically not the "transitory" Dictatorship of the Proletariat of Marxist theory, nor is it the weirdly representative stuff the Democratic Socialists try to tell people they're working for.

The big thing is that Nazism describes a somewhat utilitarian mixed market. Keep Capitalism as motivation for the public to work, use command economy to force shit in the direction it needs to go. As I've said before, Fascism explicitly rejects morality of means and focuses utterly on morality of goals.

The Nazis abridge this sort of thinking heavily, thanks to Hitler being an autocratic fool, but very much still operated as a mixed market wherever the State didn't see a use for laying down comprehensive demands.

This is also why so many people who pay attention to the details call China Fascist, because they operate their economy almost exactly the same way the Nazis did before they went to war in earnest.

TL;DR: The Socialism described by Hitler hold a key divergence from Marx in recognizing the value of a mixed market, and is more a "code of ethics" for the nature of the economy instead of a hard policy position. Consequently, a mild variation of it can very much be "Right Wing Socialism", in the same way the Scandanavian countries are Socialist today; the overall operation of the society is bent towards benefiting the society at large, rather than benefiting individual members of it.

He practiced massive price fixing, subsumption of all industry into the state, and the communalization of large stores, he's a commie.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Capitalism is pushing trans rights and LGBT on Poland.

Capitalism doesn’t protect tradition or moral values.

Are we so intellectually bereft we are reduced to fellating Apple and Amazon?

Like, damn. “Fuck yeah American business! It’s pro America to promote transgenderism and shit-cuz opposing that is Soociaalissm!”

State of American “conservatism” right now.
 

Shipmaster Sane

You have been weighed
Okay? That's not really important to what I was talking about. The specifics of their ideologies are irrelevant; my point was that both men opposed each other, but siding with either is a losing proposition for anyone who isn't interested in having their faces stomped in by jackboots. In that same vein, siding with either the far right or the regressive left is also a bad idea.
Your example of far left VS far left does nothing to shore up this idea of the "Far Right Jackboot boogeyman" you seem to think you're successfully supporting.
 

Duke Nukem

Hail to the king baby
Capitalism is pushing trans rights and LGBT on Poland.

Capitalism doesn’t protect tradition or moral values.

Are we so intellectually bereft we are reduced to fellating Apple and Amazon?

Like, damn. “Fuck yeah American business! It’s pro America to promote transgenderism and shit-cuz opposing that is Soociaalissm!”

State of American “conservatism” right now.

Corporatism not Capitalism
 

Shipmaster Sane

You have been weighed
Capitalism is pushing trans rights and LGBT on Poland.
Capitalism doesn’t protect tradition or moral values.
Are we so intellectually bereft we are reduced to fellating Apple and Amazon?
Like, damn. “Fuck yeah American business! It’s pro America to promote transgenderism and shit-cuz opposing that is Soociaalissm!”
State of American “conservatism” right now.
Capitalism isnt supposed to protect tradition or moral values, you're not supposed to have a big daddy that tucks you in and takes care of the problem for you while you sip chocky milkies and eat your chicken tendies.


Fucking Consoomers buy Left then complain when Leftist businesses sell them Left ideology.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Your example of far left VS far left does nothing to shore up this idea of the "Far Right Jackboot boogeyman" you seem to think you're successfully supporting.
Wow, you really will try to start a fight over pretty much anything won't you? Even to the point of contradicting yourself in the same thread. Why do I even bother talking to you?
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Corporatism not Capitalism
Not quite correct, as Corporatism is a pre-existing term referring to a sort of parliamentary oligarchy where the unit of political power is economic interest groups like farmers or textile mill workers (Syndicalism would be an example of such a system, despite purporting to be a form of Socialism), but it does capture the nature of the mess being that there are these monolithic blocs able to just ignore market pressures from regulation creep and monopoly allowances strangling out competition.
 

Duke Nukem

Hail to the king baby
Not quite correct, as Corporatism is a pre-existing term referring to a sort of parliamentary oligarchy where the unit of political power is economic interest groups like farmers or textile mill workers, but it does capture the nature of the mess being that there are these monolithic blocs able to just ignore market pressures from regulation creep and monopoly allowances strangling out competition.
Maybe Crony Capitalism would be a better way to describe it?
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Capitalism isnt supposed to protect tradition or moral values, you're not supposed to have a big daddy that tucks you in and takes care of the problem for you while you sip chocky milkies and eat your chicken tendies.


Fucking Consoomers buy Left then complain when Leftist businesses sell them Left ideology.
The state should protect its people and their values.

Corporations do more than sell for left ideology, they lobby for it, impose it on their employees and require their customers tacitly accept it to buy from them.

I don’t worship Mammon. The state should in fact keep the people from being enslaved by it.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Maybe Crony Capitalism would be a better way to describe it?
This is generally the term used for the process in question, to my recollection. State Capitalism operates in the opposite direction, as it's the state consuming the corporations instead of the corporations subsuming or competing with state functions.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top