The Nazi's socialist?

[Deleted member 88]

Reactionary now colloquially means "opposed to the left and wishes to reverse leftist policy in either government or culture".

Reactionary as meaning-crown and altar and bayonet to uphold the former...doesn't really exist anymore.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Spain was led by the Falangists not fascists. For someone so intent on the definitions of your political ideology you sure are keen to throw everything else into one pool. One half was not Anarcho-Syndicalist. The downfall of the Republicans came from the fact they were deeply divided in their different communist ideals, with Catalonia being the stronghold of the anarchists. There were dozens of different ideological factions in the Spanish civil war, but the right managed to unify monarchists, devout Catholics, fascists, falangists, and others under one banner while the anarchists, communists and more moderate groups ended up devolving to infighting and having pretty poor skill in combat. The syndicalists were particularly garbage soldiers, by the way.

Part I
Name that trait. What attribute of fascism did the Falangists not have?

You are correct that half of Spain was not Anarcho-Syndicalist I am generalizing a very complicated political situation. Anarcho-Syndicalism was the most wide spread and adopted of the socialist/anarchist ideologies. I am going to have to re-read up on the fall of the Syndicalists (and take this with a very big grain of salt until I can give names) but if I remember correctly the reason the Syndicalists and the rest fell was because two or three of the leadership flipped and went on a deliberate sabotage campaign before hand. It's been a few years and if you are familiar with the situation perhaps you remember the details. The talks to unite the leftists were going well and then they blew up out of nowhere. Several journals from various participants noted how odd it was at the time.

As to the jab. I am not sure if you were hoping to trigger me with that observation but if so you failed. Of course the syndicalist militia was shit. That's like recognizing the Continental army of the US was shit. We like to gloss over the fact that George Washington was a shit general. Attempting to stand up an army is difficult in non-wartime with lots of lead time. Attempting to stand up an army with no lead time and in the middle of a war is near impossible. The only thing that saved the US was geographic distance. The claim that the army was shit is not quite the same as saying the soldiers were shit. The soldiers given the material and training did about as well as any other force given the same time and training.

 

[FriedCFour]

Part I
Name that trait. What attribute of fascism did the Falangists not have?

That’s not the point. I’m sure I can dig through and find minute differences. I just find it funny you paint with very broad strokes like saying neo-Nazis say “Nazism died in the 40s” when like, they don’t at all. Thats something some right wingers who are not Nazis say, like myself. At the same time as you paint other ideologies with a broad stroke, you’ve defined Socialism insanely narrowly into your own personal flavor

You are correct that half of Spain was not Anarcho-Syndicalist I am generalizing a very complicated political situation. Anarcho-Syndicalism was the most wide spread and adopted of the socialist/anarchist ideologies. I am going to have to re-read up on the fall of the Syndicalists (and take this with a very big grain of salt until I can give names) but if I remember correctly the reason the Syndicalists and the rest fell was because two or three of the leadership flipped and went on a deliberate sabotage campaign before hand. It's been a few years and if you are familiar with the situation perhaps you remember the details. The talks to unite the leftists were going well and then they blew up out of nowhere. Several journals from various participants noted how odd it was at the time.

I don’t know about that. I do know the communists stuck with Russia and neither of those two were fond of the anarchists, and in Barcelona in particular you had left on left violence like crazy.

As to the jab. I am not sure if you were hoping to trigger me with that observation but if so you failed. Of course the syndicalist militia was shit. That's like recognizing the Continental army of the US was shit. We like to gloss over the fact that George Washington was a shit general. Attempting to stand up an army is difficult in non-wartime with lots of lead time. Attempting to stand up an army with no lead time and in the middle of a war is near impossible. The only thing that saved the US was geographic distance. The claim that the army was shit is not quite the same as saying the soldiers were shit. The soldiers given the material and training did about as well as any other force given the same time and training.

The Continental Army was not remotely shit. They weren’t amazing by any means, but especially once they got a wily old Prussian to help them they got good. And no, their soldiers were shit. Just read up on the siege of Alacazar. Despite having eight times the soldiers, fighting what were largely men with the same amount of time to prepare and train, with armored vehicles and artillery support they couldn’t take a fortress centuries antiquated. It’s not a jab, but it lends credence to the idea people aren’t exactly great at organizing to be unorganized and then accomplishing much of anything with it, which is what Anarchism is all about. Trying to force a Utopia into being without having a state to even manage it.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Not really. Reactionary just means 'radically' anti-left to most people. @ShieldWife is not acting in bad faith here, nor are most people. Ultimately, using socialist terminology outside of socialist enclaves just won't work. It's like expecting non members of a faith to use faith specific jargon. You are just going to have to deal with that.

Laughed at that last bit. But I think it is important to separate state socialism and state capitalism. The central boards of production also existed in the War economies of the US and UK. That doesn't make them socialist. The question is who owns the means of production, and can individual entrepreneurs invest in capital and make a profit. In the war economies, yes. In Germany, yes. In the USSR, you get shot.

Let's be fair. To most people "reactionary" means "someone who reacts to something". There are very few people who I think are acting in bad faith thus far. I should have made this clear about myself. If I say someone is acting in bad faith I will almost always explain how and why I came to that conclusion (almost always). The exception is if the person is so clearly acting in bad faith that no explanation is required. I like to change minds and have my mind changed. If I can change the mind of the person I am interacting with great. I don't actually count on that most of the time. Instead I use them as an indirect method to demonstrate a point. If I am not sure if someone is acting in bad faith I will indicate I am not sure. This is in part because I have found that by doing so good faith actors will attempt to clarify and or correct whatever it was that makes me unsure. They will engage me to clear up my uncertainty.
Returning to the Reactionary question. For 200 years reactionary has meant the same thing. Someone opposed to enlightenment values. There has been an attempt by the right to redefine what the term reactionary means in order to re-frame themselves more favorably. As to dealing with it. Or I could just correct people until they get so tired they stop trying to redefine the term to mean something it does not and never has meant.
To clarify a reactionary does not mean "someone right of me" it means someone who opposes enlightenment values. If it meant someone right of me then liberals would be reactionaries. And as much as I dislike them they are not reactionaries. I also expect that I am going to have to correct the perception that leftists are liberals several times before people start to get it.

I am well aware of the fact that I am going to get push back but as someone who enjoys discussions, debates, arguments, and everything in between developing a common vocabulary is crucial to conveying ideas. I tend to tailor my language a great deal based on who I am talking to. This is in very large part because the idea is more important to me than the terms. If I am talking to a capitalist I talk about free markets, if I am talking to a socialist I talk about open markets. For most conversations both concepts are equal enough as to convey what I mean. I can and will suss out pretty quickly who is interested in exchanging ideas and who is just interested in being a contrarian or doesn't want their idea's challenged. In a conversation I am usually very willing to work with people on terms. But I expect the same consideration. If we are going to communicate to each other and not at each other that requires cooperation.

I am really looking forward to when I start the trans thread. Probably going to wait at least a couple of days though. I hope it's epic. Not really sure which topic I want to do next though. @Abhorsen

 

[Deleted member 88]

Let's be fair. To most people "reactionary" means "someone who reacts to something". There are very few people who I think are acting in bad faith thus far. I should have made this clear about myself. If I say someone is acting in bad faith I will almost always explain how and why I came to that conclusion (almost always). The exception is if the person is so clearly acting in bad faith that no explanation is required. I like to change minds and have my mind changed. If I can change the mind of the person I am interacting with great. I don't actually count on that most of the time. Instead I use them as an indirect method to demonstrate a point. If I am not sure if someone is acting in bad faith I will indicate I am not sure. This is in part because I have found that by doing so good faith actors will attempt to clarify and or correct whatever it was that makes me unsure. They will engage me to clear up my uncertainty.
Returning to the Reactionary question. For 200 years reactionary has meant the same thing. Someone opposed to enlightenment values. There has been an attempt by the right to redefine what the term reactionary means in order to re-frame themselves more favorably. As to dealing with it. Or I could just correct people until they get so tired they stop trying to redefine the term to mean something it does not and never has meant.
To clarify a reactionary does not mean "someone right of me" it means someone who opposes enlightenment values. If it meant someone right of me then liberals would be reactionaries. And as much as I dislike them they are not reactionaries. I also expect that I am going to have to correct the perception that leftists are liberals several times before people start to get it.

I am well aware of the fact that I am going to get push back but as someone who enjoys discussions, debates, arguments, and everything in between developing a common vocabulary is crucial to conveying ideas. I tend to tailor my language a great deal based on who I am talking to. This is in very large part because the idea is more important to me than the terms. If I am talking to a capitalist I talk about free markets, if I am talking to a socialist I talk about open markets. For most conversations both concepts are equal enough as to convey what I mean. I can and will suss out pretty quickly who is interested in exchanging ideas and who is just interested in being a contrarian or doesn't want their idea's challenged. In a conversation I am usually very willing to work with people on terms. But I expect the same consideration. If we are going to communicate to each other and not at each other that requires cooperation.

I am really looking forward to when I start the trans thread. Probably going to wait at least a couple of days though. I hope it's epic. Not really sure which topic I want to do next though. @Abhorsen

Reactionary in the late 18th and 19th century was associated with being opposed to the French revolution, in support of the Bourbon restoration, limiting the franchise, and imposing the rule of crown and altar(king and church) at gunpoint.

By the 1960s/70s the term grew to mean opposition to leftism or liberalism-in politics and culture. It was not a term most Americans, right leaning, adopted. Preferring the more generic conservative.

There are few people even on the furthest corners of the far right today who want to reinstate absolute monarchism and the primacy of the church. If that is what you are referring to.

If we are going to use historical terminology-then your use of reactionary is anachronistic. Most of us here are "reactionary" in some form or another, but not in the historical sense of the term.

 

[ShieldWife]

I’ll get to the rest of the stuff later, but trust me, I am being sincere in all that I say here.

“Reactionary” is generally used as a pejorative, and so I would be reluctant to identify that way. Just as I wouldn’t call myself a heretic or an infidel even though members of some religions might call me that. Though if we were to make a list of ideas that would commonly called reactionary, I’d probably agree with most of them.

I’m anti-egalitarian, skeptical of democracy, support patriarchy, I believe in nationalism, the list could go on. I don’t entirely reject the Enlightenment, there were good and bad elements. The left of today, in fact of the last century, has gone so far beyond mere Enlightenment values.

 

[FriedCFour]

The left of today, in fact of the last century, has gone so far beyond mere Enlightenment values.

I just don’t get the whole enlightenment values. The enlightenment literally started with a guy justifying an absolute monarch without using religion and declaring that a king is ordained by God, and instead by social contract theory and the state of nature. If I supported the reinstatement of the Hohenzollern dynasty in Germany under an absolutist militarized regime, I would be more in line with the enlightenment than Germany is now.

 

[ShieldWife]

I just don’t get the whole enlightenment values. The enlightenment literally started with a guy justifying an absolute monarch without using religion and declaring that a king is ordained by God, and instead by social contract theory and the state of nature. If I supported the reinstatement of the Hohenzollern dynasty in Germany under an absolutist militarized regime, I would be more in line with the enlightenment than Germany is now.

Yeah, all sorts of ideas came out of the Enlightenment, I like some and not others. Though now the philosophical battle is less between the Enlightenment and pre-modern values, but between the Enlightenment and post-modern values.

 

[Deleted member 88]

In general, the enlightenment was basically "hey science shows us the universe, maybe we can apply reason and logic to human affairs, why do we submit to kings, is Christian doctrine true?"

It didn't necessarily mean anti religion or anti monarchy-though certain enlightenment thinkers definitely were. Enlightened despotism was basically "educated informed monarchs rule best applying the spirit of enlightenment thinking"

 

[FriedCFour]

Yeah, all sorts of ideas came out of the Enlightenment, I like some and not others.

It’d be pretty hard to like all of them, given you have The Leviathan on one end and The Rights of Men on the other. Not a lot of people like both libertarianism and enlightened despotism.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Reactionary in the late 18th and 19th century was associated with being opposed to the French revolution, in support of the Bourbon restoration, limiting the franchise, and imposing the rule of crown and altar(king and church) at gunpoint.

By the 1960s/70s the term grew to mean opposition to leftism or liberalism-in politics and culture. It was not a term most Americans, right leaning, adopted. Preferring the more generic conservative.

There are few people even on the furthest corners of the far right today who want to reinstate absolute monarchism and the primacy of the church. If that is what you are referring to.

If we are going to use historical terminology-then your use of reactionary is anachronistic. Most of us here are "reactionary" in some form or another, but not in the historical sense of the term.

There are few but they do exist. As the term spread outside of France however the meaning changed from the french specific to a more global "those opposed to enlightenment values". Now if you wish to be pedantic I will insist on the French
réactionnaire to distinguish it from reactionary.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Yeah, all sorts of ideas came out of the Enlightenment, I like some and not others. Though now the philosophical battle is less between the Enlightenment and pre-modern values, but between the Enlightenment and post-modern values.

PLEASE tell me you know what that means. I have high hopes that you know what post modern means. Most on the right misuse the word having no actual idea as to what it refers to. I am not being sarcastic here. Don't get my hopes up to let me down. Enlightenment, pre-modern, modern, post-modern.

And ya I have to agree with you. I guess I should clarify as political taxonomy works different than biological taxonomy. Within politics we identify the most common values within a given system and then score it. Most people think that in order to fall within a certain category you need to meet 100% of the points. Or that (and this is a surprisingly common if dumb take) in order to be something you have to identify as that thing.

 

[Zachowon]

As far as the Kurds go we will have to agree to disagree there. The United States did not recognize Rojava true, but I am a socialist so my view of property rights varies from yours (see personal property). I understand and recognize that this puts me in a minority position (ie at odds with the traditional view of how states come into being). Further they were promised support and protection by the US government for helping to fight US enemies. I do not care that Trump was not in office when the agreement was made. To put it in capitalist terms. The fact that there is a new CEO in charge of the company does not mean that the company is not obligated to follow through with it's contracts.
In terms of Hitlers socialist state lets grant want you said for a moment. Was building and are are not the same thing. If I start building a house by shoveling a single piece of ground on a purely technical level which it is asinine to consider I have started building a house. If however all I ever manage to do is move that single pile of dirt can I in any meaningful sense either claim that I have built a house or the lesser claim that I started building a house once.

Exactly which socialist ideals did Hitler or the Nazi's implement?

At this point I want to point out that you have moved the goalpost on me which is fine I will let you do that. But lets not ignore that you have in fact moved the goal post. The claim "Nazi Germany was socialist" and "Nazi Germany was not socialist but was moving in the direction of socialism" are not the same claim. I dispute both, but they are not the same.

Fried beat me to it on the last page

Control of the economy by the state. They also had a damn big union.

German Labour Front - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Business Under Nazis | Mises Institute

In 1944, Ludwig von Mises published one of his least-known masterworks: Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War. Drawing on his prewar

mises.org

here’s a pretty solid bit on what made the Nazis socialist.

I am basically saying under Socialism, the state controls the economy in the name if the workers, or the lower class, and the top class gets taken down a notch. For the USSR it was the Czar. For the Nazis it was the Jews. They saw them in diffrent light, of course but it stands to be in the same way.
The Czars were the ruling class, and the people overthrew. Hitler saw the Jews as the wealthy class that were not allowing for those lower to be successful, this he got rid of them.
He then took full control of the economy, as well as make them a Labor union that works for the Nazi party.
That is what I am getting at.

 

[Deleted member 88]

There are few but they do exist. As the term spread outside of France however the meaning changed from the french specific to a more global "those opposed to enlightenment values". Now if you wish to be pedantic I will insist on the French
réactionnaire to distinguish it from reactionary.

"Enlightenment values" as said mean a lot of different things.

To be sure there is a strand of neo reactionary bloggers who want to go back to 1774 or 1788. And directly blame the French(and American revolutions) for everything wrong with the world today.

But saying we oppose "enlightenment values" is really disingenuous.

 

[ShieldWife]

PLEASE tell me you know what that means. I have high hopes that you know what post modern means. Most on the right misuse the word having no actual idea as to what it refers to. I am not being sarcastic here. Don't get my hopes up to let me down. Enlightenment, pre-modern, modern, post-modern.

You need to stop being so pompous and condescending if you want to have a meaningful exchange of ideas.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Fried beat me to it on the last page

I am basically saying under Socialism, the state controls the economy in the name if the workers, or the lower class, and the top class gets taken down a notch. For the USSR it was the Czar. For the Nazis it was the Jews. They saw them in diffrent light, of course but it stands to be in the same way.
The Czars were the ruling class, and the people overthrew. Hitler saw the Jews as the wealthy class that were not allowing for those lower to be successful, this he got rid of them.
He then took full control of the economy, as well as make them a Labor union that works for the Nazi party.
That is what I am getting at.

Okay so I am not going to let you walk this back. I told you the conditions under which I would concede that there are forms of socialism in which the state controls the economy. However if you are not willing to meet me half way then I will stick to my guns on this especially considering that Anarcho-Socialism is was and always has been the predominant school of anarchism and that as a rule it rejects the state and rejects non-anarchist forms of socialism as socialism in name only. I think what I am asking for is a fair compromise.

 

[Deleted member 88]

PLEASE tell me you know what that means. I have high hopes that you know what post modern means. Most on the right misuse the word having no actual idea as to what it refers to. I am not being sarcastic here. Don't get my hopes up to let me down. Enlightenment, pre-modern, modern, post-modern.

And ya I have to agree with you. I guess I should clarify as political taxonomy works different than biological taxonomy. Within politics we identify the most common values within a given system and then score it. Most people think that in order to fall within a certain category you need to meet 100% of the points. Or that (and this is a surprisingly common if dumb take) in order to be something you have to identify as that thing.

Eh I concur with you-a lot on the right conflate different "post modern" concepts.

These include but are not limited to:

Critical Theory and its variants
Deconstructivism
Anti colonial and Decolonial ideological and pedagogical projects
Second Wave Feminism and the Sexual Revolution
Modern Environmentalism and its appendant baggage
Anti western ideology-namely the notion that western civilization, Christianity, the patriarchy(such as imagined) are bad and must be torn down.
Gender non essentialism-basically the belief that identities are socially constructed and not innate

And so on.

Here we oppose this stuff pretty much universally. Its also referred to as the "Frankfurt school" "Gramscian socialism" and "Cultural Marxism"-the latter being inaccurate, the others being generalized pejoratives.

Generally what people on the right mean when they say post modern are these currents, movements, ideas, trends, and projects that emerged in the sixties to the nineties(and some of it was more recent-like Critical Race Theory).

Now of course this is a very broad set of ideas, but post modern is used as a general term of identification.

 

[Zachowon]

Okay so I am not going to let you walk this back. I told you the conditions under which I would concede that there are forms of socialism in which the state controls the economy. However if you are not willing to meet me half way then I will stick to my guns on this especially considering that Anarcho-Socialism is was and always has been the predominant school of anarchism and that as a rule it rejects the state and rejects non-anarchist forms of socialism as socialism in name only. I think what I am asking for is a fair compromise.

You are trying to find the perfect and fabled "True Socialism" from what i understand. Nazi socialism is definitely not one of those. I was never claiming it is, though that is personally my fault for the broad spectrum of the word, so there is that.

Though I am confused by this post, if you would not mind rewording it?

 

[DirtbagLeft]

You need to stop being so pompous and condescending if you want to have a meaningful exchange of ideas.

So I was actually being sincere when I wrote that. It gets really old having people throw around a term they don't understand as if they understand what it means.

As to me being pompous and condescending
Pompous: affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important.
Condescending: having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority.

Serious question. How do you tell the difference between someone who is pompous and condescending and someone who is blunt and knows more than you? I fully grant that it is possible you may know more than I do on these things. I doubt it but I am always open to being shown wrong. But I always find it interesting to see how people answer this question when they accuse me of such things. Usually I get arrogant. I like the pompous though.

Pompous at times I may grant you as I will admit that I can employ pompousness as a rhetorical style especially when I am annoyed. However I was not annoyed at your comment. I just honestly hoped you understood the difference between a relativist and post-modern.

As to condescending. I am only ever condescending to nazi's (whatever they want to call themselves this week). Because yes I am superior to those degenerates. Truthfully though as well read as I am I consider myself to be of average intelligence.

You should take everything I say as if I am a highly functioning individual with autism. If I come across as condescending or rude it's my personality and there is literally nothing I can do to fix it. Not don't want to. Cannot. For this reason if I am intending to be rude or condescending I tell people that is what I am doing. In case you haven't noticed I am quite literal minded.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Eh I concur with you-a lot on the right conflate different "post modern" concepts.

These include but are not limited to:

Critical Theory and its variants
Deconstructivism
Anti colonial and Decolonial ideological and pedagogical projects
Second Wave Feminism and the Sexual Revolution
Modern Environmentalism and its appendant baggage
Anti western ideology-namely the notion that western civilization, Christianity, the patriarchy(such as imagined) are bad and must be torn down.
Gender non essentialism-basically the belief that identities are socially constructed and not innate

And so on.

Here we oppose this stuff pretty much universally. Its also referred to as the "Frankfurt school" "Gramscian socialism" and "Cultural Marxism"-the latter being inaccurate, the others being generalized pejoratives.

Generally what people on the right mean when they say post modern are these currents, movements, ideas, trends, and projects that emerged in the sixties to the nineties(and some of it was more recent-like Critical Race Theory).

Now of course this is a very broad set of ideas, but post modern is used as a general term of identification.

Holy hell you just made me so happy.