What are national socialism and fascism?

This board is open for all subject matters. Post information and discussion materials about open-debate and censorship on other boards (including this one) here. Memory Hole 2 is a RODOH subforum for alternate perspectives.
User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 7944
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: What are national socialism and fascism?

Post by Huntinger »

Alonso wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:26 pm
That heavilty contradicts what Hitler says in Mein Kampf. Some excerpts:
It was during this period that my eyes were opened to two perils, the names of which I scarcely knew hitherto and had no notion whatsoever of their terrible significance for the existence of the German people. These two perils were Marxism and Judaism.
out of the murk and fog of social phrases rises the grimacing figure of Marxism
A Jew can never be rescued from his fixed notions. [...]
I believed that I could finally convince them of the danger inherent in the Marxist follies. But I only achieved the contrary result. It seemed to me that immediately the disastrous effects of the Marxist Theory and its application in practice became evident, the stronger became their obstinacy.
The list goes on and on. Essentially Hitler only mentions Marxism to disparage it.
Hermann Rauschning, for example, from Danzig who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.


𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑

Amt IV

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


Alonso
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: What are national socialism and fascism?

Post by Alonso »

VFX wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:10 pm
it is a fact that there are many beautiful things in Europe that may not be appreciated by foreign cultures, such as Schloss Neuschwanstein at Hohenschwangau or the works of Beethoven
It isn't. A few days ago I was having a friendly discussion with this Dominican guy who came to Spain a few months ago, and I warned him that my point of view is contrary to his and might upset him. He answered with a quote from Aristotle, which (I can't remember the exact words) essentially says that free debate makes men wiser. Which strongly suggests that he's more than capable of appreciating the European culture. There are millions of non Europeans like him, and it's up to them to decided whether they appreciate or even embrace European culture.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9525
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: What are national socialism and fascism?

Post by been-there »

Huntinger wrote:Khazarim who call themselves Jude are no issue; no one cares what god they worship, what clothes they wear, nor even if they have a sequence of gene switches dating back to ancient ancestors.
What is an issue are a group of people who call themselves Jude who interfere with global politics for nefarious ends; these may be zionists or international bankers. They have used the alleged Holocaust for their own purposes. Some call these the illuminati.
Alonso wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:28 pm
Hence my point: You often criticize the Jews, which looks like you have a problem with each and every Jew, which is really not the case. From your words it's clear that you only have a problem with the Jews that carry out those nefarious actions. That's a huge problem. Lots of people around the world share your view (myself included) and your way of expressing it (myself not included). That leads to a tragic misunderstanding. What you are actually doing is critizicing some of the most horrible crimes committed against humanity, which in my view is a noble stance. But what you SEEM to be doing is criticizing an entire ethnic group (the Jewish), which leads to you being demonized and labeled xenophobic, antisemitic, etc. And, to be honest, you're asking for it. By misusing a single word in what is otherwise a noble endeavour, you're giving that criminal group the perfect excuse to demonize you.
I agree with both of you on the points you have expressed above. But I think Alonso's point is the most important.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Alonso
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: What are national socialism and fascism?

Post by Alonso »

Huntinger wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:52 pm
Hermann Rauschning, for example, from Danzig who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.
Why would Hitler disparage Marxism in public and praise it in private?

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9525
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: What are national socialism and fascism?

Post by been-there »

Alonso wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:49 am
Huntinger wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:52 pm
Hermann Rauschning, for example, from Danzig who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.
Why would Hitler disparage Marxism in public and praise it in private?
Because Hitler had read Marx and he admitted that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on the thought of Karl Marx. But the writings of Marx were not the same thing as what was called 'Marxism' — neither then nor now.

After WW1 Germany was nearly in a civil war with insurgents hoping to destabilise Germany and bring it under Stalin's distorted, corrupted version of Marxism.

Karl Marx never recognised any form of communism or any movement claiming to be Marxist during his lifetime. On the contrary, he disowned and distanced himself from every group claiming such a title. So it is no big issue if Adolf Hitler did likewise while still acknowledging Marx's influence. Hitler was a Socialist!
Karl Marx wrote:Ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.
Translation: “If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist”.

Quoted and translated by Engels in an 1882 letter to Eduard Bernstein narrating Marx's commenting upon a movement calling itself Marxist which arose in France in the same year.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Alonso
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: What are national socialism and fascism?

Post by Alonso »

been-there wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:53 pm
Hitler had read Marx and he admitted that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on the thought of Karl Marx.
That's an aweome quote. Right now I'm in the middle of a very heated discussion with some pals that are outraged at the idea that nationalsocialism could be a leftist ideology. Can you give me sources for that quote? I'd really appreciate it.

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3405
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: What are national socialism and fascism?

Post by blake121666 »

Alonso wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:02 pm
been-there wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:53 pm
Hitler had read Marx and he admitted that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on the thought of Karl Marx.
That's an aweome quote. Right now I'm in the middle of a very heated discussion with some pals that are outraged at the idea that nationalsocialism could be a leftist ideology. Can you give me sources for that quote? I'd really appreciate it.
That quote is from the anti-Hitler Hermann Rauschning - as shown in The Independent article here:

Hitler and the socialist dream

It is one of many bogus claims by Rauschning. You can read about that at this IHR article from 1983.

Hitler was of course socialist but not Marxist. His nationalism made his positions more of a "third way" - as I understand it.

Back to your OP question. "Fascism" is essentially corporatism. But the way the term is used usually is a statement about militarist positions - and even belligerently militarist positions. That is why I think such varied ideologies get wrapped into the essentially meaningless "fascist" epithet (as well as the Soviet usages of the term - which no one understands very well).

"National Socialsm" was a socialist party of Germany with a race-based definition of "nation" (as has historically been the case). But such a classic definition doesn't apply to large modern states very well and so it was more like a third way between enlightenment liberalism and classical nationalism - with a somewhat corporatized socialism mixed in there. It employed the Austrian "fuhrer principle" - somewhat similar to the degeneration of the ancient roman "dictator" (which along with other things eventually degenerated the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire).

I suspect "National Socialism" would have evolved into a more Mussolini-like fascism had it survived. Instead, it turned into 2 puppet states of the 2 Allied conquerors - and evolved into a Social Democratic country similar to continental classical liberalism (not the Anglo kind of the USA and the British Empire - but more a mixture of that with continental sensibilities).

The "right wing" in early 20th century Germany would have been monarchist (the Kaiser). Everyone should drop the wackadoodle misrepresentations of that fact by calling NS "right wing". It never made sense - then or now. But that is politics for you. Its authoritarian proclivities make it "right wing" - but its socialist proclivities make it "left wing". It was both and neither!

The crazy socialists of the 20th century made the terms "right wing" and "left wing" too convoluted for anyone to give them cogent meaning. In your Spain, the "right wing" was the force that fought the Jewish war being waged on Spain (and the Catholic church and the .... etc). Anything countering Jewish radicalism is "right wing" I guess. In that respect, NS was undoubtedly "right wing".

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9525
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: What are national socialism and fascism?

Post by been-there »

Alonso wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:02 pm
been-there wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:53 pm
Alonso wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:49 am
Huntinger wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:52 pm
Hermann Rauschning, for example, from Danzig who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.
Why would Hitler disparage Marxism in public and praise it in private?
Because Hitler had read Marx and he [allegedly admitted to Herman Rauschning] admitted that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on the thought of Karl Marx. But the writings of Marx were not the same thing as what was called 'Marxism' — neither then nor now.

After WW1 Germany was nearly in a civil war with insurgents hoping to destabilise Germany and bring it under Stalin's distorted, corrupted version of Marxism.

Karl Marx never recognised any form of communism or any movement claiming to be Marxist during his lifetime. On the contrary, he disowned and distanced himself from every group claiming such a title. So it is no big issue if Adolf Hitler did likewise while still acknowledging Marx's influence. Hitler was a Socialist!
Karl Marx wrote:Ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.
Translation: “If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist”.

Quoted and translated by Engels in an 1882 letter to Eduard Bernstein narrating Marx's commenting upon a movement calling itself Marxist which arose in France in the same year.
That's an aweome quote. Right now I'm in the middle of a very heated discussion with some pals that are outraged at the idea that nationalsocialism could be a leftist ideology. Can you give me sources for that quote? I'd really appreciate it.
Blake is correct it comes from Herman Rauschning, who is not a reliable source. I have amended my text (above) to recognise that.

Whatever, there are other more verifiable sources saying a similar thing.
Hitler was definitely a socialist. In a speech on Labour’s Day on 1st May 1927, Hitler said:
We are socialists. We are enemies of today’s capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.

In a November 1941 speech Hitler said:
“Basically, National-Socialism and Marxism are the same”.
That is from a public speech in Munich in November 1941. It is cited in The Bulletin of International News, Royal Institute of International Affairs, XVIII, No 5, 1941, p 269.

Here is a longer quotation from Herman Rauschning:
I have learned a great deal from Marxism as I do not hesitate to admit… The difference between [Marxists] and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it. Look at the workers’ sports clubs, the industrial cells, the mass demonstrations, the propaganda leaflets written specially for the comprehension of the masses: all these new methods of political struggle are essentially Marxist in origin. All I had to do is take over these methods and adapt them to our purpose.
Goebbels also said and wrote similar statements. In a 1935 article published in the daily Völkischer Beobachter, Joseph Goebbels, described his party as ‘a party of revolutionary socialists’.

The commonly held belief that Hitler and the NSDAP were right-wing fascists is just another of the many lies and self-deceptions that people practice upon themselves out of unadmitted prejudice and indoctrinated ignorance.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Alonso
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: What are national socialism and fascism?

Post by Alonso »

Thank you very much for your feedback, been-there, I think it's going to be very useful in the discussion with my NGO pals.

blake121666 wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:26 pm
[The authoritarian proclivities of nationalsocialism] make it "right wing"
How so? AFAIK authoritarian proclivities are common to both rightists and leftists. The obvious example would be Stalin and stalinism. I'm sure everybody agrees that they were both very leftist and very authoritarian. I don't know much about political history, but I'm sure there must be dozens of similar examples.

blake121666 wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:26 pm
In your Spain, the "right wing" was the force that fought the Jewish war being waged on Spain (and the Catholic church and the .... etc).
Not sure if I'm following you here. Are you saying that Franco and his national side were fighting for (or commanded by) the Jewish?

blake121666 wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:26 pm
a somewhat corporatized socialism
Is it possible for socialism not to be corporatized? (I'm not trying to be picky, just trying to make sure that I understand what you say).

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3405
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: What are national socialism and fascism?

Post by blake121666 »

Alonso wrote:
Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:20 pm
Thank you very much for your feedback, been-there, I think it's going to be very useful in the discussion with my NGO pals.

blake121666 wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:26 pm
[The authoritarian proclivities of nationalsocialism] make it "right wing"
How so? AFAIK authoritarian proclivities are common to both rightists and leftists. The obvious example would be Stalin and stalinism. I'm sure everybody agrees that they were both very leftist and very authoritarian. I don't know much about political history, but I'm sure there must be dozens of similar examples.

blake121666 wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:26 pm
In your Spain, the "right wing" was the force that fought the Jewish war being waged on Spain (and the Catholic church and the .... etc).
Not sure if I'm following you here. Are you saying that Franco and his national side were fighting for (or commanded by) the Jewish?

blake121666 wrote:
Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:26 pm
a somewhat corporatized socialism
Is it possible for socialism not to be corporatized? (I'm not trying to be picky, just trying to make sure that I understand what you say).
I probably shouldn't have posted so off-the-top-of-the head. Yes, socialists are very authoritarian.

As I understand it, Mussolini allied with corporate syndicates and that was called "fascism". But a Marxist socialism would have the state itself directly controlling such things. IOW, the state would be the authority for pretty much any detail of commerce - including the very existence of commercial entities - not just paper pushers overseeing and attempting to control self-interested corporations.

I shouldn't have written that last post of mine. I myself prefer to stay away from politics. In the "lead, follow, or get out of the way" paradigm, I choose the third when it comes to politics! I'm an a-socialist!

EDIT: I forgot to respond to your Franco post. I see your civil war through American eyes. The "Lincoln Brigade" was a radical Jewish endeavor. That's about as far as I know of it. It's been quite awhile since I've considered that war in any way. So I shouldn't have remarked about that either. It's in my head from radical Jewish propaganda. Everything is presented to us Americans through Jewish eyes. Jews have practically monopolized media. So we're fed info about Franco only through Jewish outlets, really. And it just sticks in my head in that way. I know little about it actually.

For instance, a PBS documentary I saw about the Spanish Civil War a long time ago interviewed what seemed to me to be a bunch of Brooklyn Jews essentially. One of them was wailing about how he despised Amish because they wouldn't fight in the Spanish Civil War! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Such is the crap we're fed! That documentary of course never pointed out that these people they were talking to were all radical Jews. It seemed to attempt to present them as holding all-American type views (not the reality of them holding Brooklyn Jew views :D ).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests