Socialism is explicitly internationalist, and anti-captalist, while fascism is pro-capitalist and ultranationalist.
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” - Mussolini
Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic… We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.” - hitler
there is no socialism in history which has ever successfully been implemented
Yet while so many socialist ideologues seem willing to make this “no true scotsman” argument on behalf of socialism
I take issue with this. Socialism has been incredibly successful everywhere its been implemented. There are some people calling themselves socialists, who accept all the capitalist propaganda about actually existing socialism at face value, and unfortunately they often do dominate socialist discourse in the imperial core. But anyone who has studied and learn about the USSR, Cuba, China, Mongolia in earnest, and learned from these movements, cannot but be awed at their achievements. The bottom article lists many of them for the USSR, and China in the modern day has some even more impressive achievements in lifting more people out of poverty than any other country in history.
This is a long topic that I can suggest more reading, but I recommend these introductory articles / videos:
The guy who coined the term “anarchism” (without adjectives), Proudhon, was a socialist. He used it to describe a socialist ideology, and it has been a socialist tradition ever since. There has of course been plenty of attempts to hijack the term, but even the “anarchism without adjectives” folks don’t include “anarchism with hierarchy”.
Proudhon also popularised the slogan “Property is theft”. And capitalism is of course fundamentally based on private property. So you have “property is theft” on one hand, and “property as a fundamental right” on the other. Are you able to perceive some kind of contradiction here?
The Nazis then instituted socio-economic policies including equal rights, UBI, free nationalised child care, free nationalised public education, free nationalised healthcare, fire arms prohibition, a nationalised automotive and banking industry, nationalised agriculture […]
This was all funded by wealth redistribution and equalisation, 75% taxation, and mandatory work participation for adults of both genders.
I mean, I definitely know that these two points are not correct. But could you please provide sources for these claims anyways?
“WWII Survivor Warns of SOCIALISM and GUN CONTROL! (MUST WATCH)” is your source? Seriously? I listened to the first few minutes and sorry, but Kitty Werthmann does not seem to know much about the NSDAP’s political standpoints.
This section doesn’t provide any sources, but I guess that there were members among the Austrian social democrats for the Nazis. Don’t see how that is relevant though.
This one briefly describes the social welfare system which was instituted by the Nazis.
Okay, this is relevant: if we believe this section of Wikipedia, the ‘Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt’ did indeed provide “old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes and interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance”.
Nowhere does it say for whom these were provided and how effective these measures actually were; in fact, many of these benefits were actually already established in the Weimar Republic. Neither does this article support your claims of a universal basic income, “equal rights” (absolutely not, wtf), which were not only unfeasible for Nazi Germany due to the (pre-)war economy, but diametrical to their actual support of antisemitism, racism, homophobia, and eugenics.
So there were financial benefits for part of the population that were not hit by genocide, conscription or the Nuremberg Laws. But that is still not the definition of a socialist system.
Ah, alright, sorry; I did interpret your “equal rights” differently.
Equal rights can mean a lot of things depending on who’s speaking. Fundamentally though, equal human rights belong exclusively to individuals. This precludes groups having superior rights to those of the individual, such as the ability to levy taxes for example. If it’s extortion for an individual, it’s extortion for a group also. Majority consensus is no more valid in that situation than it is in gang rape. Hence you’ll find that no matter what rhetoric a government or group may spout about equal rights, unless they’re individualist anarchists, they’re full of shit. That goes for socialists just the same.
Not sure, what you mean by that. Individuals are part of groups; and if such interest groups demand equal rights, they are demanding these rights for each individual group member. Minorities sadly seem to have to band together in groups to achieve group representation and emancipation, but that doesn’t make them “full of shit”, no?
Names are irrelevant. Nazi policies certainly weren’t socialist.
Removed by mod
Socialism is explicitly internationalist, and anti-captalist, while fascism is pro-capitalist and ultranationalist.
Suprisingly good snopes article debunking “I thought the nazis were socialist”.
Removed by mod
I take issue with this. Socialism has been incredibly successful everywhere its been implemented. There are some people calling themselves socialists, who accept all the capitalist propaganda about actually existing socialism at face value, and unfortunately they often do dominate socialist discourse in the imperial core. But anyone who has studied and learn about the USSR, Cuba, China, Mongolia in earnest, and learned from these movements, cannot but be awed at their achievements. The bottom article lists many of them for the USSR, and China in the modern day has some even more impressive achievements in lifting more people out of poverty than any other country in history.
This is a long topic that I can suggest more reading, but I recommend these introductory articles / videos:
Removed by mod
I think you mean Anarcho-Capitalist. Anarchism is a socialist ideology and Anarcho-Capitalism, despite its silly name, is not anarchist.
Removed by mod
Yeah… no.
The guy who coined the term “anarchism” (without adjectives), Proudhon, was a socialist. He used it to describe a socialist ideology, and it has been a socialist tradition ever since. There has of course been plenty of attempts to hijack the term, but even the “anarchism without adjectives” folks don’t include “anarchism with hierarchy”.
Proudhon also popularised the slogan “Property is theft”. And capitalism is of course fundamentally based on private property. So you have “property is theft” on one hand, and “property as a fundamental right” on the other. Are you able to perceive some kind of contradiction here?
Removed by mod
I mean, I definitely know that these two points are not correct. But could you please provide sources for these claims anyways?
Removed by mod
“WWII Survivor Warns of SOCIALISM and GUN CONTROL! (MUST WATCH)” is your source? Seriously? I listened to the first few minutes and sorry, but Kitty Werthmann does not seem to know much about the NSDAP’s political standpoints.
This section doesn’t provide any sources, but I guess that there were members among the Austrian social democrats for the Nazis. Don’t see how that is relevant though.
Okay, this is relevant: if we believe this section of Wikipedia, the ‘Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt’ did indeed provide “old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes and interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance”.
Nowhere does it say for whom these were provided and how effective these measures actually were; in fact, many of these benefits were actually already established in the Weimar Republic. Neither does this article support your claims of a universal basic income, “equal rights” (absolutely not, wtf), which were not only unfeasible for Nazi Germany due to the (pre-)war economy, but diametrical to their actual support of antisemitism, racism, homophobia, and eugenics.
So there were financial benefits for part of the population that were not hit by genocide, conscription or the Nuremberg Laws. But that is still not the definition of a socialist system.
Removed by mod
Ah, alright, sorry; I did interpret your “equal rights” differently.
Not sure, what you mean by that. Individuals are part of groups; and if such interest groups demand equal rights, they are demanding these rights for each individual group member. Minorities sadly seem to have to band together in groups to achieve group representation and emancipation, but that doesn’t make them “full of shit”, no?
Edit: “your” :P
Removed by mod