I mean Nazi Germany was fascist...not sure this is up for historical debate
I mean Nazi Germany was fascist...not sure this is up for historical debate
yeah, this is the first time i've ever heard anyone suggest otherwise.
Influenced by national syndicalism
This was the name given to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates and at first applied mainly to organisations on the Left.
Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views.
Syndicalism is a type of proposed economic system, a form of socialism, considered a replacement for capitalism. It suggests that industries be organized into confederations or syndicates. It is "a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers".
I mean in terms of rhetoric, Trump is much more like Hitler than Sanders is. Preaching hatred, discrimination, etc.
The fact that you even attribute Nazi's as socialist makes me think you have no understanding of Hitler's deep hatred of socialism..which he saw personified by the Jews.
No. Mort didn't bust me on anything. He didn't even really say anything. "State controlled economy" could be anything, and it's not what I said. I specifically quoted the linkage - Left/syndicalism. I didn't use a "strange definition", I quoted from a fucking crowdsourced source. Communism is not socialism (although there is significant relation). Jews epitomized both communism and usury, not national socialism (at the time). Japan was very classically imperialist/monarchist.
Ok now it's "ultra" nationalism, not nationalism. So what creates the difference? Sounds like bullshit.
You guys are both very confused. I don't blame [you] though, it is a fault of [your] education. You were given the interpretations, not the tools.
This is what you said and are completely wrong.Nazis were socialist
Nationalism is a shared group feeling in the significance of a geographical and sometimes demographic region seeking independence for its culture and/or ethnicity that holds that group together. This can be expressed as a belief or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with or becoming attached to one's nation. Nationalism involves national identity, by contrast with the related concept of patriotism, which involves thesocial conditioning and personal behaviors that support a state's decisions and actions.[1]
Didn't even catch this on the first go around, but you cited a sentence from Hitler's Mein Kampf which was written before he was even in power and have no analysis of the system in place even during the pre-war periodJesus Christ Dak, what's up with you and citing Hitler directly?
Before I go into this response, instead of thinking that myself or Orifice are correct on some point (as we are both students of history, and you are not) you instead go into full-blown i'm a genius because my professors said so. Don't think i've seen you like this, weird mannnnnn
This is what you said and are completely wrong.
I think we all agree that the Nazi's were not a socialist party/regime. Did they have socialist tendencies? Yes, the party controlled the economy.
So we can just add 'ultra' here and apply that to the Nazis and the Japanese. Is it clear cut and objective? No, but that's academia. Everything can be and basically is argued, because that's academia. This seems like a really silly point to make here.
Is Bernie Sanders an economic nationalist? I don't know his policies entirely and I haven't seen you cite anything, but I know he is against the TPP because he fears for the jobs of the lower educated workforce. Does that mean he is a protectionist? Ok, maybe. So he is, it doesn't make him a nationalist because he overlaps in certain aspects, because that is ridiculous. I know you're trying to be controversial here or something, but you aren't being clear enough to persuade anyone.
but mainly he wanted a pre WWI bordered economically prosperous Germany.
I guess I don't even know what definition of socialism you are using. My link/quote stated "Syndicalism is a form of socialism", but I imagine you'd disagree. What definition are you using? What countries qualify as having been socialist?
It's an understandable yet false assumption that I go "out of my way to be controversial". I simply read (and not just theoretical pieces) and think. A lot. That this leads me to take a different perspective on a lot of issues than most people is a matter of efforts at education and reflection, not an attempt to find a unique spot on the intellectual floorspace of a metal forum, or whereever.
There's nothing wrong with primary sources, but using a source that was written when the person wasn't in power has no weight on a discussion about the function of the Nazi State under Hitler. How is this complex? Your last use of a primary source was analyzed without discussing the bias and failed interpretations. You are still saying it, I just didn't bother to bring the argument back up again
Adolf Hitler, Max Domarus. The Essential Hitler: Speeches and Commentary. pp. 171, 172-173.
Quite honestly, I haven't seen much about this whole spectrum of knowledge you're referring to when talking about WWII. The last discussion you just kept trying to segway to WWI which meant nothing.
Syndicalism is a form of a socialism, I don't think I disagreed anywhere on that. Maybe you should define socialism since you keep saying "overlap" and "form of x."
Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them
I just cited a definition that talks about a cultural identity..why are you only looking at one aspect towards nationalism?
I don't think there's anything left to say unless socialism is defined sooooo i'll just say this is done