|
ekuNNN posted:This seems optimistic of him. If there's one thing leftists can agree on it's hating fascism. The idea of forging a working alliance between Fascism and the left has been beating around since the days of Strasser, he thought that the Communists were natural allies in overthrowing the capitalist government that had betrayed the German people. He did imagine a war between the Communists and the Nazis over control of the future Workers Republic but he thought that dislodging the landed classes was the most immediate concern. Strasser did manage to build quite a lot of support for a potential alliance while Hitler was in prison but it was promptly sunk when Hitler was released. This may seem ridiculous but remember the KPD did contemplate forging an alliance with nationalist elements a couple of years earlier (see Laufenberg and Wolffheim's bright ideas). Strasserism was really in vogue in the 80's among the far right and many groups began shifting towards a more socialist economic policy in an attempt to appeal to the working class. It's not quite as popular as it once was but there still is a Strasserist influence in a lot of contemporary Fascist groups, the focus has shifted towards mystically traditionalist stuff in the vein of Evola now a-days though. One of the biggest cheerleaders for a Communist/Fascist alliance was Francis Parker Yockey, a man considered crazy even by the European fascists of the 1950's. Yockey, an unabashed Nazi and an American, thought that America was a greater danger to "European culture" than the USSR was and openly called for an alliance between Fascism and the USSR to attack American imperialism worldwide. His reasoning is pretty crazy, he thought the Slánský trial demonstrated that the USSR had purged itself of Jewish influence and that Socialism In One Country proved that USSR had transformed into a nationalist socialist state. He considered Stalisnism to be essentially a brand of Slavic nationalism and thus incompatible with "European" culture. He considered America to be fundamentally "European" but hopelessly contaminated by "Jewish Bolshevism" and thus the spread of American influence after WW2 threatened the purity of "Europe". He traveled to Egypt and Cuba trying to build links and eventually committed suicide after the FBI detained him (thinking he was a Communist spy!). He really was a hysterically incompetent guy but for some reason I've seen more and more people in the far-right in Europe reference Yockey in recent years, probably because of his militant anti-Americanism.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
ekuNNN posted:If there's one thing leftists can agree on it's hating fascism. If.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:This may seem ridiculous but remember the KPD did contemplate forging an alliance with nationalist elements a couple of years earlier (see Laufenberg and Wolffheim's bright ideas). I think the main thing that gets the left into trouble with fascism is the lack of a clear understanding of what it is. And I'm not singling out the left here--this criticism is also directed at liberals and conservatives. But fascism is too often defined by all parties in this really self-serving way. So you had the KPD define social democrats as "social fascists" who they considered the main enemy--not the Nazis--and so they refused to collaborate with (what should have been) their natural allies. Or how conservatives accuse liberals (in the U.S. at least) of being smiley-faced fascists. Then there's a long history of liberals collaborating with extreme rightists against the left. The SPD, remember, inversely saw the KPD as a greater threat. In each of these cases there's a refusal to see fascism as a distinct ideology that's a unique threat to everyone. For the left this has often translated into seeing fascism as simply another form of capitalism: The fascist is just the industrial capitalist with his mask taken off. Or fascism = Bush or whatever. And if you think that, then it stands to reason that the fascists running around won't be a problem if you can just overthrow capitalism. But that's mistaken, and you get yourself into weird situations. It's like "We're going to overthrow the bankers, let's occupy." And next you have these creeps showing up and saying "Yeah, smash those Jew bankers!" Then the creeps take over the show. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Jan 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:So you had the KPD define social democrats as "social fascists" who they considered the main enemy A reasonable analysis, given the collaboration between SPD and the proto-fascist Freikorps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Sorry if this is a bit of a derail. Have you guys seen how many fascist organizations are associating themselves with the Euromaidan? (should we begin calling this a civil war now?) It's going to be interesting to see if any of these organizations get any form of power within the new government when it's inevitably formed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:(should we begin calling this a civil war now?) No, because only 2-5 people have died over the course of 3 months. A civil war kinda requires a bit more bloodshed than the yearly murder rate of Toronto.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
And civil war requires people behind cover shooting at each other, not being tightly packed in open streets throwing poo poo at one another, no matter how brutal that looks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
No doubt the oligarchs that favor an approach with the EU will support the Ukranian fash if it helps them get their way. A group of people who so eagerly want to blow up their country with Brussel austerity and "economic reforms" will have no problem siding with Svoboda. And yes, the KDP disastrously prefered the Nazi party over SPD in the hopes of the Nazis being stupid enough to collapse on their own. Unfortunately while the communists were correct on the overall stupidity of the Nazis they did not predict just how fast they were planning to send the reds into concentration camps. Noctis Horrendae posted:(should we begin calling this a civil war now?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:A reasonable analysis, given the collaboration between SPD and the proto-fascist Freikorps. But "social fascism," the idea that this meant the SPD were part of the same fascist mass (and as the ruling party: Enemy No. 1) was insanely wrongheaded. The KPD ruled out seeking a common front against fascism, and even formed an electoral alliance with the NSDAP in Prussia in 1931 against the SPD. It was a dumb theory, bankrupted the German communist party, led it to join hand-in-hand with Hitler, and it proved just as disastrous and suicidal as the SPD's thinking it could tame the Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Oh yeah. But it's to illustrate that fascists don't necessarily think the same way about the left. A lot of neofolk/martial industrial bands occupy a sort of grey area, because they go out of their way to be apolitical while utilising fascist symbolism and things in their music. There's an article that goes into it here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
I'm terribly misinformed and I'm going to gently caress off now. I thought many more had died than that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
A human heart posted:A lot of neofolk/martial industrial bands occupy a sort of grey area, because they go out of their way to be apolitical while utilising fascist symbolism and things in their music. There's an article that goes into it here. http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.co.uk/ Noctis Horrendae posted:Sorry if this is a bit of a derail.  ^ Svoboda. Svoboda also has a neo-Nazi combat unit, C14. Another far-right group is an alliance called the "Maiden Action Right-Wing Sector," which includes the far-right groups Trident (Tryzub), White Hammer (Bily Molot) and the Social-National Assembly. The latter wear yellow armbands with the Wolfsangel symbol, like so:  There is also the Brotherhood (Bratsvo) within the Right-Wing Sector, although they're alleged to be agents provocateurs, as its leader has spoken at a Nashi (pro-Putin youth group) summer camp, and reportedly fled to Russia after some violent confrontations with the police in December put him at odds with Svoboda. But there's trouble on the far right. A number of European neo-fascist parties in other countries have come out against the opposition. Namely, these are parties affiliated with the Alliance of European National Movements, which includes the BNP, Jobbik, the Swedish National Democrats, the Spanish and Portuguese MSR and PNR, and the Italian Tricolour Flame. Svoboda is a former observer but was expelled a few years ago for the party's anti-Russian stance. Front National was also a former member but left after Marine Le Pen took over from her father and sought to move the FN away from the more radical AENM. (Le Pen, however, like the rest of the AENM has called for non-interference in Ukraine.)  ^ Gabor Vona (Jobbik) with Alexander Dugin (Neo-Eurasian Movement) last year. Jobbik is vociferously anti-American, more so than many far right groups, and has built ties with Russian extreme rightists--the idea being to flirt with the idea of a fascist Eurasian union that is anti-EU and anti-American. Another group is the weird, shadowy Italian publishing house State and Power, which masquerades as socialist but espouses Dugin-style Eurasian neo-fascism. This poster from them below reads "Russia was born in Kiev. Kiev is a territory of the Russian Federation." 
BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Jan 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
More on Ukrainian fascists: http://searchlightmagazine.com/news...m-downtown-kyiv
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Mans posted:A group of people who so eagerly want to blow up their country with Brussel austerity and "economic reforms" will have no problem siding with Svoboda. I'm not a fan of austerity but do you really think that any alternative would have Ukraine faring better, without any reforms of this type on their side of the bargain?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Very informative. I find it hilarious when nations containing large populations of races that would be considered inferior (in this case Slavs in general; Ukrainians) by proper Nazis (for lack of a better term that comes to mind ATM) during the war spawn neo-Nazi groups. Also, they're still using Waffen SS grade camo. That speaks for itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Uh, I'm quite sure that's the modern Bundeswehr pattern.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Uh, I'm quite sure that's the modern Bundeswehr pattern. That might well be, but they do dress up as the Waffen SS Galicia and parade in honour of their wartime service. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:Very informative. I find it hilarious when nations containing large populations of races that would be considered inferior (in this case Slavs in general; Ukrainians) by proper Nazis (for lack of a better term that comes to mind ATM) during the war spawn neo-Nazi groups. It gets crazy. Lithuania, for example, was enlarged by Stalin after the invasion of Poland, then invaded by the Soviets who liquidated the intellectual and political elite. Thousands of Lithuanians fled to Germany, where they were trained up as an occupying rearguard force for when the Nazis invaded. Then the Nazis and their collaborators invaded, and the Soviet collaborators that stayed in Lithuania joined up and participated in the mass killing of Jews in order to save themselves from being killed by the Nazis. Then the Soviets invaded again. A (somewhat) similar process occurred in Ukraine. Another thing the Nazis did was arrange the different occupied groups into a racial hierarchy. Estonians were considered similar to Germans and superior to other Baltic peoples. So if you're Estonian, the idea is that you'll be under the Germans, but you'll be above the Latvians and Lithuanians. At the least, you're not Jewish or Roma. Then by killing Jews, it confirmed to the Nazis that their ideological world-view was correct. It was "see, we knew this place was run by the Jews, watch the Estonians get their revenge." BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jan 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Uh, I'm quite sure that's the modern Bundeswehr pattern. Waffen SS "44 Dot" camouflage and the modern Bundeswehr pattern are near indistinguishable, but that's certainly 44 dot. I find it funnier that they wear period-era Wehrmacht uniforms without the proper insignia and call it Waffen. e: Scratch that, they have the SS runes on their collars. Omi-Polari posted:Well, these guys have a lineage that goes back to World War 2 in the form of collaborationist forces that were deliberately set up by the Nazis. IIRC Ukrainians were below Lithuanians and Latvians? I'll research that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:IIRC Ukrainians were below Lithuanians and Latvians? I'll research that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Good question. I dunno. Just looked it up and there's not really info on the subject, but out of the Slavs the Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis more than any other country/state/province. Some Ukrainians actually participated in the Holocaust and ran extermination camps - I guess they figured that the Germans might allow them to become independent if they won the war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:Just looked it up and there's not really info on the subject, but out of the Slavs the Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis more than any other country/state/province. Some Ukrainians actually participated in the Holocaust and ran extermination camps - I guess they figured that the Germans might allow them to become independent if they won the war. I can't remember off the top of my head but I think Rosenberg supported the idea of an independent Ukranian buffer state which was more than he was willing to give the Lithuanians. As far as the Baltic states were concerned, he considered Estonia to be the most Nordic, then Latvia with Lithuania dead last - If I'm remembering correctly I think he wanted to forceable relocate a good chunk of the Lithuanian population to Russia to make way for Germans. But then again no one really listened to Rosenberg apart from Hitler, he technically ran the Baltic states but his plans were constantly frustrated by the army who really didn't give a poo poo about his grand plans. Rosenberg's detailed racial hierarchies only influenced policy when it was convenient. kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Jan 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I'm not a fan of austerity but do you really think that any alternative would have Ukraine faring better, without any reforms of this type on their side of the bargain? Any debt that the Ukranian state acquired wasn't because the populace demanded too much welfare from their state\taxes. steinrokkan posted:Uh, I'm quite sure that's the modern Bundeswehr pattern. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:I can't remember off the top of my head but I think Rosenberg supported the idea of an independent Ukranian buffer state which was more than he was willing to give the Lithuanians. As far as the Baltic states were concerned, he considered Estonia to be the most Nordic, then Latvia with Lithuania dead last - If I'm remembering correctly I think he wanted to forceable relocate a good chunk of the Lithuanian population to Russia to make way for Germans. I don't remember Rosenberg's exact racial hierarchy in the Baltic states and other Eastern territories, but he did champion creating an anti-bolshevik puppet state in Ukraine (which a non-trivial amount of Ukrainians would have likely jumped at), and was predictably ignored by pretty much everyone else because he was a flaky loon. Not that you didn't already mention that, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Mans posted:A group of people who so eagerly want to blow up their country with Brussel austerity and "economic reforms" will have no problem siding with Svoboda. I hear this thrown around a lot, but I was under the impression that these talks do not mean entrance to the EU for Ukraine in any fashion except maybe down the road (like, decades). The whole eastern project has lost a lot of steam and there's still quite a few eastern European countries in line ahead of Ukraine. The EU wouldn't be in the position to be handing out big Greece-style loans and politically isn't in any position to want to offer any. So basically a symbolic deal, with some poorly backed demands for improvements in civil liberties and not imprisoning former presidents on trumped up charges. Maybe some sort of loosening of trade between the country and Ukraine? If Russia puts some economic squeeze on Ukraine it will be pretty painful, but I hadn't heard anything concrete that the Troika is greedily waiting to turn Ukraine into Greece the second any paper gets signed (in blood,) Austerity is monstrous and europe's leaders are all cartoon villains but I've just seen this fake-Sophie's Choice situation where Ukraine has to either implode their economy for Brussels or let themselves be absorbed into Russia's borders, but that doesn't really seem to be the situation here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Benito Mussolini could literally march through the front door and they wouldn't recognize him. Fascism was always mixed up with revolutionary leftist ideologies, though. Mussolini was a socialist once. That's not to say that Jonah Goldberg was correct at all, simply that both ideologies came of age in the '30s, and have a lot of overlap, even if ultimately fascism is more or less about ultra-tribalism (and hence regressive), while socialism is more or less about universalism (and hence progressive). But stuff like hating capitalism, and in the modern day, opposing capitalist wars, criticizing Israel, etc., there's a lot of overlap between the activist left and the anarchist right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Mussolini did not get on with any of the other socialists groups he joined, and it's not clear whether he was genuinely a socialist, or simply opportunist. But fascist do try and ape leftist rhetoric to surprising degrees, and I'm not really certain why. Is it because of the whole radical chic that exists? You couldn't create from thin air two more diametrically opposed ways of viewing the world and societies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
Maximo Roboto posted:Fascism was always mixed up with revolutionary leftist ideologies, though. Mussolini was a socialist once. That's not to say that Jonah Goldberg was correct at all, simply that both ideologies came of age in the '30s, and have a lot of overlap, even if ultimately fascism is more or less about ultra-tribalism (and hence regressive), while socialism is more or less about universalism (and hence progressive). But stuff like hating capitalism, and in the modern day, opposing capitalist wars, criticizing Israel, etc., there's a lot of overlap between the activist left and the anarchist right. Fascists that actually get into power tend to get rid of any anti capitalist elements they may have had though, like what Hitler did with the Strasserists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 09:54
|
|
|
They utilize the discontent of the working class, but as part of an attempt to convince them that foreigners are the cause of why their lives suck while they make political alliances with the wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
A human heart posted:Fascists that actually get into power tend to get rid of any anti capitalist elements they may have had though, like what Hitler did with the Strasserists. Keep in mind that while Hitler cooperated with capitalists (Krupp, Henry Ford, etc.) he was pretty anti-capitalist himself. His anti-capitalism was born out of deeply rooted antisemitism/racism and not any leftist ideology. Might be worth to keep in mind when discussing fascist anti-capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
HighClassSwankyTime posted:Keep in mind that while Hitler cooperated with capitalists (Krupp, Henry Ford, etc.) he was pretty anti-capitalist himself. His anti-capitalism was born out of deeply rooted antisemitism/racism and not any leftist ideology. Might be worth to keep in mind when discussing fascist anti-capitalism. Could you elaborate on that? As far as I'm aware the Nazi approach to capitalists and the economy was 'um just keep doing what you're doing I guess' at least until Speer took over. There didn't seem to be resentment so much as no strong feelings in any direction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
Economic policy sits pretty squarely near the bottom of the list when it comes to what fascists typically find important. The exceptions tend to be military spending and pie-in-the-sky prestige projects that manifest the glory of the nation but other than that fascism in and of itself has remarkably little to say on the subject, thus leading to an uncommonly wide variety of views on the subject (for fascists, that is). All this is speaking about the fash outside of a position of power though. Fascist parties in power, as is typical, usually end up with one dominant economic position as a result of a round of backstabbing and a purge of those who don't fall in line afterwards. We can see that historical fascist parties don't tend to care overly much how stuff is organized as long as the tanks and planes keep getting built, except for propaganda purposes. The Nazis allied with big industry in Germany because that was opportunate at the time and because their interests in destroying or suborning the workers' movements aligned, not because of some ideological reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
HighClassSwankyTime posted:Keep in mind that while Hitler cooperated with capitalists (Krupp, Henry Ford, etc.) he was pretty anti-capitalist himself. His anti-capitalism was born out of deeply rooted antisemitism/racism and not any leftist ideology. Might be worth to keep in mind when discussing fascist anti-capitalism. Not really Hitler's Dusseldorf Speech, 1932 posted:...I may cite an example: you maintain, gentlemen, that German business life must be constructed on a basis of private property. Now such a conception as that of private property you can defend only if in some way or another it appears to have a logical foundation. This conception must deduce its ethical justification from an insight into the necessity which Nature dictates. It cannot simply be upheld by saying: 'It has always been so and therefore it must continue to be so.' For in periods of great upheavals within States, of movements of peoples and changes in thought, institutions and systems cannot remain untouched because they have previously been preserved without change. It is the characteristic feature of all really great revolutionary epochs in the history of mankind that they pay astonishingly little regard for forms which are hallowed only by age or which are apparently only so consecrated. It is thus necessary to give such foundations to traditional forms which are to be preserved that they can be regarded as absolutely essential, as logical and right. And then I am bound to say that private property can be morally and ethically justified only if I admit that men's achievements are different. Only on that basis can I assert: since men's achievements are different, the results of those achievements are also different. But if the results of those achievements are different, then it is reasonable to leave to men the administration of those results to a corresponding degree. It would not be logical to entrust the administration of the result of an achievement which was bound up with a personality either to the next best but less capable person or to a community which, through the mere fact that it had not performed the achievement, has proved that it is not capable of administering the result of that achievement. Thus it must be admitted that in the economic sphere, from the start, in all branches men are not of equal value or of equal importance. And once this is admitted it is madness to say: in the economic sphere there are undoubtedly differences in value, but that is not true in the political sphere. It is absurd to build up economic life on the conceptions of achievement, of the value of personality, and therefore in practice on the authority of personality, but in the political sphere to deny the authority of personality and to thrust into its place the law of the greater number – democracy. In that case there must slowly arise a cleavage between the economic and the political point of view, and to bridge that cleavage an attempt will be made to assimilate the former to the latter - indeed the attempt has been made, for this cleavage has not remained bare, pale theory. The conception of the equality of values has already, not only in politics but in economics also, been raised to a system, and that not merely in abstract theory: no! this economic system is alive in gigantic organizations and it has already today inspired a State which rules over immense areas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
Enjoy, if you think that Hitlers ideas about German entrepeneurship and Jewish capitalism are one and the same, I'm sorry to say this, but you're an idiot. I'm too lazy today to quote books on the subject, so I'll let wikipedia do the talking for me. In the articles you can find all the sources you could ever wish for. Emphasis is mine: Wikipedia article on Nazism posted:German Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and social Darwinism, asserted the superiority of an Aryan master race, and criticised both capitalism and communism for being associated with Jewish materialism. It aimed to overcome social divisions, with all parts of a racially homogenous society cooperating for national unity and regeneration and to secure territorial enlargement at the expense of supposedly inferior neighbouring nations. The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. This involved the idea of uniting rich and poor Germans for a common national project without eliminating class differences (a concept known as "Volksgemeinschaft", or "people's community"), and promoted the subordination of individuals and groups to the needs of the nation, state and leader. National Socialism rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property. In this context, is private property the same as we regard it today? Absolutely not. Let's continue (emphasis is mine): Wikipedia article on Nazism tab: Anti-Capitalism posted:(...) Adolf Hitler, both in public and in private, expressed disdain for capitalism, arguing that it holds nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class. He opposed free market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy in which community interests would be upheld. (...) Wikipedia article on Nazism tab: Anti-Capitalism posted:(...) Hitler told a party leader in 1934, "The economic system of our day is the creation of the Jews." Hitler said to Benito Mussolini that "Capitalism had run its course". Hitler also said that the business bourgeoisie "know nothing except their profit. 'Fatherland' is only a word for them." Hitler was personally disgusted with the ruling bourgeois elites of Germany during the period of the Weimar Republic, who he referred to as "cowardly shits". (...) It's worth noting that Joseph Goebbels was a Marxist student and although he became a nazi par excellence, he never abandoned his hatred for capitalism. Wikipedia article on Nazism tab: Anti-Capitalism posted:(...) Another radical Nazi, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels had stressed the socialist character of Nazism, and claimed in his diary in the 1920s that if he were to pick between Bolshevism and capitalism, he said "in final analysis", "it would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism." (...)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
They were opposed to internationalism rather than capitalism. That they would be opposed to concepts of international capitalism is not surprising, but that doesn't make them 'anti-capitalist'.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Feb 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
In these days they would hate outsourcing and factories de-localizing to lower wage labour markets. They would love the ones that stay in the country and give dynamism to the nation and wages to 'decent German breadwinners'. So, at the very minimum, a capitalist under nazism has to be loyal not only to his own profit motive, but also to his membership of a patriotic national bourgeoisie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
rudatron posted:They were opposed to internationalism rather than capitalism. That they would be opposed to concepts of international capitalism is not surprising, but that doesn't make them 'anti-capitalist'. So you're saying that all books, every scholar, every researcher that has written on this particular topic... Is wrong? That is a bold statement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
The more obvious (and less bold) statement is that you, HighClassSwankyTime, are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
HighClassSwankyTime posted:So you're saying that all books, every scholar, every researcher that has written on this particular topic... Is wrong? That is a bold statement. It really depends on the type of capitalism you mean. The way countries like Japan and Korea industrialized actually fits an ultranationalist/fascist framework pretty well. Strong corporate conglomerates very tightly linked to the state, which supports its developing industries strongly (import substitution, high tariffs and straight up forbidding the import of foreign cars for example) is not a model that can be called non-capitalist in any logical sense of the word. Non-liberal, certainly, but not non-capitalist. So it may well be the case that you should read some other books, scholars, researcher, than the ones you think represent every one of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
rudatron posted:The more obvious (and less bold) statement is that you, HighClassSwankyTime, are wrong. More citations and less accusations please.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 15:22
|
|