Although it also shows the worrying trend I've been warning about since it first started cropping up; The War on Disinformation, which is just another excuse for censorship, and to convince the masses to go along with it.
showing how dangerous/problematic this kind of rhetoric can be.
Your censorious rhetoric is infinitely more dangerous than people believing things you don't like, or even being wrong about those things, you tyrannical little weasel.
I read the title and thought it was obvious. Then I read the post and was reminded that a plethora of people that believe in conspiracies.
"Conspiracies aren't real" has got to be one of the most braindead takes out there.
The CIA coined the term "conspiracy theorist" to discredit anyone asking questions about JFK's assassination. 60 years later we learn it was the fucking CIA itself that assassinated JFK.
Socialism was an embellishment. Keep in mind, Germans thought Socialism was a type of enlightened government - many parties whether or not they actually were Socialist called themselves socialists.
The practice of naming yourself something that you aren't philosophically aligned with is normal. Is the "Democrat" party particularly democratic? Is the "Liberal" party in any way aligned with freedom? What about "New Democrat", who are neither new, nor is their advocacy of Democracy unique.
The national socialist party wasn't socialist (unless we're talking about Hegelian Socialism here, which is a different bird) - and if definitely wasn't Marxist, they hated communists with a passion. It was just a trendy name.
That stated, if you lived there in that time and were affluent in some minor way, you better bet your otherwise-gulag-going-ass that you were expected to make lavish and deep-cutting (or at least looking like deep-cutting) donations to The Party in order to keep in their good graces and not branded a hoarder, "like those undesirables".
Obviously by this measure The Mafia is socialist, which is clearly not true, but they definitely used the flow of "the government is Of The People, if you have wealth that The People don't then you must be evil, so you must give more to The People, by which we mean us in the government" as a bullying stick.
are we talking about the natsocs or the soviets here?
the natsocs openly celebrated individuality and seemed to want to clarify over and over that the duty they kept speaking of where individuality nonetheless had to make some way was for the people and nation, not for the state or party. which to me just makes sense, because otherwise, just... y'know, leave the country.
Arguably no more socialist than the US or Europe is today.
Also, the point of Marxian communism/socialism is the eventual complete rejection of nationalist ideologies in favor of global communism, it's the only way to pull it all off. Trotsky was big on this model: continual, worldwide revolution until there were no capitalist governments left to "subvert" communism. On the other hand, the NSDAP (and fascism in general) was incredibly nationalistic, and existed as a rejection of globalism and communism. They were some kind of hybrid. They were what is a called a 3rd position (vastly different from 3rd party) political ideology: a vaguely socialist/welfare-capitalist political/economic system in conjunction with an ethno-centric, nationalistic social system.
There's an argument to be made that it's the only way for either system to work: a state claiming to exist for the betterment of its citizens (nationalism), must directly provide for the welfare/benefit of those citizens (socialism). The difference (as claimed) is that where marxist systems work to keep the population at the baseline of the lowest common denominator (see: multiculturalism), the national socialist system works to empower its citizens to achieve their full potential; thus creating a system where a high population-percentage of high achievers see to the sustainment of a low population-percentage of low achievers, and they do so voluntarily out if a sense of familial/social obligation.
The only way to "pull it off" is to go against human nature. And every single time that ends with mass graves.
Communists think their brilliant plan will work if only everyone obeys and participates. Of course they won't have to because it's their idea and they're special, so they deserve special treatment. But everyone else needs to obey or be executed.
National Socialism is the only form of socialism that has ever actually worked in history and Socialist Lefties hate it.
To be, clear, I still prefer what most people would call "Capitalism", though that is a bullshit word that Marx made up.
Marx called capitalism 'the natural order of things'
He also cheered on central banking and fiat currency, among other things.
Except it didn't work.
That thread is a fucking retard-fest, wow.
Although it also shows the worrying trend I've been warning about since it first started cropping up; The War on Disinformation, which is just another excuse for censorship, and to convince the masses to go along with it.
Your censorious rhetoric is infinitely more dangerous than people believing things you don't like, or even being wrong about those things, you tyrannical little weasel.
"Conspiracies aren't real" has got to be one of the most braindead takes out there.
The CIA coined the term "conspiracy theorist" to discredit anyone asking questions about JFK's assassination. 60 years later we learn it was the fucking CIA itself that assassinated JFK.
Our government admits to conspiring all the time
Socialism was an embellishment. Keep in mind, Germans thought Socialism was a type of enlightened government - many parties whether or not they actually were Socialist called themselves socialists.
The practice of naming yourself something that you aren't philosophically aligned with is normal. Is the "Democrat" party particularly democratic? Is the "Liberal" party in any way aligned with freedom? What about "New Democrat", who are neither new, nor is their advocacy of Democracy unique.
The national socialist party wasn't socialist (unless we're talking about Hegelian Socialism here, which is a different bird) - and if definitely wasn't Marxist, they hated communists with a passion. It was just a trendy name.
That stated, if you lived there in that time and were affluent in some minor way, you better bet your otherwise-gulag-going-ass that you were expected to make lavish and deep-cutting (or at least looking like deep-cutting) donations to The Party in order to keep in their good graces and not branded a hoarder, "like those undesirables".
Obviously by this measure The Mafia is socialist, which is clearly not true, but they definitely used the flow of "the government is Of The People, if you have wealth that The People don't then you must be evil, so you must give more to The People, by which we mean us in the government" as a bullying stick.
are we talking about the natsocs or the soviets here?
the natsocs openly celebrated individuality and seemed to want to clarify over and over that the duty they kept speaking of where individuality nonetheless had to make some way was for the people and nation, not for the state or party. which to me just makes sense, because otherwise, just... y'know, leave the country.
Arguably no more socialist than the US or Europe is today.
Also, the point of Marxian communism/socialism is the eventual complete rejection of nationalist ideologies in favor of global communism, it's the only way to pull it all off. Trotsky was big on this model: continual, worldwide revolution until there were no capitalist governments left to "subvert" communism. On the other hand, the NSDAP (and fascism in general) was incredibly nationalistic, and existed as a rejection of globalism and communism. They were some kind of hybrid. They were what is a called a 3rd position (vastly different from 3rd party) political ideology: a vaguely socialist/welfare-capitalist political/economic system in conjunction with an ethno-centric, nationalistic social system.
There's an argument to be made that it's the only way for either system to work: a state claiming to exist for the betterment of its citizens (nationalism), must directly provide for the welfare/benefit of those citizens (socialism). The difference (as claimed) is that where marxist systems work to keep the population at the baseline of the lowest common denominator (see: multiculturalism), the national socialist system works to empower its citizens to achieve their full potential; thus creating a system where a high population-percentage of high achievers see to the sustainment of a low population-percentage of low achievers, and they do so voluntarily out if a sense of familial/social obligation.
The only way to "pull it off" is to go against human nature. And every single time that ends with mass graves.
Communists think their brilliant plan will work if only everyone obeys and participates. Of course they won't have to because it's their idea and they're special, so they deserve special treatment. But everyone else needs to obey or be executed.
Yeah we have gotten more socialist. That's a bad thing