Forwarded from Martinez Politics
"Franco was not a fascist"...and he complains that he wasn't economically leftist enough.
"Fascism was informed by Marxism"... and only had minor differences on philosophy.
More confirmation that fascists are nothing more than economic leftists.
"Fascism was informed by Marxism"... and only had minor differences on philosophy.
More confirmation that fascists are nothing more than economic leftists.
👍12😁3
More evidence of the Marxist influences behind National Socialism.
> "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"
> "even in the autobiography he observes that his own doctrine was fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason that it recognised the significance of race - implying, perhaps, that it might otherwise easily look like a derivative."
> "Without race, he went on, National Socialism "would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". Marxism was internationalist. The proletariat, as the famous slogan goes, has no fatherland. Hitler had a fatherland, and it was everything to him."
> "Yet privately, and perhaps even publicly, he conceded that National Socialism was based on Marx. On reflection, it makes consistent sense. The basis of a dogma is not the dogma, much as the foundation of a building is not the building, and in numerous ways National Socialism was based on Marxism. It was a theory of history and not, like liberalism or social democracy, a mere agenda of legislative proposals."
> "Hitler's discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism"
> "They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes."
> "As for communists, he opposed them because they created mere herds, Soviet-style, without individual life, and his own ideal was "the socialism of nations" rather than the international socialism of Marx and Lenin. The one and only problem of the age, he told Wagener, was to liberate labour and replace the rule of capital over labour with the rule of labour over capital."
> "These are highly socialist sentiments, and if Wagener reports his master faithfully they leave no doubt about the conclusion: that Hitler was an unorthodox Marxist who knew his sources and knew just how unorthodox the way in which he handled them was. He was a dissident socialist... "What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish," he told Wagener, "we shall be in a position to achieve.""
> "On 16 June 1941, five days before Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, Goebbels exulted, in the privacy of his diary, in the victory over Bolshevism that he believed would quickly follow. There would be no restoration of the tsars, he remarked to himself, after Russia had been conquered. But Jewish Bolshevism would be uprooted in Russia and "real socialism" planted in its place - "Der echte Sozialismus". Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but no one can explain why he would lie to his diaries. And to the end of his days he believed that socialism was what National Socialism was about."
Follow @redideologies
> "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"
> "even in the autobiography he observes that his own doctrine was fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason that it recognised the significance of race - implying, perhaps, that it might otherwise easily look like a derivative."
> "Without race, he went on, National Socialism "would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". Marxism was internationalist. The proletariat, as the famous slogan goes, has no fatherland. Hitler had a fatherland, and it was everything to him."
> "Yet privately, and perhaps even publicly, he conceded that National Socialism was based on Marx. On reflection, it makes consistent sense. The basis of a dogma is not the dogma, much as the foundation of a building is not the building, and in numerous ways National Socialism was based on Marxism. It was a theory of history and not, like liberalism or social democracy, a mere agenda of legislative proposals."
> "Hitler's discovery was that socialism could be national as well as international. There could be a national socialism. That is how he reportedly talked to his fellow Nazi Otto Wagener in the early 1930s. The socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism"
> "They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes."
> "As for communists, he opposed them because they created mere herds, Soviet-style, without individual life, and his own ideal was "the socialism of nations" rather than the international socialism of Marx and Lenin. The one and only problem of the age, he told Wagener, was to liberate labour and replace the rule of capital over labour with the rule of labour over capital."
> "These are highly socialist sentiments, and if Wagener reports his master faithfully they leave no doubt about the conclusion: that Hitler was an unorthodox Marxist who knew his sources and knew just how unorthodox the way in which he handled them was. He was a dissident socialist... "What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish," he told Wagener, "we shall be in a position to achieve.""
> "On 16 June 1941, five days before Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, Goebbels exulted, in the privacy of his diary, in the victory over Bolshevism that he believed would quickly follow. There would be no restoration of the tsars, he remarked to himself, after Russia had been conquered. But Jewish Bolshevism would be uprooted in Russia and "real socialism" planted in its place - "Der echte Sozialismus". Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but no one can explain why he would lie to his diaries. And to the end of his days he believed that socialism was what National Socialism was about."
Follow @redideologies
The Independent
Hitler and the socialist dream
He declared that 'national socialism was based on Marx' Socialists have always disowned him. But a new book insists that he was, at heart, a left-winger
👌6👍2🔥1😁1
Fascism is little more than a slight revision of Marxist philosophy while keeping the Marxist economic program.
"Nothing outside the state" (Mussolini's famous phrase) is a call for the abolition of all private property. Private property is "outside the state" and so fascism aims to bring it into the state.
The fascist state (which views itself as God-like and thus omnipotent) tolerates no competition. Private property gives rise to competition in the form of businesses. If businesses grow large, they can pose a challenge to state authority. So fascism is inherently anti-private property and will move to abolish it or otherwise control its use, which is the same thing in the end. If you can't generally do what you want with your own property, minus committing crimes on it, then it's not truly yours.
If the private farmer wants to grow corn, but the fascist state says no you must grow wheat, then you must obey or your farm is seized. When you agree to grow wheat for fear of losing your farm, then the fascist state will tax away most of your profits, leaving you with just enough to live and continue production. This is a clever way of implementing Marx's vision.
Seventy-five percent of the economy is nationalized and the rest is regulated and taxed to such a degree that it's effectively state-run. The business owners and farmers who are left are downgraded to mere managers.
Follow @redideologies
"Nothing outside the state" (Mussolini's famous phrase) is a call for the abolition of all private property. Private property is "outside the state" and so fascism aims to bring it into the state.
The fascist state (which views itself as God-like and thus omnipotent) tolerates no competition. Private property gives rise to competition in the form of businesses. If businesses grow large, they can pose a challenge to state authority. So fascism is inherently anti-private property and will move to abolish it or otherwise control its use, which is the same thing in the end. If you can't generally do what you want with your own property, minus committing crimes on it, then it's not truly yours.
If the private farmer wants to grow corn, but the fascist state says no you must grow wheat, then you must obey or your farm is seized. When you agree to grow wheat for fear of losing your farm, then the fascist state will tax away most of your profits, leaving you with just enough to live and continue production. This is a clever way of implementing Marx's vision.
Seventy-five percent of the economy is nationalized and the rest is regulated and taxed to such a degree that it's effectively state-run. The business owners and farmers who are left are downgraded to mere managers.
Follow @redideologies
👍12😁5
Doesn't sound like a guy on the brink of invading Germany here.
"Stalin refused to believe that Germany would invade in 1941. He dismissed more than a hundred intelligence warnings of the coming invasion as British propaganda, and was caught completely off guard. In the decades that followed the war, the Soviet Union wanted to present itself as a power that stood for peace. It therefore had to deny that it was one of the powers that began the war."
https://www.eurozine.com/when-stalin-was-hitlers-ally/
"Stalin refused to believe that Germany would invade in 1941. He dismissed more than a hundred intelligence warnings of the coming invasion as British propaganda, and was caught completely off guard. In the decades that followed the war, the Soviet Union wanted to present itself as a power that stood for peace. It therefore had to deny that it was one of the powers that began the war."
https://www.eurozine.com/when-stalin-was-hitlers-ally/
Eurozine
When Stalin was Hitler's ally
As Russia revives the tradition of wars of aggression on European territory, Vladimir Putin has chosen to rehabilitate the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as good foreign policy. But why violate now what was for so long a Soviet taboo? Timothy Snyder explains.
😁9👍5👌2
"At that stage it was still not possible to determine whether the Russians were actually girding themselves for an attack or whether they were themselves only massing to ward one off... but the German invasion was soon to tear that veil of doubt aside."
German field marshal Wilhelm Keitel wrote this in his memoirs, admitting that the Germans did not know whether the Soviets would attack or not and they chose to attack first. As TIK shows here, Keitel wrote these memoirs in order to exonerate himself at Nuremberg by claiming the attack on USSR was a pre-emptive one, but he actually admits that it wasn't in the same memoirs.
There were no intercepts from Soviet high command confirming any plans for an imminent attack and so any opinions from Hitler that they were was pure self-serving speculation to justify his own long-desired attack. Tik explains that the Germans were very short on oil to fuel their war with Britain and so attacking Russia to get their oil was crucial to defeating Britain as well, another strong motive for the aggression, in addition to the Lebensraum plans.
Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyANHGWbUHA&t=2s
Follow @redideologies
German field marshal Wilhelm Keitel wrote this in his memoirs, admitting that the Germans did not know whether the Soviets would attack or not and they chose to attack first. As TIK shows here, Keitel wrote these memoirs in order to exonerate himself at Nuremberg by claiming the attack on USSR was a pre-emptive one, but he actually admits that it wasn't in the same memoirs.
There were no intercepts from Soviet high command confirming any plans for an imminent attack and so any opinions from Hitler that they were was pure self-serving speculation to justify his own long-desired attack. Tik explains that the Germans were very short on oil to fuel their war with Britain and so attacking Russia to get their oil was crucial to defeating Britain as well, another strong motive for the aggression, in addition to the Lebensraum plans.
Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyANHGWbUHA&t=2s
Follow @redideologies
😁10👏6👍1
Fascism and National Socialism emerged from the same milieu as Marxism and Communism. All variations and slight revisions of each other.
> The concept of a “far left” that is opposed to a “far right” is false. The systems placed on the two ends of that spectrum, including socialism, fascism, and Nazism, are all rooted in communism. And all of them share beliefs in core communist concepts, including state collectivism, planned economies, and class struggle.
> After Lenin, the next communist revisionist to take the world stage was Benito Mussolini, who took from World War I the lesson that nationalism was more uniting than the idea of a worker’s revolution. He thus revised Marxism into his new system of fascism, using the collectivist principle of “fasci,” which refers to a bundle of sticks reinforcing the handle of an ax.
> Mussolini explained his concept in his 1928 autobiography, in which he states, “The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity.”
> According to “Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime” by Richard Pipes, “No prominent European socialist before World War I resembled Lenin more closely than Benito Mussolini. Like Lenin, he headed the antirevisionist wing of the country’s Socialist Party; like him, he believed that the worker was not by nature a revolutionary and had to be prodded to radical action by an intellectual elite.”
> Then soon after, Adolph Hitler emerged with his re-branded socialist system under the banner of “national socialism.”
> The policies of the Nazi Party followed the communist model, D’Souza notes, and the 25-point program included universal free health care and education, nationalization of large corporations and trusts, government control of banking and credit, the splitting of large landholdings into smaller units, and similar policies.
> In addition, D’Souza states, “Mussolini and Hitler both identified socialism as the core of the fascist and Nazi Weltanschauung [way of life]. Mussolini was the leading figure of Italian revolutionary socialism and never relinquished his allegiance to it. Hitler’s party defined itself as championing ‘national socialism.'”
FULL ARTICLE
Follow @redideologies
> The concept of a “far left” that is opposed to a “far right” is false. The systems placed on the two ends of that spectrum, including socialism, fascism, and Nazism, are all rooted in communism. And all of them share beliefs in core communist concepts, including state collectivism, planned economies, and class struggle.
> After Lenin, the next communist revisionist to take the world stage was Benito Mussolini, who took from World War I the lesson that nationalism was more uniting than the idea of a worker’s revolution. He thus revised Marxism into his new system of fascism, using the collectivist principle of “fasci,” which refers to a bundle of sticks reinforcing the handle of an ax.
> Mussolini explained his concept in his 1928 autobiography, in which he states, “The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity.”
> According to “Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime” by Richard Pipes, “No prominent European socialist before World War I resembled Lenin more closely than Benito Mussolini. Like Lenin, he headed the antirevisionist wing of the country’s Socialist Party; like him, he believed that the worker was not by nature a revolutionary and had to be prodded to radical action by an intellectual elite.”
> Then soon after, Adolph Hitler emerged with his re-branded socialist system under the banner of “national socialism.”
> The policies of the Nazi Party followed the communist model, D’Souza notes, and the 25-point program included universal free health care and education, nationalization of large corporations and trusts, government control of banking and credit, the splitting of large landholdings into smaller units, and similar policies.
> In addition, D’Souza states, “Mussolini and Hitler both identified socialism as the core of the fascist and Nazi Weltanschauung [way of life]. Mussolini was the leading figure of Italian revolutionary socialism and never relinquished his allegiance to it. Hitler’s party defined itself as championing ‘national socialism.'”
FULL ARTICLE
Follow @redideologies
archive.is
Nazism, Fascism, and Socialism Are All Rooted in Communism
archived 26 May 2020 23:39:47 UTC
👍7😁7
> Mussolini explained his concept in his 1928 autobiography, in which he states, “The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity.”
By Mussolini's logic, you have no right to rebel against any government policy, no matter what it is, because to do so is being "selfish".
So vax mandates, mask mandates, state subsidized gender confusion is all above board if the State is the one imposing it on the citizenry.
What a retard.
@redideologies
By Mussolini's logic, you have no right to rebel against any government policy, no matter what it is, because to do so is being "selfish".
So vax mandates, mask mandates, state subsidized gender confusion is all above board if the State is the one imposing it on the citizenry.
What a retard.
@redideologies
🫡8👍5😁1
Forwarded from Exposing Hitler as Zionist
Think Hitler was Pro-Pagan? Think again; he was Pro-Islam. He was basically a typical politician and said whatever the crowd wanted to hear.
@exposinghitler
@exposinghitler
😁10💯2
So Mussolini previously referred to himself as an "authoritarian communist" who was "so familiar with Marxist literature" he would even quote from obscure Marxist texts. He supported getting Italy into World War I thinking it could lead to the downfall of German and Austro-Hungarian monarchies because they "repressed socialism".
Pure commie.
Follow @redideologies
Pure commie.
Follow @redideologies
😁6👍5👌3💯3
Mussolini went full-commie by the end of World War II declaring he would socialize what was left of the economy (already 75% socialized), including all companies over 100 employees.
> "On February 12, 1944, Mussolini's cabinet approved a bill of "socialization" that spoke about the "Mussolinian conception on subjects such as; much higher social justice, a more equitable distribution of wealth and the participation of labor in the state life." Mussolini claimed that Italian capitalists had betrayed him after they had gained immensely from fascism, and that he now regretted his alliance with them and rediscovered his old socialist influences. He claimed that he had intended to carry out a large-scale nationalization of property in 1939–1940 but that the outbreak of war had forced him to postpone it, and promised that in the future, all industrial firms with over 100 employees would be nationalized. Mussolini even reached out to ex-communist Nicola Bombacci, a former student of Vladimir Lenin, to help him in spreading the image that Fascism was a progressive movement."
Source
Follow @redideologies
> "On February 12, 1944, Mussolini's cabinet approved a bill of "socialization" that spoke about the "Mussolinian conception on subjects such as; much higher social justice, a more equitable distribution of wealth and the participation of labor in the state life." Mussolini claimed that Italian capitalists had betrayed him after they had gained immensely from fascism, and that he now regretted his alliance with them and rediscovered his old socialist influences. He claimed that he had intended to carry out a large-scale nationalization of property in 1939–1940 but that the outbreak of war had forced him to postpone it, and promised that in the future, all industrial firms with over 100 employees would be nationalized. Mussolini even reached out to ex-communist Nicola Bombacci, a former student of Vladimir Lenin, to help him in spreading the image that Fascism was a progressive movement."
Source
Follow @redideologies
😁10❤3👌2
Forwarded from ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ
"The scheme by which workers, under the influence of a massive advertising campaign, parted with a portion of their wages each week to put towards buying a ‘Strength Through Joy car’ turned out to be no more than a means of getting them to put in more overtime so that they could contribute to the financing of rearmament. By the end of 1939, 270,000 people had lent 110 million Reichsmarks to the state in this way. In the end, no fewer than 340,000 people invested their money in the scheme. Not one of them ever got a Volkswagen in return. The factory was converted to war production in September 1939."
~ Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich in Power
~ Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich in Power
🔥6😁4👍1
Forwarded from Martinez Politics
Fascism is a retarded ideology that says "states have rights over individuals" always and that disagreeing with the government on anything makes you a nasty "liberal individualist". The fascist definition of "liberal" is so vague that all it means when they use it is "a civilian who disagrees with the government" on any point.
That's what it is in a nutshell, affirming the "power of the Supreme State" against the will of "individuals" that make up the citizenry, but the logic falls apart quickly.
Citizens are both individuals and they are groups. A family is a group. Citizens can form larger groups that share common beliefs (political, religious, ethnic, associations, charities, fitness clubs, etc.) and can coalesce around their shared ideas to demand things from governments. Governments are also just another group of individuals and governments are not monolithic groups either since there are competing parties, factions, etc. who fight each other. The government and the citizens are just groups of individuals and there are groups within groups among both.
If "states have rights over individuals" always, then you have no business opposing the covid BS (vax mandates, mask mandates, stay at home orders), you have no business opposing hate speech laws, you have no business opposing replacement migration, public schools teaching CRT and gender queer theory to kids, diversity quotas, inflationary money printing, foreign aid, foreign wars, or any other government policy.... because "states have rights over individuals" and opposing the State is invalid, if fascist theory is correct.
These dorks will respond to this by saying "but but when we say states have rights over individuals, we only mean that when the state calls itself Fascist and is the Perfect State". But why? Why would that logic only apply to that state and not other states? Seems like dishonest cherry-picking here. That state doesn't exist, but even in that case, any state could just label itself "fascist" and go on doing whatever it wants, including leftist policies while using that label. So if a "fascist" state imposed all the same covid BS (like China did, which these people claim is a modern fascist state), you would go along with it because you're an obedient drone with no mind of his own?
It's the perfect ideology for politicians because it demands complete obedience and servitude to the State, no questions asked. Politicians know that they'll never get full support for their policies, but if they convince everyone that "States have rights over individuals" then they can get you to support anything.
That's what it is in a nutshell, affirming the "power of the Supreme State" against the will of "individuals" that make up the citizenry, but the logic falls apart quickly.
Citizens are both individuals and they are groups. A family is a group. Citizens can form larger groups that share common beliefs (political, religious, ethnic, associations, charities, fitness clubs, etc.) and can coalesce around their shared ideas to demand things from governments. Governments are also just another group of individuals and governments are not monolithic groups either since there are competing parties, factions, etc. who fight each other. The government and the citizens are just groups of individuals and there are groups within groups among both.
If "states have rights over individuals" always, then you have no business opposing the covid BS (vax mandates, mask mandates, stay at home orders), you have no business opposing hate speech laws, you have no business opposing replacement migration, public schools teaching CRT and gender queer theory to kids, diversity quotas, inflationary money printing, foreign aid, foreign wars, or any other government policy.... because "states have rights over individuals" and opposing the State is invalid, if fascist theory is correct.
These dorks will respond to this by saying "but but when we say states have rights over individuals, we only mean that when the state calls itself Fascist and is the Perfect State". But why? Why would that logic only apply to that state and not other states? Seems like dishonest cherry-picking here. That state doesn't exist, but even in that case, any state could just label itself "fascist" and go on doing whatever it wants, including leftist policies while using that label. So if a "fascist" state imposed all the same covid BS (like China did, which these people claim is a modern fascist state), you would go along with it because you're an obedient drone with no mind of his own?
It's the perfect ideology for politicians because it demands complete obedience and servitude to the State, no questions asked. Politicians know that they'll never get full support for their policies, but if they convince everyone that "States have rights over individuals" then they can get you to support anything.
👌7
"Hard for people to grasp that Marxism-Leninism, Fascism and National Socialism are closer to one another than most people want to accept."
Other commenter agrees: "Both want to create a workers state".
And this coming from people who support those ideologies.
Fascism is Communism.
Follow @redideologies
Other commenter agrees: "Both want to create a workers state".
And this coming from people who support those ideologies.
Fascism is Communism.
Follow @redideologies
💯12😁7