Wasn't one of the first groups that Hitler went after when he gained power were the communists? I'm pretty sure I remember that communists were sent to concentration camps along with Jews, disabled people, and LGBT.
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
122 points (95.5% liked)
Not The Onion
12664 readers
1909 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Just because the Nazis called themselves the "national socialist party" did NOT make them communists. They called themselves that to attract naive revolutionary idiots who thought the government would help them. But they were always fascists.
North Korea calls itself "The People's Democratic Republic of North Korea" even though is not the People's, not Democratic, and definitely not a Republic. It's a marketing gimmick by the government to pretend that it's something it isn't.
2 nazis trying to rewrite history
Fuck, this is so scary
It's funny how shitler comes up in their convos...
Fuck, someone should have let Hitler know before Leningrad. Could have saved a lot of time, energy, cost, lives, etc.
He and Stalin could have been frens.
The current reality timeline I am living in is a mf comedyshow.
Everyone with half a brain agrees Musk and the far right German leader are wankers.
Hey! Whoa! That's NOT true!
I lost my whole mind, and I STILL agree! It's so obvious, even an idiot like me can see.
So this is what it feels like to live in bizarro world.
Yes, and everyone else agrees
That they're both morons
So that whole schism between Russia and Germany had nothing to do with ideology. Now I understand. /s
Nothing to do at all! Since Hitler was a communist and the USSR were nazis. Which are bad, of course. Unlike my good AfD friend who is not a nazi of course, but is a nazi, in a good way I mean. But not a communist nazi. A nazi-nazi, but again we can't say that but it's good.
Anyway words have no meaning whatsoever.
A nazi-nazi, but not a Soviet nazi-nazi?
Yes you get it, my good Sturmstaffel friend (as a joke of course, not the evil kind, the funny kind that killed Jews, but for the lols).
Eh, three arrows isn't really a good source either. Being against Socialism/Communism (one of the arrows in the 3) is a big red flag for attacking claims of Nazis being Socialist. A much better source would be Blackshirts and Reds by Dr. Michael Parenti.
The arrow is not against socialism. The arrows represent monarchism, fascism and communism.
You have an ".ml" next to your name, so I'm going to assume that you know the difference between socialism and communism.
Historically, the three arrows symbol has been used by groups attacking Socialists, hence why I added the slash. Overwhelmingly, those who use the three arrows, including those who originated the symbol, are Social Democrats. Social Democracy is not Socialism, it's Capitalism with larger and more robust safety nets, and as such said Social Democrats have historically had just as much problem with Socialists as they have with Communists.
This is without getting into my own personal analysis of Socialism, that being that any society dedicated to maintaining Socialism will almost certainly eventually move towards Commnism anyways. This is just historical contextualization. Three Arrows the YouTuber identifies as a Social Democrat as well, so this is again reinforcing the idea that I don't think someone who isn't a Socialist and doesn't support Socialism should be seen as an authority on analyzing whether or not a system is Socialist.
That's why I recommended a historian with a doctorate who wrote a famous book on precisely this subject. It's a quick, snappy read too.
The SPD, to this day, still works towards democratic socialism. It's been in the programme since the start. They have a lot of "belly-aches" along the way and they're often called traitors but, well, if they weren't leftists they could hardly betray the left, could they.
Social Democracy is not Socialism, it’s Capitalism with larger and more robust safety nets
And Marxism-Leninism is state capitalism, not socialism. Maoism doesn't even have public healthcare, Bismark was more of a socialist than that.
"Democratic Socialism" is a bit of a misnomer. It usually means one of two things, achieving Socialism via liberal democracy (impossible, as was proven by Rosa Luxemburg) or creating a Socialism via revolution but recreating liberal democracy, and not Socialist democracy, which is contradictory. In reality, therefore, it remains a Social Democratic ideology that upholds Capitalism but wishes to expand safety nets, and therefore isn't Socialist at all.
As for State Capitalism, that refers to a specific period of time, namely the NEP. The economy of states guided by Marxism historically are guided by public ownership and central planning, which was core to Marx's conception of an eventual Communist society. "State Capitalism" refers to a specific formation where a Socialist State employs a market-focused economy and heavily guides it in a manner to achieve quick development, as Marxists believe public ownership and central planning is incredibly difficult to build "from the ground up" but that Markets readily create the infrastructure for public ownership and central planning through competition.
(impossible, as was proven by Rosa Luxemburg)
Err what.
“State Capitalism” refers to a specific formation where a Socialist State employs a market-focused economy
Lenin's economy. Market-focussed. I'm just going to leave that standing there, uncommented.
See I don't even disagree, in principle, with the statement "The SPD does not know how to bring about socialism". Only Anarchists do. Thing is: The SPD's approach is still way more on the money than anything tankies have ever come up with.
With respect to Rosa Luxemburg, I am referring to Reform or Revolution, an excellent work.
For the uncommented bit, I am not sure the point you are making here. The goal of Socialism is not a fully publicly owned and planned economy, those are the means once industry has developed enough to make such a system practical. Russia was extremely underdeveloped when the NEP was employed. I think reading Marx might help you understand a bit more:
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
In a country where such a process hadn't yet become more developed, the Marxist answer is to create the foundations for public ownership and planning through a highly controlled and temporary market-focused economy, which was done away with.
The bit on the SPD is a bit silly, you claim that they are on the money yet have never created any form of Socialism, while Marxists have. You can be an Anarchist if you think that's best, that's your choice, but I recommend reading Marx if you want to better critique Marxists.
while Marxists have
Sure bud. Tell yourself that. While the USSR ultimately reached the stateless part, no actual groundwork for socialism was laid so banditry took over once the Bolshevik power structure collapsed. What followed was a free-for-all until the KGB got its shit together and... instituted imperialist nationalist capitalism. That organisation really hasn't changed since the times of the Tsar.
The Bolsheviks did not build resilience against any of that because building a society which is resilient against rule of minority groups seeking to exploit the masses would have undermined their own rule. The whole thing is inherently self-contradicting, Anarchists have been telling that Marx himself long before either of us were born so stop telling us to "read Marx". Rather, you read "On Authority" and identify the strawmen.
"Stateless" doesn't mean "governmentless," though the dissolution of the Socialist system nearly a century after its founding does not mean they never had a Socialist economy. Further, such a system did not "exploit the masses," it achieved massive working class victories such as free healthcare and education, doubled life expectancy, over tripling literacy rates to be higher than the Western world, and democratized the economy.
On Authority doesn't strawman anything.
Liberals do not want to critique Marxism, they wish to endlessly dismiss it
Yep, eventually twisting into knots to defend movements that haven't accomplished anything as "truly practical."