Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Alphabet_Mafia_69 t1_j5mlhk7 wrote

Another reason to like socialists.

106

SaltyNewEnglandCop t1_j5no54d wrote

Fascism and socialism go hand in hand so I’m a bit confused as to how fascist can be opposed by socialist and vice versa.

−111

pombe t1_j5o3tc6 wrote

When Niemöller wrote "First they came for the Socialists" I guess he was talking about car pooling?

55

Low-Medical t1_j5o6wqx wrote

He's probably one of those "the Nazis were actually leftists!" intellectual giants.

30

whatsaphoto t1_j5oux3s wrote

"First they came for the socialists, and I said nothing...

Then they went to McDonalds for a light snack because they were feeling peckish, and I said yes I'll have a number 4 please, thank you very much."

9

SaltyNewEnglandCop t1_j5p7fil wrote

Well one socialist did create the autobahn. And was really people into the “people”, even made a car company called the people’s car.

Sounds pretty socialist to me.

−16

NotoriousKreid t1_j5pbruy wrote

Lol. Imagine thinking that Nazis were socialist. I guess it’s true about the low IQ requirement for cops

18

mightynifty_2 t1_j5odgeq wrote

They don't though. Fascism and nationalism go hand in hand. Fascism and dictatorships go hand in hand. In a system with checks and balances (when they work properly), fascism shouldn't be a concern.

A fascist is someone who wants the government or dictator to have absolute power over the people. A socialist is someone who believe that tax money should be distributed from the bottom up. Fascism is equally likely to arise in a socialist or capitalist society.

35

SaltyNewEnglandCop t1_j5p6crw wrote

I don’t know. Pretty sure the former German party, the Nationalist Socialist Party were pretty fascist.

−18

mightynifty_2 t1_j5p75jk wrote

Ah yes, and the "Democratic Republic of Korea" is a haven of democracy. Even so, the fascism comes from the 'Nationalist' part of their name, not the socialist part.

21

SaltyNewEnglandCop t1_j5p79bq wrote

Even so, both part of the same name. Like jumbo shrimp.

−9

mightynifty_2 t1_j5p9vhg wrote

The Nazis were also white. Does that mean all white people are Nazis? Of course not. You're trying to draw conclusions based on repeating stupid shit you've heard online without context. You're a talking point personified.

13

SaltyNewEnglandCop t1_j5pdwtu wrote

A lot of liberals have mental health issues, does that mean all liberals have severe mental health issues? Probably.

But yeah, the nazis were socialist. As were the Italians. The North Koreans are something completely different.

But you rarely ever hear of fascists without socialist being tossed in, don’t ya?

−2

trabblepvd t1_j5paxkh wrote

Mussolini's doctrine on fascism defines fascism as his implementation of socialism.

−7

NotoriousKreid t1_j5peofl wrote

It literally says “therefore fascism is opposed to socialism” soooooo no lol

6

trabblepvd t1_j5pgq1c wrote

You have to read the whole section and not pick one line from it. He rejects groups that divide individuals into class orgs and function independent of the state, but if those groups and their interests under state control, its all good.

>No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.

0

NotoriousKreid t1_j5pi55n wrote

"you have to read the whole section" .....goes on to copy and past the whole section that reaffirms my original statement. lol.

Nothing in that statement says its his implementation of socialism. The whole document is him distancing fascism from socialism and aligning itself as the polar opposite. Fascism is the response to socialism, they weren't socialists lol

0

trabblepvd t1_j5pj9y4 wrote

he rejected groups outside of state control. when I said you have to read the whole section, understanding it was implied in that statement, I didn't think I had to explicitly state 'you have to read and understand the whole section'

The whole document defines a socialist system where the state controls all resources, including labor, and the state is put above the individual.

Edit 'cause comments are locked:

He doesn't reject socialism, he rejects groups functioning outside of state, or not in sync with the state

Read this -> Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown,

As this-> > Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to WHICH unity within the State is unknown and WHICH sees in history nothing but the class struggle >The State amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality

Then he says it a little more clearly for trade groups > Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon.

The state is an equalizer, there are no classes under fascism, so if a group is divisive on a class basis, its not in line with fascism. if its not in sync with the state, its rejected.

But these groups are all good if they fall under the state. Their concerns are real and they will have an equal seat at the table under fascism.

>giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State

Theres a lot there, you getting it? He rejects class warfare and groups or philosophies that push it, because you know, fascism has eliminated the class divisions. When in sync with the state tho, those groups and philosophies get a seat at the table. There is no rejection of socialism, but a rejection of the basis of it as a divisive class struggle. He sets up a socialist state, where the state has control of all resources(including labor), but its totally not socialism because there is no class struggle or conflict under fascism as that problem was solved.

0

NotoriousKreid t1_j5pk9jm wrote

so to clarify, fascism rejected groups outside of state control, and all of the practices of socialism. And the doctrine of fascism says that is opposed to socialism. But fascism is socialism..... reading comprehension is real hard huh?

0

trabblepvd t1_j5pan6e wrote

Fascism=socialism, and communism go hand in hand with stateism. Nationalism when used talking about socialism or communism isn't the nationalism most understand as pride in their country, but its akin to stateism, meaning putting the nation or the state above the individual, which is essential for socialism/fascism or communism to control resources.

−25

mightynifty_2 t1_j5pc0wi wrote

If this were true, then you couldn't have fascism under capitalism, which you can. Just quit talking about shit with talking points from Brietbart.

16

trabblepvd t1_j5pcpyh wrote

Go back and re-read the Doctrine on fascism, looks like you missed its key points.

−15

mightynifty_2 t1_j5pldw7 wrote

The one written by a mad dictator who wanted parts retracted because he changed his mind? That's your source?

9

RandomChurn t1_j5o8b1s wrote

>Fascism and socialism go hand in hand

🙄

As Marge Gunderson would say, "I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou."

17

SaltyNewEnglandCop t1_j5p6eun wrote

I mean, there was those Nationalist Socialist Party

0

Lumeyus t1_j5pho7x wrote

You’re as stupid as your name implies

Curious how the mods on this sub always lock posts where leftists are seen in a positive light.

8

HeadyBeersBrah t1_j5oovvx wrote

LOL -- anyone else surprised the goose stepping piggy doesn't know what fascism is?

8