2 nazis trying to rewrite history
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
352 points (95.4% liked)
Not The Onion
12676 readers
1765 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
Fuck, this is so scary
That musk tweet claiming he is a socialist is just nauseating
The current reality timeline I am living in is a mf comedyshow.
It's because the idiots ran up on stage, built a wall out of their own shit, and started screaming into the mic. And they get away with it because they own the venue and locked the doors, all the while thinking people love them for it.
It's funny how shitler comes up in their convos...
I accept Xitler as an alternative spelling to keep up with the trends.
Lol
So this is what it feels like to live in bizarro world.
Is that German Leader an artist or USSA citizen?
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).
Yes, and everyone else agrees
That they're both morons
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.
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."
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.
“Stateless” doesn’t mean “governmentless,”
According to the original socialist "state == hierarchical rule" definition, yes it does. Even Marx, even the Soviets, admitted that and did not confuse "real existing socialism" (sic) with actual communism.
the dissolution of the Socialist system nearly a century after its founding does not mean they never had a Socialist economy.
Congratulations, you understand sarcasm.
Further, such a system did not “exploit the masses,”
Irrespective of the veracity of that statement: Not something I said. Not the point.
On Authority doesn’t strawman anything.
Maybe you would be able to spot the strawman if you tried less hard to misunderstand my previous post. Something about resilience against something? Necessary preconditions?
You're actually quite far off about Marx and the State, and are presupposing the Anarchist as the "legitimate" and "original." For Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other non-Anarchist Socialists, the state was the tool of class oppression. The goal of Marx and Engels in their analysis was to show that the centralization of Capitalism leads to public ownership and planning, not decentralization. From Engels:
But to recognize the French Revolution as a class struggle and not simply as one between nobility and bourgeoisie, but between nobility, bourgeoisie, and those without any property, was, in the year 1802, a discovery of the greatest genius. In 1816 he declared that politics was the science of production and foretold the complete absorption of politics by economics.[23] Although the knowledge that economic conditions are the basis of political institutions appears here only in embryo, what is already very plainly expressed is the transition from political rule over men to the administration of things and the guidance of the processes of production -- that is to say, the "abolition of the state", about which there has recently been so much noise.
Further along:
The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.
Anarchists seek abolition of hierarchy, Marxists seek abolition of classes. You can be an Anarchist, but don't distort Marx to suit your ends.
Anarchists seek abolition of hierarchy, Marxists seek abolition of classes.
If there is hierarchy, there are classes.
Curiously, btw, you overlooked this:
Something about resilience against something? Necessary preconditions?
No. Classes are social relations to the Means of Production. A manager is not a separate class from the worker, but the business owner is. The Anarchists take issue with hierarchy, not classes, yet a commune in the global context consists of Petite Bourgeoisie, all interested in the success of their commune but not necessarily others. The Marxists take issue with classes, seeking full collective ownership for all of humanity. It's an important distinction that guides philosophy, the Anarchist crituque of Marxism is the preservation of hierarchy while the Marxist critique of Anarchism is the preservation of class distinctions.
I ignored the second part because I didn't think it important to address. I don't care to debate Anarchism with you, just correct your misconceptions with Marxism so if anyone else reads this they won't just go along with what you say.
No. Classes are social relations to the Means of Production.
If there is hierarchy then there are different social relations to the means of production: A worker does not have the same relation to the means of productions as the central committee, and under hierarchy that difference in relation goes beyond the (unavoidable) division of labour (roughly and bluntly, management/organisation vs. pounding metal), but involves difference in power: To counter the worker's organic power over the means of production (being the ones actually operating stuff) the central committee has to furnish means of rule, such as gulags, propaganda, catch 22s, you name it.
The solution to this conundrum is to see that the power of the workers does not have to be countered. That, if the central committee is willing to actually meet the workers at eye level, to listen, this will be reciprocated by the workers valuing the committee’s input, and broader overview of the situation, and also acknowledge necessities imposed by larger factors, based on trust and common interest. Thus the difference in relation to the means of production loses its power dynamic and management vs. pounding metal is no more of a difference than using a machine vs. repairing it. All are workers. Thus, therefore: To abolish class, you have to abolish hierarchy.
And IDGAF about "misconceptions of Marxism", I'm not a history nerd. Marx was wrong a lot, that's the larger issue, the one actually materially relevant.
Not necessarily. Managers are not separate classes from workers, management is a form of labor. Same with econic planning. What you describe as "managers meeting workers at eye level" is what historically has happened in Socialist countries, and is what is advocated by Marxists. You should look into the various democratic structures in AES countries, I can make recommendations for sources if you wish.
Either way, I understand that you don't care to represent Marx or AES accurately, that's why I wanted to correct the clear misconceptions you had. Again, you can be an Anarchist and think Marx wrong while not understanding Marx, that's your right and your ability, I just want to make sure that Marx is being measured by what he actually wrote on his own terms and not as though he were an Anarchist.
is what historically has happened in Socialist countries
Specifically in Russia, yes, that indeed happened. Until the Bolsheviks putsched and took power away from the councils. There was a January revolution and an October counter-revolution.
I just want to make sure that Marx is being measured
Originally you wanted to say "Socdems are not socialists", which is how this whole thing started. The point here is that yes, that might be the case, but if you claim that ineffectiveness is something that disqualifies you (because the purpose of a system is what it does) then MLs are even worse off because they're right-out counter-revolutionary. And insofar as modern Marxists don't fall into that category, such as council communists, they're essentially syndicalists. Slightly different theory, same praxis, and definitely "revisionist" in the eyes of MLs.
The strawman in On Authority is Engels completely misrepresenting Anarchist critique of power, in a very comical way: "Oh, you anarchists are complaining that looms force you to pull levers". Ergonomics of levers aside, the critique always was "we don't want you to tell us when to pull the lever and when to take a break". You can make suggestions, you can explain your reasoning, if you do that you have done your job as a manager and things are going to happen like that because they make sense to us, if not, if you demand obedience, then you're a boot in our face and need to fucking go.
load more comments
(18 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)