Is the NS really socialist?

[Freixel]

NS was corporativist anyway, they did not remove the rich German magnates from power

I think there was an internal dispute in the early NS about this, about whether to carry out class struggle or not (Strasser). Hitler preferred to ally himself with the German industrial capitalists rather than attack them.

Or the title "socialist" was a propaganda strategy to divert the working masses from Marxism and attract them towards Hitler.

I believe that if the left-revolutionary wing of Nazism had triumphed it would have been truly socialist.

"Long live the ethnonational community, out with the industrial capitalists"

In fact, I think it would have had greater acceptance among the working class and its disparity with Marxism would not have been so pronounced.

Hitler himself said that a Marxist could always become a good National Socialist.

Of course there are also revolutionary leftist aspects in Hitler's NS, such as wanting to get out of the world market and not depend on the gold standard, pointing out Jewish international finance as the enemy of humanity and trying to improve at least a little the conditions of the working class.

 

[SoycuckGodOfReddit]

NS is socialist insofar as it believes in subjugating the economy to the nation and the race, instead of promoting capitalist economic atomization

however, like marxist communism, it often doesn't get the opportunity to prioritize this economic agenda in practice because other issues and conflicts - such as international conflicts and the jq - must be dealt with first and prove more important.

nonetheless, NS was more successful insofar as serious strides were made on the most important questions, including the JQ, within NS territories. the JQ is ultimately more important than the question of economic system, so it is reasonable that NS tried to prosecute this with the means available to them in a capitalist system, rather than trying to construct an arbitrary economic utopia which would be undermined by the presence of jews

 

[Freixel]

NS is socialist insofar as it believes in subjugating the economy to the nation and the race, instead of promoting capitalist economic atomization

however, like marxist communism, it often doesn't get the opportunity to prioritize this economic agenda in practice because other issues and conflicts - such as international conflicts and the jq - must be dealt with first and prove more important.

nonetheless, NS was more successful insofar as serious strides were made on the most important questions, including the JQ, within NS territories. the JQ is ultimately more important than the question of economic system, so it is reasonable that NS tried to prosecute this with the means available to them in a capitalist system, rather than trying to construct an arbitrary economic utopia which would be undermined by the presence of jews

We agree, but if it had triumphed we would have had to wait to see what happened to the German economic elites, if they were left existing after Hitler's death (due to probable illnesses of old age) then the system would be left halfway to a true socialist revolution.

 

[Castaway]

Tell me, what's wrong with allying with the industrialists and subordinating them to the state? It's more efficient than nationalizing everything and destroying the country's industry.

 

[Regenerator]

Was more slower paced socialism than soviet socialism but still socialistic to be honest. A valid criticism of National Socialism is the economics.

 

[Freixel]

Tell me, what's wrong with allying with the industrialists and subordinating them to the state? It's more efficient than nationalizing everything and destroying the country's industry.

I don't think it's worse, I'm just saying it's not socialist, it's corporativist.

A problem that could arise is this: If you leave the private economic powers alive, at the slightest opportunity they have to remove you from power they will install capitalism again and the rights of the workers will deteriorate, and then start the cycle again.

The German industrialists supported Hitler out of fear of a Socialist Revolution as happened in Russia, in another context they would have fought Hitler with blood and fire, although he did not want to destroy them.

The Ideal of the NS was to unite all classes under the flag of ethnonationalism

But it would be very naive to think the big capitalists would put aside their privileges to serve the state in the name of race; idealism does not usually triumph over class interests.

 

[Castaway]

I don't think it's worse, I'm just saying it's not socialist, it's corporativist.

A problem that could arise is this: If you leave the private economic powers alive, at the slightest opportunity they have to remove you from power they will install capitalism again and the rights of the workers will deteriorate, and start the cycle again.

The German industrialists supported Hitler out of fear of a Socialist Revolution as happened in Russia, in another context they would have fought Hitler with blood and fire, although he did not want to destroy them.

If you think that industrialists had any influence whatsoever on the national policy of the Third Reich, then you are mistaken. Fritz Thyssen, for example, was forced into exile and his company was nationalized after he began to criticize the regime. For German corporations it was either corporate with the state or be nationalized.

Fritz Thyssen - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Freixel]

If you think that industrialists had any influence whatsoever on the national policy of the Third Reich, then you are mistaken. Fritz Thyssen, for example, was forced into exile and his company was nationalized after he began to criticize the regime. For German corporations it was either corporate with the state or be nationalized.

Fritz Thyssen - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Is there much difference between that and the industry being simply directed and owned by the state?

In any case, I still think the same thing: you leave the economic elites alive as a CLASS (even if they have no state power during your regime), then they unite and overthrow you (or at least causes problems) when you have defeated the external enemy

It is a latent danger at all times, no matter how much power the political regime has.

They are going to unite and try to gain political ground little by little, no matter what strategy they use or how long it takes, they will always try to recover their class privileges at all costs.

The dog died, the rabies died

 

[AsiaCel]

It is.

But you have to consider the fact of pragistism and realpolitik. Hitler would have never succeeded if he went "kill the rich" and redistrubted their stuff. In fact, even Vladimir Lenin had to privatize some of his economy in a policy called NEP (New Economy Policy); it doesnot make him a non-socialist.

 

[Freixel]

It is.

But you have to consider the fact of pragistism and realpolitik. Hitler would have never succeeded if he went "kill the rich" and redistrubted their stuff. In fact, even Vladimir Lenin had to privatize some of his economy in a policy called NEP (New Economy Policy); it doesnot make him a non-socialist.

I know that, I know what NEP is

But here I am talking about ideology and philosophy.
Hitler's ideal was "class union", not "class struggle"

We can discuss whether that makes it more or less socialist.
If you leave the class hierarchy alive, are you really a socialist?

Is pure socialism equivalent to total socioeconomic equality and destruction of the class hierarchy?

It does not matter that workers and factory owners are both subordinate to the state, some still have economic power (although not political) and others do not.

In the comments above i explain why I think this is a mistake.

Lenin had an ideal in mind: Destruction of the class hierarchy, the means he had to use to achieve that end do not matter, the NEP is something only temporary, a "passing capitalism."

But Hitler's ideal was never the destruction of the class hierarchy.
So in the end the burgoise class that owned the means of production would have survived.

 

[Castaway]

Is there much difference between that and the industry being simply directed and owned by the state?

Yes, because private industies are generally much more efficient and innovative than state-owned industries. Of course, they should be regulated and monitored by the state, but I see nothing wrong with using profit-making as an incentive for production.

In any case, I still think the same thing: you leave the economic elites alive as a CLASS (even if they have no state power during your regime), then they unite and overthrow you (or at least causes problems) when you have defeated the external enemy

It is a latent danger at all times, no matter how much power the political regime has.

They are going to unite and try to gain political ground little by little, no matter what strategy they use or how long it takes, they will always try to recover their class privileges at all costs.

The dog died, the rabies died

For the most part, German industrialists had no reason to work against the state, as they benefited more from the corporatist system than from free market capitalism. National Socialism combined the best of capitalism with the best of socialism to create a system in which everyone, from the industrialist to the worker, benefited. National Socialism was primarily a racial ideology, not an economic ideology that sought to unite all Germans under one community rather than divide them through class conflict, as the Jews sought to do with their communist system. The German bourgeoisie is just as German as the German proletariat, and just as the proletariat had its role in the racial community, the bourgeoisie also had its role.

 

[Freixel]

Yes, because private industies are generally much more efficient and innovative than state-owned industries. Of course, they should be regulated and monitored by the state, but I see nothing wrong with using profit-making as an incentive for production.


For the most part, German industrialists had no reason to work against the state, as they benefited more from the corporatist system than from free market capitalism. National Socialism combined the best of capitalism with the best of socialism to create a system in which everyone, from the industrialist to the worker, benefited. National Socialism was primarily a racial ideology, not an economic ideology that sought to unite all Germans under one community rather than divide them through class conflict, as the Jews sought to do with their communist system. The German bourgeoisie is just as German as the German proletariat, and just as the proletariat had its role in the racial community, the bourgeoisie also had its role.

That works in theory, in practice the bourgeois is bourgeois and despises the worker, even if both are of the same race and nation.

I don't know, I don't think that the majority of high class people let themselves be trapped by the idea of being "Germans first before being bourgeois"

I still have to investigate the efficiency of the Private Sector vs. the State, it is a discourse installed in this society that I don't know if it is real, because I already doubt everything.
The USSR managed to be a Superpower.

I already know that it is a primarily ethnonationalist ideology, I said it in another thread, it is the core of the NS, so nothing to add to that.

Let's see, let me think... I am a German worker who works 10 hours from Monday to Saturday like a slave, while the bourgeoisie despises me (even though he pretends not to) and becomes increasingly richer and has an increasingly satisfactory life at the expense of my effort, but hey! we are all germans! I must accept my role in the community for the good of the race!

I think I stick with the class struggle and simply combine it with a non-Nordic Ethnonationalism.

I know that Hitler applied palliative socialist measures for the working class such as paid vacations, houses and benefits to mothers who had many children. But at the end of the day you have to remain a working slave and you are effectively below the bourgeoisie on the social scale, that doesn't change anything.

All fascism and the NS seem more and more like a tool of the bourgeoisie to appease the working class so that they do not carry out a revolution. (The greatest fear of the European elites at that time)

I agree with removing the Jew anyway.

 

[sexualeconomist]

Or the title "socialist" was a propaganda strategy to divert the working masses from Marxism and attract them towards Hitler.

I believe that if the left-revolutionary wing of Nazism had triumphed it would have been truly socialist.

"Long live the ethnonational community, out with the industrial capitalists"

In fact, I think it would have had greater acceptance among the working class and its disparity with Marxism would not have been so pronounced.

Hitler himself said that a Marxist could always become a good National Socialist.

Of course there are also revolutionary leftist aspects in Hitler's NS, such as wanting to get out of the world market and not depend on the gold standard, pointing out Jewish international finance as the enemy of humanity and trying to improve at least a little the conditions of the working class.

race comes before economy or consumerism
it's not international gay sex socialism of the communist Russia but that of tradition racial ethno socialisms

 

[Freixel]

race comes before economy or consumerism
it's not international gay sex socialism of the communist Russia but that of tradition racial ethno socialisms

No, race comes hand in hand with not being a working slave and having a decent life

 

[Freixel]

We can make a blackpilled comparison between the Burgoise vs Proletariat dichotomy with something that concerns us

Chad vs Incel

"We are all men, we are all going to make it, just trust in your dreams bro, Keep grinding, keep hustling"

This is Meeks (Burgoise) telling an Incel (Proletariat) that he can have what he has if he works hard enough.

Just because we are all men (Germans) does not mean that we are equal, nor that we have access to the same things, nor that our lives are equally satisfactory, one is hell, the other is heaven.

And if the state ends up benefiting both, we are still in the same disparity, one is still on a much higher scale even if the incel (proletariat) is given sex robots with AI from the state (Houses and paid vacations)

But we can both agree on something: Fuck judeofeminism (that doesn't make him my ally)

 

[Castaway]

Let's see, let me think... I am a German worker who works 10 hours from Monday to Saturday like a slave, while the bourgeoisie despises me (even though he pretends not to) and becomes increasingly richer and has an increasingly satisfactory life at the expense of my effort, but hey! we are all germans! I must accept my role in the community for the good of the race!

I think I stick with the class struggle and simply combine it with a non-Nordic Ethnonationalism.

I know that Hitler applied palliative socialist measures for the working class such as paid vacations, houses and benefits to mothers who had many children. But at the end of the day you have to remain a working slave and you are effectively below the bourgeoisie on the social scale, that doesn't change anything.

All fascism and the NS seem more and more like a tool of the bourgeoisie to appease the working class so that they do not carry out a revolution. (The greatest fear of the European elites at that time)

I agree with removing the Jew anyway.

Yes, it has always been like this throughout history. Some people live comfortably while others suffer in comparison. Struggle is a fact of life for most people, and eliminating the bourgeoisie will not eliminate that struggle. The NS recognized this and took a pragmatic stand that maximized economic efficiency by working with the management and financial class while creating fair conditions for the working class. And why the bourgeois necessarily hate his workers? Henry Ford had a paternal attitude towards his workers and treated them well, giving them opportunities they would never have had otherwise.

That works in theory, in practice the bourgeois is bourgeois and despises the worker, even if both are of the same race and nation.

I don't know, I don't think that the majority of high class people let themselves be trapped by the idea of being "Germans first before being bourgeois"

The German industrialists were the most important supporters of German nationalism from the very beginning. Without their support, it is unlikely that Germany would ever have united.

 

[Freixel]

Yes, it has always been like this throughout history. Some people live comfortably while others suffer in comparison. Struggle is a fact of life for most people, and eliminating the bourgeoisie will not eliminate that struggle. The NS recognized this and took a pragmatic stand that maximized economic efficiency by working with the management and financial class while creating fair conditions for the working class. And why the bourgeois necessarily hate his workers? Henry Ford had a paternal attitude towards his workers and treated them well, giving them opportunities they would never have had otherwise.


The German industrialists were the most important supporters of German nationalism from the very beginning. Without their support, it is unlikely that Germany would ever have united.

Starting from the Axiom that this is true then it is an exclusive feature of the Germany of that time, in my country (and I think in the majority) the upper-class Burgoise despises and plain and simple hates the worker, the ideal of "union of classes" never could really succeed in my country, because the upper class is simply not going to accept seeing workers as equals.

My country is a place where an attempt was made to apply a Fascism adapted to our idiosyncrasy, and it was fought with blood and fire until the end by the bourgeois class sold to the international Jewish market, here we call them "Vende patrias"

Also

Struggle is a fact of life... but you can suffer for the good of your community, or for the good of a millionaire businessman's pockets.

If I have to choose who to suffer for, I choose my community.

The German worker suffered for both of them, multiplied pain, multiplied slavery

because in the end, as you said, corporatism ends up benefiting the upper class (More than the working class according to other users I talked with)

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Or the title "socialist" was a propaganda strategy to divert the working masses from Marxism and attract them towards Hitler.

I believe that if the left-revolutionary wing of Nazism had triumphed it would have been truly socialist.

"Long live the ethnonational community, out with the industrial capitalists"

In fact, I think it would have had greater acceptance among the working class and its disparity with Marxism would not have been so pronounced.

Hitler himself said that a Marxist could always become a good National Socialist.

Of course there are also revolutionary leftist aspects in Hitler's NS, such as wanting to get out of the world market and not depend on the gold standard, pointing out Jewish international finance as the enemy of humanity and trying to improve at least a little the conditions of the working class.

National Socialism was a racial and ethnonationalist socialism. Either Hitler or Himmler said that even the worst German worker was 1000 times more valuable to him than some kind of Pole or Russian.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Starting from the Axiom that this is true then it is an exclusive feature of the Germany of that time, in my country (and I think in the majority) the upper-class Burgoise despises and plain and simple hates the worker, the ideal of "union of classes" never could really succeed in my country, because the upper class is simply not going to accept seeing workers as equals.

My country is a place where an attempt was made to apply a Fascism adapted to our idiosyncrasy, and it was fought with blood and fire until the end by the bourgeois class sold to the international Jewish market, here we call them "Vende patrias"

Also

Struggle is a fact of life... but you can suffer for the good of your community, or for the good of a millionaire businessman's pockets.

If I have to choose who to suffer for, I choose my community.

The German worker suffered for both of them, multiplied pain, multiplied slavery

because in the end, as you said, corporatism ends up benefiting the upper class (More than the working class according to other users I talked with)

Heinrich Himmler:

"This is a war of ideologies and a struggle of races. On one side stands National Socialism: an ideology based on the values of our German, Nordic blood.... On the other side stands a 180 million people, a mixture of races and peoples whose names are unpronounceable, and whose physical nature is such that the only thing you can do with them is to shoot them without any pity or mercy. When you, my friends, are fighting in the East, you continue the same struggle against the same subhumanity, against the same inferior races that once fought under the name of the Huns, later - 1000 years ago in the time of Kings Henry and Otto I – under the name of the Hungarians, and later under the name of the Tatars; then They appeared again under the name of Genghis Khan and the Mongols. Today they are called Russians under the political banner of Bolshevism."

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Starting from the Axiom that this is true then it is an exclusive feature of the Germany of that time, in my country (and I think in the majority) the upper-class Burgoise despises and plain and simple hates the worker, the ideal of "union of classes" never could really succeed in my country, because the upper class is simply not going to accept seeing workers as equals.

My country is a place where an attempt was made to apply a Fascism adapted to our idiosyncrasy, and it was fought with blood and fire until the end by the bourgeois class sold to the international Jewish market, here we call them "Vende patrias"

Also

Struggle is a fact of life... but you can suffer for the good of your community, or for the good of a millionaire businessman's pockets.

If I have to choose who to suffer for, I choose my community.

The German worker suffered for both of them, multiplied pain, multiplied slavery

because in the end, as you said, corporatism ends up benefiting the upper class (More than the working class according to other users I talked with)

Secondly, National Socialism was revolutionary, and all its leaders, with the exception of Ribbentrop, were commoners. Since feudalism still existed in Germany and there was a class of noble landowners (Junkers), especially in Prussia, who owned a significant part of the land, and a huge number of Germans did not have their own land, so they emigrated to the United States in search of a better life, which is why Hitler decided to start a war so that every German would have own a large land at the expense of other peoples (Russians, Poles) That is why the NSDAP, Communist party and Social Democrat party were the largest forces in Weimar politics. These three parties took the first three seats in the last Reichstag elections. Because the German people became very impoverished under capitalism. So far, a bunch of Jewish bankers are living in luxury.

 

[Freixel]

Secondly, National Socialism was revolutionary, and all its leaders, with the exception of Ribbentrop, were commoners. Since feudalism still existed in Germany and there was a class of noble landowners (Junkers), especially in Prussia, who owned a significant part of the land, and a huge number of Germans did not have their own land, so they emigrated to the United States in search of a better life, which is why Hitler decided to start a war so that every German would have own a large land at the expense of other peoples (Russians, Poles) That is why the NSDAP, Communist party and Social Democrat party were the largest forces in Weimar politics. These three parties took the first three seats in the last Reichstag elections. Because the German people became very impoverished under capitalism. So far, a bunch of Jewish bankers are living in luxury.

Yes, the acquisition of land and the war of conquest in the east, "Lebensraum" was a crucial part of the NS, just as Hitler wrote it in his Mein Kamp

On the other hand, the fact that the core of the NS was Nordicist Ethnonationalism was already clear in the rest of the thread, where I already discussed that aspect

My real dilemma is the question of Corporatism vs. Radical Socialism.

Does corporatism end up benefiting the bourgeoisie more than the working class? If the answer is yes then I am left with the class struggle, it is a question of values too.

Like, in my vision it is difficult to consider a Socialism without class struggle, what comes closest to it is a philosophical "corporatism" where the benefit of the upper and working classes alike is sought, but it seems that in practice this ends up benefiting the upper class more than the working class.

From there comes the leftist argument that Fascism and the Ns were "tools of the bourgeoisie to deactivate the true socialist revolution"

I wrote in another thread in Spanish that the only thing that can save my nation is a radical National Socialism that destroys the oligarchy that is sold to foreign powers and always prevents the material development of the country.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Yes, the acquisition of land and the war of conquest in the east, "Lebensraum" was a crucial part of the NS, just as Hitler wrote it in his Mein Kamp

On the other hand, the fact that the core of the NS was Nordicist Ethnonationalism was already clear in the rest of the thread, where I already discussed that aspect

My real dilemma is the question of Corporatism vs. Radical Socialism.

Does corporatism end up benefiting the bourgeoisie more than the working class? If the answer is yes then I am left with the class struggle, it is a question of values too.

Like, in my vision it is difficult to consider a Socialism without class struggle, what comes closest to it is a philosophical "corporatism" where the benefit of the upper and working classes alike is sought, but it seems that in practice this ends up benefiting the upper class more than the working class.

From there comes the leftist argument that Fascism and the Ns were "tools of the bourgeoisie to deactivate the true socialist revolution"

I wrote in another thread in Spanish that the only thing that can save my nation is a radical National Socialism that destroys the oligarchy that is sold to foreign powers and always prevents the material development of the country.

National Socialism and various fascist movements: fascism in Italy, falangism in Spain, the Iron Guard in Romania and others were just a reaction to the fear of communism. None of the leaders of these movements were rich or belonged to the elite, Musolini worked as a schoolteacher in his youth and wrote articles for socialist Italian newspapers, and Hitler just lived as a homeless man and lived in various kinds of places for the homeless and made a living by drawing and selling paintings and postcards on the street, until he volunteered in The German army. Fascism is clearly not capitalist, Hitler took away the assets of the exploiting Jews and distributed them to the German people like Robin Hood.

 

[Freixel]

National Socialism was a racial and ethnonationalist socialism. Either Hitler or Himmler said that even the worst German worker was 1000 times more valuable to him than some kind of Pole or Russian.

I understand that Hitler's Germany was a unique case in which there could be true cooperation between the working class and the bourgeois class, but it is impossible to extrapolate it to other countries, the economic-political model of the NS simply would not work in my country, because the class bourgeois does not seek the best for the nation, they are anti-national, they have no country

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

I understand that Hitler's Germany was a unique case in which there could be true cooperation between the working class and the bourgeois class, but it is impossible to extrapolate it to other countries, the economic-political model of the NS simply would not work in my country, because the class bourgeois does not seek the best for the nation, they are anti-national, they have no country

Because Argentina is a country of emigrants, although the population there mainly consists of Spaniards and Italians. Germany was mono-ethnic after the First World War.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

I understand that Hitler's Germany was a unique case in which there could be true cooperation between the working class and the bourgeois class, but it is impossible to extrapolate it to other countries, the economic-political model of the NS simply would not work in my country, because the class bourgeois does not seek the best for the nation, they are anti-national, they have no country

National socialism and fascism are possible only in a mono-ethnic country where 95+% belong to the same ethical group.

 

[Freixel]

National socialism and fascism are possible only in a mono-ethnic country where 95+% belong to the same ethical group.

And where there was a previous culture around that ethnic entity, the German had all the Germanic mythology + Teutonism + the Nordic Aryanism that emerged in the 19th century behind it.

Esoteric Hitlerism got into the entire mystical world of Hyperborea and so on.

A young country like mine does not have a popular mythology that supports the union of classes.

So the NS was something quite unique and impossible to export to other non-European (even non-German) countries, so I can't do anything other than facepalm when I see a Latin American or a neo-Nazi (non-German) American identifying as a National Socialist.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

And where there was a previous culture around that ethnic entity, the German had all the Germanic mythology + Teutonism + the Nordic Aryanism that emerged in the 19th century behind it.

Esoteric Hitlerism got into the entire mystical world of Hyperborea and so on.

A young country like mine does not have a popular mythology that supports the union of classes.

So the NS was something quite unique and impossible to export to other non-European (even non-German) countries, so I can't do anything other than facepalm when I see a Latin American or a neo-Nazi (non-German) American identifying as a National Socialist.

In my country, Russia is also impossible to national socialism, it is still sick of communism. It is multinational, there are many different peoples (Finno-Ugric, Turkic, and others). Germany was a unique nation - all the conditions there were unique - the German worker was not well-off, but he was not completely poor, so he was not an active supporter of communism, because he possessed something. Germany was mono-ethnic, as the lands with the Poles were lost, as were the lands with the French in Alsace Lataringia, the lands with the Danes in northern Schleswig. Germany was 90% ethnically German and only Jews were outsiders. The Germans have always been in the middle between a free Anglo-Saxon market and full communism in the Russian style - the Germans have always had a strong social democracy, as a variant of the third force, which was against communism, and predatory capitalism.

 

[Freixel]

Because Argentina is a country of emigrants, although the population there mainly consists of Spaniards and Italians. Germany was mono-ethnic after the First World War.

also, i have Italian grandparents, my ancestors participated in both world wars

It's crazy to think, but here we "Mediterranean Europeans" (descendants of Spaniards and Italians) are different from the poorest class made up of mestizos and Amerindians.

The union of classes is unrealizable, or only achievable with ethnic exterminations, which sounds horrendous and is not what I want either.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

And where there was a previous culture around that ethnic entity, the German had all the Germanic mythology + Teutonism + the Nordic Aryanism that emerged in the 19th century behind it.

Esoteric Hitlerism got into the entire mystical world of Hyperborea and so on.

A young country like mine does not have a popular mythology that supports the union of classes.

So the NS was something quite unique and impossible to export to other non-European (even non-German) countries, so I can't do anything other than facepalm when I see a Latin American or a neo-Nazi (non-German) American identifying as a National Socialist.

Anyone who is a full-blooded German can be a National Socialist. Because Nazism professed the principle that all Germans are brothers, so the first action was the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland. The Germans lived for centuries in different kingdoms, duchies, and principalities, and only in 1871 they created a fully functioning common state due to the victory over the eternal enemy of the Germans by France. Germany had unique data in order to build national socialism, it is even called Sonderweg in German historiography.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

also, i have Italian grandparents, my ancestors participated in both world wars

It's crazy to think, but here we "Mediterranean Europeans" (descendants of Spaniards and Italians) are different from the poorest class made up of mestizos and Amerindians.

The union of classes is unrealizable, or only achievable with ethnic exterminations, which sounds horrendous and is not what I want either.

And after the First World War, millions of Germans remained in foreign countries after the collapse of the German Empire and Austria-Hungary. They began to be humiliated, hounded, hated and aggressive, especially in Czechoslovakia and Poland, which resulted in the retaliatory aggression of National Socialism.

 

[Freixel]

And after the First World War, millions of Germans remained in foreign countries after the collapse of the German Empire and Austria-Hungary. They began to be humiliated, hounded, hated and aggressive, especially in Czechoslovakia and Poland, which resulted in the retaliatory aggression of National Socialism.

So, if NS/Fascism cannot be exported to your country, and you do not agree with Marxist Socialism either because it was commanded by the Jews and caused a social and economic disaster, what do you think is the solution for your country? Or do you think there is no solution?

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

So, if NS/Fascism cannot be exported to your country, and you do not agree with Marxist Socialism either because it was commanded by the Jews and caused a social and economic disaster, what do you think is the solution for your country? Or do you think there is no solution?

I want a strong social democracy and a welfare state. If I can't get national Socialism, then at least give me a Scandinavian-style social democracy (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland) so that I can cope with my life more easily.

 

[Freixel]

I want a strong social democracy and a welfare state. If I can't get national Socialism, then at least give me a Scandinavian-style social democracy (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland) so that I can cope with my life more easily.

Would you like Marxist Socialism more if it were combined with Nationalism and were not commanded by Jews?

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Would you like Marxist Socialism more if it were combined with Nationalism and were not commanded by Jews?

I would like Social Democrats who would be equally hostile to communism and cultural Marxism, and hostile to neoliberals and libertarians, and if they were not puppets of rich Jews. Compared to life in Russia, a Norwegian or Swedish prison is some kind of health resort.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Would you like Marxist Socialism more if it were combined with Nationalism and were not commanded by Jews?

In fact, this is Argentine peronism, which is both against communism and against cruel capitalism in the form of neoliberalism/libertarianism.

 

[Freixel]

I would like Social Democrats who would be equally hostile to communism and cultural Marxism, and hostile to neoliberals and libertarians, and if they were not puppets of rich Jews. Compared to life in Russia, a Norwegian or Swedish prison is some kind of health resort.

How about a non-degraded Nationalist Socialism (without feminism, LGBT, race-mixing, etc.) and non-Jewish?

(I'm not talking about German National Socialism)

In any case we will never agree because you seek peace and well-being and I seek combat jfl.

 

[Freixel]

In fact, this is Argentine peronism, which is both against communism and against cruel capitalism in the form of neoliberalism/libertarianism.

Nah, it doesn't have the class struggle

The extreme-left wing of Peronism is the closest to the Nationalist Socialism that I speak of (my ideal ideology), but pure Peronism seeks the union of classes in the fascist style, and it is also Catholic. And Evita Peron was a feminist so jfl