5 ms·

A specific, racist form of fascism can't really be compared to an economic ideology.

matheusmoreira 1y ago
It absolutely can. Nazis, like socialists, centralized control of the economy in the state. It's just that they did it in order to further the goals of the so called Aryan nation as a whole. That's why it's called national socialism.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  "Naziism had economic principles therefore it is a peer of any general economic system." Nah. Capitalism and communism don't have all those racist tenets. Nor the expansionism.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    Principles have nothing to do with it. The key feature is totalitarian government control over the economy and the means of production. Nazi Germany certainly had it.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      Does communism require totalitarianism?
      - nec4b 1y ago
        Of course, how else can you achieve classless society. Do you expect people to freely give everything they have to the state, so it can redistribute their wealth around? Don't you know the concept of a class enemy and why so much of mass murdering was going on in communist countries?
        cosmicgadget 1y ago
        Catholic clergy do this.
        nec4b 1y ago
        Not true, Catholic priests still have private property. But sure there are other religions that have this. It's voluntary and the percentage of people doing this is tiny.
        cosmicgadget 1y ago
        So people have done this?
        schoen 1y ago
        Generally monastics rather than all clergy.
        nec4b 1y ago
        Yes, it has happen that some people have given away all their property and secluded themselves. I'm afraid to ask what is the point of your question. You surely don't think everyone will give up their wealth to the avant-garde and submit to them voluntarily. You do know how many millions had to die because of such ideas?
        1718627440 1y ago
        They don't give their property to the state. They sell it and donate it to the poor.
      - ivan_gammel 1y ago
        Accelerated transition to it likely does. Gradual transition probably doesn’t. In social market economies redistribution is relatively strong but it can become even stronger, to the point where it’s indistinguishable from socialism. If done carefully while rewarding entrepreneurial initiative and penalizing rent seeking, it may be even not that bad.
        matheusmoreira 1y ago
        > Gradual transition probably doesn’t. My country's current president had the exact same idea: install socialism in Brazil slowly to get people used to it so they don't launch a counter-revolution. We are currently a dictatorship of the judiciary and very much en route to become a Venezuela tier country. People work nearly half a year just to pay taxes and I'm not even accounting for inflation. The future already seems hopeless and bleak and he hasn't even fully won yet. > If done carefully while rewarding entrepreneurial initiative and penalizing rent seeking "Careful" is the understatement of the century. Many a socialist has tried, only to discover they are on the wrong end of the Laffer curve. Nobody really enjoys being utterly crushed by taxes in order to pay for the welfare of people they couldn't care less about. Taxes are tolerated because people believe they will indirectly benefit from it. Taxpayers expect taxes to be converted into useful infrastructure and services for everyone, themselves included. Socialism in practice is actually just wealth redistribution: taking from productive people to give to the poor and unproductive. Quite literally. Very often they find a way to exclude you based on your means. If you're rich or even middle class, it's not for you.
        ivan_gammel 1y ago
        Your reasoning is a fallacy of generalization of a bad example. Move to Europe and see how it might work. I pay a lot of taxes, but I do see value in paying them. > Socialism in practice is actually just wealth redistribution: taking from productive people to give to the poor and unproductive. This is wrong. Poor people can be productive. If salary inequality is high, the workers earn bare minimum doing most of the job while managers get their bonuses. Landlords may capture significant share of their income despite being absolutely unproductive. In such cases socialist policies may simply minimize inverse redistribution (exploitation).
      - matheusmoreira 1y ago
        Of course. How else could you compel vast amounts of people to do hard labor for the benefit of others?
- justsomejew 1y ago
  Nazis had racial laws. As you did, by the way, just not towards jews, remember? Something which the communists have not done. And I think it ruins your theory, as well as the communusm equals nazism equation, so beloved by your propaganda
  - throwaway3060 1y ago
    That's because the communists found a workaround; they were the first to invent the idea that they could just officially target discrimination against "Zionists" and "cosmopolitans" and just lob that accusation against any Jew, effectively legalizing state antisemitism under a different name.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      It amuses me that the libertarians are bearing this torch now.
    - justsomejew 1y ago
      Easy to claim, only that the claim is false. It was not so much about jews being jews (would you claim that there were no jews in science, engineering, hospitals?). Having quotas in top universities is what you try to do now with asian students (by this I do not mean to negate the fact that lives of many jews were ruined because of these quotas). And the true nature of "Zionism" can be seen by everyone today. The "zionists" do not even try to hide it. I mean Zionism in the "Zeev" Zhabotinskiy sense. Go read his "Wall of Iron".
      - throwaway3060 1y ago
        Funny you mention Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky's beliefs were formed from the proof playing out in front of him, that not even the Ukrainians, the second largest ethnicity in the Russian empire, could get even a semblance of fairness out of the Russian empire. If the Ukrainians failed, what chance did the even fewer Jews have? Trying to understand Jabotinsky without understanding the world he was born into is like trying to put modern beliefs onto Alexander the Great. If you were a Jewish person of ordinary means, certain engineering paths were completely barred to you in the USSR. Keep in mind, engineering and math were the most prestigious forms of STEM for the Soviets. So are you trying to claim the Doctor's Plot case, the assasination of Solomon Mikhoels, the rootless cosmopolitan campaign, Soviet "Zionology", that all those just didn't happen? People were around for those you know.

It absolutely can. Nazis, like socialists, centralized control of the economy in the state. It's just that they did it in order to further the goals of the so called Aryan nation as a whole. That's why it's called national socialism.

cosmicgadget 1y ago
"Naziism had economic principles therefore it is a peer of any general economic system." Nah. Capitalism and communism don't have all those racist tenets. Nor the expansionism.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  Principles have nothing to do with it. The key feature is totalitarian government control over the economy and the means of production. Nazi Germany certainly had it.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Does communism require totalitarianism?
    - nec4b 1y ago
      Of course, how else can you achieve classless society. Do you expect people to freely give everything they have to the state, so it can redistribute their wealth around? Don't you know the concept of a class enemy and why so much of mass murdering was going on in communist countries?
      - cosmicgadget 1y ago
        Catholic clergy do this.
        nec4b 1y ago
        Not true, Catholic priests still have private property. But sure there are other religions that have this. It's voluntary and the percentage of people doing this is tiny.
        cosmicgadget 1y ago
        So people have done this?
        schoen 1y ago
        Generally monastics rather than all clergy.
        nec4b 1y ago
        Yes, it has happen that some people have given away all their property and secluded themselves. I'm afraid to ask what is the point of your question. You surely don't think everyone will give up their wealth to the avant-garde and submit to them voluntarily. You do know how many millions had to die because of such ideas?
        1718627440 1y ago
        They don't give their property to the state. They sell it and donate it to the poor.
    - ivan_gammel 1y ago
      Accelerated transition to it likely does. Gradual transition probably doesn’t. In social market economies redistribution is relatively strong but it can become even stronger, to the point where it’s indistinguishable from socialism. If done carefully while rewarding entrepreneurial initiative and penalizing rent seeking, it may be even not that bad.
      - matheusmoreira 1y ago
        > Gradual transition probably doesn’t. My country's current president had the exact same idea: install socialism in Brazil slowly to get people used to it so they don't launch a counter-revolution. We are currently a dictatorship of the judiciary and very much en route to become a Venezuela tier country. People work nearly half a year just to pay taxes and I'm not even accounting for inflation. The future already seems hopeless and bleak and he hasn't even fully won yet. > If done carefully while rewarding entrepreneurial initiative and penalizing rent seeking "Careful" is the understatement of the century. Many a socialist has tried, only to discover they are on the wrong end of the Laffer curve. Nobody really enjoys being utterly crushed by taxes in order to pay for the welfare of people they couldn't care less about. Taxes are tolerated because people believe they will indirectly benefit from it. Taxpayers expect taxes to be converted into useful infrastructure and services for everyone, themselves included. Socialism in practice is actually just wealth redistribution: taking from productive people to give to the poor and unproductive. Quite literally. Very often they find a way to exclude you based on your means. If you're rich or even middle class, it's not for you.
        ivan_gammel 1y ago
        Your reasoning is a fallacy of generalization of a bad example. Move to Europe and see how it might work. I pay a lot of taxes, but I do see value in paying them. > Socialism in practice is actually just wealth redistribution: taking from productive people to give to the poor and unproductive. This is wrong. Poor people can be productive. If salary inequality is high, the workers earn bare minimum doing most of the job while managers get their bonuses. Landlords may capture significant share of their income despite being absolutely unproductive. In such cases socialist policies may simply minimize inverse redistribution (exploitation).
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      Of course. How else could you compel vast amounts of people to do hard labor for the benefit of others?
justsomejew 1y ago
Nazis had racial laws. As you did, by the way, just not towards jews, remember? Something which the communists have not done. And I think it ruins your theory, as well as the communusm equals nazism equation, so beloved by your propaganda
- throwaway3060 1y ago
  That's because the communists found a workaround; they were the first to invent the idea that they could just officially target discrimination against "Zionists" and "cosmopolitans" and just lob that accusation against any Jew, effectively legalizing state antisemitism under a different name.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    It amuses me that the libertarians are bearing this torch now.
  - justsomejew 1y ago
    Easy to claim, only that the claim is false. It was not so much about jews being jews (would you claim that there were no jews in science, engineering, hospitals?). Having quotas in top universities is what you try to do now with asian students (by this I do not mean to negate the fact that lives of many jews were ruined because of these quotas). And the true nature of "Zionism" can be seen by everyone today. The "zionists" do not even try to hide it. I mean Zionism in the "Zeev" Zhabotinskiy sense. Go read his "Wall of Iron".
    - throwaway3060 1y ago
      Funny you mention Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky's beliefs were formed from the proof playing out in front of him, that not even the Ukrainians, the second largest ethnicity in the Russian empire, could get even a semblance of fairness out of the Russian empire. If the Ukrainians failed, what chance did the even fewer Jews have? Trying to understand Jabotinsky without understanding the world he was born into is like trying to put modern beliefs onto Alexander the Great. If you were a Jewish person of ordinary means, certain engineering paths were completely barred to you in the USSR. Keep in mind, engineering and math were the most prestigious forms of STEM for the Soviets. So are you trying to claim the Doctor's Plot case, the assasination of Solomon Mikhoels, the rootless cosmopolitan campaign, Soviet "Zionology", that all those just didn't happen? People were around for those you know.