4 ms·

Yeah, seize the means of production, indeed. Funny that this time this started from the right side of the political spectrum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho

by fooker 1y ago

Yeah, seize the means of production, indeed. Funny that this time this started from the right side of the political spectrum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

softwaredoug 1y ago
I believe when you look at Germany, the Far Right party is much more popular in former Soviet strongholds (East Germany outside Berlin)
- fooker 1y ago
  If you overload right to mean authoritarian, for sure. Good to remember that pretty much all leftist governments had to pivot toward authoritarianism 'for the greater good'.
  - anthem2025 1y ago
    I don’t understand what you’re even trying to say here. AfD is objectively far more popular in the former east Germany. Look at a map of votes, it’s clear as day. The borders are exact. They are not a left wing party, not at all. They are a far right party. It makes sense that the the economically struggling former communist areas would be both more drawn to extreme parties and have a distaste for the left.
    - wqaatwt 1y ago
      > They are not a left wing party, not at all. They are a far right party. They are a populist semi big tent party as well. They are not particularly coherent but there is some overlap between some of their policies and what some in the far-left might support (Euroscepticism, the Euro and such)
      - anthem2025 1y ago
        [flagged]
        wqaatwt 1y ago
        > erases their literal nazi ideologies If you say so. Seems like a rather incoherent view though… Fact is that there is a lot of overlap between far and far right voters in ex-socialist parts of Eastern Europe. Just compare the supporters of BSW and AFD in Germany.. If you want the most absurd example this was a thing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party
        mamonster 1y ago
        AfD is literally a shitty copy-paste of UDC/SVP (Switzerland). Shitty because they lack the one big advantage SVP had in the 90s: Big money backing it. If AfD had at least ONE German billionaire seriously backing it they would already be in power.
        fooker 1y ago
        > erases No, hence horseshoe theory. You are the one arguing for 'erases' here. Given the horseshoe theory is valid, it seems completely on point for these assholes to have some far left ideas. Doesn't make them not nazis.
        anthem2025 1y ago
        But horseshoe theory isn’t valid. It’s entirely nonsense. It’s mostly an excuse for centrists to feel morally superior as the results of their useless ideology lead inevitably to fascism.
        wqaatwt 1y ago
        > But horseshoe theory isn’t valid You keep repeating that yet on certain axis like authoritarianism, free speech etc. there is a massive overlap to the extent that there is based almost no difference in some of the policies supported by far left/right.
    - adwn 1y ago
      > It makes sense that the the economically struggling former communist areas would be both more drawn to extreme parties and have a distaste for the left. That: "have a distaste for the left" is extremely wrong, because before the AfD, the far-left parties which traced their history back to the SED (the socialist party of the GDR (East Germany)) were very popular there, much more so than in West Germany.
- StefanBatory 1y ago
  Don't forget about Wagenknecht though. Very conservative socially, very left wing economically.
- danaris 1y ago
  Yes, far right parties are very often more popular in areas that have seen more economic hardship. East Germany was economically crippled for the latter half of the 20th century under Soviet rule. It's started to recover, a bit, but it's slow going. That makes the people there more willing to listen to anyone who will lie to them about a) who's responsible, and b) how easy it is to solve their problems.
ronsor 1y ago
Horseshoe theory is real, but there's also the fact that politics has more than one axis. Authoritarianism is the common denominator; only the details vary.
- fooker 1y ago
  Makes sense. If you think you have the best idea, the natural next move is to force everyone to follow that best idea, no room for disagreement or alternatives. This pops up everywhere, everywhere ideology is involved in decisions.
  - mrkstu 1y ago
    A recent guest (historian) made that point on the Triggernomitry podcast. Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hitler- they were all 'idealists.' They were in it to improve the human (or some subset thereof) condition. And they weren't going to let anyone get in their way of making things better!
    - fooker 1y ago
      This is what's scary about Elon Musk talking about 'sustainable abundance'.
    - sherr 1y ago
      That guest is Dominic Sandbrook, one half of the excellent "Rest is History" podcast. You can't make an omellete without breaking a few eggs, after all. That was Lenin, supposedly. edit: spelling of "one"
    - sitkack 1y ago
      Idealists in the sense of a simplistic worldview. It is worth a watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf-bSAnW_E0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf-bSAnW_E0 but it itself is a somewhat simplistic take.
    - gtowey 1y ago
      It's probably more accurate to say they were reductionists -- it's easy to imagine an ideal system if you ignore the complexities of reality. Which is why they all failed. I bet it's related to the tendency for narcissism where you believe that you alone have all the right answers.
edbaskerville 1y ago
It wasn't called National Socialism for nothing.
- 1832 1y ago
  [flagged]
- thrance 1y ago
  First thing Hitler did was arrest the socialists and communists, then make unions illegal.
  - wqaatwt 1y ago
    Not that I agree with the comment above but that means nothing at all on itself. One of the first things the Socialist government did was violently put down a communist coup. The communists would have abolished democracy ASAP and purged the socialists if they ever took power. Fact is that extremist movements will crack down on anyone that tries competing with them for power. Ideological affinity hardly matters.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- snozolli 1y ago
  Please name, say, three elements of NAZI policies that were socialist. To my knowledge, the only thing that's even a tiny bit socialist was Hitler's plan for some sort of central bank, because of course he saw banking and loans as part of some Jewish conspiracy. Hitler was an O.G. troll, taking over the Workers' Party and renaming it with the word Socialism purely to aggravate his political opponents. He hated socialists, communists, and anarchists.
  - fooker 1y ago
    > three elements of NAZI policies that were socialist Government control over transportation, newspapers, and other industries that should ideally not choose profits over quality of service. Communalized non-profit grocery stores. Sounds familiar? Strict measures to ban or nationalize war profiteering, high interest rates, capital heavy business models allowing rent seeking. Explicit profit sharing required by large companies. Welfare state with free healthcare and expanded pension funds. Sometimes 'bad' people have the same 'good' ideas you have. Now sure why this is so difficult to grasp.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
thrance 1y ago
Read the "Academic studies and criticism" section of the very page you linked. Horseshoe theory is nothing but a bunch of baloney, that is actually harmful to understanding the current situation. No, fascist consolidation of state and businesses has little to do with communism and "seizing the means of production".
- fooker 1y ago
  > fascist consolidation of state and businesses has little to do with communism and "seizing the means of production". Yeah sure they are very different except for the consolidation of state and business that every fascist and every communist state has attempted :)
  - thrance 1y ago
    What's your point? Why do you refuse to learn about the actual reasons we are in this mess? Do you not want to expand on your very surface level understanding of politics and ideology? The mechanisms behind both ideologies are different, and the outcomes are different too.

by fooker 1y ago

softwaredoug 1y ago

I believe when you look at Germany, the Far Right party is much more popular in former Soviet strongholds (East Germany outside Berlin)

fooker 1y ago
If you overload right to mean authoritarian, for sure. Good to remember that pretty much all leftist governments had to pivot toward authoritarianism 'for the greater good'.
- anthem2025 1y ago
  I don’t understand what you’re even trying to say here. AfD is objectively far more popular in the former east Germany. Look at a map of votes, it’s clear as day. The borders are exact. They are not a left wing party, not at all. They are a far right party. It makes sense that the the economically struggling former communist areas would be both more drawn to extreme parties and have a distaste for the left.
  - wqaatwt 1y ago
    > They are not a left wing party, not at all. They are a far right party. They are a populist semi big tent party as well. They are not particularly coherent but there is some overlap between some of their policies and what some in the far-left might support (Euroscepticism, the Euro and such)
    - anthem2025 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - wqaatwt 1y ago
        > erases their literal nazi ideologies If you say so. Seems like a rather incoherent view though… Fact is that there is a lot of overlap between far and far right voters in ex-socialist parts of Eastern Europe. Just compare the supporters of BSW and AFD in Germany.. If you want the most absurd example this was a thing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party
      - mamonster 1y ago
        AfD is literally a shitty copy-paste of UDC/SVP (Switzerland). Shitty because they lack the one big advantage SVP had in the 90s: Big money backing it. If AfD had at least ONE German billionaire seriously backing it they would already be in power.
      - fooker 1y ago
        > erases No, hence horseshoe theory. You are the one arguing for 'erases' here. Given the horseshoe theory is valid, it seems completely on point for these assholes to have some far left ideas. Doesn't make them not nazis.
        anthem2025 1y ago
        But horseshoe theory isn’t valid. It’s entirely nonsense. It’s mostly an excuse for centrists to feel morally superior as the results of their useless ideology lead inevitably to fascism.
        wqaatwt 1y ago
        > But horseshoe theory isn’t valid You keep repeating that yet on certain axis like authoritarianism, free speech etc. there is a massive overlap to the extent that there is based almost no difference in some of the policies supported by far left/right.
  - adwn 1y ago
    > It makes sense that the the economically struggling former communist areas would be both more drawn to extreme parties and have a distaste for the left. That: "have a distaste for the left" is extremely wrong, because before the AfD, the far-left parties which traced their history back to the SED (the socialist party of the GDR (East Germany)) were very popular there, much more so than in West Germany.
StefanBatory 1y ago
Don't forget about Wagenknecht though. Very conservative socially, very left wing economically.
danaris 1y ago
Yes, far right parties are very often more popular in areas that have seen more economic hardship. East Germany was economically crippled for the latter half of the 20th century under Soviet rule. It's started to recover, a bit, but it's slow going. That makes the people there more willing to listen to anyone who will lie to them about a) who's responsible, and b) how easy it is to solve their problems.

ronsor 1y ago

Horseshoe theory is real, but there's also the fact that politics has more than one axis. Authoritarianism is the common denominator; only the details vary.

fooker 1y ago
Makes sense. If you think you have the best idea, the natural next move is to force everyone to follow that best idea, no room for disagreement or alternatives. This pops up everywhere, everywhere ideology is involved in decisions.
- mrkstu 1y ago
  A recent guest (historian) made that point on the Triggernomitry podcast. Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hitler- they were all 'idealists.' They were in it to improve the human (or some subset thereof) condition. And they weren't going to let anyone get in their way of making things better!
  - fooker 1y ago
    This is what's scary about Elon Musk talking about 'sustainable abundance'.
  - sherr 1y ago
    That guest is Dominic Sandbrook, one half of the excellent "Rest is History" podcast. You can't make an omellete without breaking a few eggs, after all. That was Lenin, supposedly. edit: spelling of "one"
  - sitkack 1y ago
    Idealists in the sense of a simplistic worldview. It is worth a watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf-bSAnW_E0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf-bSAnW_E0 but it itself is a somewhat simplistic take.
  - gtowey 1y ago
    It's probably more accurate to say they were reductionists -- it's easy to imagine an ideal system if you ignore the complexities of reality. Which is why they all failed. I bet it's related to the tendency for narcissism where you believe that you alone have all the right answers.

edbaskerville 1y ago

It wasn't called National Socialism for nothing.

1832 1y ago
[flagged]
thrance 1y ago
First thing Hitler did was arrest the socialists and communists, then make unions illegal.
- wqaatwt 1y ago
  Not that I agree with the comment above but that means nothing at all on itself. One of the first things the Socialist government did was violently put down a communist coup. The communists would have abolished democracy ASAP and purged the socialists if they ever took power. Fact is that extremist movements will crack down on anyone that tries competing with them for power. Ideological affinity hardly matters.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
snozolli 1y ago
Please name, say, three elements of NAZI policies that were socialist. To my knowledge, the only thing that's even a tiny bit socialist was Hitler's plan for some sort of central bank, because of course he saw banking and loans as part of some Jewish conspiracy. Hitler was an O.G. troll, taking over the Workers' Party and renaming it with the word Socialism purely to aggravate his political opponents. He hated socialists, communists, and anarchists.
- fooker 1y ago
  > three elements of NAZI policies that were socialist Government control over transportation, newspapers, and other industries that should ideally not choose profits over quality of service. Communalized non-profit grocery stores. Sounds familiar? Strict measures to ban or nationalize war profiteering, high interest rates, capital heavy business models allowing rent seeking. Explicit profit sharing required by large companies. Welfare state with free healthcare and expanded pension funds. Sometimes 'bad' people have the same 'good' ideas you have. Now sure why this is so difficult to grasp.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

thrance 1y ago

Read the "Academic studies and criticism" section of the very page you linked. Horseshoe theory is nothing but a bunch of baloney, that is actually harmful to understanding the current situation. No, fascist consolidation of state and businesses has little to do with communism and "seizing the means of production".

fooker 1y ago
> fascist consolidation of state and businesses has little to do with communism and "seizing the means of production". Yeah sure they are very different except for the consolidation of state and business that every fascist and every communist state has attempted :)
- thrance 1y ago
  What's your point? Why do you refuse to learn about the actual reasons we are in this mess? Do you not want to expand on your very surface level understanding of politics and ideology? The mechanisms behind both ideologies are different, and the outcomes are different too.