DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30607--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 15, 2025, 12:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You have repeatedly refused to engage directly with any of the
arguments I have presented. You are not debating. Would you like
to actually try debating, or are you just going to keep talking
to yourself?
"If there is still a disparity in affordability, and lower-class
people feel unable to consume higher-value products as
frequently as upper-middle-class people, this causes lower-class
people to feel less worthy of the community."
No, it causes YOU PERSONALLY to feel this way. This is because
you have low self-esteem to begin with.
"If the middle and upper classes refuse to understand the simple
reasoning I've outlined, they deserve to have their earning
power liquidated."
You deserve to have your posts liquidated. But I will keep them
as an exhibition of the effects of low self-esteem.
"Because they preserving humiliation and psychological violence
to the people of the lower class"
Either explain rigorously what violence is initiated by everyone
being allowed to choose for themselves whether to eat at the
more expensive restaurant or the less expensive restaurant, or
else admit that you are merely using the word "violence" to mean
"whatever makes me personally feel insecure".
"This is a precise definition of socialism. This is a correct
definition of socialism."
[quote][Reference: Marx, Das Kapital, Vol. 3, p. 593.][/quote]
It looks like you missed Zea_mays' original point:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10612/#msg10612
[quote]The True Left must reframe the relationship to accurately
contextualize Marxist Socialism as merely one type of Socialism
among many(?) possibilities.[/quote]
This is what I am doing. Since you are not doing this, you are
not a True Leftist.
#Post#: 30609--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 15, 2025, 11:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]You have repeatedly refused to engage directly with any
of the arguments I have presented. You are not debating. Would
you like to actually try debating, or are you just going to keep
talking to yourself?[/quote]
I'm discussing, not debating.
[quote][quote]"If there is still a disparity in affordability,
and lower-class people feel unable to consume higher-value
products as frequently as upper-middle-class people, this causes
lower-class people to feel less worthy of the
community."[/quote]
No, it causes YOU PERSONALLY to feel this way. This is because
you have low self-esteem to begin with.[/quote]
Middle and upper-class people tend to be indifferent to the
difficulties faced by the lower classes in obtaining adequate
consumption, even a decent social status. Yet, lower-class
people tend to work as sellers of cheap goods, which is
beneficial and allows people to consume products without wasting
money. They also work as physical laborers, contributing to the
food supply from agriculture and the construction of houses and
public facilities. This is beneficial to the community, and they
deserve a decent social status.
Middle and upper-class citizens do not deserve sovereignty and
free will; they must obey the state or be wiped out. They cause
misery to the lower classes, who are the backbone of the
nation's community. They must live on wages that are not much
different from those of the lower classes. They share the same
burden as the lower classes, because they are deemed capable of
doing middle-class jobs and find them easy to do. Therefore,
they are still considered to have the same ease as the lower
classes in doing what they are required to do.
[quote]Either explain rigorously what violence is initiated by
everyone being allowed to choose for themselves whether to eat
at the more expensive restaurant or the less expensive
restaurant, or else admit that you are merely using the word
"violence" to mean "whatever makes me personally feel
insecure".[/quote]
People tend to choose more satisfying products when given the
freedom to consume at their own will. Middle and upper-class
people tend to allow more satisfying products to remain, even
though they are difficult for lower-class people to afford due
to their limited means. This creates jealousy among lower-class
people, who struggle to achieve the same consumption
satisfaction as their middle and upper-class counterparts. This
situation also tends to create the perception among middle and
upper-class people that the lower-class people are inferior,
when in fact, it is the middle and upper-class people who are
inferior and degenerate. They engage in consumption and business
activities that tend to create social inequality and make their
countries dependent on the currencies of economically stronger
enemy countries. This is because middle and upper-class groups
tend to engage in consumption activities and business activities
related to transactions in enemy countries.
Good middle- and upper-class people are those who feel guilty
about being part of the middle- and upper-class (bourgeoisie).
There are no good bourgeois, and there are no good middle-class
people. They are all degenerate.
[quote]It looks like you missed Zea_mays' original point:
[quote]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg4836/#msg4836
The True Left must reframe the relationship to accurately
contextualize Marxist Socialism as merely one type of Socialism
among many(?) possibilities.[/quote][/quote]
The false socialist ideology is one that still does not feel a
problem with middle class citizens, upper class (bourgeoisie),
and life based on economic competition that follows the laws of
market mechanisms.
[quote]This is what I am doing. Since you are not doing this,
you are not a True Leftist.[/quote]
A true Leftist will hate citizens who are very materialistic,
namely citizens with middle and upper class incomes. If they are
spiritualists and socialists, they are willing to have their
property and material forcibly taken by the party and the state
for the sake of equalizing economic and social conditions.
Instead of you bothering to feel disappointed, tell me who are
the middle class and upper class citizens who have not become
bastards and degenerates. I didn't find any of them
#Post#: 30610--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 16, 2025, 7:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"I'm discussing, not debating."
Whatever you are doing, you still haven't addressed my earlier
arguments.
"People tend to choose more satisfying products when given the
freedom to consume at their own will."
This is absence of initiated violence.
"Middle and upper-class people tend to allow more satisfying
products to remain, even though they are difficult for
lower-class people to afford due to their limited means. This
creates jealousy among lower-class people, who struggle to
achieve the same consumption satisfaction as their middle and
upper-class counterparts. "
Your reasoning is no different than incels claiming victimhood
because they have more difficulty dating than better-looking
people.
"If they are spiritualists and socialists, they are willing to
have their property and material forcibly taken by the party and
the state for the sake of equalizing economic and social
conditions."
Firstly, to be willing to have something forcibly done to you is
a contradiction in terms.
Secondly, we are not egalitarians.
Thirdly, if you want to reduce the wealth gap, I already
explained exactly how to do so:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30601/#msg30601
[quote]"What I want is for the middle class and the bourgeoisie
to have their incomes drained through high taxation"
That's precisely what will happen by keeping both restaurants,
with the more expensive restaurant paying more in profit tax
than the less expensive restaurant (where the profit comes more
from A's bills than from B's bills since as yourself say B does
not eat here as frequently as A does). But you want to get rid
of the more expensive restaurant![/quote]
#Post#: 30623--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 20, 2025, 1:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"People tend to choose more satisfying products
when given the freedom to consume at their own will."[/quote]
This is absence of initiated violence.[/quote]
The exploitation of labor in various companies by the free
consumption of the people cannot be tolerated and will lead to
acts that can lead to violence. Although these exploitative
productive activities generate satisfaction for the people who
consume the products
[quote][quote]"Middle and upper-class people tend to allow more
satisfying products to remain, even though they are difficult
for lower-class people to afford due to their limited means.
This creates jealousy among lower-class people, who struggle to
achieve the same consumption satisfaction as their middle and
upper-class counterparts. "[/quote]
Your reasoning is no different than incels claiming victimhood
because they have more difficulty dating than better-looking
people.[/quote]
Not everyone has the ability to access high-value products that
tend to be more suitable for consumption. Not everyone can earn
high wages, which require the ability to work complex tasks.
However, in reality, everyone can still live safely and without
harm to their health and well-being, even if they are forced to
consume low-priced goods. People with low salaries will feel
disrespected if they continue to live in a situation where
high-priced goods are still readily available and they continue
to see people with middle- and high-incomes frequently consuming
them. Likewise, it would be inappropriate for us to claim to
uphold spirituality if we continue to allow such a situation to
persist. We are preserving a situation where there are still
people who pride themselves solely on having greater material
resources than less fortunate groups. Yet, they can still live
decently by consuming inexpensive goods, just like the lower
classes, which solves the problem of social jealousy. Buying
products with higher quality and high prices will perpetuate
social jealousy; buying products with minimal quality but
affordable prices will solve the problem of social jealousy.
Only a capitalist would favor the existence of the middle and
upper classes.
You also said that the "victimhood" mentality is how we identify
who the oppressor is and who the victim is. So you shouldn't
have a problem with the "victimhood" attitude.
[quote]Secondly, we are not egalitarians.[/quote]
Yes, that's right, the middle class and upper class are
inferior, if you are a socialist, you have no problem with such
judgment.
[quote]Thirdly, if you want to reduce the wealth gap, I already
explained exactly how to do so:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30601/#msg30601
[quote]"What I want is for the middle class and the bourgeoisie
to have their incomes drained through high taxation"
That's precisely what will happen by keeping both restaurants,
with the more expensive restaurant paying more in profit tax
than the less expensive restaurant (where the profit comes more
from A's bills than from B's bills since as yourself say B does
not eat here as frequently as A does). But you want to get rid
of the more expensive restaurant![/quote][/quote]
We have to solve the consumption gap as well, not just the
economic gap. That's why we have to require people to continue
to consume affordably.
#Post#: 30625--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 20, 2025, 4:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"The exploitation of labor in various companies by the free
consumption of the people cannot be tolerated and will lead to
acts that can lead to violence."
A goes to the more expensive restaurant more frequently than B
does. Describe exactly how this leads to violence.
"People with low salaries will feel disrespected if they
continue to live in a situation where high-priced goods are
still readily available and they continue to see people with
middle- and high-incomes frequently consuming them."
This exposes their unhealthy psychology, similar to the
unhealthy psychology of incels that causes them to feel
disrespected from being rejected by the same women who are
willing to date better-looking men.
"it would be inappropriate for us to claim to uphold
spirituality if we continue to allow such a situation to
persist."
Incels deserve all the pain they cause themselves to feel. So do
you. I hereby coin the term infru (involuntarily frugal) to
describe you.
"We are preserving a situation where there are still people who
pride themselves solely on having greater material resources
than less fortunate groups."
Incels accuse me of preserving a situation where there are still
people who pride themselves solely on having better looks than
less fortunate groups. I do not take them seriously either.
"Yet, they can still live decently by consuming inexpensive
goods, just like the lower classes, which solves the problem of
social jealousy."
If A wants to go to the less expensive restaurant, I am not
stopping A from doing so. But I am not forcing A to go either,
because B's jealousy is not A's fault.
"Buying products with higher quality and high prices will
perpetuate social jealousy; buying products with minimal quality
but affordable prices will solve the problem of social
jealousy."
Infrus deserve all the pain they cause themselves to feel.
"You also said that the "victimhood" mentality is how we
identify who the oppressor is and who the victim is. So you
shouldn't have a problem with the "victimhood" attitude."
Victims of initiated violence should be aware that they are
victims. If you stop A from going to the more expensive
restaurant, A should identify you as the oppressor.
Jealous people should not claim to be victims. If A goes to the
more expensive restaurant and B is jealous, B should not
identify A as the oppressor.
"the middle class and upper class are inferior"
Then why do you want them to have equal conditions? You said:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30598/#msg30598
[quote]it's not socialist if a society still experiences social
inequality.[/quote]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30610/#msg30610
[quote]for the sake of equalizing economic and social
conditions[/quote]
If they are inferior (as you now claim), shouldn't you want them
to have worse conditions?
"We have to solve the consumption gap as well"
I do not take infrus seriously.
#Post#: 30631--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 21, 2025, 2:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"The exploitation of labor in various companies by
the free consumption of the people cannot be tolerated and will
lead to acts that can lead to violence."[/quote]
A goes to the more expensive restaurant more frequently than B
does. Describe exactly how this leads to violence.[/quote]
I have explained it in the previous post :
Not everyone has the ability to access high-value products that
tend to be more suitable for consumption. Not everyone can earn
high wages, which require the ability to work complex tasks.
However, in reality, everyone can still live safely and without
harm to their health and well-being, even if they are forced to
consume low-priced goods. People with low salaries will feel
disrespected if they continue to live in a situation where
high-priced goods are still readily available and they continue
to see people with middle- and high-incomes frequently consuming
them. Likewise, it would be inappropriate for us to claim to
uphold spirituality if we continue to allow such a situation to
persist. We are preserving a situation where there are still
people who pride themselves solely on having greater material
resources than less fortunate groups. Yet, they can still live
decently by consuming inexpensive goods, just like the lower
classes, which solves the problem of social jealousy. Buying
products with higher quality and high prices will perpetuate
social jealousy; buying products with minimal quality but
affordable prices will solve the problem of social jealousy.
Only a capitalist would favor the existence of the middle and
upper classes.
[quote][quote]"People with low salaries will feel disrespected
if they continue to live in a situation where high-priced goods
are still readily available and they continue to see people with
middle- and high-incomes frequently consuming them."[/quote]
This exposes their unhealthy psychology, similar to the
unhealthy psychology of incels that causes them to feel
disrespected from being rejected by the same women who are
willing to date better-looking men.[/quote]
So, you think accepting social inequality caused by the behavior
of middle-class and bourgeois citizens isn't a psychological
problem... Middle and upper class citizens work by getting more
value for their wages and benefits, which should also be
appropriately taken by lower class citizens who also help with
their work. Profits should be shared based on the sales of each
product. Middle- and upper-class citizens work to earn a premium
on their wages and profits, which should also be shared with the
lower-class citizens who also contribute to their work. Profits
should be shared based on the sales of each product. Therefore,
the income of the middle- and upper-class citizens should be
confiscated by the state. If they refuse to comply, they must be
ruthlessly coerced. This will ensure equal distribution of
income among the population, thereby overcoming social jealousy
and the formation of a new bourgeoisie.
[quote]Incels accuse me of preserving a situation where there
are still people who pride themselves solely on having better
looks than less fortunate groups. I do not take them seriously
either.[/quote]
Differences in physical appearance cannot be changed, but people
who have better physical appearance should still respect people
who have worse physical appearance who still behave ethically.
[quote][quote]"it would be inappropriate for us to claim to
uphold spirituality if we continue to allow such a situation to
persist."[/quote]
Incels deserve all the pain they cause themselves to feel. So do
you. I hereby coin the term infru (involuntarily frugal) to
describe you.[/quote]
There is nothing spiritual about people who are not troubled by
social inequality and the circumstances in which consumption
gaps occur.
[quote]If A wants to go to the less expensive restaurant, I am
not stopping A from doing so. But I am not forcing A to go
either, because B's jealousy is not A's fault.[/quote]
Capitalists would say the same thing you did. You shouldn't
agree with the opinion you just wrote. I've already explained
the negative impacts of selling expensive products; you can
reread my post.
[quote][quote]"You also said that the "victimhood" mentality is
how we identify who the oppressor is and who the victim is. So
you shouldn't have a problem with the "victimhood"
attitude."[/quote]
Victims of initiated violence should be aware that they are
victims. If you stop A from going to the more expensive
restaurant, A should identify you as the oppressor.[/quote]
Buyers of expensive products perpetuate social jealousy, which
has a detrimental psychological impact on its victims. While not
everyone can afford expensive products, everyone should be able
to afford affordable products that are still suitable for
consumption. If you want a socialist lifestyle, you must help
everyone achieve a decent standard of living, rather than making
one economic group more deserving and the lower classes less so.
So, if subject A preserves expensive products by consuming them
regularly, he can be called a perpetrator of psychological
violence in society. But if you are not committed to upholding
socialism, then feel free to agree with the attitude of the
subject named "A".
[quote][quote]"Buying products with higher quality and high
prices will perpetuate social jealousy; buying products with
minimal quality but affordable prices will solve the problem of
social jealousy."[/quote]
Infrus deserve all the pain they cause themselves to
feel.[/quote]
Infru no longer engages in consumption that causes social
jealousy; they don't deserve to be hurt. The middle and upper
classes absorb surplus value from sales and economic activities,
which should also be shared with the lower classes. And they
perpetuate an economic situation where the lower classes'
inability to obtain higher-value products is a real possibility.
Therefore, the middle and upper classes deserve to be
liquidated, as Hitler's regime did from 1940 to 1945. By the
way, if you support Hitlerism, you should have supported his
anti-middle class and anti-bourgeois economic program too... By
the way, if you support Hitlerism, you should have supported his
anti-middle class and anti-bourgeois economic program as well...
I have already provided historical evidence that Hitler's regime
would liquidate both of these degenerate classes in previous
posts.
[quote]Jealous people should not claim to be victims. If A goes
to the more expensive restaurant and B is jealous, B should not
identify A as the oppressor.[/quote]
That's the argument liberal democrats use to defend the middle
and upper classes. Do you support them or do you support
socialism?
[quote][quote]"the middle class and upper class are
inferior"[/quote]
Then why do you want them to have equal conditions?
...
If they are inferior (as you now claim), shouldn't you want them
to have worse conditions?[/quote]
Equating the middle class and upper class to the working class
also means ending their financial and social power. This
includes making their condition worse in order to commit
retaliatory violence.
[quote][quote]"We have to solve the consumption gap as
well"[/quote]
I do not take infrus seriously.[/quote]
I even doubt whether you are committed to upholding socialism.
[quote]It is not Germany that will become Bolshevism, but
Bolshevism that will become a kind of National Socialism.
Besides, there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than
separates us from it... Petty-bourgeois Social Democrats and
trade union bosses will never be National Socialists, but
Communists will always be National Socialists.[/quote]
Source:
- Adolf Hitler, As quoted in Hermann Rauschning, The Voice of
Destruction, New York: NY, G.P. Putnam's Sons (1940) p. 131.
[quote]There we also find numerous examples showing that,
contrary to certain postwar legends, Hitler never intended to
defend the "West" against Bolshevism but was always ready to
join forces with the "Reds" to destroy the West, even in the
midst of the struggle against Soviet Russia.[/quote]
Source:
Totalitarianism: Part Three of The Origins of Totalitarianism by
Hannah Arendt, Page 7
HTML https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&hl=id&id=I0pVKCVM4TQC&q=Hitler+never+intended+to+defend#v=snippet&q=Hitler%20never%20intended%20to%20defend&f=false
[quote]Until now research has not recognized that Hitler’s
economic convictions, most notably his conviction concerning the
superiority of a system of a planned over a free economy, were
decisively shaped by his impressions of the superiority of the
Soviet economic system. Hitler’s admiration for the Soviet
system is also confirmed in the notes of Wilhelm Scheidt, who,
as adjutant to Hitler’s ‘representative for military history’
Scherff and a member of the Führer Headquarters group, had close
contact with Hitler and sometimes even took part in the
‘briefings’. Scheidt writes that Hitler underwent a ‘conversion
to Bolshevism’. From Hitler’s remarks, he says, the following
reactions could be derived: ‘Firstly, Hitler was enough of a
materialist to be the first to recognize the enormous armament
achievements of the USSR in the context of her strong, generous
and all- encompassing economic organization.’[/quote]
Source :
Hitler's National Socialism by Rainer Zitelmann Page 328 - 329
#Post#: 30632--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 21, 2025, 4:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"I have explained it in the previous post :"
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30607/#msg30607
[quote]you are merely using the word "violence" to mean
"whatever makes me personally feel insecure"[/quote]
"So, you think accepting social inequality caused by the
behavior of middle-class and bourgeois citizens isn't a
psychological problem..."
It is not.
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30601/#msg30601
[quote]The problem is social injustice, not social inequality. A
socially just society will still be socially unequal because
people are unequal. The whole point of True Leftism is to
dissociate leftism from egalitarianism.[/quote]
"Middle and upper class citizens work by getting more value for
their wages and benefits, which should also be appropriately
taken by lower class citizens who also help with their work."
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30553/#msg30553
[quote]Why should someone who takes greater risk, more precisely
someone who takes on risk so that others (the employees) can
avoid risk, not have a chance for greater reward?[/quote]
"Profits should be shared based on the sales of each product."
Should losses also be shared? What if B doesn't want to risk
loss, while A is willing to take the loss on B's behalf? Why
shouldn't the two of them be allowed to agree between themselves
that B receives a fixed income no matter how well the product
sells, whereas A after paying B gets the profit or takes the
loss depending on how well the product sells?
"Therefore, the income of the middle- and upper-class citizens
should be confiscated by the state. If they refuse to comply,
they must be ruthlessly coerced."
You are the one initiating violence.
"This will ensure equal distribution of income among the
population, thereby overcoming social jealousy and the formation
of a new bourgeoisie."
In other words, you are an egalitarian.
"Differences in physical appearance cannot be changed, but
people who have better physical appearance should still respect
people who have worse physical appearance who still behave
ethically."
Do incels behave ethically when they advocate that women be
should forced to have sex with ugly men? (Yet they argue that
all they want is an equal distribution of sexual activity,
thereby overcoming sexual jealousy.)
"There is nothing spiritual about people who are not troubled by
social inequality and the circumstances in which consumption
gaps occur."
I have always been emphatically anti-egalitarian.
"I've already explained the negative impacts of selling
expensive products"
The "negative" impact according to you is that they make infrus
feel jealous. According to you, jealousy is a valid reason for
initiating violence.
"Buyers of expensive products perpetuate social jealousy, which
has a detrimental psychological impact on its victims."
Good-looking people having sex perpetuates sexual jealousy,
which has a detrimental psychological impact on incels who then
claim to be "victims". I do not take incels' complaints
seriously either.
"While not everyone can afford expensive products, everyone
should be able to afford affordable products that are still
suitable for consumption."
I already said I want to keep both restaurants, which includes
the less expensive one that B can afford to visit regularly. By
also keeping the more expensive restaurant, B has the additional
option of visiting it occasionally. So I am giving B more
choices than you are.
"if subject A preserves expensive products by consuming them
regularly, he can be called a perpetrator of psychological
violence in society."
Incels claim a good-looking male-female couple having consensual
sex is being "violent" towards incels, but incels forcing the
woman to have sex with incels (which would be the actual
initiated violence) is fine. I do not take them seriously
either.
"Infru no longer engages in consumption that causes social
jealousy;"
You think they wouldn't if they could afford to? Then why be
jealous? If B is uninterested in the more expensive restaurant,
why would B be jealous of A visiting it regularly? That B is
jealous implies B actually wants to visit it as frequently as A
does, except B cannot afford to. This is logical proof that B is
not more internally austere than A is.
(For the record, I myself have never visited an expensive
restaurant except when someone else was paying. ;D When I am
paying, I mostly buy uncooked food (from the discount shelf
whenever possible) to cook at home myself, and when I have to
eat outside I choose the cheapest restaurant (that has vegan
food). I also am not jealous at all of people who visit
expensive restaurants frequently.)
"they don't deserve to be hurt."
If A punches B, A is the one causing the hurt which B does not
deserve.
If B is jealous of A, B is the one causing the hurt which B
therefore deserves.
If B motivated by jealousy punches A, B is the one causing the
hurt which A does not deserve.
"I even doubt whether you are committed to upholding socialism."
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30601/#msg30601
[quote]That's precisely what will happen by keeping both
restaurants, with the more expensive restaurant paying more in
profit tax than the less expensive restaurant (where the profit
comes more from A's bills than from B's bills since as yourself
say B does not eat here as frequently as A does). But you want
to get rid of the more expensive restaurant![/quote]
#Post#: 30633--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 21, 2025, 10:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]you are merely using the word "violence" to mean
"whatever makes me personally feel insecure"[/quote]
The bourgeoisie and middle class must feel "insecure", if
possible they must commit suicide if they do not want to
surrender.
[quote]"So, you think accepting social inequality caused by the
behavior of middle-class and bourgeois citizens isn't a
psychological problem..."
It is not.
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30601/#msg30601
[quote]The problem is social injustice, not social inequality. A
socially just society will still be socially unequal because
people are unequal. The whole point of True Leftism is to
dissociate leftism from egalitarianism.[/quote][/quote]
I don't consider people to be equal, I consider the bourgeoisie
and the middle class whose wealth they don't want confiscated to
prevent the social inequality experienced by the lower classes,
to be the degenerates.
[quote][quote]"Middle and upper class citizens work by getting
more value for their wages and benefits, which should also be
appropriately taken by lower class citizens who also help with
their work."[/quote]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30553/#msg30553
Why should someone who takes greater risk, more precisely
someone who takes on risk so that others (the employees) can
avoid risk, not have a chance for greater reward?
.....
[quote]Profits should be shared based on the sales of each
product."[/quote]
Should losses also be shared? What if B doesn't want to risk
loss, while A is willing to take the loss on B's behalf? Why
shouldn't the two of them be allowed to agree between themselves
that B receives a fixed income no matter how well the product
sells, whereas A after paying B gets the profit or takes the
loss depending on how well the product sells?[/quote]
In a socialist society, each citizen works according to their
abilities. People whose jobs are classified as "middle class"
and "upper class" are not risk-takers, as they have proven they
find it easy and capable to do those jobs. So they find it easy
just as lower-class people find it easy with the lower-class
jobs they do. Moreover, the work plan is already risk-free
because it is guaranteed by the planning and direction of the
national government.
[quote][quote]"Therefore, the income of the middle- and
upper-class citizens should be confiscated by the state. If they
refuse to comply, they must be ruthlessly coerced."[/quote]
You are the one initiating violence.[/quote]
Capitalists also say that the destruction of the middle and
upper classes is a form of violence. You shouldn't think like
them.
[quote][quote]"This will ensure equal distribution of income
among the population, thereby overcoming social jealousy and the
formation of a new bourgeoisie."[/quote]
In other words, you are an egalitarian.[/quote]
I don't consider the middle and upper classes to be equal to the
proletariat. They deserve violent retaliation for their
attitudes that perpetuate social jealousy and foster a
condescending attitude toward the lower classes. Yet, the lower
classes have made significant contributions to the agricultural
sector, providing affordable food, and providing basic
necessities, the fruits of their labor being essential for a
nation's population. Making the middle class and upper class
have incomes that are not too high when compared to the incomes
of the lower class is a form of regulating groups of people who
are materialistic and demean the human soul.
[quote][quote]"There is nothing spiritual about people who are
not troubled by social inequality and the circumstances in which
consumption gaps occur."[/quote]
I have always been emphatically anti-egalitarian.[/quote]
If you are truly anti-egalitarian, you must be willing to
consider the middle class and the bourgeoisie as inferior.
[quote][quote]"I've already explained the negative impacts of
selling expensive products"[/quote]
The "negative" impact according to you is that they make infrus
feel jealous. According to you, jealousy is a valid reason for
initiating violence.[/quote]
The middle class perpetrates violence by making society's
consumption conditions seem more decent to them, but this
decentness is difficult for the lower classes, who have done
nothing wrong and are still trying to work for the continuation
of society. It is natural for the lower classes to hate the
middle and upper classes.
[quote][quote]"Buyers of expensive products perpetuate social
jealousy, which has a detrimental psychological impact on its
victims."[/quote]
Good-looking people having sex perpetuates sexual jealousy,
which has a detrimental psychological impact on incels who then
claim to be "victims". I do not take incels' complaints
seriously either.[/quote]
People who appear "better" are obliged to protect themselves
from the lust of those who see them. Therefore, they are
required to cover their bodies to prevent the spread of
pornography and social jealousy. People who look good and cause
social jealousy are the ones who commit violence first.
[quote][quote]"While not everyone can afford expensive products,
everyone should be able to afford affordable products that are
still suitable for consumption."[/quote]
I already said I want to keep both restaurants, which includes
the less expensive one that B can afford to visit regularly. By
also keeping the more expensive restaurant, B has the additional
option of visiting it occasionally. So I am giving B more
choices than you are.[/quote]
Nevertheless, even though they have choices in consumption,
lower-class citizens are still exposed to the potential for
being devalued by the middle and upper classes due to their
lower quality of consumption, despite still being considered
adequate. Meanwhile, the middle class has easier access to
higher-quality products due to their sufficient financial
resources. This materialistic attitude can be overcome by
forcing the middle and upper classes to consume affordable,
usable products. Affordable, usable products are accessible to
all economic groups, including the lower classes. This prevents
discrimination based on materialistic economic superiority and a
violation of sensitive morality. Furthermore, it is impossible
for everyone to have the opportunity to become part of the
middle and upper classes, so it is unreasonable to force all
lower-class people to become middle and upper-class to address
this social gap. It is impossible for all lower-class jobs to
remain vacant, as the results of their work are greatly needed
by the state.
[quote][quote]"if subject A preserves expensive products by
consuming them regularly, he can be called a perpetrator of
psychological violence in society."[/quote]
Incels claim a good-looking male-female couple having consensual
sex is being "violent" towards incels, but incels forcing the
woman to have sex with incels (which would be the actual
initiated violence) is fine. I do not take them seriously
either.
...
You think they wouldn't if they could afford to? Then why be
jealous? If B is uninterested in the more expensive restaurant,
why would B be jealous of A visiting it regularly? That B is
jealous implies B actually wants to visit it as frequently as A
does, except B cannot afford to. This is logical proof that B is
not more internally austere than A is.[/quote]
Of course, the way to deal with sexual jealousy is to prevent
someone with an "attractive" appearance from showing off their
appearance. That's why I support the anti-pornography movement.
Just as in addressing economic inequality, I am socialist and
oppose the consumerist habits of the middle class and the
bourgeoisie. Indeed, the "infru" certainly desire higher-quality
consumption like the middle class and bourgeoisie. But their
limited financial conditions and work capacity prevent them from
achieving it. They have already indirectly addressed the social
envy stemming from their inability to do so. They have done the
right thing. Now all that remains is to try to regulate those
who can afford expensive products, so that they are willing to
engage in consumption behavior that does not perpetuate social
and economic inequality. Socialist action and regulating the
consumption behavior of the middle and upper classes is the way
to go.
[quote](For the record, I myself have never visited an expensive
restaurant except when someone else was paying. ;D When I am
paying, I mostly buy uncooked food (from the discount shelf
whenever possible) to cook at home myself, and when I have to
eat outside I choose the cheapest restaurant (that has vegan
food). I also am not jealous at all of people who visit
expensive restaurants frequently.)[/quote]
So you need to understand social inequality and social jealousy,
along with their negative impacts on the state. Hitler wasn't
even like you in thinking about how society should conduct
economic activities.
[quote][quote]"they don't deserve to be hurt."[/quote]
If A punches B, A is the one causing the hurt which B does not
deserve.
If B is jealous of A, B is the one causing the hurt which B
therefore deserves.
If B motivated by jealousy punches A, B is the one causing the
hurt which A does not deserve.[/quote]
The group that causes social jealousy is the one that first
commits violence, and those who fight back against social
jealousy are victims of psychological terror caused by unequal
economic and social conditions. And they can be considered those
who commit revolutionary retaliatory violence. If you don't want
to understand this, don't ever claim to be a socialist; you are
not committed to being a socialist. The Jewish and "Westerners"
who tend to be upper middle class will love the exposition of
the social theories you believe in.
[quote][quote]"I even doubt whether you are committed to
upholding socialism."[/quote]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30601/#msg30601
That's precisely what will happen by keeping both restaurants,
with the more expensive restaurant paying more in profit tax
than the less expensive restaurant (where the profit comes more
from A's bills than from B's bills since as yourself say B does
not eat here as frequently as A does). But you want to get rid
of the more expensive restaurant![/quote]
Socialism means preventing the power of groups or individuals to
have the will and ability to manage capital, which ultimately
harms the lives of those less fortunate, both economically and
psychologically. Therefore, socialist action is not enough if it
only requires the middle and upper classes to pay taxes to the
state.
[quote]"Furthermore, after the war, the National Socialist
German state, which has pursued this goal from the outset, will
work tirelessly to realize a program that will ultimately lead
to the complete elimination of class distinctions and the
creation of a truly socialist society." - Adolf Hitler's Speech
for the Heroes' Memorial Day (1943)[/quote]
Source:
Adolf Hitler's Speech for the Heroes' Memorial Day (March 21,
1943). (2015, October 30). In Wikisource. Retrieved 08:42,
October 4, 2024, from
HTML https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler%27s_Speech_for_the_Heroes%27_Memorial_Day_(March<br
/>21, 1943)&oldid=5923919
[quote]Das Schwarze Korps explained that large German companies
differed in several ways from the foreign capitalist
organizations it criticized. One reason was that the private
power of large owners in Germany had been controlled, and they
could no longer manipulate the state as in the past.
Furthermore, capital was no longer anonymous. Factory owners and
their representatives were known and required to produce for the
benefit of the people, regardless of their personal desires. The
journal argued that this situation might appear to outsiders as
"corporate capitalism," but in fact, it was
"Volksgemeinschaft."113 The journal acknowledged that there were
people in Germany who still sympathized with the old capitalism.
It identified them as members of the middle class who still
believed in the old liberal doctrines of individualism and the
primacy of economics over politics. The journal implied that
such individuals must be coerced and intimidated into accepting
National Socialist ideology.
(May 6, 1943)[/quote]
Source:
The Voice of the SS: A history of the SS Journal 'Das Schwarze
Korps' by William L. Combs, Page 317
[quote]In 1943, Das Schwarze Korps commented that, "when we
rebuild our economic life after the war, at least we will not
repeat our previous mistakes. The middle class does not exist.
That term is just a slogan from democratic times."[/quote]
Sources:
1. The Nazi War Against Capitalism by Nevin Gussack, page 80
2. Royal Institute for International Affairs. Review of the
Foreign Press 1939-1945 Series A, Volume VIII, Enemy Countries;
Axis Controlled Europe, Nos. 169-192 (Kraus, 1980)
#Post#: 30634--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 21, 2025, 6:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"I don't consider people to be equal"
Yet you keep talking about "social equality" as if it is a good
thing and "social inequality" as if it is a bad thing.
"I consider the bourgeoisie and the middle class whose wealth
they don't want confiscated to prevent the social inequality
experienced by the lower classes, to be the degenerates."
See? You want to prevent social inequality. Therefore you are an
egalitarian.
"People whose jobs are classified as "middle class" and "upper
class" are not risk-takers"
You are the one claiming that all business owners are unethical,
therefore I only need to find one counterexample to prove you
wrong. My counterexample is A in the scenario I proposed:
[quote]What if B doesn't want to risk loss, while A is willing
to take the loss on B's behalf? Why shouldn't the two of them be
allowed to agree between themselves that B receives a fixed
income no matter how well the product sells, whereas A after
paying B gets the profit or takes the loss depending on how well
the product sells?[/quote]
Stop dodging and address it.
"Moreover, the work plan is already risk-free because it is
guaranteed by the planning and direction of the national
government."
What if there is a earthquake/hurricane/flood/etc. that destroys
the stock of finished products before it was able to be sold,
you moron?
"Capitalists also say that the destruction of the middle and
upper classes is a form of violence. You shouldn't think like
them."
Capitalism has only existed for several centuries. Private
property predates capitalism and even predates history, going
all the way back to the Neolithic era when people first started
owning farmland. Therefore supporting private property doesn't
imply I think like a capitalist. It would be more accurate to
say I think like standard ancient people.
"They deserve violent retaliation for their attitudes that
perpetuate social jealousy and foster a condescending attitude
toward the lower classes."
Violence as a reaction to something non-violent that you dislike
is initiated violence, not retaliatory violence.
"If you are truly anti-egalitarian, you must be willing to
consider the middle class and the bourgeoisie as inferior."
You prove you do not understand logic. The sufficient condition
for me to be anti-egalitarian is that I accept some form of
unequal society. This does not imply I would accept every
possible form of unequal society.
"The middle class perpetrates violence by making society's
consumption conditions seem more decent to them, but this
decentness is difficult for the lower classes, who have done
nothing wrong and are still trying to work for the continuation
of society."
I can walk. Walking is difficult for someone without legs. Am I
initiating violence by walking just because someone else (who
has done nothing wrong and pays taxes) has no legs?
"It is natural for the lower classes to hate the middle and
upper classes."
If a guy without legs tries to cut my legs off after seeing me
walk, is it my fault for walking or his fault for being jealous?
"People who look good and cause social jealousy are the ones who
commit violence first."
Incel.
"even though they have choices in consumption, lower-class
citizens are still exposed to the potential for being devalued
by the middle and upper classes due to their lower quality of
consumption, despite still being considered adequate. Meanwhile,
the middle class has easier access to higher-quality products
due to their sufficient financial resources. This materialistic
attitude can be overcome by forcing the middle and upper classes
to consume affordable, usable products."
Even though they have choices in transportation, citizens
without legs are still exposed to the potential for being
devalued by the walking and running classes due to their lower
quality of transportation, despite still being considered
adequate. Meanwhile, the walking class has easier access to
higher-quality transportation due to their sufficient
physiological resources. This materialistic attitude can be
overcome by forcing the walking and running classes to use
affordable, usable wheelchairs.
Do you agree with the paragraph I just wrote?
"The group that causes social jealousy is the one that first
commits violence, and those who fight back against social
jealousy are victims of psychological terror caused by unequal
economic and social conditions."
So walkers are the group that "first commits violence", and
those who try to cut walkers' legs off are "victims of
psychological terror"?
"If you don't want to understand this, don't ever claim to be a
socialist"
I support building wheelchair lanes in all public spaces funded
by taxes even if such taxes come proportionately more from
walkers than non-walkers. Therefore I am a socialist. (I merely
do not support forcing walkers into wheelchairs also.)
#Post#: 30638--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 22, 2025, 12:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]See? You want to prevent social inequality. Therefore you
are an egalitarian.[/quote]
I equalize income not to equalize people, but to punish people
who like the materialistic and unequal lifestyle of the middle
class and bourgeoisie. You also want the state to be filled with
people who share your common ground, agreeing with your idea of
nobility. In fact, you also desire egalitarianism in the country
you desire. There's nothing wrong with trying to make things
less unequal.
[quote]"People whose jobs are classified as "middle class" and
"upper class" are not risk-takers"
You are the one claiming that all business owners are unethical,
therefore I only need to find one counterexample to prove you
wrong. My counterexample is A in the scenario I proposed:
[quote]What if B doesn't want to risk loss, while A is willing
to take the loss on B's behalf? Why shouldn't the two of them be
allowed to agree between themselves that B receives a fixed
income no matter how well the product sells, whereas A after
paying B gets the profit or takes the loss depending on how well
the product sells?[/quote][/quote]
Workers and business owners are both equally capable of doing
their jobs. Workers already find it easy and are trained to do
their jobs, while business owners find it easy and are trained
to manage work plans for their production/business models.
Therefore, they deserve a similar wage difference, as both are
equally capable of handling the workload. Unless they encounter
a workload they find challenging and are able to complete it,
then they deserve a pay increase. However, the possibility of an
increased workload will be addressed through proper government
planning, thereby minimizing the occurrence of workload
imbalances that lead to the desire for higher wages among
workers and businesses whose sovereignty has been curtailed. The
possibility of losses in business is mitigated by planning
purchases and sales, so there are no losses. Because all
products produced must be purchased by the surrounding
community, there are no voluntary transactions between buyers
and sellers that lead to uncertainty about consumer demand
estimates, which places a heavier burden on producers or their
workers. I feel, from our conversation so far, that you're still
using capitalist logic to justify your defense of the middle and
upper classes. That's why you can't be considered a socialist,
and you can't even be considered to have properly introduced
Hitler's economic system.
[quote]Stop dodging and address it.[/quote]
I am ready to continue discussing your mistakes in understanding
socialism.
[quote]Capitalism has only existed for several centuries.
Private property predates capitalism and even predates history,
going all the way back to the Neolithic era when people first
started owning farmland. Therefore supporting private property
doesn't imply I think like a capitalist. It would be more
accurate to say I think like standard ancient people.[/quote]
Capitalist culture and individual ownership originated in the
West
[quote]It is indeed from the Greek world of the 6th century
onwards that we habitually hear scholars speak of the “world’s
first scientific thought,” the “birth of rational man,” the
“discovery of politics,” the “invention of prose,” or the
“discovery of the mind.”3 Even the classicist and military
historian Hanson, who resists a sanitized version of the Greek
legacy, and draws attention to the contributions of robust
farmers and hoplite fighters, argues all the same that “the core
values” of Western culture – rationalism, citizen armies,
private property, and separation between religious and political
authorities – “originated in ancient Greece during the polis
period” (1999: xi–xxiv). Hanson dates the polis period to “the
era roughly between 700 and 300 BC.” He claims that the values
of a free citizen were not linked primarily to the rise of
mercantile classes and urbane thinkers, but to the “the rise of
a novel middling class of autonomous farmers” who owned and
worked their farms of about 10 acres at the end of the Dark Ages
(1100–800 BC), and went on in the next four centuries to become
the dominant cultural force in ancient Greece. Th ese “yeomen”
farmers were not the majority in absolute numbers – one-third to
one-half of the adult male free residents of the Greek polis saw
themselves as independent landowners – but they revolutionized
the economic, military, and cultural life of Greece. They
cultivated an ethos of family-centered production, free choice
in economic activity, freedom from arbitrary taxes and rents,
and a mentality which favored constitutional government based on
local representation (1999: 25–45, 179–318).[/quote]
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization by Ricardo Duchesne Page
343
This is the example of socialism. The state controls private
ownership
[quote]The economy of the 3rd century BCE Mauryan Empire of
India, under the rulership of its first emperor Chandragupta,
who was assisted by his economic and political advisor Kautilya,
has been described as, "a socialized monarchy", "a sort of state
socialism", and the world's first welfare state.[15] Under the
Mauryan system there was no private ownership of land as all
land was owned by the king to whom tribute was paid by the
Shudras, or laboring class. In return the emperor supplied the
laborers with agricultural products, animals, seeds, tools,
public infrastructure, and stored food in reserve for times of
crisis.[15]
[15] Roger Boesche (2003). The First Great Political Realist:
Kautilya and His Arthashastra. Lexington Books. pp. 67–70. ISBN
978-0-7391-0607-5.
...
Ideas and political traditions that are conceptually related to
modern socialism have their origins in antiquity and the Middle
Ages.[6] Ancient Egypt had a strong, unified, theocratic state
which, along with its temple system employed peasants in massive
labor projects and owned key parts of the economy, such as the
granaries which dispensed grain to the public in hard times.[7]
This system of government is sometimes referred to as
'theocratic socialism".[8][/quote]
Source :
Wikipedia contributors. (2025, July 14). History of socialism.
In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 04:58, July 22,
2025, from
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_socialism&oldid=1300504993
[quote][quote]"They deserve violent retaliation for their
attitudes that perpetuate social jealousy and foster a
condescending attitude toward the lower classes."[/quote]
Violence as a reaction to something non-violent that you dislike
is initiated violence, not retaliatory violence.[/quote]
The creation of social inequality by the middle and upper
classes is violence. This creates a human tendency to feel
superior and physically and psychologically humiliate other
innocent humans simply because they do not have more decent
possessions like the middle and upper classes. To believe that
the middle and upper classes do not engage in psychological and
political violence is a big lie and a contradiction to the
socialist way of life. Of course, violence as a reaction to
something non-violent that you dislike is initiated violence,
not retaliatory violence, the example is the reaction to the
resistance revolution to the middle and upper classes, and the
reaction to the state's stance of ending voluntary transactions
between producers and consumers. That two reactions to
revolutionary actions can be called violent actions, because
these reactions are in the nature of rejecting revolutionary
actions.
[quote][quote]"If you are truly anti-egalitarian, you must be
willing to consider the middle class and the bourgeoisie as
inferior."[/quote]
You prove you do not understand logic. The sufficient condition
for me to be anti-egalitarian is that I accept some form of
unequal society. This does not imply I would accept every
possible form of unequal society.[/quote]
I accept an unegalitarian society, I agree with retaliatory
violence against the middle class and bourgeoisie, but I support
the working class. I would make the incomes of the bourgeoisie
and middle class less different to those of the working class.
But I would support maintaining decent living standards for the
working class, and for the former middle class and bourgeoisie
who have been subjugated to the party and the state, and whose
wealth has been confiscated.
[quote][quote]"It is natural for the lower classes to hate the
middle and upper classes."[/quote]
If a guy without legs tries to cut my legs off after seeing me
walk, is it my fault for walking or his fault for being
jealous?[/quote]
It's your fault for not showing sympathy for those born without
a full set of legs. Be kind to disabled people who haven't done
anything wrong. If you humiliate him physically, mentally, or
both, and he attacks you relentlessly, then you deserve to be
attacked.
[quote][quote]"People who look good and cause social jealousy
are the ones who commit violence first."[/quote]
Incel.[/quote]
Even if I were labeled an "incel," it would still be no worse
than a good-looking couple causing pornography and social
jealousy.
[quote][quote]"even though they have choices in consumption,
lower-class citizens are still exposed to the potential for
being devalued by the middle and upper classes due to their
lower quality of consumption, despite still being considered
adequate. Meanwhile, the middle class has easier access to
higher-quality products due to their sufficient financial
resources. This materialistic attitude can be overcome by
forcing the middle and upper classes to consume affordable,
usable products."[/quote]
Even though they have choices in transportation, citizens
without legs are still exposed to the potential for being
devalued by the walking and running classes due to their lower
quality of transportation, despite still being considered
adequate. Meanwhile, the walking class has easier access to
higher-quality transportation due to their sufficient
physiological resources. This materialistic attitude can be
overcome by forcing the walking and running classes to use
affordable, usable wheelchairs.[/quote]
I urge people with normal feet to empathize and refrain from
doing anything that could potentially physically or
psychologically degrade people with disabilities. This can be
done by allowing privileges to be granted to those with
disabilities. Just as we privilege the lower classes and police
the middle and upper classes harshly. After all, I want everyone
to be worthy, not everyone to be disabled. Eliminating wealth
from the middle and upper classes doesn't make them economically
disabled; they will simply have less wealth that creates
inequality, but still allows them to live a decent life.
[quote]Do you agree with the paragraph I just wrote?[/quote]
No, you are wrong in explaining the logic.
[quote]So walkers are the group that "first commits violence",
and those who try to cut walkers' legs off are "victims of
psychological terror"?[/quote]
Pedestrians who refuse to empathize with innocent people with
disabilities are committing violence and psychological terror in
the first place. And the way to prevent social jealousy between
them is, public places should be made easy for people who pass
through them, even though many people still find it easy in
public places where the level of difficulty for walking is high.
[quote]"If you don't want to understand this, don't ever claim
to be a socialist"
[quote]I support building wheelchair lanes in all public spaces
funded by taxes even if such taxes come proportionately more
from walkers than non-walkers. Therefore I am a socialist. (I
merely do not support forcing walkers into wheelchairs
also.)[/quote][/quote]
If socialism simply means imposing high taxes on the wealthy,
then a mixed capitalist (social democracy) society would already
do that. In reality, this system has failed to achieve
socialism. Socialism means forcing everyone who is naturally
inclined towards economic and social activities that prioritize
self-potential, capital accumulation, and efficiency to
prioritize empathy and life planning for the sake of lightness,
sensitivity, and safety.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page