DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 31297--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: SodaPop Date: November 6, 2025, 3:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Commodification of animals obviously initiates violence because
the animal being commodified did not consent to this. But
commodification of animals long predated capitalism even
according to your own link:"
Interesting. And it seems you are right, capitalism on its own
does not necessarily lead to universal commodification according
to Google, because if it did we could easily argue that modern
capitalism is actually much older than what is currently
understood. Hadn't thought of that, certainly not an aspiring
economist either...
[quote]Does capitalism in all it's forms end in commodification?
The question of whether capitalism in all its forms ends in
commodification is complex and multifaceted. While capitalism is
fundamentally driven by the pursuit of profit, commodification
is a broader process that encompasses the transformation of
goods and services into commodities for market exchange. This
process can extend to various aspects of human life, including
human agency, transformative capacities, and even basic human
needs.
Critiques of commodification argue that while capitalism drives
towards commodification, it does not universally lead to the
commodification of everything. Instead, capitalism generates a
constant pressure or tendency towards universal commodification,
but it also produces decommodifying drives with respect to
certain key 'things'. This suggests that while commodification
is a central feature of capitalism, it is not the end-all-be-all
of the system.
The commodification of human life, as discussed by Karl Polanyi,
is a continuous process that extends beyond the three fictitious
commodities of labor, land, and money. It involves the
transformation of every human aspect and quality into abstract,
functional units necessary for the functioning of the market
institution.
In summary, while capitalism is inherently linked to
commodification, it does not end in commodification. Instead, it
generates a dynamic relationship where commodification is a
feature of capitalism, but it also produces counteracting forces
that prevent it from being the final destination.
[/quote]
#Post#: 31380--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: November 16, 2025, 1:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"The attitude of voluntary transaction also
implies a voluntary participation in transactional activities
that produce unemployment, poverty, and social violence within a
community. Such outcomes can arise because some parties fail to
achieve consumers' voluntary choices when engaging in buying and
selling activities within the law of voluntary
exchange."[/quote]
This is not violence. This is inequality. You are an
egalitarian.[/quote]
Those who feel secure within the market order—who see supply and
demand as society’s moral compass—are not part of our struggle.
They choose to side with the structures that preserve injustice.
We clearly recognize who walks with us, and who stands defending
the forces we seek to change. None of my statements advocate the
imposition of ‘egalitarian’ values upon society. Such an agenda
is not what I seek, nor does it represent the direction of my
critique
[quote]No, you avoided my question. My question was:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg31004/#msg31004
[quote]if A damages property, should B have to pay half the
damage fees?[/quote]
to which your response was:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg31121/#msg31121
[quote]if A destroys the property of innocent people, then B is
obliged to admonish A as a fellow member of the
collective.[/quote]
thus avoiding what I asked (in bold).[/quote]
If A acts in defiance of those who embody aggressive and
predatory capitalist behavior, then B has the responsibility to
support A’s stance. But if A directs their actions against
individuals who are innocent, marginalized, sensitive, and
committed to values of empathy, then B is obligated to hold A
accountable, ensuring that such harmful conduct is not repeated.
[quote][quote]"those who first initiated violence (the
capitalist society and the adherents of market law)"[/quote]
Voluntary transactions are by definition non-violent. (Hint in
bold.)[/quote]
Throughout history, social aggressiveness and social
fragmentation have been driven by economic activity rooted in
voluntary market transactions. It is invariably the aggressive,
dynamic, psychotic, and insensitive actors who manage to survive
and seize control over the circulation of wealth in society,
while those who are sensitive, empathetic, neurotic, and
committed to moral attentiveness consistently lose ground and
become oppressed by economic conditions and social status.
because they tend to be less capable of generating income by
dominating market segments that emerge voluntarily and
spontaneously. Thus, in reality, ‘voluntary transactions’ are
not as virtuous as you imagine
[quote]Imagine a singing contest organized by a recording studio
with a recording deal as the prize. Two contestants A and B show
up. A sings better (according to the criteria of the recording
studio) and is given the recording deal. Can B be taken
seriously if B complains that it is wrong for B to not also get
a recording deal merely because B "lacks bargaining power" (ie.
can't sing)?
...
[quote]"Such a situation causes parties to compete against one
another merely to win contracts"[/quote]
How else, if not by listening to both A and B sing to see who is
better, is the studio supposed to decide whom to sign onto its
label?[/quote]
Those whose work remains adequate but fails to satisfy the
desires of the consumer majority still deserve wages and
sustenance from the state. Having made the effort not to harm
others in the first place, they should be employed according to
their abilities and needs. As long as they comply with the laws
of a socialist society and universal moral principles, they are
entitled to support from the state—regardless of whether their
productive output meets the standard of consumer satisfaction. I
do not understand why you still invoke Hitler as an inspiration,
while on the other hand you continue to claim that market laws
and voluntary transactions are ‘good’ and ‘non-violent.’ You
need to revisit how socialism actually functions. From my
perspective, your stance aligns too closely with western
capitalist and utilitarianist value and also Jewish value of
competitionism
[quote][quote]This, in turn, hinders mutual trust and instead
fosters aggression and hostility between them."[/quote]
Only if B has a jealous personality. Therefore the problem is
B's personality, not the singing contest.[/quote]
If B’s singing work goes unpaid merely because it does not
satisfy listeners as much as A’s performance, this reflects a
structural injustice in how labor and rewards are distributed.
Especially when B has made every effort to ensure their singing
is competent and does not harm the audience, but the system
still privileges those chosen by market forces and studio
owners, rather than assessing work on its intrinsic value
[quote][quote]"if everything I have described occurs, it becomes
difficult for human beings of genuine virtue, sensitivity, and
socialist disposition—the kind you desire—to emerge."[/quote]
Therefore we must eliminate jealous people, not eliminate
singing contests. Moron.[/quote]
Thus, activities grounded in competition, contests, and broadly
applied market laws should be brought to an end. Market
mechanisms produce favorable conditions only for those who are
competitive, aggressive, innovative, materialistic, dynamic, and
lacking in empathy. Meanwhile, those with empathetic,
suffragist, sensitive, and integrally minded dispositions are
systematically marginalized and excluded.
You have yet to provide a concrete example of how competition
and voluntary transactions could mitigate social aggressiveness.
Therefore, I remain justified in rejecting your argument.
#Post#: 31383--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: SodaPop Date: November 16, 2025, 1:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Throughout history, social aggressiveness and social
fragmentation have been driven by economic activity rooted in
voluntary market transactions. It is invariably the aggressive,
dynamic, psychotic, and insensitive actors who manage to survive
and seize control over the circulation of wealth in society,
while those who are sensitive, empathetic, neurotic, and
committed to moral attentiveness consistently lose ground and
become oppressed by economic conditions and social status.
because they tend to be less capable of generating income by
dominating market segments that emerge voluntarily and
spontaneously. Thus, in reality, ‘voluntary transactions’ are
not as virtuous as you imagine[/quote]
Isn't this why capitalists love democracy and hate
dictatorships? How is it not the society in questions fault for
allowing these people in bold to seize the circulation of wealth
in society in the first place? What of anti-trust\anti-monopoly
laws in the U.S.? Were these not implemented initially in an
attempt to prevent this type of seizure? It sounds like you are
describing criminals who flout the law and illegally attempt to
seize wealth for themselves? Criminals are criminals firstly,
are they not?
Interestingly, this showed up in my feed this morning:
Singapore physical punishment: Convicted scammers will be caned
under new law
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CRruVpSGEQ
#Post#: 31388--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: November 16, 2025, 6:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"None of my statements advocate the imposition of ‘egalitarian’
values upon society."
This is your statement:
[quote]some parties fail to achieve consumers' voluntary choices
when engaging in buying and selling activities within the law of
voluntary exchange.[/quote]
In other words, there is inequality between some parties which
fail and other parties which do not fail. You dislike this
inequality. Therefore you are an egalitarian.
"B is obligated to hold A accountable, ensuring that such
harmful conduct is not repeated."
You are still avoiding my question, which is:
[quote]if A damages property, should B have to pay half the
damage fees?[/quote]
Yes or no?
"‘voluntary transactions’ are not as virtuous as you imagine"
Nevertheless, they are non-violent. Stop changing the subject.
(Also, you should know that I never use the word "virtuous" with
a positive connotation.)
"It is invariably the aggressive, dynamic, psychotic, and
insensitive actors who manage to survive and seize control over
the circulation of wealth in society"
This can be solved with a wealth cap, as already explained.
"Those whose work remains adequate but fails to satisfy the
desires of the consumer majority still deserve wages and
sustenance from the state."
Adequate according to whom?
Also, I never said anything about "satisfying the desires of the
consumer majority" as a test for quality:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums
[quote]Michael Jackson's Thriller, estimated to have sold 70
million copies worldwide, is the best-selling album
ever.[4][5][6] [/quote]
Compared to the world population, 70 million is not even 1%, and
certainly <50%, therefore nowhere close to majority.
"Having made the effort not to harm others in the first place,
they should be employed according to their abilities and needs.
As long as they comply with the laws of a socialist society and
universal moral principles, they are entitled to support from
the state—regardless of whether their productive output meets
the standard of consumer satisfaction."
I agree that someone who needs a job but is failing to find one
in the private sector should be allocated a minimum wage public
sector job by the state (hence I am a socialist). I disagree
that such a person should get to keep this job if consumers are
complaining.
"I do not understand why you still invoke Hitler as an
inspiration, while on the other hand you continue to claim that
market laws and voluntary transactions are ‘good’ and
‘non-violent.’"
This is why you are not needed here.
"From my perspective"
Your perspective is worthless.
"your stance aligns too closely with western capitalist and
utilitarianist value and also Jewish value of competitionism"
I already said I want a wealth cap, thus limiting accumulation
of capital.
"If B’s singing work goes unpaid merely because it does not
satisfy listeners as much as A’s performance, this reflects a
structural injustice in how labor and rewards are distributed."
If you reward bad singing, you get more bad singers.
"Especially when B has made every effort to ensure their singing
is competent and does not harm the audience"
B, merely by occupying a time slot, is preventing a better
singer from using that slot. If B sincerely wished to not harm
the audience, B would not "make every effort to ensure their
singing is competent", but leave the slot to someone who sings
well effortlessly.
"Market mechanisms produce favorable conditions only for those
who are competitive, aggressive, innovative, materialistic,
dynamic, and lacking in empathy."
The Counterculture happened within market mechanisms.
"You have yet to provide a concrete example of how competition
and voluntary transactions could mitigate social
aggressiveness."
Social aggressiveness will be phased out via state control over
reproduction. For example, those such as yourself who call
anything they personally dislike "violent" will be prohibited
from reproducing. When bloodlines such as yours are eliminated,
social aggressiveness will be much lower.
#Post#: 31544--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: December 4, 2025, 1:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]some parties fail to achieve consumers' voluntary choices
when engaging in buying and selling activities within the law of
voluntary exchange.
In other words, there is inequality between some parties which
fail and other parties which do not fail. You dislike this
inequality. Therefore you are an egalitarian.[/quote]
A group of individuals does not deserve to suffer simply because
they fail to secure voluntary consumer approval in order to
participate successfully in economic transactions. If they act
ethically, remain sensitive to others, and produce goods that
are still fit for consumption, they are entitled to the
protection of the state. Even if their products and performance
are not favored by consumers—merely because they do not deliver
the same level of satisfaction as those who cater perfectly to
consumer desires—the fact remains that what is deemed
‘unsatisfying’ or ‘imperfect’ by consumers may still be entirely
usable and worthy of consumption.
The solution for those who fail to obtain voluntary approval
from consumers who demand perfect satisfaction is to plan the
process of exchange itself. In such a system, consumers would be
required to consume what workers have produced. And the goods or
services produced would, of course, have been inspected and
proven suitable for use. Even if these products are simple and
not overly complex—made by people whose working abilities are
not as advanced as others—their output remains usable and valid.
This is what socialism truly means
[quote]"You get inflation if you want inflation," Hitler
retorted angrily. "Inflation is lack of discipline lack of
discipline in the buyers, and lack of discipline in the sellers.
I will see to it that prices remain stable. That is what my S.A.
is for. Woe to the men who raise prices! We need no legal
instruments for that. It will be done by the party alone. You
shall see if our S.A. once clean up a shop, such things will not
happen a second time." - Adolf Hitler[/quote]
Source :
The Voice Of Destruction by Hermann Rauschning Page 20
HTML https://archive.org/details/voiceofdestructi027169mbp/page/n31/mode/2up
[quote]Based on the logic of a free market and the natural laws
of competition, Hitler said, one could in many cases not expect
any actions directed toward the common good. One could not, for
example,
... expect a man who happens to produce nitrogen to say: 'I
think it would now be wiser to sell it for 20 percent less.' No,
we cannot ask that. This can only be recognized as being
necessary from a higher vantage point, and then you say, 'It
must be done.' But we cannot ask it of the man... Or if, for
example, I demand of someone else that he should agree that we
in Germany are going to produce our fuel ourselves, but he makes
his living in the fuel trade. Well, you cannot expect the man to
say, 'I think that is a fabulous idea that you are going to
produce your fuel yourself.' Or an international rubber buyer or
rubber trader who is now supposed to decide whether we in
Germany are to build Buna factories. He will naturally say, 'I
think that is crazy, absolutely impossible."**
In all such cases there is obviously a contradiction between the
capitalist private and the state-defined general political
interests. According to Hitler's view, the state always has the
right and the obligation a enforce the general political against
the capitalist private interests.[/quote]
Source :
Hitler: The Policies of Seduction by Rainer Zitelmann Page 215
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerpoliciesof0000zite/mode/2up?q=expect+a+man+who+happens+to+produce
[quote]"B is obligated to hold A accountable, ensuring that such
harmful conduct is not repeated."
You are still avoiding my question, which is:
[quote]if A damages property, should B have to pay half the
damage fees?[/quote]
Yes or no?[/quote]
Yes, because if A damages the property of an innocent person,
then B, as A’s collective comrade, also bears responsibility for
compensating the loss. This is because B, as part of A’s
collective, should make every effort to prevent A from
committing such acts of violence. An individual’s wrongful
action is also shaped by the behavior of their comrades and the
conditions surrounding them.
[quote]"‘voluntary transactions’ are not as virtuous as you
imagine"
Nevertheless, they are non-violent. Stop changing the subject.
(Also, you should know that I never use the word "virtuous" with
a positive connotation.)[/quote]
Voluntary transactions result in:
[quote]...especially since the early 1940s, shows that he
[Hitler] had been a fierce critic of the free-market system and
an adherent of a planned and state-controlled economy[/quote]
Source :
Hitler's National Socialism by Rainer Zitelmann Pages 332 and
333
[quote]Wenn die deutsche Volkswirtschaft ebenso wie mit diesem
Problem auch mit den zahllosen anderen Problemen fertig geworden
sei und damit die Durchfüh- rung des Rüstungsprogramms
sichergestellt habe, so sei das nicht zuletzt darauf
zurückzuführen, dass die Lenkung der Volkswirtschaft immer mehr
eine staat- liche geworden sei. Nur so sei es möglich gewesen,
das gesamtnationale Ziel den Interessen einzelner Gruppen
gegenüber durchzusetzen411.
Auch nach dem Kriege würden wir auf eine staatliche Lenkung der
Volks- wirtschaft nicht verzichten können, da sonst jeder
Interessenkreis ausschliesslich an die Erfüllung seiner Wünsche
denke.
- Adolf Hitler, 5. Juli 1942
English Translation :
That Germany has succeeded in solving this problem, as it has
solved many others, is due in no small measure to the fact that
the State has progressively assumed more and more control. Only
in this way was it possible to defeat private interests and
carry national interests triumphantly to their goal. After the
war, equally, we must not let control of the economy of the
country slip from our hands. If we do, then once more all the
various private interests will concentrate on their own
particular objectives.
- Adolf Hitler, 5th Juli 1942 (Table Talk)[/quote]
Source :
1. Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier by Dr. Henry
Picker Page 419
2. Hitler’s Table Talk His Private Conversations (1941-1944)
words of Adolf Hitler Translated by Norman Cameron and R.H.
Stevens Page 559
[quote][quote]"It is invariably the aggressive, dynamic,
psychotic, and insensitive actors who manage to survive and
seize control over the circulation of wealth in society"[/quote]
This can be solved with a wealth cap, as already
explained.[/quote]
Individuals who exhibit aggressive, hyper-competitive, or
socially harmful behavior cannot be addressed merely by limiting
their accumulation of wealth; they must also be restrained from
engaging in competitive, market-driven modes of living. They
should be guided away from systems governed by market laws and
voluntary transactions, which tend to amplify such destructive
tendencies.
[quote][quote]"Those whose work remains adequate but fails to
satisfy the desires of the consumer majority still deserve wages
and sustenance from the state."[/quote]
Adequate according to whom?[/quote]
If a product still meets the minimum standard of consumer
viability, then the output of a given party is still considered
useful, adequate, and will continue to be accepted by the state,
even if the majority of surrounding consumers regard that
product as ‘less satisfying.
[quote][quote]"Having made the effort not to harm others in the
first place, they should be employed according to their
abilities and needs. As long as they comply with the laws of a
socialist society and universal moral principles, they are
entitled to support from the state—regardless of whether their
productive output meets the standard of consumer
satisfaction."[/quote]
I agree that someone who needs a job but is failing to find one
in the private sector should be allocated a minimum wage public
sector job by the state (hence I am a socialist). I disagree
that such a person should get to keep this job if consumers are
complaining.[/quote]
If someone is employed in a work sector with minimum skill
requirements due to their limited abilities, they can still work
and receive compensation as long as their output meets the
established minimum standards. Consumers are not permitted to
complain if the workers’ output is proven to be adequate, even
if it is ‘less than satisfying’ to them. If the worker
deliberately produces inadequate work, they must be disciplined
and given appropriate penalties. If the worker is genuinely
struggling due to lack of capability, they should be placed in a
special facility where they can receive training and education
provided by the state
[quote][quote]"I do not understand why you still invoke Hitler
as an inspiration, while on the other hand you continue to claim
that market laws and voluntary transactions are ‘good’ and
‘non-violent.’"[/quote]
This is why you are not needed here.
...
[quote]"From my perspective"[/quote]
Your perspective is worthless.[/quote]
Hitler would be disappointed if he were given the chance to see
you portray him as someone who approved of market mechanisms and
voluntary transactions. Hahaha.
[quote][quote]"your stance aligns too closely with western
capitalist and utilitarianist value and also Jewish value of
competitionism"[/quote]
I already said I want a wealth cap, thus limiting accumulation
of capital.[/quote]
If you want to restrict people’s drive to accumulate capital,
then you must create conditions that make such behavior
difficult to pursue. The most effective way is to establish a
command economy and bring an end to economic activity based on
market mechanisms. Because economic activity based on market
mechanisms and voluntary transactions compels individuals to
accumulate capital in order to maintain the efficiency of their
means of production, especially when compared to the output of
others. As a result, their products continue to be voluntarily
selected by the majority of consumers in their surrounding
environment.
[quote][quote]"If B’s singing work goes unpaid merely because it
does not satisfy listeners as much as A’s performance, this
reflects a structural injustice in how labor and rewards are
distributed."[/quote]
If you reward bad singing, you get more bad singers.
...
[quote]"Especially when B has made every effort to ensure their
singing is competent and does not harm the audience"[/quote]
B, merely by occupying a time slot, is preventing a better
singer from using that slot. If B sincerely wished to not harm
the audience, B would not "make every effort to ensure their
singing is competent", but leave the slot to someone who sings
well effortlessly.[/quote]
What I want is that individuals who follow the rules and refrain
from committing physical or psychological harm in the first
place should still receive wages from the state, even if their
work does not satisfy consumers. Work that fails to meet
consumer expectations but remains functionally adequate must
still be recognized as an expression of one’s commitment and
loyalty to the community. A singer who performs well will
receive a reward, and someone whose singing is not as perfect as
the skilled singer will still receive wages as well—so long as
their singing remains acceptable according to the minimum
standard criteria
[quote][quote]"Market mechanisms produce favorable conditions
only for those who are competitive, aggressive, innovative,
materialistic, dynamic, and lacking in empathy."[/quote]
The Counterculture happened within market mechanisms.[/quote]
The counterculture movement failed because the state-level
community at the time still prioritized economic progress
through maintaining the efficiency of market mechanisms rather
than prioritizing social justice. That is why many oppressed
nations during the Cold War chose to align with the Soviet Union
rather than with the Western bloc, which they viewed as morally
and economically oppressive. Likewise, Hitler would have
preferred a victory by the fascist bloc or the Bolsheviks over a
victory by the Western liberal-democratic bloc.
Hitler was more sympathetic to socialism than to the capitalist
United States and Britain.
[quote]And if it takes a bomb to show the men in London, Paris,
and New York that I'm serious, well, they can have it. Don't be
afraid—I'll reach the limit when the time comes, but not before.
. . . Oh no, not this lime—I've learned to wait. … If they don't
understand other languages, they'll learn something if a dozen
of these golden hyenas swim in their own blood in every capital
of Europe and America. I have only one thought, a thought that
drives me day and night—to make Germany great, the greatest
power on earth. And if you imagine a greater Germany alongside
Russia, I'd say I can see a German Reich stretching from the
North Sea to the Ural Mountains, but without Stalin.[/quote]
- Adolf Hitler speaking to Kurt G. W. Ludecke
Kurt Lüdecke (5 February 1890, in Berlin – 1960, in Prien am
Chiemsee) was an ardent German nationalist and international
traveler who joined the Nazi party
Source :
I Knew Hitler by Kurt G. W. Ludecke Page 423
HTML https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.499056/page/n431/mode/2up?q=every+capital+of+Europe
[quote]The German dictator admitted during a conversation with
Benito Mussolini on 22 April 1944 that he had become convinced:
“Capitalism too had run its course, the nations were no longer
willing to stand for it. The victors to survive would be
Fascism, and National Socialism – maybe Bolshevism in the East”
[1][2][/quote]
Source :
1. Zitelmann, R. (2022). The role of anti-capitalism in Hitler's
world view. Economic Affairs, 42(3), 515–527.
HTML https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12551
(Page 523)
2. Hillgruber, A. (Ed.) (1967). Staatsmänner und Diplomaten bei
Hitler: Vertrauliche Aufzeichnungen 1939–1941 (Vol. 2). Bernard
und Graefe (Page 422)
[quote][quote]"You have yet to provide a concrete example of how
competition and voluntary transactions could mitigate social
aggressiveness."[/quote]
Social aggressiveness will be phased out via state control over
reproduction. For example, those such as yourself who call
anything they personally dislike "violent" will be prohibited
from reproducing. When bloodlines such as yours are eliminated,
social aggressiveness will be much lower.[/quote]
The attitude of rejecting market-based activities that generate
systemic social violence is not born from mere personal dislike.
It is a stance against practices that genuinely produce the
initial forms of both physical and psychological harm. It is
those who embrace such practices—and who refuse to acknowledge
the systemic violence inherent in them—who rightly to be
prohibited from reproducing.
#Post#: 31545--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: December 4, 2025, 3:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"consumers would be required to consume what workers have
produced"
This is initiated violence.
"Yes, because if A damages the property of an innocent person,
then B, as A’s collective comrade, also bears responsibility for
compensating the loss. This is because B, as part of A’s
collective, should make every effort to prevent A from
committing such acts of violence. An individual’s wrongful
action is also shaped by the behavior of their comrades and the
conditions surrounding them."
So you believe someone who damages property and someone who does
not damage property should be treated equally. You are an
egalitarian.
"Individuals who exhibit aggressive, hyper-competitive, or
socially harmful behavior cannot be addressed merely by limiting
their accumulation of wealth; they must also be restrained from
engaging in competitive, market-driven modes of living. They
should be guided away from systems governed by market laws and
voluntary transactions, which tend to amplify such destructive
tendencies."
The part in bold is initiated violence.
"If a product still meets the minimum standard of consumer
viability"
Who sets the standard? You are avoiding my question again.
"Consumers are not permitted to complain"
This is initiated violence.
"Hitler would be disappointed if he were given the chance to see
you portray him as someone who approved of market mechanisms and
voluntary transactions. Hahaha."
As I already said:
[quote]Your perspective is worthless.[/quote]
"If you want to restrict people’s drive to accumulate capital,
then you must create conditions that make such behavior
difficult to pursue."
As I have already explained over and over again, I don't want to
restrict any drive, because this makes it harder to spot. I want
all drives to be in plain sight so as to make them as easy as
possible to spot.
"What I want is that individuals who follow the rules and
refrain from committing physical or psychological harm in the
first place should still receive wages from the state, even if
their work does not satisfy consumers."
So you want to force taxpayers to pay those who produce things
the taxpayers would never voluntarily buy, and worse (as you
admitted above) force the taxpayers to consume these things, and
on top of that (as you admitted above) force the taxpayers to
not complain while all this is going on.
"It is a stance against practices that genuinely produce the
initial forms of both physical and psychological harm."
The irony.....
"The counterculture movement failed"
At least it happened. It never happened in communist countries
in the first place.
"That is why many oppressed nations during the Cold War chose to
align with the Soviet Union"
Post the best Soviet song/movies/etc. you can find from the Cold
War era, and let's compare them side by side with their
Counterculture counterparts.
#Post#: 31552--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: December 5, 2025, 2:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"consumers would be required to consume what
workers have produced"
...
[quote]"What I want is that individuals who follow the rules and
refrain from committing physical or psychological harm in the
first place should still receive wages from the state, even if
their work does not satisfy consumers."[/quote]
So you want to force taxpayers to pay those who produce things
the taxpayers would never voluntarily buy, and worse (as you
admitted above) force the taxpayers to consume these things, and
on top of that (as you admitted above) force the taxpayers to
not complain while all this is going on.[/quote]
This is initiated violence.
...
[quote]"It is a stance against practices that genuinely produce
the initial forms of both physical and psychological
harm."[/quote]
The irony.....[/quote]
Customers are provided with goods that have been verified as
adequate by the workers. Even if certain products meet only the
minimum standards of adequacy and fail to satisfy those
customers, the customers are still obliged to respect the labor
of the workers and to consume the products in the interest of
maintaining disciplined, planned, and directed economic activity
under the state. In this way, no party suffers business losses
or bankruptcy merely because their goods or services fail to
receive voluntary purchases from consumers. Disciplining the
populace to engage in planned and regulated exchange in order to
prevent inflation and social inequality constitutes a form of
resistance—an effort to counter the systemic violence produced
by ‘free enterprise,’ economic competition, and market
mechanisms, whether in their free-market or mixed-market form
[quote][quote]"Yes, because if A damages the property of an
innocent person, then B, as A’s collective comrade, also bears
responsibility for compensating the loss. This is because B, as
part of A’s collective, should make every effort to prevent A
from committing such acts of violence. An individual’s wrongful
action is also shaped by the behavior of their comrades and the
conditions surrounding them."[/quote]
So you believe someone who damages property and someone who does
not damage property should be treated equally. You are an
egalitarian.[/quote]
In this scenario, A is a comrade of B; therefore, if B—as A’s
comrade—fails to warn or prevent A from damaging someone’s
property, B is still considered accountable. Both A and B bear
responsibility, while the victim of A’s actions remains
innocent. I am not equalizing people
[quote][quote]"Individuals who exhibit aggressive,
hyper-competitive, or socially harmful behavior cannot be
addressed merely by limiting their accumulation of wealth; they
must also be restrained from engaging in competitive,
market-driven modes of living. They should be guided away from
systems governed by market laws and voluntary transactions,
which tend to amplify such destructive tendencies."[/quote]
The part in bold is initiated violence.[/quote]
Restricting social competition is meant to address what Hitler
and Goebbels once complained about :
[quote]"Where would we take the moral right from to fight the
idea of the proletarian struggle between the classes, if the
bourgeois class-state were not first destroyed and replaced by a
new Socialist structure of the German community? - Joseph
Goebbels, Propaganda Ministry, October 1932[/quote]
Source :
1. The Nazi War Against Capitalism by Nevin Gussack Page 19
2. Leftism: from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse Page 175
HTML https://cdn.mises.org/Leftism%20From%20de%20Sade%20and%20Marx%20to%20Hitler%20and%20Marcuse_5.pdf
[quote]A worker certainly does something which is contrary to
the spirit of folk-community if he acts entirely on his own
initiative and puts forward exaggerated demands without taking
the common good into consideration or the maintenance of the
national economic structure. But an industrialist also acts
against the spirit of the folk-community if he adopts inhuman
methods of exploitation and misuses the working forces of the
nation to make millions unjustly for himself from the sweat of
the workers. He has no right to call himself 'national' and no
right to talk of a folk-community, for he is only an
unscrupulous egoist who sows the seeds of social discontent and
provokes a spirit of conflict which sooner or later must be
injurious to the interests of the country. - Adolf
Hitler[/quote]
Source :
1. The Nazi War Against Capitalism by Nevin Gussack Page 12
2. Mein Kampf by Hitler, Adolf, 1889-1945, author Page 216
HTML https://archive.org/details/meinkampf0000hitl/page/216/mode/2up?q=A+worker+certainly+does+something+which+is+contrary+to+the+spirit+of+folk-community
[quote]"You get inflation if you want inflation," Hitler
retorted angrily. "Inflation is lack of discipline lack of
discipline in the buyers, and lack of discipline in the sellers.
I will see to it that prices remain stable. That is what my S.A.
is for. Woe to the men who raise prices! We need no legal
instruments for that. It will be done by the party alone. You
shall see if our S.A. once clean up a shop, such things will not
happen a second time." - Adolf Hitler[/quote]
Source :
The Voice Of Destruction by Hermann Rauschning Page 20
HTML https://archive.org/details/voiceofdestructi027169mbp/page/n31/mode/2up
[quote]Based on the logic of a free market and the natural laws
of competition, Hitler said, one could in many cases not expect
any actions directed toward the common good. One could not, for
example,
... expect a man who happens to produce nitrogen to say: 'I
think it would now be wiser to sell it for 20 percent less.' No,
we cannot ask that. This can only be recognized as being
necessary from a higher vantage point, and then you say, 'It
must be done.' But we cannot ask it of the man... Or if, for
example, I demand of someone else that he should agree that we
in Germany are going to produce our fuel ourselves, but he makes
his living in the fuel trade. Well, you cannot expect the man to
say, 'I think that is a fabulous idea that you are going to
produce your fuel yourself.' Or an international rubber buyer or
rubber trader who is now supposed to decide whether we in
Germany are to build Buna factories. He will naturally say, 'I
think that is crazy, absolutely impossible."**
In all such cases there is obviously a contradiction between the
capitalist private and the state-defined general political
interests. According to Hitler's view, the state always has the
right and the obligation a enforce the general political against
the capitalist private interests.[/quote]
Source :
Hitler: The Policies of Seduction by Rainer Zitelmann Page 215
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerpoliciesof0000zite/mode/2up?q=expect+a+man+who+happens+to+produce
Hitler's Hatred toward the bourgeoise
[quote]The position of the German bourgeoisie was always the
same, in that it opposed these attempts at reform and believed
it could turn back the hands of time ... Only a few years ago
the miners had a nine-hour day and wanted to reduce it to an
eight-hour day. The whole bourgeois press took the view that
this was impossible. When the miners then went on strike, it
went completely wild. Now I know very well that at the time
hundreds of thousands of those bourgeois joined in the shouting,
but only because they did not know what the real issue was. Had
they only gone down under the ground once for eight hours, nay
only for four hours, they would have said, no, nobody can stand
that. - Adolf Hitler, 26 March 1927 [1] [Page 205]
...
... the political German bourgeoisie has developed into one of
the greatest curses of the German nation. Had the revolution of
1918 only sent the bourgeois parties to the devil instead of the
nobility, the German nation could ultimately have honestly
thanked Marxism, because for the German nation today the old
Roman proverb, in an amended wording, applies more than ever
before: Lord protect Germany from its friends of the bourgeois
parties, one way or the other it will then be able to deal with
its Marxist enemies! - Adolf Hitler, 4 January 1930 [2] [Page
228]
...
On 28 June 1930 Hitler wrote in the Illustrierte Beobachter that
the bourgeois parties and their men ‘were capable of any
nastiness’, that everything ‘the bourgeois parties put their
hands on’ goes under. ‘Were Bolshevism not out to destroy the
best racial élite, but only to clean out the bourgeois party
vermin, one would almost be tempted to bless it.’ [3] [Page 228]
...
Many a bourgeois who condemns the worker’s striving for an
improvement in his economic situation with an outrage that is as
unwise as it is unjust would possibly suddenly think completely
differently if for only three weeks he would have had laid on
his shoulders the burden of the work demanded of the others.
Even today there are still countless bourgeois elements who most
indignantly reject a demand for a wage of ten marks a month, and
especially any sharp support of this, as a ‘Marxist crime’, but
display complete incomprehension when faced with a demand to
also limit the excessive profits of certain individuals. - Adolf
Hitler, 1 November 1930 [4] [Page 206]
...
This democratization led to the state first falling into the
hands of certain social classes who identified themselves with
material possessions, with being employers. The broad masses
increasingly got the feeling that the state itself was not an
objective institution standing above mundane matters, above all
that it no longer embodied an objective authority, but that the
state itself was the product of the economic desires and the
business interests of certain groups within the nation, and that
the leadership of the state also justified such a claim. The
victory of the political bourgeoisie was after all nothing more
than the victory of a social class which had developed out of
the laws of business, which for its part did not fulfil even the
most minor conditions for a genuine political leadership, and
which, above all, made political leadership dependent on the
constantly fluctuating conditions of economic life and the
effects of this economic life in the areas of the influencing of
the masses, the preparing of public opinion and so forth. In
other words, the people quite rightly had the feeling that in
all sectors of life there was a natural selection going on,
always dependent on the suitability for this particular sector
of life, except in one sector: in the sector of political
leadership. In this sector of political leadership one suddenly
turned to that result of a selection which owed its existence to
a completely different process. - Adolf Hitler, 10 May 1933 [5]
[Page 224]
...
On 24 February 1940 Hitler declared that the
bourgeois-capitalist world had already collapsed, its age
already long outdated: This collapse must take place everywhere
in some form or other and it will not fail to materialize
anywhere.’ [6] The German nation could not, said Hitler, ‘live
with the bourgeois social order at all’. [7] In a conversation
with the Hungarian ‘Leader of the Nation’ Szálasi, Hitler
declared on 4 December 1944 that the ‘bourgeois European world’
would break down ever further and all that was left was the
alternative ‘that either a sensible social order were created on
a national level, or that Bolshevism would take over’. [8] [Page
230]
...
Hitler also sharply attacked the bourgeoisie in his table talks
and made it responsible for the development of Marxism and the
spread of Communism. On 2 August 1941, for example, he said:
It is no wonder that Communism had its strongest bulwark in
Saxony, and that we only won over the Saxon worker very
gradually, and also that he is now one of the most loyal: the
bourgeoisie there was of an almost imbecile bigotry. In the eyes
of Saxon business we were also Communists; whoever supports a
social equality for the masses is a Bolshevist! The sins
committed against the Saxon home workers are unimaginable. That
was a plutocracy such as in England today. In Saxony the
Wehrmacht had already detected a gradual decay of the human
material. I do not blame any one of the little people that he
was a Communist, I can only blame that on the intellectual: he
knew that for him the poverty was only a means to an end. If you
look at this vermin of a bourgeoisie, you still get red in the
face today. The masses followed the only way left open to them.
The worker took no part in national life. To the uncovering of a
Bismarck memorial, for example, or the launching of a ship, a
delegation of workers was never invited; all you saw there was
top hats and uniforms. For me the top hat is identical to the
bourgeoisie. - Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1941 [9] [Page 207]
...
Even in his final speeches Hitler still expressed his
convictions about the necessary collapse of the bourgeois world,
of the ending of the historic mission of the bourgeoisie. In his
last New Year address on 1 January 1945 he prophesied that
... the bourgeois social order is no longer able to resist the
storms of today, let alone those of coming times; state after
state which does not find the way to a truly social
restructuring will descend into chaos. The liberal age has been
and gone. To believe one can oppose this storm of the nations by
parliamentary-democratic half measures is child*sh, just as
naive as Metternich’s methods were against the mutually
reinforcing efforts at national unification of the nineteenth
century. [10] [Page 230][/quote]
Source :
1. BA (Bundesarchiv Koblenz)/NS 26/54, f. 148, speech on 26
March 1927
2. IB (Illustrierter Beobachter), 5th year set, issue 1 of 4
January 1930, p. 7
3. Ibid., issue 26 of 28 June 1930, p. 405
4. IB (Illustrierter Beobachter), 5th year set, issue 44 of 1
November 1930, p. 765
5. Speech at the congress of the DAF on 10 May 1933, in ‘Young
Germany Wants Work and Peace ...’, p. 48 et seq
6. Bouhler I/II, p. 162, speech on 24 February 1940
7. Ibid., p. 164
8. Conversation with Szálasi on 4 December 1944, Hillgruber,
Statesmen II, p. 527
9. Monologues, p. 51, entry for 2 August 1941
HTML https://archive.org/details/monologe-im-fuehrerhauptquartier/page/36/mode/2up?q=da%C3%9F+der+Kommunismus+in+Sachsen
10. Domarus, p. 2183, speech on 1 January 1945
11. Hitler's National Socialism by Rainer Zitelmann Page 205,
228, 224, 230, 207, and 230
HTML https://ia801207.us.archive.org/13/items/adolf-hitler-archive/Hitler%27s%20National%20Socialism%202022.pdf
[quote][quote]"If a product still meets the minimum standard of
consumer viability"[/quote]
Who sets the standard? You are avoiding my question
again.[/quote]
The standard of simplicity and affordability of products will
serve as the determining criterion for production and
consumption eligibility
[quote][quote]"Hitler would be disappointed if he were given the
chance to see you portray him as someone who approved of market
mechanisms and voluntary transactions. Hahaha."[/quote]
As I already said:
[quote]Your perspective is worthless.[/quote][/quote]
So do not use Hitler as an inspiration for any movement if you
refuse to acknowledge the facts about his actions that I have
presented
[quote][quote]"If you want to restrict people’s drive to
accumulate capital, then you must create conditions that make
such behavior difficult to pursue."[/quote]
As I have already explained over and over again, I don't want to
restrict any drive, because this makes it harder to spot. I want
all drives to be in plain sight so as to make them as easy as
possible to spot.[/quote]
If you want to easily see people behaving aggressively,
dynamically, psychotically, and prioritizing material abundance
and the power of people with high IQs rather than helping weak,
innocent people, just make them a special place where they will
be easily shot if they leave the boundary zone of that special
place.
[quote][quote]"The counterculture movement failed"[/quote]
At least it happened. It never happened in communist countries
in the first place.[/quote]
Opposition to racism, capitalism, and all the destructive things
that come from competitive activity began in the 1920s during
the leadership of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Ulyanov. A figure who
was admired by Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels and whose
centralistic leadership style was used by Adolf Hitler. But
during the Cold War years, those anti-oppression policies
gradually faded as revisionist tendencies increasingly emerged
among the leaders of socialist states
[quote][quote]"That is why many oppressed nations during the
Cold War chose to align with the Soviet Union"[/quote]
Post the best Soviet song/movies/etc. you can find from the Cold
War era, and let's compare them side by side with their
Counterculture counterparts.[/quote]
The Soviet Union did not produce works of art or cultural output
as refined as the Counterculture movements in the West. But what
they did offer was material assistance, means of resistance, and
financial support to movements of oppressed peoples and people
of color across the world—those who were poor, destitute, and in
poor health because their countries had been subjected to
neo-colonial and neo-liberal policies imposed by Western
nations, the very places where the Counterculture movement
originated and spread
#Post#: 31553--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: December 5, 2025, 3:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"Customers are provided with goods that have been verified as
adequate by the workers."
Letting those who produce a product be the ones to verify the
adequacy of that same product? What could possibly go wrong?
"In this scenario, A is a comrade of B; therefore, if B—as A’s
comrade—fails to warn or prevent A from damaging someone’s
property, B is still considered accountable."
Can B choose not to be A's comrade?
"Both A and B bear responsibility, while the victim of A’s
actions remains innocent."
What if B is the victim of A's actions, you moron?
"The standard of simplicity and affordability of products will
serve as the determining criterion for production and
consumption eligibility"
You are still avoiding my question. Who decides whether
something is simple enough or affordable enough?
"So do not use Hitler as an inspiration for any movement if you
refuse to acknowledge the facts about his actions that I have
presented"
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30550/#msg30550
"If you want to easily see people behaving aggressively,
dynamically, psychotically, and prioritizing material abundance
and the power of people with high IQs rather than helping weak,
innocent people, just make them a special place where they will
be easily shot if they leave the boundary zone of that special
place."
Huh?
"Opposition to racism, capitalism, and all the destructive
things that come from competitive activity began in the 1920s
during the leadership of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Ulyanov."
Really?
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/thaddeus-stevens/<br
/>(note the year, you moron)
And this is not even to mention all the ancient moral
universalist religions (all of which Lenin wanted to destroy:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%80%93Leninist_atheism<br
/>).
"whose centralistic leadership style was used by Adolf Hitler."
Moses drank water. So did Hitler. Therefore Hitler was a fan of
Moses?
"The Soviet Union did not produce works of art or cultural
output as refined as the Counterculture movements in the West."
I actually never specified "the West". But thank you for
conceding that Soviet art sucks.
"But what they did offer was material assistance, means of
resistance, and financial support to movements of oppressed
peoples and people of color across the world"
So let's compare pop culture of "non-white" countries that
received Soviet assistance (e.g. mainland China) side by side
with pop culture of "non-white" countries that did not receive
Soviet assistance (e.g. Taiwan).
#Post#: 31554--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: December 5, 2025, 9:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"Customers are provided with goods that have been
verified as adequate by the workers."[/quote]
Letting those who produce a product be the ones to verify the
adequacy of that same product? What could possibly go wrong?
...
[quote]"The standard of simplicity and affordability of products
will serve as the determining criterion for production and
consumption eligibility"[/quote]
You are still avoiding my question. Who decides whether
something is simple enough or affordable enough?[/quote]
Those who determine whether a product is fit for consumption and
affordable are the people who possess expertise in understanding
society and the state, especially its leadership. It is not the
consumers who make this judgment, for they tend to choose what
provides the greatest satisfaction rather than what is most
affordable and socially necessary
[quote][quote]"In this scenario, A is a comrade of B; therefore,
if B—as A’s comrade—fails to warn or prevent A from damaging
someone’s property, B is still considered accountable."[/quote]
Can B choose not to be A's comrade?[/quote]
No, that is not possible. B has become A’s comrade, and
therefore B must also share responsibility for the actions of
any fellow member of the collective—whether A, C, D, or any
other comrade within B’s group
[quote][quote]"Both A and B bear responsibility, while the
victim of A’s actions remains innocent."[/quote]
What if B is the victim of A's actions, you moron?[/quote]
Thus, B also takes part in holding A accountable
[quote][quote]"So do not use Hitler as an inspiration for any
movement if you refuse to acknowledge the facts about his
actions that I have presented"[/quote]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30550/#msg30550[/quote]
You are looking at Hitler’s social views from a single
quotation; you should examine the records of what Hitler wanted
and envisioned in the years after 1940. He attempted to become a
genuine anti-capitalist, not merely a unifying figure
[quote][quote]"If you want to easily see people behaving
aggressively, dynamically, psychotically, and prioritizing
material abundance and the power of people with high IQs rather
than helping weak, innocent people, just make them a special
place where they will be easily shot if they leave the boundary
zone of that special place."[/quote]
Huh?[/quote]
If you want those who are driven by aggression and a competitive
way of life to continue doing so voluntarily, then they must not
be allowed to hold power within the broader society.
[quote][quote]"Opposition to racism, capitalism, and all the
destructive things that come from competitive activity began in
the 1920s during the leadership of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Ulyanov."[/quote]
Really?
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/thaddeus-stevens/<br
/>(note the year, you moron)
And this is not even to mention all the ancient moral
universalist religions (all of which Lenin wanted to destroy:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%80%93Leninist_atheism<br
/>).[/quote]
The historical figure you mentioned did not carry out the
socialization of the means of production and land ownership;
therefore, while that figure may have been admirable, they were
not truly complete. As for the issue of religion being
dismantled by Lenin and other socialist figures, such actions
occurred because throughout human history, religious teachings
have at times been used to justify the oppression and
exploitation of the proletariat by nobles and monarchs.
Therefore, certain religious doctrines that demonstrably
perpetuated exploitation and oppression within society had to be
opposed. Hitler also resisted this by ending the dominance of
Christian values within the state and forcing religious groups
to submit to the party
[quote][quote]"whose centralistic leadership style was used by
Adolf Hitler."[/quote]
Moses drank water. So did Hitler. Therefore Hitler was a fan of
Moses?[/quote]
Hitler was indeed inspired by the Bolshevik movement in his aim
to turn Germany into a socialist state; Hitler was closer to
Lenin, as Goebbels noted. Unfortunately for you, Hitler was not
what you assumed he was, hahaha.
[quote]The will to freedom rises up from the collapsing system.
It finds its form in fundamentally new ideas: in Bolshevism and
National Socialism. Both emerge with the ultimate belief that
they will bring freedom to an entire world by overthrowing it.
Bolshevism and National Socialism are embodied in two people who
lead a purposeful minority in the will to the future: Lenin and
Hitler.[/quote]
Joseph Goebbels, Speech delivered on 19 February 1926 at the
Opera House in Königsberg (Prussia)
Source:
Bytwerk, R. (2024). Lenin or Hitler? Retrieved October 31, 2024,
from the Calvin.edu website:
HTML https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive//lenin-hitler.htm
[quote]“Do these liberals, these accursed defenders of
individualism, feel no shame when they see the tears of mothers
and wives, or are these cold-blooded accountants simply unaware
of them? Have they become so inhuman that they are no longer
capable of feeling? It is understandable why Bolshevism so
easily sweeps aside such creatures. They are of no value to
humanity, serving only as a burden upon their Volk. Even bees
cast out their drones once they are no longer useful to the
hive. The Bolshevik procedure is therefore quite natural.” —
Adolf Hitler[/quote]
Source :
Wagener, Hitler—Memoirs of a Confidant Page 16–17.
[quote]It is not Germany that will become Bolshevist, but
Bolshevism that will become a kind of National Socialism.
Moreover, there is far more that binds us to Bolshevism than
separates us from it … The petty-bourgeois Social Democrats and
the trade-union bosses will never become National Socialists,
but the Communists will always be National Socialists.”[/quote]
Source: Adolf Hitler, as quoted in Hermann Rauschning, The Voice
of Destruction, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York (1940), p. 131.
[quote]Goebbels saw the similarities between the Nazis and the
Communists as clearly as the differences, which he said could be
boiled down to nationalism rather than internationalism, a
'Jewish conspiracy'. 'In the end,' he wrote in his diary later
that year, 'it would be better for us to fall with Bolshevism
than to live in eternal slavery under capitalism.'? He took the
'Socialism' in National Socialism very seriously and felt great
sympathy for the Russian people and their struggle, stating that
Lenin understood them better than any previous tsar. In an open
letter to 'My Friends the Left', he listed many areas of
agreement with the Communists in their 'common struggle for
freedom' against the hated bourgeoisie. 'You and I,' he
concluded, 'we fight each other but we are not really enemies.
In doing so we divide our forces, and we shall never achieve our
goal. Perhaps the last extreme will bring us together.
Perhaps.[/quote]
Source :
Goebbels' diary in The Devil's Disciples: Hitler's Inner Circle
by Anthony Read, (2004) p. 142. - Diary excerpts
HTML https://archive.org/details/devilsdisciplesh00read/page/142/mode/2up?q=eternal+slavery
[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
[quote][quote]"But what they did offer was material assistance,
means of resistance, and financial support to movements of
oppressed peoples and people of color across the world"[/quote]
So let's compare pop culture of "non-white" countries that
received Soviet assistance (e.g. mainland China) side by side
with pop culture of "non-white" countries that did not receive
Soviet assistance (e.g. Taiwan).[/quote]
Of course, Taiwan will receive more influence from pop culture
than socialist countries such as Mainland China, for example.
Popular culture does not significantly determine whether a
nation becomes committed to ending oppression. Even if popular
culture spreads throughout the country, as long as society
continues to live under the laws of competition and feudalism,
that nation will still oppress its people—especially those who
are sensitive and vulnerable. The creation of living conditions
that are sensitive, planned, light, and certain must be carried
out. The spread of pop culture only changes society’s
orientation when choosing artistic entertainment; it does not
resolve the fundamental problems they face (problems in the form
of competitive, neoliberal, and capitalist economic policies)
#Post#: 31555--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: December 5, 2025, 5:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Those who determine whether a product is fit for consumption
and affordable are the people who possess expertise in
understanding society and the state, especially its leadership."
What if the competitive people (whom you worry about having too
much power) get into these positions and then falsely claim that
the products produced by their rivals are unfit for consumption?
"It is not the consumers who make this judgment, for they tend
to choose what provides the greatest satisfaction rather than
what is most affordable and socially necessary"
Then why does making a product more affordable consistently
increase its market share relative to similar products of
different brands?
"No, that is not possible."
Then you are initiating violence.
"Thus, B also takes part in holding A accountable"
So if A damages B's property, B has to pay half the damages. Do
you not see how unjust this is?
"what Hitler wanted and envisioned in the years after 1940"
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
[quote]Operation Barbarossa[g] was the invasion of the Soviet
Union by Nazi Germany
...
The operation, code-named after the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick
Barbarossa ("red beard"), put into action Nazi Germany's
ideological goals of eradicating communism
...
Before and during the invasion of the Soviet Union, German
troops were indoctrinated with anti-Bolshevik, anti-Semitic and
anti-Slavic ideology via movies, radio, lectures, books, and
leaflets.[46]
...
both Jews and communists were considered equivalent enemies of
the Nazi state.
...
Hitler told one of his generals in June 1940 that the victories
in Western Europe finally freed his hands for a "final showdown"
with Bolshevism.[81]
...
Hitler, solely focused on his ultimate ideological goal of
eliminating the Soviet Union and Communism, disagreed with
economists about the risks and told his right-hand man Hermann
Göring, the chief of the Luftwaffe, that he would no longer
listen to misgivings about the economic dangers of a war with
the USSR.[93]
...
The Hunger Plan outlined how entire urban populations of
conquered territories were to be starved to death,[k] thus
creating an agricultural surplus to feed Germany and urban space
for the German upper class.[97][/quote]
;D
"The historical figure you mentioned did not carry out the
socialization of the means of production and land ownership"
Stop changing the subject. I just proved that your claim that
Lenin was the first anti-racist in history is an obvious lie.
"Hitler was indeed inspired by the Bolshevik movement"
HTML https://incarnateword.in/other-authors/georges-van-vrekhem/hitler-and-his-god-the-background-to-the-nazi-phenomenon/bolshevism-from-moses-to-lenin
[quote]There is the schizoid interpretation of the biblical
narration about the Jews in Egypt: the Jews were not kept in
bondage by the Egyptians, on the contrary the Jews did their
usual subversive work in trying to overthrow the throne of the
pharaoh. There is the assertion that it was the Christians,
followers of Paul, the Jew of Tarsus, who undermined the Roman
Empire and caused its downfall. (To Hitler – as to Wagner,
Chamberlain, Rosenberg and most of the Nazis – Christ was not a
Jew but an Aryan and an anti-Semite.) There is the fundamental
Jewishness of the Catholic Church, for is their holy book not
Jewish literature, and are many of their feasts and ceremonies
not of Jewish origin? – this in direct contradiction to the
anti-Semitism for which Christianity and the Catholic Church was
primarily responsible. And there are of course the theories of
the Jew Karl Marx, propagated to dominate the world and as such
the inspiration of Lenin and his Judeo-Bolshevism.
...
Modernism, equated with enlightenment and progress, was to the
fundamentalist völkisch reactionaries synonymous with
materialism, capitalism, liberalism, internationalism,
democracy, socialism, communism, Bolshevism, etc.
...
There was also a new factor which played an important role since
1917: the Russian Revolution. Lenin, Trotsky, Bolshevism, a
Republic of Councils, Bela Kun, Spartacists, red flags, the
hammer and sickle, new leftist terms and slogans: all of that
became part of the popular awareness, and all of it was felt as
threatening.[/quote]
"Of course, Taiwan will receive more influence from pop culture
than socialist countries such as Mainland China, for example.
Popular culture does not significantly determine whether a
nation becomes committed to ending oppression."
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Taiwan
[quote]The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
queer (LGBTQ) people in the Republic of China (Taiwan) are
regarded as some of the most comprehensive of those in
Asia.[2][3] Both male and female same-sex sexual activity are
legal, and same-sex marriage was legalized on 24 May 2019,
following a Constitutional Court ruling in May 2017. Same-sex
couples are able to jointly adopt children since 2023.
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender
identity and gender characteristics in education has been banned
nationwide since 2004.[4] With regard to employment,
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has also been
prohibited by law since 2007.[5][/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_China
[quote]Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ)
people in the People's Republic of China (PRC) face legal and
social challenges that are not experienced by non-LGBTQ
residents. While both male and female same-sex sexual activity
are legal, same-sex couples are currently unable to marry or
adopt, and households headed by such couples are ineligible for
the same legal protections available to heterosexual couples. No
explicit anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people are
present in its legal system, nor do hate crime laws cover sexual
orientation or gender identity.
...
Since the late 2010s, authorities have avoided showing
homosexual relationships on public television, as well as
showing effeminate men in general.[7] Under the general
secretaryship of Xi Jinping, LGBTQ venues and events have been
forced to shut and LGBTQ rights activists have become subject to
greater scrutiny by the country's system of mass
surveillance.[8][9] The Chinese Communist Party increasingly
considers LGBTQ advocacy as a product of "foreign forces."[10]
LGBTQ content is censored. Authors of boys' love works are
routinely arrested and criminally prosecuted.[11][12]
In 2016, 2019, 2022 and 2025, China voted against the United
Nations independent expert on sexual orientation and gender
identity at the United Nations Human Rights Council.[13][/quote]
Further information:
[quote]Homosexuality and homoeroticism in China have been
documented since ancient times. Historical discrimination
towards homosexuality in much of the region include the ban on
homosexual acts enforced by Genghis Khan in the Mongol Empire,
which made male homosexuality punishable by death.[2][3]
...
Heteronormativity and intolerance of gays and lesbians became
more mainstream through the Westernization efforts of the early
Republic of China.[28]
...
During the Cultural Revolution (1966 to 1976), homosexuals were
regarded as "disgraceful" and "undesirable", and heavily
persecuted.[29][30][/quote]
[quote]When Taiwan came under the Japanese rule in 1895,
same-sex practices continued; however, there was a growing
animosity towards these practices during the Meiji era. The
practice of Nanshoku began to die out after the Russo-Japanese
War. Opposition to homosexuality did not become firmly
established in Japan until the 19th and 20th centuries, through
the Westernization efforts of the Empire of Japan, although it
was only criminalized between 1872 and 1881.[24][/quote]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page