Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
I love when I predict the future.
Just identify as a marxist, not a socialist, it's not difficult.
Hitler, who was helped by the ruling class, hated that concept, which is why he tried to use the term socialism to change its meaning into something completely different.
Marxism is the political lens or framework to analyse society, socialism is the political strategy, communism is the political end goal
All are one and the same.
The only thing that we argue on the left, is the way we apply said socialism. Anarchist want a collectivization without any form of centrality to change the system naturally from the bottom-up, communist want a revolution and a centrality in socialism to force the ruling class - they think will not give anything up - to give up the means of production.
Basically, anarchist believe we can manage a revolution by working together, communist are more cynical and believe it is not possible without the use of force and centrality first.
A socialism that keep capitalism alive is a socialism that is incomplete since worker will continue to be exploited regardless. This is why once you get at a certain point on the left, reformism (what the majority of people think socialism is today) stops being a end goal and starts to become a counter-revolutionnary approach PREVENTING capitalism to disappear.
It's a little bit complex, but the very concept of reformism, is a way for capitalism to save-itself through a restructuration of its own nature.
With times, capitalism will always absorbe possible form of attacks. For ex, while LGBTQI+ rights could have been a fundamentally anticapitalistic struggle, capitalism slowly but surely absorbed that struggle, depoliticized it, and is now using it AGAINST anticapitalist and antiimperialist through what we call "pinkwashing".
In essence:
I love when I predict the future.
Just identify as a marxist, not a socialist, it's not difficult.
Can you define what socialism is at its core? From where does the concept spring? Are you arguing that marxism and socialism are the same thing now, and that no other definition exists? If that latter is untrue, then what is the difference between the two, and what is the political reality of socialism?
@NAMELESS do you want to answer this too?
I love when I predict the future.
Just identify as a marxist, not a socialist, it's not difficult.
Can you define what socialism is at its core? From where does the concept spring? Are you arguing that marxism and socialism are the same thing now, and that no other definition exists? If that latter is untrue, then what is the difference between the two, and what is the political reality of socialism?
@NAMELESS do you want to answer this too?
"Right wing" means supporting traditional values, free markets, individual freedoms, and social order. Socialism seeks to address workers' rights and conditions and provide a security net for workers; to achieve that, they preach for more taxation, regulation, and state control. It is essentially anti-right-wing. It naturally goes against capitalism because it seeks to either heavily control it or overcome it completely.
Proto-socialism did not aim to eradicate private property or individuality; it aimed for a more equalitarian society
Nazism subordinated private property to state interests. It heavily regulated the economy and directed industrial production into the war effort.
Hitler himself said this when asked why he called himself a socialist:
" ‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’
‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…"
Hitler and Mussolini had their own spin on socialism. Proto-socialism wasn't necessarily about collectivizing private property but rather about addressing inequalities and economic conditions of those that were poorer. Nazism and Fascism have more to share with socialism than conservatism.
There is no such thing as right-wing socialism. These terms are contradictory. You are either right-wing or left-wing. You are either for individual rights or collective rights. State-controlled economy or free market. Individualism or collectivism. Tradition or ideology.
Historically, the term "right-wing socialism" was used pejoratively to describe left-wing policies used to preserve the right-wing status quo. Like Otto Von Bismarck's being called a socialist for creating the first welfare system despite being an aristocrat that used the law to antagonize left wingers.
Proto-socialism did not aim to eradicate private property or individuality; it aimed for a more equalitarian society
Nazism subordinated private property to state interests. It heavily regulated the economy and directed industrial production into the war effort.
Hitler himself said this when asked why he called himself a socialist:
" ‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’
‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…"
Hitler and Mussolini had their own spin on socialism. Proto-socialism wasn't necessarily about collectivizing private property but rather about addressing inequalities and economic conditions of those that were poorer. Nazism and Fascism have more to share with socialism than conservatism.
There is no such thing as right-wing socialism. These terms are contradictory. You are either right-wing or left-wing. You are either for individual rights or collective rights. State-controlled economy or free market. Individualism or collectivism. Tradition or ideology.
Historically, the term "right-wing socialism" was used pejoratively to describe left-wing policies used to preserve the right-wing status quo. Like Otto Von Bismarck's being called a socialist for creating the first welfare system despite being an aristocrat that used the law to antagonize left wingers.
Last edited:
Yes. As a term, it seems socialism preceeded marxism. But its essence, the political meaning that you can find now, was created with marxism IN RELATIONSHIP with the original usage of the word, which was a form of utopic dream of a collective form of society. All against the notions of individualism and competition. (which is what fascism is in its core).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
So basically, Marxism was forged on the same strategy as the origine of the word : the end of competition and the rise of the collective.
What marxism created is a strategy and a framework to understand why capitalism is the way it is and why socialism is the way to go.
Fascism is directly opposed to socialism in all its aspect, the affirmation that it is a centralized politic around the state is fallacious as Nazism heavily pushed privatization as I already mentionned multiple times before. Fascism is opposed to socialism in the sense that it is first and foremost a bourgeois ideology, created by and for the bourgeoisie. A restructuration of a capitalism in crisis.
Hitler used the term as a strategic move. Not because he wanted to use any of its aspect (fascism is opposed to anything collective) but rather because he needed a way to divide the working class while maintaining the priviledges of the bourgeoisie and a way to attack his main ennemies : the communist.
Any good historian and sociologist will tell you that fascism is simply colonialism turned inward in order for capitalism to survive its crisis and destroy any anticapitalistic movement. (this is what is happening now btw)
I'm basing my vision on the words of historians experts on nazism, on the words of sociologists, anticolonialist/anticapitalist and different types of scholars.
I have a question for you : what interests does it serve to Capitalists for you to think fascism is a leftist production?
Oh I wouldn't be afraid for nature. Nature should be able to tank everything just fine, it will adapt. Fires are a natural occurence in reality, they are good for the fertilization of the soil it seems. But us on the other hand.. well..
Temperature is a crazy thing and can spark fire for absolutely nothing. I'll give you an example, I live in a dense streets, with a lot of big building with bad appartement under the roofs.
Well, on the week of the peak of the first heatwayve in france, there have been THREE fires in my street just in front of my buildings. I hadn't seen a firetruck since 2024 when the appartement just below mine went up in flame and I had to evacuate lol
A low level of humidity, a little bit too much of a sun, a zombie fire that rises to the surface and you get a forest fire without any kind of human intervention.
We have suffered 3 heatwave in France and EUrope, it's historical. Fire will follow the curve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
So basically, Marxism was forged on the same strategy as the origine of the word : the end of competition and the rise of the collective.
What marxism created is a strategy and a framework to understand why capitalism is the way it is and why socialism is the way to go.
Fascism is directly opposed to socialism in all its aspect, the affirmation that it is a centralized politic around the state is fallacious as Nazism heavily pushed privatization as I already mentionned multiple times before. Fascism is opposed to socialism in the sense that it is first and foremost a bourgeois ideology, created by and for the bourgeoisie. A restructuration of a capitalism in crisis.
Hitler used the term as a strategic move. Not because he wanted to use any of its aspect (fascism is opposed to anything collective) but rather because he needed a way to divide the working class while maintaining the priviledges of the bourgeoisie and a way to attack his main ennemies : the communist.
Any good historian and sociologist will tell you that fascism is simply colonialism turned inward in order for capitalism to survive its crisis and destroy any anticapitalistic movement. (this is what is happening now btw)
I'm basing my vision on the words of historians experts on nazism, on the words of sociologists, anticolonialist/anticapitalist and different types of scholars.
I have a question for you : what interests does it serve to Capitalists for you to think fascism is a leftist production?
Oh I wouldn't be afraid for nature. Nature should be able to tank everything just fine, it will adapt. Fires are a natural occurence in reality, they are good for the fertilization of the soil it seems. But us on the other hand.. well..
Temperature is a crazy thing and can spark fire for absolutely nothing. I'll give you an example, I live in a dense streets, with a lot of big building with bad appartement under the roofs.
Well, on the week of the peak of the first heatwayve in france, there have been THREE fires in my street just in front of my buildings. I hadn't seen a firetruck since 2024 when the appartement just below mine went up in flame and I had to evacuate lol
A low level of humidity, a little bit too much of a sun, a zombie fire that rises to the surface and you get a forest fire without any kind of human intervention.
We have suffered 3 heatwave in France and EUrope, it's historical. Fire will follow the curve.
OK? You are stating that Hitler adding his spin to socialism, going against the definition. Hitler redefining socialism to be right wing still makes it right wing. It is nowhere near leftist by definition, ideology, goals, and actions.
Socialism is an umbrella term due to the many variations under it, but socialism at its core and defintion is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
If Hitler's interpretation of socialism does nothing for leftist and instead, hits every mark for right wing, then it is right wing and tries to supress leftism at its core. This is no different than constant mental gymnastics to claim communism and Stalin were somehow right wing.
Socialism is an umbrella term due to the many variations under it, but socialism at its core and defintion is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
If Hitler's interpretation of socialism does nothing for leftist and instead, hits every mark for right wing, then it is right wing and tries to supress leftism at its core. This is no different than constant mental gymnastics to claim communism and Stalin were somehow right wing.
Marxism is a type of socialism. All Marxist are socialist but not all socialist are Marxist. Same for communist.
Socialism as its core, is a broad economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership: Public ownership instead of private ownership. It first started getting used in the 1820s as a pursuit for social equality(socialism can used as national pride though like with Stalin).
Marx believed that the utopian ideals of early socialism were unrealistic and pushed the idea of class war, saying the revolution of the worker class is inevitable back in the 1840s.
Hitler by his own admission tried changing the meaning of socialism into a form of nationalism and racial superiority, as tactical propaganda. He was anti-worker, anti-union, and pro privatization.
This is true. Mussolini was completely disillusioned with socialism and sought Fascism as a more aggressive version of socialism. Fascism was still a work in progress and being defined at the time, reaching it's final form as a far right ideology.
Funnily enough, a Social Democracy is the closest thing to that bridge.
Socialism as its core, is a broad economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership: Public ownership instead of private ownership. It first started getting used in the 1820s as a pursuit for social equality(socialism can used as national pride though like with Stalin).
Marx believed that the utopian ideals of early socialism were unrealistic and pushed the idea of class war, saying the revolution of the worker class is inevitable back in the 1840s.
Hitler by his own admission tried changing the meaning of socialism into a form of nationalism and racial superiority, as tactical propaganda. He was anti-worker, anti-union, and pro privatization.
This is true. Mussolini was completely disillusioned with socialism and sought Fascism as a more aggressive version of socialism. Fascism was still a work in progress and being defined at the time, reaching it's final form as a far right ideology.
Funnily enough, a Social Democracy is the closest thing to that bridge.
We must never forget the racial and ethnocentric aspect of Fascism.
Social democracy is in itself not fascist. The one in Europe up until less than a decade ago could still be consider a conservative form of social democracy. It's just that Europe turned proto-fascist in the last decade and in the last few years as been slowly transitionning to a full fascist state.
It's not something that can be understood by people who do not live at the marge of these society but trust me that the transition is clear for all of us. We are not at the stage of the US or Israel just yet, but we are getting there. We have everything needed (concentration camps, eugenist laws, racial profiling and white supremacist justice, the far right about to get power, the bourgeoisie that is panicking, the institutions that are on the verge of the breaking point, anti immigration laws, "an interior ennemy" (islam) etc.
This is bad. To some extent, this could go worse than what is happening in the US right now.
Social democracy is in itself not fascist. The one in Europe up until less than a decade ago could still be consider a conservative form of social democracy. It's just that Europe turned proto-fascist in the last decade and in the last few years as been slowly transitionning to a full fascist state.
It's not something that can be understood by people who do not live at the marge of these society but trust me that the transition is clear for all of us. We are not at the stage of the US or Israel just yet, but we are getting there. We have everything needed (concentration camps, eugenist laws, racial profiling and white supremacist justice, the far right about to get power, the bourgeoisie that is panicking, the institutions that are on the verge of the breaking point, anti immigration laws, "an interior ennemy" (islam) etc.
This is bad. To some extent, this could go worse than what is happening in the US right now.
Not really, America has way too many checks and Balances for anyone to become a dictator
Although someone did figure out a loophole and refused to talk about it for obvious reasons, but people like Trump aren't math oriented enough to figure out that loophole
Trump's isolationism in economics does reek of fascist rhetorics tho
Although someone did figure out a loophole and refused to talk about it for obvious reasons, but people like Trump aren't math oriented enough to figure out that loophole
Trump's isolationism in economics does reek of fascist rhetorics tho