Perfect, so you agree with my first point, thank you.
The point is this discussion is a comparison between Nazism and socialism. So no, I do not agree with the point. Nazism would be - as Van explained - a form of opposition to socialism. The structure of the production is still private, it's simply privatization coerst by the state. Private property is not questionned, it's simply used.
The reason I ask is because it feels pretty damn clear that Hitler had at least one form of collectivism in mind, and that was the unity of purpose for his so-called master race.
that prove that he was against any form of collectivisation.
I think the problem lie in the word "collectivisation" that could be missunderstood. Collectivisation is not really the action of creating "a collective", it's an economical strategy. It's the action of transfering the power of the production from the private property (the bourgoisie, the current owner of the means of production) back to the working force producing said production. (the working class exploited by the bourgoisie).
The bourgeoisie being simplified as "people who own the production created by other people".
Now, I'm sorry, I'm not a specialist of Nazism and I don't have the historical knowledge that someone like Van can give you. What I can tell you on the other hand is that the very structure of fascism prevents anyform of collectivisation.
Fascism, is a form of extrem individualistic framework, with one difference with libertarianism being that the individualistic frameworks is directed along the line of a hierarchy of merit, said hierarchy creates people in domination and people in subordination all along the scale. From bottom to the top where a leader or a cast has the real power. Fascism is the workshipping of the strong and with such framework, the strong are at the top of the food chain, thus creating different form of domination of class.
Therefore, collectivization under fascism is close to impossible as it would negate the very chain of command of the system and the capitalistic structure and would be immediately targeted in one form or another. Of course this is a spectrum, in US for example, you don't have the same pressure as in Nazi germany, but there is still a form of fascism in its early age that could very well degenerate into a form of complete cast domination (
this is what I'm the most afraid of).
Despite their potential coersion within fascism, the bourgeoisie still find their interests within this system. This is why they allowed Hitler to rise. They will always prefer Hitler to the fact of being stripped of their capitals.
Materialist historians and sociologist consider that fascism usually appear in situations when capitalism enter a form of crisis. With a rise of precarity, instabilities, the rise of communist and anarchist forces, unployement, recession etc. During such a period, we observe that the bourgeoisie enters in a conservatism of their material interests, on overdrive. Meanwhile, the working class will radicalize against the ruling class (
the bourgeoisie + elites + politics in power).
Materialist consider that authoritarian and conservative politics will therefore be the response of the bourgeoisie to this crisis and this threats to their interest. (
this can be observes today through in the way billionnaires will take over the mediatic space to spread their values for ex). Their MAIN tool in this manner is
whiteness.
I explained earlier that whiteness was a form of social implied salary that all people were inconsciently aware of. This "salary" creates a division between "white people" and "people who are racialized". Shematically, white people will know that they will ALWAYS benefit more from the system that racialized people. As a result, non racialized people (white) will understand that under an extrem conservative system, they will be LESS impacted by politics than racialized people who they know will be directly targeted.
The problem is that we observe that this understanding of whiteness within white populations creates a form of reactance anytime racialized people access to positions they shouldn't be accessing based on the hierarchy of white supremacy
(racialized migrants accessing the same rights as citizens, racialized people accessing positions in power, racialized people taking too much "space", racialized people "refusing" to kneel their own culture in front of the one of white people... etc.)
Materialist think that the bourgeoisie
perfectly understands that. We observe that the ruling class, under crisis, will CONSTANTLY try to use whiteness as a tool to DIVIDE the working class. They will use the affect of people who think racialized people are "too prioritized" in order to attack politically those who think that racialized people are not prioritized by the system. As such, they will push for policies that will constantly attack both the left AND people under the subjugation of white supremacy thus creating politics like "put migrants in concentration camps".
This is how we believe fascism rises. By using white supremacist affects to answer a crisis and return to a "
new form of
order", the bourgeoisie allows fascists to rise to power. This is why we say that the bourgeoisie is using racism to divide the working class. This is what happened back in 1933 and this is what is happening now.
