Hitler a yellow socialist?

Hello, I am new to the forum. its nice to be a part of it. anyway, i have been researching national socialist economic theory for a while now, and I read that it evolved out of a type of socialism called yellow socialism. and upon further analysis of the system, its pretty obvious that there is indeed a connection. if you examine the economic policies of the reich, and compare it to the description of yellow socialism, its almost identical. however, what fascinates me, is that niether Hitler nor any of the nazi leaders ever make a reference to yellow socialism. although if you read the 25 points and the pamphlets by joseph goebbels, it expresses exactly the same principles as yellow socialism. for example, one of the principles of yellow socialism is that the worker must become part of the capitalist system, and in joseph goerbbel's nazi sozi Q&A he writes this (not a directr quote, but its the jest of what he said) "our goal is the reintergration of the worker into the economic life and then the reintergration of Germany into the grand course of history" . so you can see, the nazi leaders must have been aware of yellow socialism, yet for some reason not one of them ever makes a mention of it. does anybody know anything else about this? am i missing something? is there ever an incident where Hitler makes a reference to it? thanks, sorry for the long question by the way.

i dont understand why this was moved to the " reactionaries" section. im not a reactionary. sorry if i gave off that kind of vibe.

rockstar1488 wrote:Hello, I am new to the forum. its nice to be a part of it. anyway, i have been researching national socialist economic theory for a while now, and I read that it evolved out of a type of socialism called yellow socialism. and upon further analysis of the system, its pretty obvious that there is indeed a connection. if you examine the economic policies of the reich, and compare it to the description of yellow socialism, its almost identical. however, what fascinates me, is that niether Hitler nor any of the nazi leaders ever make a reference to yellow socialism. although if you read the 25 points and the pamphlets by joseph goebbels, it expresses exactly the same principles as yellow socialism. for example, one of the principles of yellow socialism is that the worker must become part of the capitalist system, and in joseph goerbbel's nazi sozi Q&A he writes this (not a directr quote, but its the jest of what he said) "our goal is the reintergration of the worker into the economic life and then the reintergration of Germany into the grand course of history" . so you can see, the nazi leaders must have been aware of yellow socialism, yet for some reason not one of them ever makes a mention of it. does anybody know anything else about this? am i missing something? is there ever an incident where Hitler makes a reference to it? thanks, sorry for the long question by the way.

Yellow socialism was developed in opposition to Marxism and as such naturally harbored many reactionary sentiments. The theoretical framework was established by Pierre Biétry, who initially embraced orthodox socialism but later transitioned toward more right-wing politics. You are correct in drawing a connection, as yellow socialism would eventually influence fascism and Austrian national socialism, particularly insofar as corporatism was concerned.

rockstar1488 wrote:i dont understand why this was moved to the " reactionaries" section. im not a reactionary. sorry if i gave off that kind of vibe.

Discussions pertaining to the Third Reich and other forms of what we, as left-wing nationalists and revolutionary socialists, hold to be reactionary topics are relegated to the OV section. Do not take personal offense, as your own standing is deemed independent of the subject material until proven otherwise.

rockstar1488 wrote:Hello, I am new to the forum. its nice to be a part of it.

First of all, welcome to the Socialist Phalanx.

You may have noticed that I moved your thread to the 'Opposing Views' subforum. To understand why I did so, I ask that you read our policy on Restrictions and Bannings.

anyway, i have been researching national socialist economic theory for a while now, and I read that it evolved out of a type of socialism called yellow socialism. and upon further analysis of the system, its pretty obvious that there is indeed a connection. if you examine the economic policies of the reich, and compare it to the description of yellow socialism, its almost identical. however, what fascinates me, is that niether Hitler nor any of the nazi leaders ever make a reference to yellow socialism. although if you read the 25 points and the pamphlets by joseph goebbels, it expresses exactly the same principles as yellow socialism. for example, one of the principles of yellow socialism is that the worker must become part of the capitalist system, and in joseph goerbbel's nazi sozi Q&A he writes this (not a directr quote, but its the jest of what he said) "our goal is the reintergration of the worker into the economic life and then the reintergration of Germany into the grand course of history" . so you can see, the nazi leaders must have been aware of yellow socialism, yet for some reason not one of them ever makes a mention of it. does anybody know anything else about this? am i missing something? is there ever an incident where Hitler makes a reference to it? thanks, sorry for the long question by the way.

Yellow socialism essentially emerged out of a split, led by Pierre Biétry, that occurred in the Socialist Party of France in 1904. While the yellow socialists were more nationalistic than their former comrades in the French Socialist Party, they were also more reactionary (especially insofar as the economic doctrine they advocated was concerned). As you rightly pointed out, they didn't call for the abolition of the capitalist mode of production, but rather for labor to be "incorporated" into the process of production—presumably by having the state enable labor to engage in collective bargaining with capital, allowing labor representatives to participate in certain firm and/or industry-wide planning processes, etc. (not unlike corporativism).

As for why the NSDAP didn't explicitly acknowledge their doctrinal debt to yellow socialism, it's not clear that the leading figures in the party were even aware of the history of Biétry's National Federation of Yellows. It's certainly possible that Biétry was the first individual to espouse a fusion of nationalism and dirigisme, but such ideas became so widespread in Europe in the early 20th century that it inevitably resulted in obscuring the specific figures associated with the origins of that ideology.

As my comrades have already pointed out, it's somewhat difficult to establish whether or not the National Socialism of the NSDAP consciously derived its ideological framework from yellow socialism. What is clear, however, is that both yellow socialism and (German) National Socialism owe their conceptual basis to certain petit-bourgeois values. (This in turn had the effect of both seducing segments of the proletariat/peasantry and demonstrating a sufficient level of amenability to a significant portion of the bourgeoisie.) This fact is demonstrated by positions ranging from their mutual commitment to maintaining private property to their antagonism towards finance capital and the corporate (joint-stock) business model. Furthermore, both sought to remedy the disintegrating character of capitalist social relations through the implementation of policies based upon a framework of class collaboration and welfare statism.

The petit-bourgeois character of the economic principles in question would in turn serve to inform the fundamentally authoritarian/anti-democratic impulse of the NSDAP. It would also help the party to secure various levels of support from the German right-wing — much of which viewed the rise of National Socialism as an effective means of combating virtually all manifestations of revolutionary socialism.

@above,
well, i must point out that you keep referring to the NSDAP, as a "petit bourgeouisie" movement. but in reality it was a folkist/syndicalist movement. there are many different types of socialism that exist, not all types are based on class warfare. real original socialism was invented in ancient greece, if you read "the republic" by plato you would find that he describes a socialistic system not based on class antagonism. in fact, in his book he criticizes both democracy and aristocracy because they are class systems. The NSDAP opposed marxism(communism) for the same reason. but national socialism was plenty revolutionary. You see, national socialism views the economy as a means to an end, not an end in itself. yes, National socialism preserves a free market, but the market (capital) is merely a tool to benefit the people. this is why its unjust in my opinion for marxists to label Hitler and the NSDAP "reactionary". The only reason Hitler appealed to the conservative segments under the weimar era, was because after the failed "beer hall puscth" he had to promise to win by legal methods. so Hitler was never a reactionary.

Rev Scare wrote:Discussions pertaining to the Third Reich and other forms of what we, as left-wing nationalists and revolutionary socialists, hold to be reactionary topics are relegated to the OV section. Do not take personal offense, as your own standing is deemed independent of the subject material until proven otherwise.

oh, okay. no offense taken, but in my most humble opinion, I really dont think the NSDAP should be labeled "reactionary". but i dont blame you, its these postwar american skinheads' fault for ruining the reputation of the NSDAP.

dont get me wrong, i like nazbols and strasserists, but i respectfully disagree with some of their points. however, there are some aspects of strasserism which i think should have been incorporated by Hitler. for example, I really like strasser's notion of "harmony". because strasserism advocated harmony between labour and capital, between state and people, between native and foreigner. while on the otherhand, Hitlerism advocated uniformity.

rockstar1488 wrote:oh, okay. no offense taken, but in my most humble opinion, I really dont think the NSDAP should be labeled "reactionary". but i dont blame you, its these postwar american skinheads' fault for ruining the reputation of the NSDAP.

Well, it really depends on how you choose to define "reactionary." I'm well aware that the NSDAP certainly didn't consider themselves reactionary—in fact, Goebbels and Hitler regularly used the term as a pejorative, just as most leftists do—but the truth of the matter is, many of the actual policies the NSDAP enacted were indeed reactionary. Not fulfilling the social revolution the Party had promised the German people was reactionary, so too were Hitler's imperial ambitions (i.e., lebensraum), the Führerprinzip, etc.

rockstar1488 wrote:dont get me wrong, i like nazbols and strasserists, but i respectfully disagree with some of their points.

Would you mind sharing which points you disagree with in particular? I'm neither a National Bolshevik or a Strasserist, but I'm well acquainted with both ideologies.

however, there are some aspects of strasserism which i think should have been incorporated by Hitler. for example, I really like strasser's notion of "harmony". because strasserism advocated harmony between labour and capital, between state and people, between native and foreigner. while on the otherhand, Hitlerism advocated uniformity.

The notion of there ever being any "harmony" between labor and capital (otherwise known as 'class collaborationism') is delusional and, yes, reactionary.

rockstar1488 wrote:well, i must point out that you keep referring to the NSDAP, as a "petit bourgeouisie" movement. but in reality it was a folkist/syndicalist movement.

This is the first time I've ever heard the NSDAP referred to as a "syndicalist movement," and I've studied the history of National Socialism and Fascism quite extensively over the years. Hitler never even considered the idea of allowing workers to control the means of production; at his most radical moments, he would occasionally remark favorably toward certain state socialist policies (i.e., nationalization), but that's the extent of it. So, needless to say, labeling the NSDAP "syndicalist" is quite a stretch of the imagination.

there are many different types of socialism that exist, not all types are based on class warfare.

Certainly. Yellow socialism, contemporary social democracy, neosocialism, etc. were/are all class collaborationist varieties of socialism, but this is a revolutionary socialist forum (hence why we restrict conversation pertaining to class collaborationism to the 'Opposing Views' subforum).

real original socialism was invented in ancient greece, if you read "the republic" by plato you would find that he describes a socialistic system not based on class antagonism. in fact, in his book he criticizes both democracy and aristocracy because they are class systems.

I'm sorry, but socialism originated with the writings of Henri de Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, and Charles Fourier. There's absolutely nothing socialistic about Plato's Republic. Far better would it have been to cite the instances in human prehistory when there was no conception of private property and human survival depended on pre-capitalist collective action—but even those cases aren't really deserving of the title 'socialism.'

The NSDAP opposed marxism(communism) for the same reason.

The NSDAP opposed Marxism because they rejected fundamental elements in Marxian theory, and they opposed communism because the dominating faction of the Party (the Hitlerites) believed in preserving bourgeois social relations and an individual's "right" to acquire private property in means of production.

but national socialism was plenty revolutionary.

It was reformist.

You see, national socialism views the economy as a means to an end, not an end in itself. yes, National socialism preserves a free market, but the market (capital) is merely a tool to benefit the people.

This is linguistic trickery. Everyone views the economy as a means to an end. For the capitalist, that end is accumulating as much profit as s/he can; for the socialist, the end is ensuring a livelihood consistent with social justice (e.g., human dignity, self-realization, equity, self-management, etc.)

In accordance with the Führerprinzip, Hitler believed that he alone should determine the manner in which the economy would be arranged to ensure the "common good." Aside from being authoritarian, such an approach is completely arbitrary and insultingly paternalistic.

The only reason Hitler appealed to the conservative segments under the weimar era, was because after the failed "beer hall puscth" he had to promise to win by legal methods.

That's true.

I would like to know why you find the "furherprinzip" reactionary? i would say, i have my criticisms on it too, but the leadership priciple (furherprizip) is very important in a society. leadership can make or break any system, so i would hardly say its "reactionary". I agree that lebensraum is reactionary, but then you must admit that the USSR and China were even more reactionary than national socialist germany. because the USSR took more land, and you see what China did to Uyghur, Tibet, Mongolia, and Africa. so yes, imperialism is reactionary, but communist nations are guilty as well.

Celtiberian wrote:Would you mind sharing which points you disagree with in particular? I'm neither a National Bolshevik or a Strasserist, but I'm well acquainted with both ideologies.

my main criticism on nazbols and strasserists is the fact that they viewed the economy as an end in itself. the beauty of national socialism is that its incredibly flexible, and adaptable. national socialism only has a few basic principles one must adhere to, like "the common good before self interest". it doesnt have a rigid system that it must keep. national socialists view the economy as a means to an end, i cannot stress the importance of this principle. strasser's mistake was that he tried to beat national socialism into a set system (in his book he describes his system of state feudalism). this is the same problem with marxists in my opinion, they want communal ownership of everything, they dont care if it actually works, all they care about is achieving the system outlined in their manifesto. national socialism's approach to the economy is different, they say "whatever works". and that is what strasser did not see.

The notion of there ever being any "harmony" between labor and capital (otherwise known as 'class collaborationism') is delusional and, yes, reactionary.

why do you think class collaboration is delusional? It makes perfect sense. it makes more sense than class warfare. class cooperation is a homeopathic approach tothe problems within a society. in 1934 Hitler required all bussinesses with 20 or more employees to have "councils of trust", these were worker's councils where the workers and managers democratically voted on matters concerning their workplace. it doesnt get anymore revolutionary than that. if you ask me, its more revolutionary than just having the state control everything. the only way a society can ever progress is if the classes look at the common good before self interest, each class must not look at what benefits their class, rather they should look at what benefits the entire folk as a whole.

Celtiberian wrote:This is the first time I've ever heard the NSDAP referred to as a "syndicalist movement," and I've studied the history of National Socialism and Fascism quite extensively over the years. Hitler never even considered the idea of allowing workers to control the means of production; at his most radical moments, he would occasionally remark favorably toward certain state socialist policies (i.e., nationalization), but that's the extent of it. So, needless to say, labeling the NSDAP "syndicalist" is quite a stretch of the imagination.

well then you need better historical sources. it was very sydicalist. have you ever heard about the "councils of trust? they were workers councils where the workers ran the workplace alongside their managers. and if no decision would be reached internally, there were different levels the matter went to to be resolved. the final stage was a court where one judge would represent the workers and one would represent the managers. Hitler was always adverse to the idea of state management (i.e nationalization), so he would have never hinted at policies like that. in national socialist germany the economy was centrally directed, not centrally planned. the state would determine the direction of industry, and the market would try to meet the goal assigned by the state through its own innovation.

Certainly. Yellow socialism, contemporary social democracy, neosocialism, etc. were/are all class collaborationist varieties of socialism, but this is a revolutionary socialist forum (hence why we restrict conversation pertaining to class collaborationism to the 'Opposing Views' subforum).

why do you automatically say that yellow socialism and class cooperation is not revolutionary? it seems that marxists have a monopoly over the term "socialism" (pun intended lol). but it was lenin who was the first to come out against yellow socialism as being "reactionary". which i find a little hypocritical to be honest because he devolped the NEP which included privatizations and certain free market principles.

I'm sorry, but socialism originated with the writings of Henri de Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, and Charles Fourier. There's absolutely nothing socialistic about Plato's Republic. Far better would it have been to cite the instances in human prehistory when there was no conception of private property and human survival depended on pre-capitalist collective action—but even those cases aren't really deserving of the title 'socialism.'

henri de saint simon and the others simply built on already existing concepts. to say they "invented it' is like saying that the inventor of the first car also invented the wheel. they just built upon pre-existing concepts. Plato describes a society in which the ruling caste (the state) owns everything collectively and then uses these means of productions for the welffare of the entire people.

The NSDAP opposed Marxism because they rejected fundamental elements in Marxian theory, and they opposed communism because the dominating faction of the Party (the Hitlerites) believed in preserving bourgeois social relations and an individual's "right" to acquire private property in means of production.

yes, they rejected the fundamental elements of marxism which were class warfare, egalitarianism, materialism. which they were right to oppose, because egalitarianism is delusional in my opinion.

This is linguistic trickery. Everyone views the economy as a means to an end. For the capitalist, that end is accumulating as much profit as s/he can; for the socialist, the end is ensuring a livelihood consistent with social justice (e.g., human dignity, self-realization, equity, self-management, etc.)

its not liguistic trickery, the capitalist's profit only and end within the economy, thus he is treating the economy as an end in itself. what you said about socialism only pertains to the ends of certain types of socialism (like national socialism for example). the goal of marxists and communists is to achieve revolution, and for the workers to own the means of production. thats not viewing the economy as a means to an end. capitalists and communists stop at the system, while national socialists look beyond the system.

rockstar1488 wrote:I would like to know why you find the "furherprinzip" reactionary? i would say, i have my criticisms on it too, but the leadership priciple (furherprizip) is very important in a society. leadership can make or break any system, so i would hardly say its "reactionary".

The Führerprinzip is reactionary because it denies people the fundamental right to participate in decisions in proportion to the degree they're affected by those decisions. It reduces people to mere pawns, fit only to be shuffled around in whatever manner 'der Führer' desires. No individual should possess the incontestable right to force you to submit to their authority.

I agree that lebensraum is reactionary, but then you must admit that the USSR and China were even more reactionary than national socialist germany. because the USSR took more land, and you see what China did to Uyghur, Tibet, Mongolia, and Africa. so yes, imperialism is reactionary, but communist nations are guilty as well.

I basically agree with you. The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were/are guilty of various acts of imperialism. However, lebensraum explicitly advocated the colonization of foreign territories, whereas Chinese and Soviet imperialism were more relegated to economic and geopolitical forms of social-imperialism.

the beauty of national socialism is that its incredibly flexible, and adaptable.

There's nothing 'beautiful' about flexibility in and of itself.

national socialism only has a few basic principles one must adhere to, like "the common good before self interest". it doesnt have a rigid system that it must keep.

The intentional ambiguity of Hitlerian National Socialism is one of its least admirable qualities.

strasser's mistake was that he tried to beat national socialism into a set system (in his book he describes his system of state feudalism).

Strasser attempted to provide ideological coherence to National Socialism. It was due to his efforts that significant segments of the Prussian proletariat ended up supporting the NSDAP.

this is the same problem with marxists in my opinion, they want communal ownership of everything, they dont care if it actually works, all they care about is achieving the system outlined in their manifesto.

It's completely unwarranted to claim Marxists, in a general sense, are fixated with nothing more than achieving "communal ownership of everything." Incidentally, I haven't seen many Marxists advocating for "everything" to be collectivized as it is—most of us draw a sharp distinction between exploitative property (means of production) and possessions for active, personal use (e.g., a home, computer, car, etc.). Furthermore, revolutionary socialists (be they Marxist or non-Marxist) are very concerned with the viability of socialized property being capable of producing the aforementioned conception of social justice we seek to attain—which is why socialist economists have been grappling with this issue for well over a century now.

national socialism's approach to the economy is different, they say "whatever works".

Plenty of systems can work. Capitalism works perfectly well for the bourgeoisie, and chattel slavery works magnificently for slave owners. But the question remains: Are those particular modes of production desirable, or would we prefer structuring the economy in such a way that it fulfills other values that we cherish as a people?

why do you think class collaboration is delusional?

Because the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are diametrically opposed to one another—it's the most fundamental contradiction in capitalism and simply cannot be remedied by any collaborationist policy.

It makes perfect sense. it makes more sense than class warfare.

Class warfare is endemic to the capitalist mode of production. Consequently, the only way to end class warfare is to transcend capitalism itself.

in 1934 Hitler required all bussinesses with 20 or more employees to have "councils of trust", these were worker's councils where the workers and managers democratically voted on matters concerning their workplace.

. . . it was very sydicalist. have you ever heard about the "councils of trust? they were workers councils where the workers ran the workplace alongside their managers. and if no decision would be reached internally, there were different levels the matter went to to be resolved. the final stage was a court where one judge would represent the workers and one would represent the managers

Let's get a few facts straight here:

1.) The council candidates were preselected by the Betriebsführer (aka the firm's capitalist!) and these councils most certainly were not involved in industrial relations, "except to serve as a platform for discussing working conditions regulated in the 'factory code of rules'" [Mason & Caplan, Social Policy in the Third Reich: The Working Class and the 'National Community,' 1918-1939, p. 104].

2.) The workers (or 'Gefolgschaft') were even "obliged" to pledge fealty to their capitalist employer: "In all matters pertaining to the factory the factory leader shall decide on behalf of his followers" [Ibid., p. 103].

This is not what is meant by "syndicalism," at least as its been understood historically. In fact, this system is literally no different from the "co-determination" policy currently practiced in capitalist firms throughout Germany.

it doesnt get anymore revolutionary than that.

I beg to differ. It can get vastly more revolutionary than that.

if you ask me, its more revolutionary than just having the state control everything.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone on the revolutionary left promoting state socialism today.

the only way a society can ever progress is if the classes look at the common good before self interest, each class must not look at what benefits their class, rather they should look at what benefits the entire folk as a whole.

That's a lovely platitude, but it has no basis in reality. The German bourgeoisie attempted to assassinate Hitler and enact a reactionary coup d'etat as soon as the regime started to negatively affect their profit margins (i.e., the July 20th plot of 1944); the same occurred with Mussolini in 1943. The notion of the state successfully serving as an arbiter between labor and capital is a fantasy, as favoritism will eventually be bestowed onto one of the classes (historically, it's been the bourgeoisie). More importantly, there is no compelling justification to perpetuate the capitalist mode of production anyway.

Hitler was always adverse to the idea of state management (i.e nationalization), so he would have never hinted at policies like that.

Is that so?

"It's enough for this capitalist to entrust his money to a few well-run firms, and he's betting on a certainty. The dividends he draws are so high that they can compensate for any loss that one of these firms might perhaps cause him. I have therefore always been opposed to incomes that are purely speculative and entail no effort on the part of those who live on them.

Such gains belong by right to the nation, which alone can draw a legitimate profit from them. In this way, at least, those who create these profits—the engineers and workers—are entitled to be the beneficiaries. In my view, joint-stock companies should pass in their entirety under the control of the State."
Hitler, Adolf. Hitler's Table Talk, p. 274

in national socialist germany the economy was centrally directed, not centrally planned. the state would determine the direction of industry, and the market would try to meet the goal assigned by the state through its own innovation.

I'm well aware that the Third Reich practiced dirigisme, as opposed to outright centralized economic planning à la the Soviet model.

why do you automatically say that yellow socialism and class cooperation is not revolutionary?

Because they don't transcend the capitalist mode of production.

but it was lenin who was the first to come out against yellow socialism as being "reactionary". which i find a little hypocritical to be honest because he devolped the NEP which included privatizations and certain free market principles.

Yes, but when Lenin was implementing the New Economic Policy at least he was honest enough to admit that it was a manifestation of state capitalism. Furthermore, he still possessed an unwavering commitment to assisting the Soviet Union in going beyond capitalism, unlike advocates of yellow socialism and other class collaborationist doctrines.

yes, they rejected the fundamental elements of marxism which were class warfare, egalitarianism, materialism. which they were right to oppose, because egalitarianism is delusional in my opinion.

There is no legitimate reason to oppose any of those foundations of Marxian theory. Dialectical materialism is a very useful heuristic for identifying contradictions and formulating hypotheses based upon them; class warfare isn't something which can be casually discarded, as it's an inextricable element of capitalism; and egalitarianism is the noblest of economic pursuits. Perhaps you're mistaking economic egalitarianism with biological egalitarianism (which few rational Marxists or socialists would ever subscribe to)—or as J. B. S. Haldane wrote:

"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."
Haldane, J. B. S. Daily Worker, 14 November, 1949

what you said about socialism only pertains to the ends of certain types of socialism (like national socialism for example)

Hitlerian National Socialism cannot achieve a single one of the principles of social justice I outlined in my previous post.

the goal of marxists and communists is to achieve revolution, and for the workers to own the means of production.

Correct, but the reason we're revolutionaries fighting to attain worker control of the means of production is because we seek to establish a truly just economy, free of bourgeois exploitation and the anarchy of the market. An economy capable of delivering outcomes more conducive to human flourishing than capitalism can provide.

The Führerprinzip is reactionary because it denies people the fundamental right to participate in decisions in proportion to the degree they're affected by those decisions. It reduces people to mere pawns, fit only to be shuffled around in whatever manner 'der Führer' desires. No individual should possess the incontestable right to force you to submit to their authority.

This is a common misconception among many, they think an autocratic government means that there cannot be any democracy, this is not true. autocracy and democracy are not mutually exclusive. there was democracy under the reich, i dont know if youve heard of the 1936 elections. it took place after the first 4 year plan as Hitler promised. (and ofcourse the overwhelming majority re-elected him) now thats more than any capitalist or communist leader ever dids for their people. Hitler even said: "I am not a dictator, democracy will be rigorously enforced by national socialism". its even in the 25 points of national socialism: "The right to vote shall be enjoyed by all citizens". National Socialism viewed leadership in a very unique way, they believed the leader should have autocratic authority, but that he must be held accountable by the people. National socialist germany was a republic. in his table talks Hitler even says: "a republic is better than a monarchy".

The intentional ambiguity of Hitlerian National Socialism is one of its least admirable qualities.

This is why its so hard for people to understand national socialism, ill admit, it is very esoteric and eclectic, but i view that as ultimately a good aspect of it. When he designed the party platform with anton drexler, Hitler mentioned that the party program is "eternal" and "unalterable". it doesnt need to be tailored to fit the current times.

Strasser attempted to provide ideological coherence to National Socialism. It was due to his efforts that significant segments of the Prussian proletariat ended up supporting the NSDAP.

As I said before, I recognize that Strasser was a great asset to the NSDAP. the conflict between Hitler and strasser is a shameful chapter in the history of national socialism, it really should never have been. but the NSDAP didnt need a "coherent structure", because it was meant to be esoteric.

It's completely unwarranted to claim Marxists, in a general sense, are fixated with nothing more than achieving "communal ownership of everything." Incidentally, I haven't seen many Marxists advocating for "everything" to be collectivized as it is—most of us draw a sharp distinction between exploitative property (means of production) and possessions for active, personal use (e.g., a home, computer, car, etc.). Furthermore, revolutionary socialists (be they Marxist or non-Marxist) are very concerned with the viability of socialized property being capable of producing the aforementioned conception of social justice we seek to attain—which is why socialist economists have been grappling with this issue for well over a century now.

interesting, so then you say that marxists also think of the economy as a means to an end? okay then, lets say hypothetically, the only way to achieve bread and living space for everyone woud be through a free market system, would they adopt it? So far every marxist ive talked to doesnt even want to hear about doing it any other way than is perscribed in the communist manifesto, but if im wrong please explain how. and heres another thing i wanted to address, (this is in reference to part of your respone from the "information is not property" thread) you say that merely employing someone is exploitation, well thats absurd in my opinion. if a small bussiness pays a guy 10$ an hour to sit in front of a cash register and press buttons, thats completely fair in my opinion. exploitation is what wal-mart does to its employees, when the company makes 17 billion dollars annually while their workers are paid minimum wage with no benefits, THATS exploitation. and its insulting to those people when a well paid well compensated small bussiness employee claims "exploitation" just because he has a boss.

Plenty of systems can work. Capitalism works perfectly well for the bourgeoisie, and chattel slavery works magnificently for slave owners. But the question remains: Are those particular modes of production desirable, or would we prefer structuring the economy in such a way that it fulfills other values that we cherish as a people?

no no, i meant whatever works for the folk, the national community as a whole.

Let's get a few facts straight here:

1.) The council candidates were preselected by the Betriebsführer (aka the firm's capitalist!) and these councils most certainly were not involved in industrial relations, "except to serve as a platform for discussing working conditions regulated in the 'factory code of rules'" [Mason & Caplan, Social Policy in the Third Reich: The Working Class and the 'National Community,' 1918-1939, p. 104].

2.) The workers (or 'Gefolgschaft') were even "obliged" to pledge fealty to their capitalist employer: "In all matters pertaining to the factory the factory leader shall decide on behalf of his followers" [Ibid., p. 103].

This is not what is meant by "syndicalism," at least as its been understood historically. In fact, this system is literally no different from the "co-determination" policy currently practiced in capitalist firms throughout Germany.

okay, you got me there. but you left out something, they were preselected by the plant leader AND the labour front. the national socialist concept of bussiness was still vastly different than that of capitalist countries. the nazis sought to combine the concepts leadership and entrpenuership. so the plant leader still had to place the common good of the corporation above his profit. and remember, the nazi economy thought of capital as a tool. for example, the corporations were required to provide housing for their workers. if the corporations could not afford to, then the state would assist them with subsidies. this is what i think marxists need to understand, the problem is not that the capitalists are making money, the problem is that they dont SHARE it. Hitler saw this perfectly. for example take walmart as an example, its good that they are making billions of dollars, the problem is that they dont share it with their workers, just imagine what that money could give the workers if there would be profit sharing. the state should require the corporations to provide the basics for their employees.

That's a lovely platitude, but it has no basis in reality. The German bourgeoisie attempted to assassinate Hitler and enact a reactionary coup d'etat as soon as the regime started to negatively affect their profit margins (i.e., the July 20th plot of 1944); the same occurred with Mussolini in 1943. The notion of the state successfully serving as an arbiter between labor and capital is a fantasy, as favoritism will eventually be bestowed onto one of the classes (historically, it's been the bourgeoisie). More importantly, there is no compelling justification to perpetuate the capitalist mode of production anyway.

well, did they succeed in assassinating Hitler? that wouldnt be a problem, as sooner or later the people would come together as a folk and classes would cease. the aim of national socialism is to achieve a classless society through class cooperation. as the Fürher put it "in the future there must be no ranks or classes and you must not let them grow within you" yes, i dont deny that its a difficult process, but do you really think a nation of the proletariat is anymore realistic? exactly how did that work out in the USSR or Maoist China? Sure the USSR was better than Czarist Russia, but it was still far from adequate. marxism (and capitalism) ignores human nature, that is why communism will just turn into a dictatrorship.

Is that so?

"It's enough for this capitalist to entrust his money to a few well-run firms, and he's betting on a certainty. The dividends he draws are so high that they can compensate for any loss that one of these firms might perhaps cause him. I have therefore always been opposed to incomes that are purely speculative and entail no effort on the part of those who live on them.

Such gains belong by right to the nation, which alone can draw a legitimate profit from them. In this way, at least, those who create these profits—the engineers and workers—are entitled to be the beneficiaries. In my view, joint-stock companies should pass in their entirety under the control of the State."
Hitler, Adolf. Hitler's Table Talk, p. 274

ok, you got me there too, yes i remember now, i did read that too in his table talks.

I'm well aware that the Third Reich practiced dirigisme, as opposed to outright centralized economic planning à la the Soviet model.

yes, the third reich also practised fordism and taylorism which was actually embraced by many marxists, not to mention actually implemented in the USSR too.

Because they don't transcend the capitalist mode of production.

i beg to differ there, yellow socialism only has a capitalist shell, but its substance is something much more different.

There is no legitimate reason to oppose any of those foundations of Marxian theory. Dialectical materialism is a very useful heuristic for identifying contradictions and formulating hypotheses based upon them; class warfare isn't something which can be casually discarded, as it's an inextricable element of capitalism; and egalitarianism is the noblest of economic pursuits. Perhaps you're mistaking economic egalitarianism with biological egalitarianism (which few rational Marxists or socialists would ever subscribe to)—or as J. B. S. Haldane wrote:

"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."
Haldane, J. B. S. Daily Worker, 14 November, 1949

that is the folly of marxism, materialism. materialism teaches that all there is and all that mattters is material and physical things (not unlike consumerism) its quite shallow to put it bluntly, it denies the existence of higher values. as well as denying the pursuit of higher values. about egalitarianism, well that depends what you mean by economic egalitarianism. from what ive learned, economic egalitarianism is income equality, which disasterous not only for the economy, but for the morality of the workers. if one worker just stands there smoking while the other one does all the work, why should they both get the same pay? my parents grew up in the communist states, and they remember that there were always workers like that (usually gypsies), who just went in, did nothing, but got the exact same pay as the hard working people.

Correct, but the reason we're revolutionaries fighting to attain worker control of the means of production is because we seek to establish a truly just economy, free of bourgeois exploitation and the anarchy of the market. An economy capable of delivering outcomes more conducive to human flourishing than capitalism can provide.

same thing with national socialism, but we go beyond that, our goal is to create an empire, its to create a new man. national socialism is also a biological movement, one of its other main focuses is eugenics, which marxism dpes not include.

rockstar1488 wrote:@above,
well, i must point out that you keep referring to the NSDAP, as a "petit bourgeouisie" movement. but in reality it was a folkist/syndicalist movement.

Your flawed conception of syndicalism has already been addressed, so I won't bother elaborating on the absurdity of that particular claim. With respect to the question of the NSDAP's petit-bourgeois character, refer back to the initial points I made on the matter. Much of the ideological framework of (German) National Socialism is shaped by a fundamentally petit-bourgeois conception of political-economy. Certain excesses of capitalism were opposed, but the overall mode of production (and its inherently exploitative character) were preserved, along with its corresponding form of stratification.

Rather than seeking to abolish capitalism's social relations, (German) National Socialism merely sought to 'transcend' them on an 'educational' basis (e.g. emphasizing national identity, whilst simultaneously obscuring class solidarity). Thus the NSDAP (especially under the guidance of Hitler) hoped to stigmatize class consciousness within German society, thereby rendering its 'socialism' nothing more than a superficial reformation of capitalism, with the pretense of greater social harmony.

there are many different types of socialism that exist, not all types are based on class warfare.

I do not doubt that many individuals share this fluid definition of the word 'socialism'. It is exactly for this reason that the forum explicitly establishes its ideological basis in revolutionary socialism (and left-wing nationalism) and provides a working definition for the term here.

real original socialism was invented in ancient greece, if you read "the republic" by plato you would find that he describes a socialistic system not based on class antagonism. in fact, in his book he criticizes both democracy and aristocracy because they are class systems.

To ascribe Plato's Republic to socialism, again, demonstrates how fluid your definition of 'socialism' is.

The NSDAP opposed marxism(communism) for the same reason.

So, by that, are you trying to suggest that (German) National Socialism is somehow more socialistic than Marxian forms of socialism?

From what I can observe, your entire conception of 'socialism' appears to reduce itself to simply seeking to establish social reconciliation within the framework of various systems of stratification.

but national socialism was plenty revolutionary. You see, national socialism views the economy as a means to an end, not an end in itself.

And to what 'end' does National Socialism aspire? In Hitler's mind, it was a 'thousand-year Reich' based upon lebensraum, bourgeois stratification, and bad science.

yes, National socialism preserves a free market, but the market (capital) is merely a tool to benefit the people. this is why its unjust in my opinion for marxists to label Hitler and the NSDAP "reactionary".

Firstly, it preserves more than just market allocation for goods and services; it preserves private property. (In fact, National Socialism exercised most of its economic policy through various market manipulations. The mode of production itself was hardly tampered with.) Secondly, the overall extent by which the 'people' benefited from the National Socialist perpetuation of the capitalist mode of production is disputable. Yes, Hitler's government was able to stabilize the economy, but the fact that it was able to maintain decent levels of employment does not mean that there was an equitable distribution of wealth. There was no real profit-sharing in enterprises.

The only reason Hitler appealed to the conservative segments under the weimar era, was because after the failed "beer hall puscth" he had to promise to win by legal methods. so Hitler was never a reactionary.

Hitler's worldview was reactionary. The fact that he was willing to further compromise the principles of his party, in order to 'win over' the German bourgeoisie (thereby rendering him 'politically viable'), merely underscores what was his conservative nature.

rockstar1488 wrote:
well, did they succeed in assassinating Hitler? that wouldnt be a problem, as sooner or later the people would come together as a folk and classes would cease. the aim of national socialism is to achieve a classless society through class cooperation. as the Fürher put it "in the future there must be no ranks or classes and you must not let them grow within you" yes, i dont deny that its a difficult process, but do you really think a nation of the proletariat is anymore realistic? exactly how did that work out in the USSR or Maoist China? Sure the USSR was better than Czarist Russia, but it was still far from adequate.

To begin with, neither the Soviet Union nor Maoist China can be described as even remotely resembling a "nation of the proletariat." Neither state granted workers exclusive ownership of productive units, and neither state rooted itself in participatory democracy. Those who are ignorant of both socialism and capitalism often repeat similar criticisms and attempt to somehow discredit Marxism and socialist values by drawing an infrangible link to the Soviet Union and other "failed" states. This is as unacceptable as attempting to discredit automotive technology based upon the earliest machine powered vehicles. To entirely dismiss the historical and social context along with the innumerable challenges, both external and internal, that such attempted socialist states faced is to stultify all possibility of serious and productive debate on the matter.

Furthermore, your correct assertion that the Soviet Union was "better" than Czarist Russia should have ended there, as your additional comment, which draws criticism to the USSR's general economic performance by positing that "it was still far from adequate," is a subjective assessment. "Far from adequate" in comparison to what? In what context? In comparison to Western capitalism? In comparison to the communist ideal, however one is to envision it? Of course it was, but nobody in their right mind has ever suggested anything along those lines. Lenin duly noted that the Soviet Union would practice state capitalism in its initial and transitional period.

Both the Soviet Union and Maoist China, despite their many imperfections, exhibited remarkable social and economic progress in the relatively short duration of time in which they existed. To industrialize and modernize two nations that previously practiced feudalism in the span of a few decades and under the most arduous of circumstances, including incessant hostility from the capitalist West, by means which have never before been implemented is an extraordinary accomplishment. Nobody on this forum that I am aware of advocates on behalf of Soviet style central planning and economic organization in general (state ownership of the means of production), but I grow tired of these baseless charges against those countries that have embraced, if not fully in practice, then in spirit, the socialist cause.

marxism (and capitalism) ignores human nature, that is why communism will just turn into a dictatrorship.

What aspects of Marxism ignore human nature? As somebody who considers himself a pupil of Marx, I am genuinely interested in having you elaborate this allegation.

that is the folly of marxism, materialism. materialism teaches that all there is and all that mattters is material and physical things (not unlike consumerism) its quite shallow to put it bluntly, it denies the existence of higher values. as well as denying the pursuit of higher values. about egalitarianism, well that depends what you mean by economic egalitarianism. from what ive learned, economic egalitarianism is income equality, which disasterous not only for the economy, but for the morality of the workers. if one worker just stands there smoking while the other one does all the work, why should they both get the same pay? my parents grew up in the communist states, and they remember that there were always workers like that (usually gypsies), who just went in, did nothing, but got the exact same pay as the hard working people.

First of all, historical materialism and dialectal materialism do not deny "higher values." Both forms of analysis offer trenchant insights into the inner workings of social orders. Marx sought to critique capitalism on the basis of what actually is, not through the lens of ideology. He sought to explain how different modes of production, particularly capitalism, came into being and how such economic organizations influenced society and the individual, who in turn influenced the development of these social organizations themselves. Marx, probably more so than any other individual of his time, attributed a materialistic nature to capitalism itself. He wished to see men and women be emancipated from the shackles of wage slavery, from the fetishization of commodities, and from the subservience of man to machine. How could a worldview nested in the thought of two men (the second being Engels) who devoted their entire adult lives to expanding, refining, and furthering a critique of an exploitative system in favor of a just new social order, communism, be possibly described as materialisitc?

Second of all, economic egalitarianism is not at all the same as equality in remuneration. The former demands equitable economic opportunity without exploitative social relations, whereas the latter is mostly a fantasy without much real world basis (at least, as of yet). The Soviet Union, for example, never accepted the idea of remunerating every individual on the basis of equality. The 1936 Soviet constitution explicitly states that: "The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." In the same document, under Article Twelve, it states: "In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: 'He who does not work, neither shall he eat.'"

rockstar1488 wrote:marxism (and capitalism) ignores human nature, that is why communism will just turn into a dictatrorship.

I would have to disagree.

If you reads Marx's critique of Feuerbach, you'll find that Marx believed that Feuerbach's (and others) previous assumptions on materialism do not adequately account for the human subject. He asserts that Feuerbach used an "essential" man in his works, and not a man influenced by external factors, which greatly clashes with Marx's view..and Marxism in general. If you believe that is still something that "ignores human nature", look at it this way: Marx believed that human nature itself something at least partially determined by external factors, anyway. And this all has to do with what I'm about to say..

The form of socialism we strive for is something that inherently eliminates motivation for self-seeking competition within its system.
I actually had similar sentiments as you up until recently, and I questioned, "What happens when human nature takes over and people begin monopolizing within the system for their own gain?"

RevScare enlightened me; micro competition within a non-polarized society would be beneficial in itself, and could in fact provide righteous growth. However, a society based on selfish competition (as Capitalism is) is undesirable and is not at all what we advocate.

I have concluded that successful (micro) competition is only plausible in our proposed society, because of our systems' inherent modus operandi. And since we are asserting that human nature is partially influenced by the ebb and flow of its external society (refer to what I said earlier about Marx's view on human nature), it would make sense that some of the more self-serving aspects of our nature would thus be adapted and turned into something more universal in order to fit our external world, which would be free of the need to compete for one's self in the first place.

I do still have my doubts (blame it on my cynical nature), but I believe the solutions I have gained from others and from my own research provide some of the most plausible conclusions that exist today. I, and many other members here, acknowledge that we must critique and develop our own system anyway, as it is not completely without shortcomings. The point is that our ideal system has the fewest flaws compared to others at this time, and that it is one that most successfully preserves the integrity of not only the White race, but all races (though this is a secondary issue).

Your flawed conception of syndicalism has already been addressed, so I won't bother elaborating on the absurdity of that particular claim. With respect to the question of the NSDAP's petit-bourgeois character, refer back to the initial points I made on the matter. Much of the ideological framework of (German) National Socialism is shaped by a fundamentally petit-bourgeois conception of political-economy. Certain excesses of capitalism were opposed, but the overall mode of production (and its inherently exploitative character) were preserved, along with its corresponding form of stratification.

Flawed conception? while perhaps calling nazi germany syndicalist may have been a strecth, but the NSDAP most definitely fits the description of syndicalist. and im sorry, but what you just said about the NSDAP's ideological framework is plain wrong, the NSDAP's conception of the economy is that it should be subordinate to the people. yes, small bussiness is protected, but its not the core focus of the NSDAP. and again no, the capitalistic system was not preserved, it was entirely different, and ill explain how. the only reason they kept the system of free market was only because it was more efficient than a state-run one. that is why the nazis actually tried to privatize as much industry as possible. it was purely because they wanted to maximize efficiency. the nazis thought of capital as a tool to benefit the people, we can see this clearly from the fact that corporations had to provide housing for their workers. under national socialism the enire free market becomes subordinate to the people (folk). this is what many people dont understand national socialism, its because they cannot comprehend this concept of the economy being subservient to the people (folk). and i beg to differ on your last point, you say it was exploitative? well was it really more exploitative than the USSR or america?

Rather than seeking to abolish capitalism's social relations, (German) National Socialism merely sought to 'transcend' them on an 'educational' basis (e.g. emphasizing national identity, whilst simultaneously obscuring class solidarity). Thus the NSDAP (especially under the guidance of Hitler) hoped to stigmatize class consciousness within German society, thereby rendering its 'socialism' nothing more than a superficial reformation of capitalism, with the pretense of greater social harmony.

actually it was a reformation of substance, it redfeine dthe very role of the economy.

So, by that, are you trying to suggest that (German) National Socialism is somehow more socialistic than Marxian forms of socialism?

yes, in a way. because if you take the term socialism, youll see that its quite a broad term. national socialism seeked to transcend classes, it's vision was far more idealistic than that marxist socialism.

From what I can observe, your entire conception of 'socialism' appears to reduce itself to simply seeking to establish social reconciliation within the framework of various systems of stratification.

no, ,y vie wof socialism the people working together for a better future. you see, i share Hitler's view of socialism, one time he said " if people have something to eat and their pleasure, then they have their socialism". to me socialism is fulfilling the needs of every human being in my folk, and even providing luxuries so that they may be able to cast off the shackles of the 9-5 wage slavery, and instead of working all day just to get by, they will spend their time perfecting the arts and sciences.

And to what 'end' does National Socialism aspire? In Hitler's mind, it was a 'thousand-year Reich' based upon lebensraum, bourgeois stratification, and bad science.

no, no and no. the economy is the means of the ends of the folk. what Hitler and the national socialist movement aspires to, is the creation of an ideal world of perfect people. i cannot find better words to describe it than the Fürher himself, here it is: "those who think of national socialism as just a political movement know scarcely anything of it, it is more than a religion, it is the will to create a new man". furthermore what do you mean by "bad science"? the reich made great strides in the fields of science, so please explain what you mean.

Firstly, it preserves more than just market allocation for goods and services; it preserves private property. (In fact, National Socialism exercised most of its economic policy through various market manipulations. The mode of production itself was hardly tampered with.) Secondly, the overall extent by which the 'people' benefited from the National Socialist perpetuation of the capitalist mode of production is disputable. Yes, Hitler's government was able to stabilize the economy, but the fact that it was able to maintain decent levels of employment does not mean that there was an equitable distribution of wealth. There was no real profit-sharing in enterprises.

ive answered this in my above comments, so refer back to that, but i must reiterate, i wouldnt be talking if i were a marxist, first of all, there was redistribution of capital (profit sharing), and the standard of living was dramatically higher than anywhere else in the world.

Rockstar:
If you are an avowed National Socialist may I ask why you are here, as we have reitterated time and time again that we are NOT Nazis, we are NOT hitlerists and we are NOT facsists right wingers of any stripe? We ARE Revolutionary Socialists and Left-Wing Nationalists, now while Herr Hitler may have hidden behind both those terms during the early stages of his political career, his subsequent actions fit neither of those descriptions.

Now if you have anything usefull to discuss, fine, but if all you wish to do is sing the praises of a dead dictator and attempt to draw comparrisons with Hitlerian National Socialism to our Socialist-Nationalism. where NONE exist, may I suggest that you might be more comfortable on one of those forums that glorify the man, his party and their actions.

Isakenaz wrote:Rockstar:
If you are an avowed National Socialist may I ask why you are here, as we have reitterated time and time again that we are NOT Nazis, we are NOT hitlerists and we are NOT facsists right wingers of any stripe? We ARE Revolutionary Socialists and Left-Wing Nationalists, now while Herr Hitler may have hidden behind both those terms during the early stages of his political career, his subsequent actions fit neither of those descriptions.

Now if you have anything usefull to discuss, fine, but if all you wish to do is sing the praises of a dead dictator and attempt to draw comparrisons with Hitlerian National Socialism to our Socialist-Nationalism. where NONE exist, may I suggest that you might be more comfortable on one of those forums that glorify the man, his party and their actions.

And I'll add that he might be way too comfortable with the current status quo, with the current efforts and the current prevailng ideas being advanced in the name of our people (yet obviously not getting our people even a step closer in the real-world to a fundamental resolution of the critical questions/problems of our time).

Most people see Nazi stuff and imagine these guys are really radical. I see a bunch of people hiding behind swastikas and Hitler talk and crude racially antagonistic slogans/jokes to escape responsibility to provide any relevant serious effective mass struggle and revolutionary leadership to our working people. They know our people would see and hear that Nazi white supremacist stuff and instantly respond "get the fuck outta here", so they have the perfect "dog ate my homework" excuse to hide on the sidelines and the fringes, to spew their hateful and elitist bullshit like nobody will care (because they fucking don't, until you try to actually act on it...then they'll just want to off you, and these nazi guys know that, so in the shadows and online they will overwhelmingly remain).

Hey Nazis: Stop being satisfied with the status quo and the system that causes it. Then we'll have something to talk about.

Isakenaz wrote:Rockstar:
If you are an avowed National Socialist may I ask why you are here, as we have reitterated time and time again that we are NOT Nazis, we are NOT hitlerists and we are NOT facsists right wingers of any stripe? We ARE Revolutionary Socialists and Left-Wing Nationalists, now while Herr Hitler may have hidden behind both those terms during the early stages of his political career, his subsequent actions fit neither of those descriptions.

Now if you have anything usefull to discuss, fine, but if all you wish to do is sing the praises of a dead dictator and attempt to draw comparrisons with Hitlerian National Socialism to our Socialist-Nationalism. where NONE exist, may I suggest that you might be more comfortable on one of those forums that glorify the man, his party and their actions.

when I joined i was under the impression that ALL socialists and leftist nationalists are welcome. although now I clearly see that is not the case. judging from other posts in this forum, i have concluded that you guys are not even nationalists! youre just marxist internationalists as ive even seen many of your members espouse politically correct anti-racist rhetoric. i knew when i joined that there were going to be predominatly marxist socialists, but i thought i was going to be viewed as an equal. but no, this forum is just full of people who think socialism is exclusively marxian. you marxists have hijacked the term socialism. and to tell you the truth, you are all hypocrites if you dont accept national socialists and fascists as your comrades, because then you cant follow the teachings of marx, and be nationalists at the same time! marx was an INTERNATIONALIST, so if youre so adamant about following marxism, then you cant call yourselves nationalists at the same time. national socialism and fascism are LEFT WING, regardless of what a few confused people say. Hitler and mussolini were TEN TIMES the socialists that Lenin or Stalin were. while people were STARVING to death under the bolshevik regime which was funded by capitalists(!), nazi germany amd fascist italy were THRIVING, their economies grew at an exponential rate. I mean really, you have no problem glorifying mass murderers like stalion or mao, yet you are against giving due credit to a man who saved his country from financial ruin. i really dont understand you. you know, you are just like the idiots at stormfront, they blocked me off their website too after i criticised their beloved capitalist david duke, i thought this site would consist of people who are a little more tolerant and open minded, but i was wrong. marxists are just as intolerant as capitalists, i guess thats why they teamed up against Hitler and Mussolini during world war 2. anyway, i think its best if i leave, so deactivate my account or whatever, i think it would be for the best. oh and FYI, maybe if you dont want racialists and hitlerists to join, if you only want marxists, then umm maybe take off the word "nationalists" from of your website.

to all my fellow national socialists, fascists, social democrats, and even open minded marxists, i implore you to visit this site which is about true national socialism. the link is in the next comment.

Since when nationalism is the same as imperialist, chauvinism, or hitlerism? I am not a "marxist", but i am also not in favor of the pseudo social state that the third reich was, because a socialist country it was not. War was the only solution for Hitler to fulfill the too many promises he made to the people, without compromising his position with the capitalists, and that for me is not revolutionary socialism, it's just imperialism.

Oh, and another thing, it's not we who are antagonizing you, it's you who sole contribution since you joined has been raving a dead man, and excusing anything and everything he did with your speech. You accuse us of praising Stalin and Mao? I don't see anybody here writing even half about them, while you can't stop talking about how Hitler is your pop idol.

This forum is for open minded individuals yes, ones that are not fanatical about a particular dogma, because here we are interested in the future, not in the past. You can have your preferences, you can have your ideas, but we want you and others to expose them in cordial debate, and to be open to reasoning. All you did was spout how everything about Hitler and his visions was the best ever, while atacking marxism with weak arguments, just for the sake of attacking other member's views, who probably aren't even as much "marxists" as you are an "NS". And if you think i am exagerating, your post history speaks for itself.

Did you talked about the present? Strikes in China?Debt crisis? Precariat? Maybe how some third reich policies could be usefull here? No, only Hitler uber alles, and that my friend ,is of no use to us.