Yeah, to claim that people like Ernst Roehm weren’t socialist is revisionist, to put it mildly. Dude was anticapitalist and wanted to nationalize most industries.
There is nationalization, and there is nationalization.
Mussolini/Gentile stated that the goal of fascism was the merger of the state with the corporation, eg their economic theory of corporatism.
Or, to put it another way, “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”
The Soviet Union’s obsession with nationalization as the means of socialism was one of the many reasons other leftist thinkers coined the term “red fascism” to describe them.
What, after all, is the functional difference between a state taking 70% of your productivity and a capitalist splitting that 70% with a statist?
(Well, hopefully it’s infrastructure and social benefits, including a army strong enough to defend yourself from all the real fascists, but power and weak oversight corrupts)
Fascists aren’t socialists. Jesus Christ. Rohm wanted social safety nets, he didn’t want the workers to control the means of production, he wanted a corporate state - because he was a fascist, not a socialist.
You’re confusing the left wing of a fascist party with the left wing.
On what planet does “socialism” refer exclusively to worker-owned means of production? That’s communism. Nobody uses socialism that way unless they’re manipulating wording to fit an agenda.
Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a wide range of economic and social systems which are characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
I have to break it to you, but that just as well describes state-owned companies. It has nothing at all to do with worker ownership. Your own definition makes Roehm a socialist lmao
moron. learn what private property means. fascism is not state ownership of corporations, it’s corporate ownership of the state, a very different dialectic.
Name-calling now? Keep eating those muffins buddy. It’s OK to admit you’re wrong once in a while.
Edit: directly from the horse’s mouth!
Erich Koch, who would eventually become the Gauleiter of East Prussia, maintained in an a 1931 article “Sind wir Faschisten?” that the key difference between Mussolini’s Fascist party and the NSDAP was that the former was capitalistic, while the later was socialist.
Is there a book I can read? I’ve fallen for this oversimplification, yet knowing about the night of the long knives, and incorrectly underatood this bit of history.
Sorry, it’s been ages since I read up on WWII in general, and I don’t have a specific recommendation for you. Roehm wrote a memoir but I think it’s Mein Kampf-esque) rambling and incoherent). Mind you, from the mid 30s onward the Nazis were not especially socialist, so people aren’t necessarily wrong when they point out the “socialist” is a misnomer.
It’s not revisionist. Most people see the atrocities committed by the Nazis, and then say “yeah that shit isn’t socialist”. It’s a historical blind spot most people have about post-Weimar Germany.
It also helps that the socialist wing of the party was wiped out (literally) before the party became, er, internationally famous. If nobody had heard of the USSR until Stalin’s purges, they might have said they weren’t socialist either.
Technically, they were, at least to some degree until the Night of the long Knifes during which all left-leaning SA Leaders were purged.
Yeah, to claim that people like Ernst Roehm weren’t socialist is revisionist, to put it mildly. Dude was anticapitalist and wanted to nationalize most industries.
There is nationalization, and there is nationalization.
Mussolini/Gentile stated that the goal of fascism was the merger of the state with the corporation, eg their economic theory of corporatism.
Or, to put it another way, “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”
The Soviet Union’s obsession with nationalization as the means of socialism was one of the many reasons other leftist thinkers coined the term “red fascism” to describe them.
What, after all, is the functional difference between a state taking 70% of your productivity and a capitalist splitting that 70% with a statist?
(Well, hopefully it’s infrastructure and social benefits, including a army strong enough to defend yourself from all the real fascists, but power and weak oversight corrupts)
Very helpful!
Fascists aren’t socialists. Jesus Christ. Rohm wanted social safety nets, he didn’t want the workers to control the means of production, he wanted a corporate state - because he was a fascist, not a socialist.
You’re confusing the left wing of a fascist party with the left wing.
On what planet does “socialism” refer exclusively to worker-owned means of production? That’s communism. Nobody uses socialism that way unless they’re manipulating wording to fit an agenda.
this planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
it’s always amazing when people like you are SO CONFIDENTLY INCORRECT about basic information that can easily be determined with a simple search.
I have to break it to you, but that just as well describes state-owned companies. It has nothing at all to do with worker ownership. Your own definition makes Roehm a socialist lmao
moron. learn what private property means. fascism is not state ownership of corporations, it’s corporate ownership of the state, a very different dialectic.
Name-calling now? Keep eating those muffins buddy. It’s OK to admit you’re wrong once in a while.
Edit: directly from the horse’s mouth!
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3vdkls/comment/cxn4p61/
fuck off nazi lover. make like your heroes and fucking die.
Is there a book I can read? I’ve fallen for this oversimplification, yet knowing about the night of the long knives, and incorrectly underatood this bit of history.
Sorry, it’s been ages since I read up on WWII in general, and I don’t have a specific recommendation for you. Roehm wrote a memoir but I think it’s Mein Kampf-esque) rambling and incoherent). Mind you, from the mid 30s onward the Nazis were not especially socialist, so people aren’t necessarily wrong when they point out the “socialist” is a misnomer.
It’s not revisionist. Most people see the atrocities committed by the Nazis, and then say “yeah that shit isn’t socialist”. It’s a historical blind spot most people have about post-Weimar Germany.
It also helps that the socialist wing of the party was wiped out (literally) before the party became, er, internationally famous. If nobody had heard of the USSR until Stalin’s purges, they might have said they weren’t socialist either.
Also, the “left” wing of the party were still fucking unhinged.