Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 85

Thread: National Socialism, Fascism, and Communism

  1. #61
    Senior Member NatSozArbeiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 7th, 2012 @ 11:18 PM
    Ethnicity
    Pennsylvania-German
    Ancestry
    Southern Germany
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Tradesman
    Politics
    Strasserist National Socialism
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    52
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    I.e. the result of your work! Meaning if you can reach the result with less work, you have more leisure and still can perform your duty.
    We might be having just a lingual misunderstanding here, but that has absolutely nothing to do with work being a duty or not.


    No, but you are only allowed to open your mouth if you are capable of logic and hold knowledge of the subject. In any case, we already had a thread about this, I have no patience to repeat what I said there. The arguments brought forth are rarely new.
    I understand, but it is silly for people not being allowed to open their mouths. Debate and discussion is one of the number one ways people learn. Kids from the time they are very young should be encouraged to exercise and speak their minds; not restrict them.


    No, only if the majority of the citizens select, choose, decide, etc.
    You're doing nothing but trying to play word games with me again. Native Germans were the majority at this time; unless you can prove otherwise. It matters not that they didn't wish to extend democracy towards non-Germans.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    The capitalist slave-worker stuff never was our thing. Already during the industrial revolution England and Germany developed (more or less independent of each other) "social economy", and in that the dichotomy between "rights" and "duties" was levelled out. Work is both a right and a duty, as is leisuretime and education.
    I think that as long as the practice of wage slavery exists, the capitalist slave worker will remain ever present. This is done only by the artificial creation of market forces which forces workers to sell themselves for a wage.

    Thanks for at least giving me some explanations as to what is a duty and a right according to you though, I agree for the most part.

    All three enable you to serve your community/nation best while allowing in turn a maximum of individual freedom (within the limits of law and social taboos and the good of community/society/nation). Every right (=privilege) you carve out against the good of the community at some point will limit your freedom. And without the community, no rights whatsoever exist.
    Agreed.

    This would require a definition of what democracy means in that context. I can agree with you that the Führerprinzip has its faults and dangers, but democracy has its faults and dangers inbuilt too. Only because more people decide doesnt mean it will be better; in fact, often the opposite is the case in real life. So, what does democracy in an NS context mean?
    To me, National Socialist democracy is the will of the folk community being practiced collectively. The community makes decisions on a very local level with direct democracy down to the lowest level. Councils can be formed for decisions that need to be made on the national and international level.

    It is about the folk having the power to govern themselves without the influence of outside bodies. Thus democracy can lead to Autarky. It is also about the folk having democratic control of the community and nation's resources and wealth which means the complete consultation of the community when it comes to taxes, workers practicing ownership of their own product, and the setting up of social-security programs in accordance with the will of the community.
    Anti-capitalist and anti-communist!

    "Hate must be born of love. One must be capable of loving to know what is hateful, and so have the strength to destroy it." - Otto Strasser

  2. #62
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 04:03 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,899
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,201
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,303
    Thanked in
    556 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter
    I think that as long as the practice of wage slavery exists, the capitalist slave worker will remain ever present. This is done only by the artificial creation of market forces which forces workers to sell themselves for a wage.
    Indeed.

    The problem is that these structures also are to a certain degree a natural result of technological progress and growing populations. So you cannot avoid them completely without going communist, where you basically exchange one devil for another and essentially win nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter
    Thanks for at least giving me some explanations as to what is a duty and a right according to you though, I agree for the most part.
    You're welcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter
    To me, National Socialist democracy is the will of the folk community being practiced collectively. The community makes decisions on a very local level with direct democracy down to the lowest level. Councils can be formed for decisions that need to be made on the national and international level.
    Okay.


    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter
    It is about the folk having the power to govern themselves without the influence of outside bodies. Thus democracy can lead to Autarky.
    Hm, I like to disagree. The form of government is in itself rather irrelevant to the economic structures. Though I will agree that in the last two centuries, both often came as package.

    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter
    It is also about the folk having democratic control of the community and nation's resources and wealth which means the complete consultation of the community when it comes to taxes, workers practicing ownership of their own product, and the setting up of social-security programs in accordance with the will of the community.
    You're aware that this is a slogan of the communists, right?

    You see, NS doesnt oppose private ownership, it just regulates what the owners can do with it and sets limits to the exploitation and how they can generate wealth, by forcing businesses to pay proper wages, grant off-weeks for recreation, funding the social-security programmes etc. It was never about collectivisation of the means of production or ownership of products.

    Even the nationalisation of some economic key sectors isnt about "collectivisation" in a communist sense. It was about "neutralising" key market segments and take them out of the competition game to allow all market participants (ie the free enterprise market segments) access under equal conditions. This applies to infrastructure segments such as energy supply, streets, telefone / communication, postal service, public transportation, maybe more I cant think of right now. They cannot run under the dictate of competition or private interests, because they are in a public interest to have.

    While I do agree with the "total democracy" from locals for locals/community (always has been that way maybe, regardless of govt form), I'm not sure whether a pan-region democracy in regards to a nation would work (it doesnt work well here with our federal structure f.e.). I think from a certain level, specially when this nation holds key segments as outlined above, needs a "cool head", a neutral instance that understands itself as a servant of the nation as folk body and the common interests to really serve the interests of the nation as a whole and not just the most advantages one region can "win" over others and on other regions' expenses.

    It really doesnt matter so much how a govt comes to be, the important thing is that they understand themselves as "first servant of their nation", where nation indeed refers to the folk and communities and only after that to "state". This antagonism of folk vs state though, that both see each other as "natural enemies" is one of the ills of modernity, and democracy in itself offers no solution to this illness either.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  3. #63
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,379
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    66
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter View Post
    We might be having just a lingual misunderstanding here, but that has absolutely nothing to do with work being a duty or not.
    I know you have problems being precise, however: Are you shitting me?
    I told you Germans put duty before rights, then you responded:
    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter View Post
    I disagree. Germans have more leisure time compared to work time than American workers. As most all European nations do. As long as we are considering work a duty and leisure time a right.
    Evidently, the amount of leisure time says nothing here, if the duty is fulfilled, it is fulfilled. The amount of work you need to fulfill it is secondary.

    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter View Post
    Debate and discussion is one of the number one ways people learn.
    You might lack an understanding of German culture, but Germans think someone intends to do what he says he wants to do, if someone speaks gibberish, he will do gibberish.

    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter View Post
    You're doing nothing but trying to play word games with me again. Native Germans were the majority at this time; unless you can prove otherwise.
    You didn't understand. Point 6 says:
    "6. Das Recht, über Führung und Gesetze des Staates zu bestimmen, darf nur dem Staatsbürger zustehen. Daher fordern wir, daß jedes öffentliche Amt, gleichgültig welcher Art, gleich ob im Reich, Land oder Gemeinde, nur durch Staatsbürger bekleidet werden darf. Wir bekämpfen die korrumpierende Parlamentswirtschaft einer Stellenbesetzung nur nach Parteigesichtspunkten ohne Rücksichten auf Charakter und Fähigkeiten."
    ["6. The right to decide about leadership and law shall only be given to the citizen (singular!). Therefor we demand that all official positions of any sort can only be occupied by citizens. ..."]
    As long as it is not the majority vote of citizens which decides about leadership and laws it is not democratic. Citizens (and only them) shall decide, but not through majority vote, this is nowhere implied.
    The even make an actual logical implication with the word "therefor", so evidently, that only citizens occupy official positions is necessary to fulfill the demand that they shall decide over leadership and law!
    This indicates that only a few citizens, those who are in official positions, shall decide, not all through majority vote.
    Germans are precise, we are proud to use words who are precise, we do not write subtext like the Jews love so much. We mean what we write.
    Maybe your lax outlook on words makes you interpret it in a lot of ways, Germans wouldn't have.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  4. #64
    Senior Member NatSozArbeiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 7th, 2012 @ 11:18 PM
    Ethnicity
    Pennsylvania-German
    Ancestry
    Southern Germany
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Tradesman
    Politics
    Strasserist National Socialism
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    52
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    The problem is that these structures also are to a certain degree a natural result of technological progress and growing populations. So you cannot avoid them completely without going communist, where you basically exchange one devil for another and essentially win nothing.
    No doubt that technological boom caused by the industrial revolution led to even bigger markets for labor exploitation; that is the job of socialists to try and remedy that. I believe we can rid ourselves of wage slavery, without creating a free access communist society full of bureaucratic nonsense.


    Hm, I like to disagree. The form of government is in itself rather irrelevant to the economic structures. Though I will agree that in the last two centuries, both often came as package.
    I think socialism is absolutely important to democracy. The rich who get their wealth from the ownership of capital assets must not have any more say in how to run things than the worker who toils physically 8 hours a day to feed his family.



    You're aware that this is a slogan of the communists, right?
    Yes, as it was by many socialists and even anarchists as well.

    You see, NS doesnt oppose private ownership,
    Certain National Socialists have opposed private ownership, most notably, the left wing faction of the NSDAP which was liquidated in 1934 in the Night of the Long Knives purge.

    As a Strasserist, I think Strasser's stance on private property is most sound. That stance is:

    This brings us to two apparently contradictory de-
    mands of German socialism:

    (1) No German shall any longer have private property
    in land, the raw materials that lie beneath the surface
    of the land, and the means of production in general;

    (2) Every German shall have possessions in these same
    things.

    The escape from the apparent contradiction between
    these two fundamental demands of German socialism


    Quoted directly from Otto Strasser's Germany Tomorrow

    This calls for a redistribution of property. In accordance with this policy, I would say it is best for each worker to own a share of their enterprise and engage in active profit sharing. This will allow them to take ownership of their product without going over to communism. This will also encourage workers to be more productive, as the rate they get paid will actively increase with productivity, whereas in a totally private company this is not assured.

    it just regulates what the owners can do with it and sets limits to the exploitation and how they can generate wealth, by forcing businesses to pay proper wages, grant off-weeks for recreation, funding the social-security programmes etc. It was never about collectivisation of the means of production or ownership of products.
    This is precisely why the Hitlerian brand of NS is Fascism, as opposed to Socialism. There is no doubt that Fascism has Socialist roots, and that it is indeed structured around meeting the needs of communities, however it differs in that it preserves the institutions of private property while directing the economy through the state.

    It really doesnt matter so much how a govt comes to be, the important thing is that they understand themselves as "first servant of their nation", where nation indeed refers to the folk and communities and only after that to "state". This antagonism of folk vs state though, that both see each other as "natural enemies" is one of the ills of modernity, and democracy in itself offers no solution to this illness either.
    I believe it matters insofar as propagating the interests of the folk. With a totally free market system, as many libertarians advocate, we would be back in the same mess we are in now in about 50-100 years with employers advocating unrestricted immigration for increased profits.

    I believe an NS government, even a Hitlerian one (although a Strasserist) would be vastly superior to the current system, and through an NS government we can remedy the problem of folk vs. state.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    I know you have problems being precise, however: Are you shitting me?
    I told you Germans put duty before rights, then you responded:

    Evidently, the amount of leisure time says nothing here, if the duty is fulfilled, it is fulfilled. The amount of work you need to fulfill it is secondary.
    It matters not how quick the work gets done, I am simply trying to figure out if you think work is a duty or not. Before you said

    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    Work in itself is no duty
    And here you refer to it as a duty. You're right that leisure time doesn't matter much though, I was simply pointing out the fact that Germans have more rights in respect to leisure time than do Americans which might show that Germans do indeed value happiness in equal measure with duty.


    You might lack an understanding of German culture, but Germans think someone intends to do what he says he wants to do, if someone speaks gibberish, he will do gibberish.
    I am sure you speak for ALLL Germans when you say that. Furthermore, if one speaks gibberish how can they be corrected if at first they do not speak out?

    You didn't understand. Point 6 says:
    "6. Das Recht, über Führung und Gesetze des Staates zu bestimmen, darf nur dem Staatsbürger zustehen. Daher fordern wir, daß jedes öffentliche Amt, gleichgültig welcher Art, gleich ob im Reich, Land oder Gemeinde, nur durch Staatsbürger bekleidet werden darf. Wir bekämpfen die korrumpierende Parlamentswirtschaft einer Stellenbesetzung nur nach Parteigesichtspunkten ohne Rücksichten auf Charakter und Fähigkeiten."
    ["6. The right to decide about leadership and law shall only be given to the citizen (singular!). Therefor we demand that all official positions of any sort can only be occupied by citizens. ..."]
    As long as it is not the majority vote of citizens which decides about leadership and laws it is not democratic. Citizens (and only them) shall decide, but not through majority vote, this is nowhere implied.
    The even make an actual logical implication with the word "therefor", so evidently, that only citizens occupy official positions is necessary to fulfill the demand that they shall decide over leadership and law!
    This indicates that only a few citizens, those who are in official positions, shall decide, not all through majority vote.
    Germans are precise, we are proud to use words who are precise, we do not write subtext like the Jews love so much. We mean what we write.
    Maybe your lax outlook on words makes you interpret it in a lot of ways, Germans wouldn't have.
    I will quote this part

    The right to decide about leadership and law shall only be given to the citizen
    Directly from your statement. How in the world does this not imply some sort of democratic structure in which citizens hold their leaders accountable and/or have a say in law making? I understand we are different in the native languages we speak, but this is silly. If it does not imply a majority vote, what does it imply? Minority vote? dictatorship?

    When something says a citizen has the right to decide when it comes to leadership and law making there is no denying that it is implying some sort of democratic self administration.

    If they wanted to imply what you're thinking, and Germans are precise, it would have said "The party reserves the full right to have the only say in law making and leadership".
    Anti-capitalist and anti-communist!

    "Hate must be born of love. One must be capable of loving to know what is hateful, and so have the strength to destroy it." - Otto Strasser

  5. #65
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,379
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    66
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter View Post
    And here you refer to it as a duty.
    No, you just don't get me. I said work in itself is no duty, the results or the duty. This is consequent and not contradictory.

    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter View Post
    I was simply pointing out the fact that Germans have more rights in respect to leisure time than do Americans which might show that Germans do indeed value happiness in equal measure with duty.
    This is untrue. Since the product of work is the duty, it indicates nothing in this regard.

    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter View Post
    Furthermore, if one speaks gibberish how can they be corrected if at first they do not speak out?
    It is not practical to correct all the idiots through discussion. People who are willing to learn will ask questions, then it becomes pretty quickly evident whether they are idiots or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter View Post
    How in the world does this not imply some sort of democratic structure in which citizens hold their leaders accountable and/or have a say in law making?
    I will try to go to Kindergarten level for you, but I am running out of patience.
    Premise: The citizen shall decide
    Now which sentence is logically possible:
    a) One citizen decides.
    b) Some citizens decide.
    c) Many citizens decide.
    d) Most citizens decide.
    e) All citizens decide.

    The answer is that none of the above contradicts the premise. Through the second sentence (opened with the word "therefor" and thus making it a logical induction) there is a restriction which citizens can decide: those in official positions.
    Do you get this or are you that resistant to logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter View Post
    If they wanted to imply what you're thinking, and Germans are precise, it would have said "The party reserves the full right to have the only say in law making and leadership".
    The point extends political affiliations, on purpose.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  6. #66
    Senior Member NatSozArbeiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 7th, 2012 @ 11:18 PM
    Ethnicity
    Pennsylvania-German
    Ancestry
    Southern Germany
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Tradesman
    Politics
    Strasserist National Socialism
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    52
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    No, you just don't get me. I said work in itself is no duty, the results or the duty. This is consequent and not contradictory.
    You are indeed right, I really don't get you.


    This is untrue. Since the product of work is the duty, it indicates nothing in this regard.
    If that ever heard of going above and beyond? If Germans should value their duty, above happiness in all aspects as you imply, it is likely they would choose to give up their leisure time to do more of their duty beyond this quota you're imagining.

    It is not practical to correct all the idiots through discussion. People who are willing to learn will ask questions, then it becomes pretty quickly evident whether they are idiots or not.
    It is the purpose of a public school system to correct idiots and get people to learn.


    I will try to go to Kindergarten level for you, but I am running out of patience.
    Premise: The citizen shall decide
    Now which sentence is logically possible:
    a) One citizen decides.
    b) Some citizens decide.
    c) Many citizens decide.
    d) Most citizens decide.
    e) All citizens decide.

    The answer is that none of the above contradicts the premise. Through the second sentence (opened with the word "therefor" and thus making it a logical induction) there is a restriction which citizens can decide: those in official positions.
    Do you get this or are you that resistant to logic?
    I am not resistant to logic, I am just amazed at the word games you are trying to play with me. I'll play your game though, how do these citizens get into office to make decisions? How do they make their way into these official positions?

    I would imagine that is explained by The right to choose the government aka the officials shall belong only to citizens. By all means though if there is some other way people are supposed to determine their government go ahead.
    Anti-capitalist and anti-communist!

    "Hate must be born of love. One must be capable of loving to know what is hateful, and so have the strength to destroy it." - Otto Strasser

  7. #67
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 11th, 2018 @ 06:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    2,127
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    130
    Thanked in
    108 Posts
    Since some view National Socialism as integral to Germany, and Germany therefore to National Socialism, is there no other country for it to flourish in, and is there no other country that would flourish under it? I believe the natural candidates to be England and America, because of their Germanic heritage coming directly and indirectly from Germany, and closeness already to the ideology in practice. America is talked of as in an even duality of extremes between Right and Left, but I am unsure of the state of England where this is concerned. England appears to be both liberal and nationalist under the Commonwealth, but seemed to have been both conservative and internationalist under the Empire before--a radical shift. Fascist France and Communist Russia would not tolerate the existence of a contradiction to their side of the bipolar hybrid called National Socialism. France would reject Socialism and Russia would reject Nationalism; this is in part how and why Germany was vulnerable to a division between West and East.

    The other reason for vulnerability is how Germany's Continentalism made an enemy of both her child country of Insular England and grandchild country of Colonial America by trying to divide and conquer their loyalties, but neither wished to be a part of the Axis powers in which Italy and Japan were considered equals despite not being Germanic. Perhaps if England and America were consulted to begin with, then there would have been a global Germanic Union with a moderate (Strasserist?) form of National Socialism. France and Russia would have been relegated to satellite wings of the Germanic core of Eurocentricity. Indeed, France herself is named for the Franks from Franconia in Germany, and Russia for the Rus of Roslagen in Sweden. They were the elites in what are otherwise Romance Catholic and Slavic Orthodox nations, so their loyalties should be to Germanic Protestant Mitteleuropa.

  8. #68
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 04:03 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,899
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,201
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,303
    Thanked in
    556 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter
    No doubt that technological boom caused by the industrial revolution led to even bigger markets for labor exploitation; that is the job of socialists to try and remedy that. I believe we can rid ourselves of wage slavery, without creating a free access communist society full of bureaucratic nonsense.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter
    I think socialism is absolutely important to democracy. The rich who get their wealth from the ownership of capital assets must not have any more say in how to run things than the worker who toils physically 8 hours a day to feed his family.
    Likewise agreed on the last part, but you again mix economics "necessarily" with political structure. Kaiser Friedrich was a socialist too, social economy was indeed in his interest. I dont think that socialism requires democracy. It may well be that democracy requires, in order to be somewhat good, socialism though. But that's not exactly the same


    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter
    Certain National Socialists have opposed private ownership, most notably, the left wing faction of the NSDAP which was liquidated in 1934 in the Night of the Long Knives purge.
    Well, what shall I say? Good riddance.

    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter
    As a Strasserist, I think Strasser's stance on private property is most sound. That stance is:

    This brings us to two apparently contradictory de-
    mands of German socialism:

    (1) No German shall any longer have private property
    in land, the raw materials that lie beneath the surface
    of the land, and the means of production in general;

    (2) Every German shall have possessions in these same
    things.

    The escape from the apparent contradiction between
    these two fundamental demands of German socialism


    Quoted directly from Otto Strasser's Germany Tomorrow
    Not sure whether that doesnt lose some nuances in translation or maybe the problem results from a different "reality" in America. There's a fine difference between "property" and "possession"/ownership, where the latter is rather an exclusive right to use something. When you rent a flat here, you have the right of ownership, while the one you pay the rent to holds the property. The right of ownership can even override rights of the property holder, ie, you can kick out your landlord, he can not enter your home without your consent etc. Copyright law knows an indisposal right of the originator, the creator can only grant exclusive usage and/or distribution rights to others.

    So, you can "possess" land, build your house upon, farm your land whatever, but the land remains an indisposable, unsellable part of the nation. Same for the raw materials beneath, they remain public property even if they are "privately" used. In German law this is no contradiction anyway. And in regards to the land, this is derived from Blut und Boden, which in turn goes back to pre-christian/pre-Roman Law times, where community ground remained community ground regardless of who used it, since it was expected that any use in turn contributed to the community anyway.


    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter
    This calls for a redistribution of property. In accordance with this policy, I would say it is best for each worker to own a share of their enterprise and engage in active profit sharing. This will allow them to take ownership of their product without going over to communism. This will also encourage workers to be more productive, as the rate they get paid will actively increase with productivity, whereas in a totally private company this is not assured.
    You dont need to "redistribute" property in order that the workers engage in profit sharing through holding shares or by stocking up future rights. German workers are by default productive, even to a fault (within the free market environment). Indeed, Germany knew company pensions, which were removed step by step though through the liberalisation process (starting in the late 70s I think). Companies were forced to pay for their retirees, which actually was a good thing imho. But this didnt infringe on the property of the owner of a business, who after all once founded the company, probably made inventions etc, which is also a motivator for company founders to start new businesses and keep their work going and for innovators to take risks. Their initial contribution should be honored as well, while honoring the worker's contribution too of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter
    This is precisely why the Hitlerian brand of NS is Fascism, as opposed to Socialism. There is no doubt that Fascism has Socialist roots, and that it is indeed structured around meeting the needs of communities, however it differs in that it preserves the institutions of private property while directing the economy through the state.
    You do it again, mixing economy with political form.

    I like to dispute that Japan is fascist, and that this form of economy, the state holding the key sectors and directing economy can work quite good, you may want to read here:

    Japan, Refutation of Neoliberalism

    (unfortunately, the "global free market" dictatorship has damaged this system meanwhile, but it worked for them a long time and still works to good degrees)

    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter
    I believe it matters insofar as propagating the interests of the folk. With a totally free market system, as many libertarians advocate, we would be back in the same mess we are in now in about 50-100 years with employers advocating unrestricted immigration for increased profits.
    I'm all for strict regulation of the markets, and libertarianism, liberalism, or liberal free market capitalism are things no nation has any use for unless it intents to commit suicide.

    Innovations, technological progress, even the renewing of society though require certain dynamics from "the bottom". When you take out this dynamics, and that risk is there when you regulate too much and everything (and your idea what to do with all property contains that risk), you end up in a static society and economics where the already established structures essentially circle around themselves and dont allow innovations and progress anymore.

    The total absense of any regulation, like proposed by liberal free market capitalism, strives by its dynamics for monopolies (which are by and large already reality btw), also bringing the normal, healthy dynamics of economics on the lower levels to a halt.

    What you really want is smart regulation of the "means of production" (and this really only means money, the fuel in every economic machine) in order to fuel the dynamics from the bottom, from the mediocrity of economics to bring forth innovation and progress. Again look at the Japanese model and how they force the money to circulate within the nation for the profit of the nation / folk.


    Quote Originally Posted by NatSozArbeiter
    I believe an NS government, even a Hitlerian one (although a Strasserist) would be vastly superior to the current system, and through an NS government we can remedy the problem of folk vs. state.
    Yes, but an NS government would not be democratic. In fact, I believe that the antagonism of folk vs state is a product of democracy, it is inherent to the systematics of parties (lobby groups) struggling against each other for power while stepping over the "will" (rather need and what is good, which is not always what people may want or desire; another reason why democracy isnt the best of all ideas) of the folk by necessity of having to secure power against other lobby groups, ie parties. The folk then becomes voting sheep.

    And then you end up with a "totally free" (ie ruleless) everything-goes world where the individual's only real freedom is to go shopping.

    When we still had a Kaiser, or even Bismarck as almost-dictator, this antagonism didnt exist. The will/need of the folk to prosper reflected by default through the leadership. Friedrich coined the saying: I'm the first servant of my nation. He didnt stand "above", he just happened to be the Kaiser, but one of the folk. He took on a duty himself, he didnt view his position as a "right" or "privilege", but a duty to lead the German nation. That antagonism came with democracy.


    When you look at German election results, you will find that we are actually governed, democratically elected, by a minority. We have common turn-outs of 50% or less, the current govt got 34% of the votes (so in reality, 17% only). That means, more than 80% of the electorate did not vote for this govt. Still they can claim to "represent" Germany, and the "majority", which couldnt be further from the truth though. It's a nonsense system, really.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Online
    Friday, May 11th, 2012 @ 10:24 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Teutonic
    Ancestry
    Germany, England, Scotland
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Politics
    Natural Law
    Posts
    152
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimston View Post
    Since some view National Socialism as integral to Germany, and Germany therefore to National Socialism, is there no other country for it to flourish in, and is there no other country that would flourish under it? I believe the natural candidates to be England and America,
    As sad as it sounds, I don't think true National Socialism could ever catch on in America. People here are too obsessed with individualism and "my rights". American nationalism goes together with a dislike of the federal government (which is needed in NS). That's why I support a form of racial libertarianism for the US, so people can be free to organize themselves into smaller communities and run them however they want.

    Fascist France and Communist Russia would not tolerate the existence of a contradiction to their side of the bipolar hybrid called National Socialism.
    France is not fascist and has never been. I don't get why you're so obsessed over this point.
    Last edited by Chlodovech; Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 01:54 AM. Reason: Ad hominem

  10. #70
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 11th, 2018 @ 06:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    2,127
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    130
    Thanked in
    108 Posts
    Have you never heard of the complaints lodged at Paris? Have you ever looked at the government infrastructure of France? Do you know how the map used to look compared to now? Statism is France. It is Fascism par excellence. Mussolini was dreaming compared to the nightmare of Petain's world. Ask Bretagne and Alsace-Lorraine about freedom and ethnic individuality in France. Ask the Muslims for that matter. You want to wear a scarf and you are a Muslim woman? Too bad!








Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 66
    Last Post: Sunday, September 12th, 2010, 01:20 AM
  2. National Communism
    By Taras Bulba in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: Sunday, October 18th, 2009, 11:02 AM
  3. Chauvinism, National-Socialism or Racial-Socialism?
    By Lusitano in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 07:02 PM
  4. Replies: 22
    Last Post: Friday, November 5th, 2004, 04:08 AM
  5. National Socialism or Fascism?
    By Pera_Z in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: Monday, April 12th, 2004, 02:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •