Nazism is of course worse than normal Capitalism, but they are the same thing underneath, reacting to different circumstances. Nazism is a Capitalist response to left wing organization in order to violently suppress it, and ensure the existing ruling class does not lose power.
Nazism is a Capitalist response to left wing organization in order to violently suppress it, and ensure the existing ruling class does not lose power.
Well, not exactly. I can see why many of us have this oversimplified view of Fascism (it was my own for a while), but as respectable as our numbers were in the Kingdom of Italy and the Weimar Republic, we were still too minor to ensure a revolution. Rather, preventing capitalism’s collapse by any means necessary—saving it from its own contradictions—was the ruling class’s main motive for institutionalizing Fascism. Listen to this monologue by Michael Parenti or read Daniel Guerin’s Fascism and Big Business for the details.
Gotcha. I appreciate the correction on my PoV, that does seem a more complete view of fascism. I had elsewhere described it more as Capitalism in “different circumstances,” ie when it needs to be especially brutal to protect itself and pretend that it isn’t still Capitalism, and I think that’s closer to what you’re saying here.
It suggests that they are the same system in different circumstances. We pin the sins of Capitalism on “Nazism” whenever Capitalism puts on the Nazi mask, and when it takes it back off we pretend the underlying system is different. The victims of Nazism are also victims of Capitalism, but the victims of Capitalism are not necessarily victims of Nazism.
Nazism is of course worse than normal Capitalism, but they are the same thing underneath, reacting to different circumstances. Nazism is a Capitalist response to left wing organization in order to violently suppress it, and ensure the existing ruling class does not lose power.
Well, not exactly. I can see why many of us have this oversimplified view of Fascism (it was my own for a while), but as respectable as our numbers were in the Kingdom of Italy and the Weimar Republic, we were still too minor to ensure a revolution. Rather, preventing capitalism’s collapse by any means necessary—saving it from its own contradictions—was the ruling class’s main motive for institutionalizing Fascism. Listen to this monologue by Michael Parenti or read Daniel Guerin’s Fascism and Big Business for the details.
Would it be accurate to say that suppressing left wing movements is a part of that defense from its own contradictions, or is that tangential to it?
It is part of the defense, yes, because our movements were responsible for achieving the concessions that the Fascists had to undo.
Gotcha. I appreciate the correction on my PoV, that does seem a more complete view of fascism. I had elsewhere described it more as Capitalism in “different circumstances,” ie when it needs to be especially brutal to protect itself and pretend that it isn’t still Capitalism, and I think that’s closer to what you’re saying here.
But it looks insane and out of touch too make posts where it suggests both are the same
It suggests that they are the same system in different circumstances. We pin the sins of Capitalism on “Nazism” whenever Capitalism puts on the Nazi mask, and when it takes it back off we pretend the underlying system is different. The victims of Nazism are also victims of Capitalism, but the victims of Capitalism are not necessarily victims of Nazism.