/edu/ - Education

>>17546
Why are you helping spread our enemies propaganda?

a lot of people will fall for this vid because it does actually have plenty of citations and looks superficially credible and in part because it links to lots of quotes from nazis where they juxtapose their definition of socialism from big financial capital and marxist socialism as if that is an absolute gotcha and isn't something almost every far right regime of the era does because they like national capital and autarky and sometimes forms of right-developmentalism.

>>17547

wat

we need to discuss the opposition and their arguments

>youtube bullshit
stop watching youtube and READ A FUCKING BOOK

>>17549
Fine but dont directly link the video to give and more views and better ranking.

>>17550
I hate those meme pages because Guerins sources are ass, but this guy is right, YouTube is like even more babied educational vhs tapes.
You know how like in 1999 you'd watch an eyewitness video but not retain an ounce of info?
That's moder youtube political videos based on pre existing politics.
If it isn't original, it's likely dumbed down and misses the point completely and sadly right wingers don't read. So they never know what the fuck they're talking about, I'm sure by this point this is TIK's 3rd video about Hitler being socialist and maybe in like the first one there was a good point or two brought up like Hitler being in Eisner's funeral but by now the motherfucker is 100% lying out his ass. No one, no one dedicates 3+ videos to this one fucking topic.

>>17552
Remind that the reactionary that assasinated Eisner got killed after the war when he was driving a horse and cart and a USA military truck crashed into him killing only him. (Based)

>>17552
Unlike literally everyone else participating in this debate Guerin actually lived through that time period hence his constant references to actual Fascist speeches that were being broadcast during that time, and I have already verified his sources before (he relied upon a defunct French bourgeois newspaper that used to be the equivalent to FT to get a lot of stats which was archived and which I double checked to make sure his stats matched).

>>17555
Idiot.

>>17550

I've never been wonderfully convinced by the 'actually nazism and fascism were just proto neoliberalism look at privatisations and worse conditions for workers' - because so what even if those states had periods where workers may have in aggregate got better off theoretically would that mean they were socialist? No, it doesn't. And? Neoliberal capitalism is a very specific 'thing' wedded to a specific historical conjecture made possible by computing, the opening up of China, the end of the cold war, US hegemony, the 'end of history' etc. Yes, fascist states were more interventionist and more developmentalist in a way than many neoliberal capitalist states because MOST capitalist states historically have been protectionist in some way because neoliberalism is the outlier because things have been so good for a specific type of financialised capitalism in a weirdly unique way. Whether or not Hitler privatised stuff is sort of irrelevant here - the political character of his project was that it literally came out of emergency measures to smash a militant working class who had attempted a revolution in a crumbing bourgeois democracy that couldn't govern effectively in the context of the mass murder and imprisonment of all organised independent labour and the organised socialist and communist resistance and as part of a drive for war and plunder abroad.

>>17557
>>17558
This is wrong.
According to the Manifesto there were approx. 4 strains of "reactionary" socialism during Marx's time:
>Feudal Socialism
<Monarchists and Feudalists appealing for worker support against their replacement by the bourgeoisie, backed up by churches.
The Nazis while not going out of their way to provoke the German monarchists did not restore the german monarchy.
>Petty-Bourgeois Socialism
<Alliance of small traders/craftsmen and peasantry
Germany by the 1930s was one of the most advanced and industrialized countries on Earth and peasant-based political parties or actions drew meager support. In addition the Nazis explicitly made things worse for the peasants by siding with the big landowning Junkers and not following through on their demagogic promise to split up land shares like they promised to in their Nazi platform, unlike what Lenin and the Bolsheviks successfully carried out in Russia.
>German Socialism
<A bygone relic and weird classical liberal French import that proposed that everyone could live in harmony together to progress Mankind's common destiny
While powerful in Marx's time had ceased to exist by the 20th century.
>Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism
<What could be classified as Social Democracy: "oh the poor people are suffering we should form some policies to help them :(((( "
Again the Nazis could not be classified as this either because they were an explicitly Darwinesque "survival of the fittest" ideology that destroyed the Wiemar healthcare system by introducing euthanasia and killing their sick.

In my opinion this is one of the most important and useful pieces of Marxist theory in the past few decades.

One thing I constantly encounter amongst young millennial and zoomer Socialists especially of the more woke/idpol variety is that they have absolutely no understanding of the concepts of relative risk and self interest, raised or lowered expectations, plausibility, assessment of leverage power etc - stuff that is very obvious to working class people and especially trade unionists. So many young earnest revolutionaries think that the people don't revolt because basically of brainworms and that they just need to read more books and get why capitalism is bad or whatever. No, there's instrumental rationality and logic there which needs to be understood. People look at the forces around them and leverage power they have - filtered through media and bullshit of course - and decide what they think is realistic accordingly.

It is a lack of this understanding that led, for Chibber, in part, to the ultimate post '68 cultural turn in the Left - to explain why western workers wouldn't revolt, leftoid students and grads decided it must be muh hegemony brainworms and racism (rather than that shock horror social democratic keynesianism in a booming economy was doing well for them relatively speaking) so they went in search of fetishised new inherently revolutionary classes and subjects - far off foreign struggles, women, sexual minorities, racial minorities etc etc etc. This process is still going on today. And I think it also serves as a sort of form of avoidance for a Left which is increasingly rooted in universities - anything to avoid engaging with people where they actually are and your own working class instead of fetishising sub groups of it.

There really needs to be a risk and Socialism 101 lecture derived from this book to kick the idpol out of people, the idealism, the frustrated seething that at its worst turns people towards LARPing and revolutionary adventurism. That and getting people to do boring long term community activism and trade union work.

TLDR 1968 was over half a century ago, the '68 new left was sort of a dead end

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674245136

I would recommend 'confronting capitalism' also by chibber for a bit of a more normie broad intro

https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/2705-confronting-capitalism

>>17562


Damn wrong thread was gonna post this as an OP nvm

>>17561
So, in conclusion, the Nazis were reactionary beyond even what Marx described as reactionary in the Manifesto. For Marx, Social Democrats and Priests complaining about capitalism was annoying enough to merit mentions but the Nazis make the people he had been complaining about look like a joke.

>>17560
>fascist states were more interventionist and more developmentalist
They WEREN'T.
That's the point of examining the historical economic record of countries like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. That is, in an era where state developmentalism was being conducted on a mass scale and the neoliberals were decades away from taking control, that these very same fascist states were the first to implement privatization policies going far to the right of even advanced capitalist states like Britain or the United States which during that same period were ensuring greater and not lesser state control.
>emergency measures to smash a militant working class who had attempted a revolution in a crumbing bourgeois democracy that couldn't govern effectively in the context of the mass murder and imprisonment of all organised independent labour and the organised socialist and communist resistance and as part of a drive for war and plunder abroad.
Yes this is the standard definition I wasn't contesting that although I will argue that Fascism does not necessarily result in war and expansionist tendencies because otherwise how would you explain Franco's Spain staying out of WW2 or Pinochet's Chile not annexing their neighbors?

>>17563
rip

SOCIALISM IS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOES STUFF

>>17551
weirdo

>>17566
No because Marx makes it clear that bourgeois socialists implement reforms that actually aid people while refusing to change the structure of the actual system. So: Social Democracy.

Meanwhile the Nazis took over the Wiemar healthcare system (an example of Bourgeois Socialism/Social Democracy) and then started killing all the sick because hurr durr. That's not a "reform" meant to aid people that's a regression to barbarity.

As Marx notes:
>Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.
He is explicitly talking about figures claiming to be socialists who pull a Bernie Sanders and suggest policies that seemingly help workers without overthrowing the capitalist system.

>>17569
Brainlet.

>>17573
leftcom

>>17572
No they didn't. Even from Mein Kampf alone it's clear Hitler wanted to shove Germany into another war.
Meanwhile Marx comments on the sort of people he's talking about when he talks about bourgeois socialists:
>To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind.
So think of your average Hollywood/American celebrity who runs a dolphin charity. That's what he means, not fucking Nazis who had blood in their eyes from the very beginning.

>>17568
according to TIK, (Hitler's) Socialism is when there is Racism

>>17576
200 I.Q. screenshot

>>17576
>Millions of views and thousands of dollars in ad revenue for saying retarded shit
One day I'm just going to say fuck it and get in on the rightoid grifting because right wing tards will believe anything. I'll even go blackface to get minority points like Candace Owens.

>>17578
Is this like the trotskyist to neocon pipeline?

>>17574
uyghur in the woodpile.

>TIK
lmao

>>17582
please stop copy pasting off wikipedia and ACTUALLY READ you retard

>>17584
>Living standards worse than Weimar Germany
>Workers have even less power than they did before
>Going to get thrown into the meatgrinder in less than a decade
>that's just reforms bro XDDDD
kill yourself

>>17586
No it's not you retard. I know all you can do is copy me since you're trolling and don't actually have an argument but do better sweaty.

>>17588
>There is no argument
refer to
>>17575
which you never refuted.
This is my last reply.

>thread turns into two retards calling each other retards
Jannies why the fuck are you leaving this thread up.
Also please filter TIK to "I am eceleb crazy ban me please."

>>17591
>two retards
Two? Name one thing tank poster is wrong about.

>>17565

My point is compared to modern capitalist states

But even if they were, it wouldn't change that they were capitalist states and not ones engaged in a socialist project or even a non capitalist state because 'state intervention in the economy' and 'some sort of indicative planning' don't make an economy 'not capitalist'. That's my point

>>17571

I mean…what if they do help workers? You don't need to be a 'succdem' to recognise that yeah of course social democratic policies help workers - if you think Sanders is 'betraying' the working class because he wouldn't in power pull a huge lever saying 'overthrow the capitalist system', you're a first day communist brainlet sorry - that's not how this works. that's not how any of this works.

a side point but thought I'd drop it in

>>17582
Virtually all of these positions were pioneered by what later came to be known as "Keynesianism." What's actually remarkable is the parallelism between Anglo-American Keynesianism and these policies when Keynes himself had very little influence among German/Nazi economists.

As for Nazi economic policy and its relation to (neo/ordo)liberalism, this summary is from the book The Road from Mont Pelerin:
>The very fact that ordoliberalism developed a large part of its theoretical foundations within the temporal and geographical bounds of Nazi Germany raises the important question, If and to what extent were ordoliberals influenced by Nazi Germany in general and by Nazi economic policy considerations in particular? Repeated claims that the Freiburg school and Ludwig Erhard were a staunch part of the opposition to the Nazis—claims that buttressed the legitimacy of the social market economy—deserve closer scrutiny.
>What certainly can be rejected as a mere cover-up is the claim that the ordoliberals who did not emigrate from Germany opposed, or even persistently resisted, the national socialist regime (e.g., Willgerodt 1998; Wegmann 2002, 55–72; Goldschmidt 2005). With the exception of the documented emigrants (Wilhelm Röpke and Alexander Rüstow), such a revisionist history of the wartime ordoliberals is not supported by facts. Papers published in Freiburg between the mid-1930s and the beginning of the 1940s unquestionably reveal that ordoliberal concepts were designed to be implemented under the auspices of a Nazi government. In particular, Böhm’s book on the order of the economy (Die Ordnung der Wirtschaft als geschichtliche Aufgabe und rechtschöpferische Leistung), published in 1937, leaves no room for speculation in this regard (Abelshauser 1991; Haselbach 1991, 84f.; Tribe 1995, 212; Ptak 2004, 90f.). The very lack of a consistent economic policy under the Nazis—the Nazis’ economic policy oscillated wildly between planning and competition at least until the war—reinforced the ordoliberals’ hope of finding a sympathetic hearing for their authority-supported model of competition (Herbst 1982; Abelshauser 1999).
>At the same time, the economists who were on the road to ordoliberalism were not (necessarily) National Socialist economists. In spite of the totalitarian character of Nazi-Germany, it is very important to recognize and understand that different lines of economic thinking coexisted in Nazi Germany. Any analysis should therefore address the question of economics in Nazi-Germany in order to adequately address distance from and complicitness with the ruling powers and philosophies, as well as the changing perspectives and fortunes of individual economists over time. One must consider the multiform ways of relating to the Nazi regime (1) before and after 1933, when parliamentarian democracy and labor movement opposition were eliminated; (2) before and after 1938, when the pogroms against the Jewish population started in earnest; and (3) before and after 1942, which marked both the year when the Holocaust decision was taken and when the war fortunes turned against the Nazis in Stalingrad (Walpen 2004, 93f.).
>After 1942, many people in Nazi Germany recognized that the war was lost and so attempted to distance themselves from the ruling Nazis (Roth 2004). Even if this was in a sense opportunistic, moving into opposition against the regime at that juncture did cost many lives, including the liberal economist Jens Jessen. Several members of the Freiburg school were questioned by the Gestapo, and some were imprisoned. However, any late participation in oppositional activities can hardly exonerate those right-wing liberal economists who had accommodated themselves to the regime before 1942 and deliberately lent their economic expertise to the Nazis for the bulk of the era. While early theoretical considerations of ordoliberalism were congenial to Nazi efforts to curtail certain special interests and trade unions in particular, the ordoliberal framework that promoted a strong and independent state could just as well be turned against the Nazi usurpation of power. This perspective was easier to articulate after the Nazis were toppled, but it should be noted that few expressed it before 1942.
>With regard to more narrowly defined economic issues, the early ordoliberals were continually at odds with other schools of economic reasoning that operated during the Nazi era. As a rather coherent theoretical circle within the ordoliberal spectrum, the Freiburger Schule particular tried to promote a competitive order before and even during wartime. By developing policy advisory roles, they saw a chance to fill the economic theory vacuum in Nazi Germany with an authoritarian competitive order. Even though one cannot assume a broad, overall congruence between ordoliberal positions and National Socialist ideology, the authoritarian element, which Böhm characterized as kombinierte Wirtschaftsverfassung (“combined economic constitution”) (1937), represents a much visited point of intersection with National Socialist ideology regarding regional self-sufficiency. Despite the ordoliberals’ growing skepticism about Nazi Germany during the later phases of the wartime economy in particular, hope remained that the residual market economy could be preserved to create pro-market conditions that could be implemented after the war. Miksch as a journalist and Müller-Armack and Erhard as political advisers directly dealt with issues concerning the wartime economy and planning for the postwar period, and like many other economic professionals were at least indirectly entangled in National Socialist policies of expansion during much of the 1930s and 1940s (Ptak 2004). Tribe (1995) has mapped the respective attitudes of neoliberals ranging from Republican resistance (Röpke) to staunch conservatism (Eucken) and active Nazism (von Stackelberg). Other researchers try to excuse cooperating ordoliberals by speaking in rather obscure ways of exiles and “half exiles.” In any case, Wegmann (2002) and others who insist that a huge distance be maintained between ordoliberals and the Nazis fail to understand the considerable overlap of ordoliberal and Nazi critiques of parliamentarian democracy, trade unions, and the Communist Party in particular.
>Reading the early critiques of parliamentarian democracy in the oeuvre of German ordoliberals and Austrian school neoliberals reveals the obscure authoritarian tendencies that were operating just beneath the surface of many neoliberals. These tendencies have reemerged time and again in eras of perceived danger to the neoliberal cause. These weaknesses for repressive regimes recur in the history of neoliberalism, as evidenced by Hayek’s and Friedman’s support of “free market economic policies” under the leadership of Pinochet in Chile, for example (see Fischer, Chapter 9 in this volume).
This tendency to revert to "planning" or "state intervention" to establish, protect, or insulate markets from democratic forces or from their own effects (whether in the form of authoritarian measures to control the populace, controls on the market, or otherwise) is not unusual with regards to liberalism historically; although the Schmittian elements and the explicit recognition of this need of the state by the neoliberals were new, the underlying tendency had been true of liberalism beforehand. Karl Polanyi pointed this out in The Great Transformation in 1944:
>There was nothing natural about laissez-faire; free markets could never have come into being merely by allowing things to take their course. Just as cotton manufactures—the leading free trade industry—were created by the help of protective tariffs, export bounties, and indirect wage subsidies, laissez-faire itself was enforced by the state. The thirties and forties saw not only an outburst of legislation repealing restrictive regulations, but also an enormous increase in the administrative functions of the state, which was now being endowed with a central bureaucracy able to fulfil the tasks set by the adherents of liberalism. To the typical utilitarian, economic liberalism was a social project which should be put into effect for the greatest happiness of the greatest number; laissez-faire was not a method to achieve a thing, it was the thing to be achieved. True, legislation could do nothing directly, except by repealing harmful restrictions. But that did not mean that government could do nothing, especially indirectly. On the contrary, the utilitarian liberal saw in government the great agency for achieving happiness. In respect to material welfare, Bentham believed, the influence of legislation “is as nothing” in comparison with the unconscious contribution of the “minister of the police.” Of the three things needed for economic success—inclination, knowledge, and power—the private person possessed only inclination. Knowledge and power, Bentham taught, can be administered much cheaper by government than by private persons. It was the task of the executive to collect statistics and information, to foster science and experiment, as well as to supply the innumerable instruments of final realization in the field of government. Benthamite liberalism meant the replacing of parliamentary action by action through administrative organs.
>For this there was ample scope. Reaction in England had not governed—as it did in France—through administrative methods but used exclusively Parliamentary legislation to put political repression into effect. “The revolutionary movements of 1785 and of 1815–1820 were combated, not by departmental action, but by Parliamentary legislation. The suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, the passing of the Libel Act, and of the ‘Six Acts’ of 1819, were severely coercive measures; but they contain no evidence of any attempt to give a Continental character to administration. In so far as individual liberty was destroyed, it was destroyed by and in pursuance of Acts of Parliament.” Economic liberals had hardly gained influence on government, in 1832, when the position changed completely in favor of administrative methods. “The net result of the legislative activity which has characterized, though with different degrees of intensity, the period since 1832, has been the building up piecemeal of an administrative machine of great complexity which stands in as constant need of repair, renewal, reconstruction, and adaptation to new requirements as the plant of a modern manufactory.” This growth of administration reflected the spirit of utilitarianism. Bentham’s fabulous Panopticon, his most personal utopia, was a star-shaped building from the center of which prison wardens could keep the greatest number of jailbirds under the most effective supervision at the smallest cost to the public. Similarly, in the utilitarian state his favorite principle of “inspectability” ensured that the minister at the top should keep effective control over all local administration.
>The road to the free market was opened and kept open by an enormous increase in continuous, centrally organized and controlled interventionism. To make Adam Smith’s “simple and natural liberty” compatible with the needs of a human society was a most complicated affair. Witness the complexity of the provisions in the innumerable enclosure laws; the amount of bureaucratic control involved in the administration of the New Poor Laws which for the first time since Queen Elizabeth’s reign were effectively supervised by central authority; or the increase in governmental administration entailed in the meritorious task of municipal reform. And yet all these strongholds of governmental interference were erected with a view to the organizing of some simple freedom—such as that of land, labor, or municipal administration. Just as, contrary to expectation, the invention of laborsaving machinery had not diminished but actually increased the uses of human labor, the introduction of free markets, far from doing away with the need for control, regulation, and intervention, enormously increased their range. Administrators had to be constantly on the watch to ensure the free working of the system. Thus even those who wished most ardently to free the state from all unnecessary duties, and whose whole philosophy demanded the restriction of state activities, could not but entrust the self-same state with the new powers, organs, and instruments required for the establishment of laissez-faire.
So "classical liberalism" wasn't opposed to state intervention either (the term was created and used by neoliberals in lieu of "neoliberal" anyway, partly to represent their views as if directly inherited from classical political economy and partly to manufacture and gloss over the disconnects and differences between figures like Smith and Ricardo and those like Mises and Hayek).

>>17582

So what? Plenty of capitalist regimes have done stuff that benefits workers for a time and institutionalised social gains. And?

Socialism is about the political agency and representation of the organised working class *as a class*. It is identified with maintaining the social gains got in part by those movements in the past (expansions of the social wage, healthcare, welfare, sick pay etc - there's plenty of 'big state' expenditure that isn't generally linked to that tradition).

And once again all of this stuff can be pointed to as stuff that plenty of capitalists governments do - including price controls and wage controls (that's trying to maintain inflation and growth rates and?). A lot of this stuff was common to social democratic and non social democratic capitalist economies in the early to mid 20th century.

Ataturk's Turkey saw massive expansion of public works and provisions for workers. It was as a state project especially in the one party period a viciously ethnonationalist anti-communist, anti-socialist political project. If all of these anti-communists and anti-socialists who murder trade unionists throughout history have no problem running regimes that do nice things for workers every now and then and do state intervention then perhaps its you who has the false definition of what 'socialism' is, not them.

Socialism is about THE POLITICAL POWER OF THE WORKING CLASS AS THE WORKING CLASS. Say it again. I know its hard for ameriburgers to get into their heads because they have so little of any sort of social wage from their state that they conflate it with socialism in general

>>17546
> that would mean that almost any actually existing capitalist economy isn't really capitalist (even neoliberal ones).
That’s pretty much correct. Most modern economies are dominated by corporations, which are publicly-owned entities and have fiat currency as opposed to commodity-money. We’ve pretty much been living in socialism since the financial collapse of 1929 and we simply haven’t realized it

>>17565 Franco and Pinochet are authoritarian conservatives not fascists

>>17546
hitler explicitly killed the left leaning socialists in his party. anyone who calls hitler a socialist is either a misinformation agent, or historically illiterate (or both).

>>17600
Not true. He made Richard Walter “agricultural Bolshevik” Darre the head of the Reich Food Estate.