What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT

[Szdfan]

The German parliamentary system is set up that parties have to form coalitions in order to rule, because seats in parliaments are divided according to percentages and proportions of the vote. It's extremely rare for a party to win control of the parliament without coalition partners.

After the March 1933 election, the Nazi Party became the largest party in the Reichstag for the first time with 43% of the vote, which was still not enough votes to command a majority. The party with the second most seats was the SPD. Rather than forming a coalition with the SPD (which Falco is arguing was ideologically similar) the Nazis formed a coalition with the conservative Deutschnationale Volkspartei (DNVP), which was a right-wing, nationalist, populist party. Paul von Hindenburg and Franz von Papen, who both played essential roles in Hitler's appointment as chancellor, were also known as conservative politicians.

When the Nazis consolidated their power at the end of March 1933, they needed a 2/3rds vote in the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act that banned other parties and allowed Hitler to rule by decree. This law was passed by the Nazis with the help of other conservative parties and not with the KPD and SPD.

Obviously the SPD didn’t want to vote National Socialists into power — they were rivals of the Nazis and wanted the top spot for themselves. None of this is any type of proof that National Socialism didn’t spring from the same roots as socialism.

I do not even understand what’s controversial about that statement.

So the part of your argument I can understand is that the SPD didn't coalition with the Nazis because they were rivals. What your argument doesn't address, however, is why the Nazis were able to coalition with right-wing nationalist populist parties like the DNVP and that Hitler received critical support from conservative politicians like von Hindenburg and von Papen if the Nazis were ideologically similar to the left-wing SPD and KPD.

I'm arguing that Hitler and the Nazis were able to coalition with and receive support from conservatives in Germany because they were more ideologically similar to German conservatism than to socialism and communism.

[Ken]

His argument is that because some fascists tried to disguise their actual intentions by co-opting some socialist language here and there in obscure documents, that means the fascists and socialists were one and the same thing.

When in point of fact, fascism and socialism were at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum and mortal enemies throughout the 1920s and 1930s until European fascism was finally defeated with WW2. Socialists were the biggest opponents of fascism in both Germany and Italy. That is historical fact. We already discussed Germany. Here is Italy. Mussolini was indeed a socialist in his youth. But he split with the movement and rode a wave of anti-socialist violence to power. Quoting: The Politics of Everyday Life in Fascist Italy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017). https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/ ... 37-58654-4

“After the sacrifices of the war, and the example of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, anything seemed possible,” he says, adding that Socialists made huge electoral gains, taking over local governments, which alarmed some middle- and upper-class Italians.

Seeing those gains, Mussolini took on the Socialists by force. In 1919, Mussolini created the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, (Italian Combat Squads), the precursor to his Fascist Party. This group engaged in violence against Socialists and other enemies. In 1921, he founded the Fascist Party, turning his paramilitary movement into a formal political party. He coined the name of the party based on the Italian word for bundle—fascio—in reference to bundles of rods used in ancient Rome to symbolize strength through unity. The party emphasized national unity—even if it required violence to keep dissenters in check.

“Basically, Mussolini hated the Socialists, and so did the rest of the Fascists,” Ebner said. “One driving force behind Fascist violence was their desire to punish the Socialists for not supporting Italy during the Great War (World War I). The Fascists viewed the Socialists as cowardly traitors, internal enemies, who needed to be eradicated.”

He noted Mussolini’s paramilitary groups that attacked the Socialist Party and labor unions—known as the Blackshirts—were often paid or supplied by wealthy landowners. Fascist squads burned down Communist and Socialist offices as they took over cities.

Opposition to socialism was actually a defining characteristic of fascism in both Germany and Italy. And both the German Nazis and Italian fascists aligned themselves with other right-wing conservative parties in their opposition to socialism. Furthermore, in both Germany and Italy, the most robust internal opposition to fascism came from the socialists. That is historical fact.

[Falco Knotwise]

You both are ignoring the gist of my argument, which is that the whole impulse and idea of a totalitarian state evolved from socialism.

Both totalitarian governments arose from the same root. One side co-opted and skewed Judeo/Christian ethics to make it serve the ends of a totalitarian state. (Fascists)

(The fascist state later jailed and killed clerics who remained Christian enough to begin pointing out how fascism and Christianity were in fact not compatible.)

Everyone here knows that afterwards they were opposed to one another politically. No one here needs to be reminded of that.

The left side just bull-dozed Christian ethics straight out of the way to make room for a totalitarian state.

Both sides ultimately involved destruction of Judeo/Christian ethics, had totalitarian impulses, set up and submitted to authoritarian personalities, and murdered millions in the name of a centralized totalitarian state. (Except perhaps that Stalin and Mao each murdered more than Hitler did.)

Why did conservatives seem to have an affinity to join with the fascist party which killed Jews? (The answer to that involves economic factors, not just an affinity for patriotism and a sense of history).

Why did the liberals join with the Bolshevik party? Was there something particularly evil about liberals that made them susceptible to Communism? What made the left so susceptible to submission to authoritarianism in a state that killed millions?

Why wasn’t there a book written about that?

[Ken]

You both are ignoring the gist of my argument, which is that the whole impulse and idea of a totalitarian state evolved from socialism.

Nonsense. Ancient Sparta was totalitarian. As was the Assyrian Empire, Mongol Empire, Abbasid Caliphate, Aztecs, Ancient Israel, modern day Iran, and many many others.

Socialists didn't invent totalitarianism. And neither did fascists for that matter.

Modern versions look different from ancient versions only because modern states are different from ancient states. But the basic human impulse of authoritarian rule is still the same.

[Szdfan]

His argument is that because some fascists tried to disguise their actual intentions by co-opting some socialist language here and there in obscure documents, that means the fascists and socialists were one and the same thing.

What I would agree with is that the ideological extremes of right and left have a tendency to echo each other and that you might find elements of socialism in fascism and vice versa. However, Marxism's concept of class warfare is fundamentally not the same thing as the nationalistic fascist concept of "blood and soil."

Socialism and fascism are ideologies distinct from each other and do not come from the same ideological wellspring. While they are both ideological reactions to European industrialization, they are not branches from the same tree.

[Falco Knotwise]

You both are ignoring the gist of my argument, which is that the whole impulse and idea of a totalitarian state evolved from socialism.

Nonsense. Ancient Sparta was totalitarian. As was the Assyrian Empire, Mongol Empire, Abbasid Caliphate, Aztecs, Ancient Israel, modern day Iran, and many many others.

Socialists didn't invent totalitarianism. And neither did fascists for that matter.

Modern versions look different from ancient versions only because modern states are different from ancient states. But the basic human impulse of authoritarian rule is still the same.

The basic human impulses yes, but that those basic human impulses became channeled into the unique form of modern ideological systems that opposed themselves to the liberal order of the west with its separation of powers. (This was shared by both Communism and Fascism. My guess is nobody her will deny it. But Are American conservatives opposed to this?

The gnostic dialectical systems through which the totalitarian impulses became channelled into the ideologies of Communism and National Socialism was something very new. Both systems were a development from that same “stream,” as even Mussolini knew.

Liberals just want to focus on the affinity for patriotism and morals and the seeming support the fascists state gave to this to suggest there is something fascist about Judeo/Christian ethics, which is false, and to just ignore the wider revolutionary context into which it was caught up.

[Ken]

You both are ignoring the gist of my argument, which is that the whole impulse and idea of a totalitarian state evolved from socialism.

Nonsense. Ancient Sparta was totalitarian. As was the Assyrian Empire, Mongol Empire, Abbasid Caliphate, Aztecs, Ancient Israel, modern day Iran, and many many others.

Socialists didn't invent totalitarianism. And neither did fascists for that matter.

Modern versions look different from ancient versions only because modern states are different from ancient states. But the basic human impulse of authoritarian rule is still the same.

The basic human impulses yes, but that those basic human impulses became channeled into modern ideological systems that opposed themselves to the liberal order of the west with its separation of powers. The gnostic dialectical systems through which the totalitarian impulses became channelled into the ideologies of Communism and National Socialism. That was new. Both systems developed from the same “stream,” as even Mussolini knew.

The only real difference between say Hitler and Genghis Kahn is that Hitler operated in the modern world in which there was at least the pretense of democracy and "consent of the governed". Which made it necessary to develop ideologies to justify the seizure of power. Ancient autocrats just seized power because that was the human way of the world. But even they justified their authoritarian rule through ideology and religion (which is the same thing).

But this is nothing unique to Marxism or Socialism. Autocrats have always wielded ideology to justify seizing power. Whether it was the Torah, Koran, Bible (divine right of Kings), Machiavelli, Roman Emperors like Nero and Domitian, Mao's little red book, or Mein Kampf.

Russia, for example, has always been an authoritarian imperial empire. Under centuries of Tsars wielding Christianity and ruling by divine right, under Bolshevism and the USSR, and now under Putin with his own blend of conservative imperial Russian ideology. Socialism or Marxism neither began nor ended this pattern. It was merely a 70 year interlude in the middle.

[Falco Knotwise]

Nonsense. Ancient Sparta was totalitarian. As was the Assyrian Empire, Mongol Empire, Abbasid Caliphate, Aztecs, Ancient Israel, modern day Iran, and many many others.

Socialists didn't invent totalitarianism. And neither did fascists for that matter.

Modern versions look different from ancient versions only because modern states are different from ancient states. But the basic human impulse of authoritarian rule is still the same.

The basic human impulses yes, but that those basic human impulses became channeled into modern ideological systems that opposed themselves to the liberal order of the west with its separation of powers. The gnostic dialectical systems through which the totalitarian impulses became channelled into the ideologies of Communism and National Socialism. That was new. Both systems developed from the same “stream,” as even Mussolini knew.

The only real difference between say Hitler and Genghis Kahn is that Hitler operated in the modern world in which there was at least the pretense of democracy and "consent of the governed". Which made it necessary to develop ideologies to justify the seizure of power. Ancient autocrats just seized power because that was the human way of the world. But even they justified their authoritarian rule through ideology and religion (which is the same thing).

But this is nothing unique to Marxism or Socialism. Autocrats have always wielded ideology to justify seizing power. Whether it was the Torah, Koran, Bible (divine right of Kings), Machiavelli, Roman Emperors like Nero and Domitian, Mao's little red book, or Mein Kampf.

Did you just say ideology and religion are the same thing? That is a Marxist/neoMarxist assumption.

The fact that neomarxism has renounced violence and power (at least on paper) does not absolve it from blame.

What was central in the both movements was their hatred for Judeo/Christian ethics. There is where the impulse to murder comes from. From the murder of God, the murder of people made in his image will follow. That is what happened in Communism and National Socialism. That is what is happening on left wing college campuses today.

[Ken]

The basic human impulses yes, but that those basic human impulses became channeled into modern ideological systems that opposed themselves to the liberal order of the west with its separation of powers. The gnostic dialectical systems through which the totalitarian impulses became channelled into the ideologies of Communism and National Socialism. That was new. Both systems developed from the same “stream,” as even Mussolini knew.

The only real difference between say Hitler and Genghis Kahn is that Hitler operated in the modern world in which there was at least the pretense of democracy and "consent of the governed". Which made it necessary to develop ideologies to justify the seizure of power. Ancient autocrats just seized power because that was the human way of the world. But even they justified their authoritarian rule through ideology and religion (which is the same thing).

But this is nothing unique to Marxism or Socialism. Autocrats have always wielded ideology to justify seizing power. Whether it was the Torah, Koran, Bible (divine right of Kings), Machiavelli, Roman Emperors like Nero and Domitian, Mao's little red book, or Mein Kampf.

Did you just say ideology and religion are the same thing?

Yes, when it comes to justifying authoritarianism such as in modern Iran. Shia Islam is the Ideology of the authoritarian rulers of Iran. That is why they call it the "Islamic Republic of Iran"

[Falco Knotwise]

The only real difference between say Hitler and Genghis Kahn is that Hitler operated in the modern world in which there was at least the pretense of democracy and "consent of the governed". Which made it necessary to develop ideologies to justify the seizure of power. Ancient autocrats just seized power because that was the human way of the world. But even they justified their authoritarian rule through ideology and religion (which is the same thing).

But this is nothing unique to Marxism or Socialism. Autocrats have always wielded ideology to justify seizing power. Whether it was the Torah, Koran, Bible (divine right of Kings), Machiavelli, Roman Emperors like Nero and Domitian, Mao's little red book, or Mein Kampf.

Did you just say ideology and religion are the same thing?

Yes, when it comes to justifying authoritarianism such as in modern Iran. Shia Islam is the Ideology of the authoritarian rulers of Iran. That is why they call it the "Islamic Republic of Iran"

If you want to know how authoritarianism can be justified in purely secular terms, just ask Chairman Xi Jinping.

That is why they call it “The People’s Republic of China.”