Szdfan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 7:58 pm
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.
Benito Mussolini was a socialist himself, and so was his father, before he turned towards national socialism, and coined the word “fascism” for national socialism. He also wrote a short document called
The Doctrine of Fascism which spells out how the doctrine of fascism evolved from socialism.
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL DOCTRINE - EVOLUTION FROM SOCIALISM
When in the now distant March of 1919, speaking through the columns of the Popolo d'Italia I summoned to Milan the surviving interventionists who had intervened, and who had followed me ever since the foundation of the Fasci of revolutionary action in January 1915, I had in mind no specific doctrinal program. The only doctrine of which I had practical experience was that of socialism, from until the winter of 1914 - nearly a decade. My experience was that both of a follower and a leader but it was not doctrinal experience. My doctrine during that period had been the doctrine of action. A uniform, universally accepted doctrine of Socialism had not existed since 1905, when the revisionist movement, headed by Bernstein, arose in Germany, countered by the formation, in the see-saw of tendencies, of a left revolutionary movement which in Italy never quitted the field of phrases, whereas, in the case of Russian socialism, it became the prelude to Bolshevism.
Reformism, revolutionism, centrism, the very echo of that terminology is dead, while in the great river of Fascism one can trace currents which had their source in Sorel, Peguy, Lagardelle of the Movement Socialists, and in the cohort of Italian syndicalist who from 1904 to 1914 brought a new note into the Italian socialist environment - previously emasculated and chloroformed by fornicating with Giolitti's party - a note sounded in Olivetti's Pagine Libere, Orano's Lupa, Enrico Leone's Divenirs Socials.
— Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaste ... solini.htm
There it is in black and white, how the idea of fascism evolved from socialism. The whole idea of syndicalism was invented by socialists. They divide syndicalism into a legitimately socialist kind and a fascist kind, but the whole idea of syndicalism was a socialist invention.
Charles Peguy was a very influential French socialist. He was and is still regarded as a socialist, not fascist. According to the Wikipedia entry on him . . .
Charles Pierre Péguy (French: [ʃaʁl peɡi]; 7 January 1873 – 5 September 1914) was a French poet, essayist, and editor. His two main philosophies were socialism and nationalism;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Péguy
There you have the two topics of nationalism and socialism put together by a socialist. The Wikipedia article quotes scholars who argue he would have been horrified to the know the influence he had on fascism. That doesn’t change the fact that it was partly from his ideas that fascism naturally developed.
Mussolini explains this was pre-Bolshevism socialist thought. From here one branch developed into Bolshevism (which later became Russian Communism) while the other developed into Fascism.
It couldn’t be spelled out more clearly how they were two branches of the same tree. Why isn’t this common knowledge and taught in every university?
Why do we still live in la la land created by Theodore Adorno and his neomarxist colleagues according to which fascism was basically a development of sexually repressed conservatives with a conventional morality?
