Why isn't Socialism/Communism as frowned upon as Fascism?

[West Leas Oros]

Let's face it tho the american national anthem is lame as heck
If your anthem ain't designed for shooting austrians and using their blood as fertilizer what is it even good for

Honestly I wouldn't be adverse to using an american composed and written song, such as the full version of God Bless America or the 3rd and 4th Verses of "America, The beautiful."


To Put this thread back on the rails, it's pretty obvious: Because the left has hijacked terms like fascist and co-opted anarcho-communist organizations like the original antifa (which was a communist rebel militia in Weimar Germany.) When ancoms have convinced people that "to oppose antifa is to oppose anti-fascists and that makes you a fascist," it's pretty easy for people, especially a place like the US where the masses of urbanites love to soak up the words of celebrities (who mostly fall on the left) and others who get a lot of good coverage from places like CNN or MSNBC (and who it took almost a year for members of the DNC to disavow, even then only some) , to be sucked into the propaganda that somehow communism which has killed more people than fascism isn't as bad.

You seem like you hate antifa, good on you! We need people like you to fight them!

[Claorica]

As far as I know they haven't, or at least not one that's known outside of their tankers.

But the idea that "oh it was written by the Wehrmacht so it should be banned" is like saying the Texas ARNG, ANG, and State Guard should stop singing "It's a Yellow Rose in Texas" because the modern version was adapted by CSA Soldiers or the original version was about a "darkey" (old-fashioned, now considered derogatory but back then used by slaves and masters alike, term for a black person) who wants to go home to his old plantation to see his "Yellow Girl" (an old-fashioned term for a biracial Black/White Girl of light skin, what today's black people would call a "light skin")

The Panzerlied in question, wasn't just "written by the Wehrmacht", but was part of NS-Propaganda. Still, it was left in the official songbook until a Neo-Naziscandal plagued the Bundeswehr this year.
So they went over the songbook and recognised that it has a number of passages that don't fit the modern German Army, along with a number of other songs in the first revision since 1991.

The passages in question refer to how great it is to die for the Reich, among other things, so the real question should be why it wasn't thrown out long before. So the reasoning behind the decision was quite a bit more substantial than Wehrmacht=Ban this sick filth.
If you're really that keen on it, you can still sing it to hearts content.

Same goes for the entirety of the Deutschlandlied btw., though you won't exactly endear yourself to Germans by singing it. They are, for the most part, not exactly fans of the naked imperialism on display in the first stanza and more power to them.

The First stanza isn't even imperialistic. Those were the borders of the German States when it was written, literally all "Deutschland Uber Alles" is saying is that above all other things, including the petty squabbles of ~15 different states that all share a certain national character and claim a common heritage, Germans are going to support Germans, and that when the world comes to defeat them, they may be down but they will never be out.

[Imperializt Russia]

Let's face it tho the american national anthem is lame as heck
If your anthem ain't designed for shooting austrians and using their blood as fertilizer what is it even good for

Honestly I wouldn't be adverse to using an american composed and written song, such as the full version of God Bless America or the 3rd and 4th Verses of "America, The beautiful."


To Put this thread back on the rails, it's pretty obvious: Because the left has hijacked terms like fascist and co-opted anarcho-communist organizations like the original antifa (which was a communist rebel militia in Weimar Germany.) When ancoms have convinced people that "to oppose antifa is to oppose anti-fascists and that makes you a fascist," it's pretty easy for people, especially a place like the US where the masses of urbanites love to soak up the words of celebrities (who mostly fall on the left) and others who get a lot of good coverage from places like CNN or MSNBC (and who it took almost a year for members of the DNC to disavow, even then only some) , to be sucked into the propaganda that somehow communism which has killed more people than fascism isn't as bad.

Antifa, even that Weimar organisation, literally is "antifascist action", as in direct action, against fascists, ie the Nazis and proto-Nazis and other far-right militias such as the Freikorps.

[The Liberated Territories]

Socialism is an inherently internationalist ideology

Nope, it's not. Marxism and anarchism do not equal socialism. Numerous scholars such as Sternhell have argued that Fascism was a merger of integral nationalism with revolutionary syndicalism, inheriting most of it's philosophy from the latter.

if you can even call national syndicalism that

It'd not be hard to; Sorel, Pannunzio, and De Ambris were all popular socialists who contributed to the development of national syndicalism. Fascism in 1919 was openly and avowedly socialist, with articles published in Il Popolo D'Italia with the various socialist ideologues ranked (Proudhon and Bakunin at the top with Marx on the bottom).

I'm going to steal this to quote later, thanks.

[Claorica]

Honestly I wouldn't be adverse to using an american composed and written song, such as the full version of God Bless America or the 3rd and 4th Verses of "America, The beautiful."


To Put this thread back on the rails, it's pretty obvious: Because the left has hijacked terms like fascist and co-opted anarcho-communist organizations like the original antifa (which was a communist rebel militia in Weimar Germany.) When ancoms have convinced people that "to oppose antifa is to oppose anti-fascists and that makes you a fascist," it's pretty easy for people, especially a place like the US where the masses of urbanites love to soak up the words of celebrities (who mostly fall on the left) and others who get a lot of good coverage from places like CNN or MSNBC (and who it took almost a year for members of the DNC to disavow, even then only some) , to be sucked into the propaganda that somehow communism which has killed more people than fascism isn't as bad.

Antifa, even that Weimar organisation, literally is "antifascist action", as in direct action, against fascists, ie the Nazis and proto-Nazis and other far-right militias such as the Freikorps.

an extragovernmental militia/terrorist/rioting organization calling themselves antifascists when they are really ancoms using the fascistic tactic of burning down the place where people who they disagree with are speaking.

[Ceannairceach]

Antifa, even that Weimar organisation, literally is "antifascist action", as in direct action, against fascists, ie the Nazis and proto-Nazis and other far-right militias such as the Freikorps.

an extragovernmental militia/terrorist/rioting organization calling themselves antifascists when they are really ancoms using the fascistic tactic of burning down the place where people who they disagree with are speaking.

It's more than a bit of a stretch to call rioting a "fascistic tactic."

[Vassenor]

burning down the place where people who they disagree with are speaking.

So when did that actually happen?

[Imperializt Russia]

burning down the place where people who they disagree with are speaking.

So when did that actually happen?

inb4 "reichstag fire"

[The Grene Knyght]

Antifa, even that Weimar organisation, literally is "antifascist action", as in direct action, against fascists, ie the Nazis and proto-Nazis and other far-right militias such as the Freikorps.

an extragovernmental militia/terrorist/rioting organization calling themselves antifascists when they are really ancoms using the fascistic tactic of burning down the place where people who they disagree with are speaking.

You're right, fire is fascist. Which I guess make firemen antifa

[Manokan Republic]

Who and regarding what?

You, regarding the question in the title. In a country where our government won't even condemn violence committed by neo-Nazis, fascism is not receiving nearly as much opposition as communism.

Our government did condemn the violence ,and since when does a government have to come out and condemn things? Being angry at what someone doesn't say is stupid. If we spent all day condemning things, we still couldn't possibly condemn all the bad things in the world, and it would take up time that could be spent solving real problems instead.

Furthermore, Trump's daughter and his son are both jews, and he recognized the capital of Israel as being a part of Israel for the first time in not only U.S. history, but was the first time any world leader other than those in Israel did it. He quite frankly is the most pro jewish president we've ever had, and to think he's a nazi, is quite frankly silly. It's a strange contradiction by the left it seems.

[Iridencia]

Considering that socialism and communism aren't the same thing, I can see why you might confused at the lopsided approval ratings when you bring the former into the equation.

[Manokan Republic]

To add to the whole communist conversation, communists killed about as many jews as the Nazis, and helped round up the jews in WWII. In fact in Poland and in Ukraine, they helped deport millions of people to be executed by the nazis, and even killed thousands themselves. Jewish deaths by the soviet union were particularly high given they were allies with the nazis, and they assisted the Nazis in this until they turned on them in 1941. They deported millions to Germany to be killed in concentration and death camps, but people tend to forget that little nugget of history when it comes to communists it seems.

Karl Marx, the founder of communism, hated the jews, and thought that the emancipation of mankind had to come from the emancipation of mankind from the jews. He wrote a book called "The Jewish question". He saw the jews as the rich bankers and leaders of capitalism, and thought they had to go, just like the Nazis, who were socialist. As far as it goes, the communists and nazis are really not all that different, in fact eerily similar in operation. The only difference is really socialism vs. communism.

Quote from Marx: "In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism."

[Wallenburg]

You, regarding the question in the title. In a country where our government won't even condemn violence committed by neo-Nazis, fascism is not receiving nearly as much opposition as communism.

Our government did condemn the violence,

Everyone knows that statement is hollow and means nothing, given the president's initial comments on the terror attack.

and since when does a government have to come out and condemn things? Being angry at what someone doesn't say is stupid. If we spent all day condemning things, we couldn't possibly condemn all the bad things in the world, and it would take up time that could be spent solving problems instead.

He was more than happy to condemn the people the fascists murdered, so...

Furthermore, Trump's daughter and his son are both jews,

1) Trump Jr. isn't Jewish.
2) Some of my best friends are black!

and he recognized the capital of Israel as being a part of Israel for the first time in not only U.S. history, but was the first time any world leader other than those in Israel did it.

Pro-Israel =/= pro-Jewish. And it certainly doesn't equal anti-fascism.

He quite frankly is the most pro jewish president we've ever had, and to think he's a nazi, is quite frankly silly. It's a strange contradiction by the left it seems.

I didn't call Trump a Nazi. Read my post next time.

[Claorica]

an extragovernmental militia/terrorist/rioting organization calling themselves antifascists when they are really ancoms using the fascistic tactic of burning down the place where people who they disagree with are speaking.

You're right, fire is fascist. Which I guess make firemen antifa

Oh look, an antifa ancom being smartaleck. I'm not amused.

Go burn down Berkeley for hosting a Jewish "nazi" again before you start being a snarky edgelord.

[Mutz]

The First stanza isn't even imperialistic. Those were the borders of the German States when it was written, literally all "Deutschland Uber Alles" is saying is that above all other things, including the petty squabbles of ~15 different states that all share a certain national character and claim a common heritage, Germans are going to support Germans, and that when the world comes to defeat them, they may be down but they will never be out.

It was written in 1841 before the formation of the North-German Confederation, never mind the German Empire, or indeed modern Germany. It was explicitly imperialistic, since it claims territories that weren't part of the German Union and was popularized by the Pan-German League in the 1890's as a tool to propagate imperial ambitions.

"Deutschland über alles", did very much mean Germany over every other country in the world. Not just as some sort of patriotic platitude, but as a declaration of imperial intent. No idea were you got the whole "may be down but they will never be out" from, it's certainly not in the original text. I mean, there's even an ode to German wine and women in there, for whatever reason, but nothing about being the scrappy underdog.

Even if it was invented recently, e.g. because Kraftwerk wanted to try a new sound or Cro wanted some more attention, it would still be imperialistic. For the simple reason that the mentioned borders of the German nation are nowhere near the actual modern borders.

If the UK suddenly decided to add a stanza to God Save The Queen, about how it's natural borders extend all the way to the Rio Grande and the Pacific Ocean and the USA better watch out...would that also not be imperialistic in your opinion?

[Vassenor]

The First stanza isn't even imperialistic. Those were the borders of the German States when it was written, literally all "Deutschland Uber Alles" is saying is that above all other things, including the petty squabbles of ~15 different states that all share a certain national character and claim a common heritage, Germans are going to support Germans, and that when the world comes to defeat them, they may be down but they will never be out.

It was written in 1841 before the formation of the North-German Confederation, never mind the German Empire, or indeed modern Germany. It was explicitly imperialistic, since it claims territories that weren't part of the German Union and was popularized by the Pan-German League in the 1890's as a tool to propagate imperial ambitions.

"Deutschland über alles", did very much mean Germany over every other country in the world. Not just as some sort of patriotic platitude, but as a declaration of imperial intent. No idea were you got the whole "may be down but they will never be out" from, it's certainly not in the original text. I mean, there's even an ode to German wine and women in there, for whatever reason, but nothing about being the scrappy underdog.

Even if it was invented recently, e.g. because Kraftwerk wanted to try a new sound or Cro wanted some more attention, it would still be imperialistic. For the simple reason that the mentioned borders of the German nation are nowhere near the actual modern borders.

If the UK suddenly decided to add a stanza to God Save The Queen, about how it's natural borders extend all the way to the Rio Grande and the Pacific Ocean and the USA better watch out...would that also not be imperialistic in your opinion?

I mean there is the bit about crushing Scottish rebellion...

[The Grene Knyght]

Go burn down Berkeley again

Damn how'd you know it was me?

[Manokan Republic]

Our government did condemn the violence,

Everyone knows that statement is hollow and means nothing, given the president's initial comments on the terror attack.

He condemned both sides, both of which were violent. Even CNN, a left-leaning liberal news outlet, admitted this as their journalists were attacked by left wing activists at the event. How does condemning both sides mean that you support one of the sides? I'm honestly curious how you can seriously think such a thing.

If I say "Both communists and fascists are bad!", do you believe I must be pro fascist? How does that work exactly?

He was more than happy to condemn the people the fascists murdered, so...

It was a single guy and a single death, so it was one person, not people, and he wasn't condemning the person who was murdered, he was condemning the other violent left-wing individuals at the event, of which there were many. You'd be ridiculous to conflate the two.

1) Trump Jr. isn't Jewish.
2) Some of my best friends are black!

Jared Kushner is jewish, his son in law? Also, why would he advocate for the eradication of jews if his children are jewish? That makes no sense, on top of his support for Israel.

Pro-Israel =/= pro-Jewish. And it certainly doesn't equal anti-fascism.

*Considering* that Israel is a predomiantely jewish country and that Nazis hate the country, it wouldn't make sense for him to like and encourage the biggest jewish country in the world, but somehow hate jews. It very specifically means he's not a fascist. Or go ahead and fine me a single pro-Israel Nazi out there.

Trump doesn't display other fascists tenancies etheir, being for gun rights, freedom of speech, and lowering taxes. Last time I checked, fascists don't give the population guns so they can fight the government, allow them to say whatever is on their mind that is anti government, and reduce their own power over the people. He's more of an Anarchist, a libertarian, which is literally the opposite of Authoritarian governments like fascism.

He quite frankly is the most pro jewish president we've ever had, and to think he's a nazi, is quite frankly silly. It's a strange contradiction by the left it seems.

I didn't call Trump a Nazi. Read my post next time.

I did read your post, you merely insinuated it.

[Vassenor]

TIL responding to a request to condemn a specific happening with bothsiderism is good and not weak at all.

[Manokan Republic]

TIL responding to a request to condemn a specific happening with bothsiderism is good and not weak at all.

At the time, it wasn't certain who was the individual was, and furthermore he was condemning both sides because both sides were violent. There is no specific call to do anything that lands on the president's desk to condemn things, so he condemned all of it, which is the right thing to do. The problem is people don't like when criticism is pointed at what they perceive to be both sides, and rather than swallow their pride get angry that he didn't condemn only one side, even though the truth is there were many sides being violent.

If you don't prefer the facts of a situation, and don't like the truth being spoken, than it is not the speaker who has the problem.

[Telconi]

TIL responding to a request to condemn a specific happening with bothsiderism is good and not weak at all.

Not when both sides deserve it...

[Manokan Republic]

You've got to love fascists that let people arm themselves, criticize the government and yourself, are generally for freedom of speech, and lower taxes that weaken the governments power.

What terrible fascists! And I mean, quite literally, they must be bad at being fascists because fascists don't do this. Calling him a chaotic mad-man, an anarchist, maybe would make sense at least, but fascist? How can he be both a libertarian or anarchist and a fascist? Makes no sense.

[Mutz]

[...]

Karl Marx, the founder of communism, hated the jews, and thought that the emancipation of mankind had to come from the emancipation of mankind from the jews. He wrote a book called "The Jewish question". He saw the jews as the rich bankers and leaders of capitalism, and thought they had to go, just like the Nazis, who were socialist. As far as it goes, the communists and nazis are really not all that different, in fact eerily similar in operation. The only difference is really socialism vs. communism.

Quote from Marx: "In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism."

While it's certainly true, that Marx did use phraseology and concepts that were tingend in anti-semitism, to simply say that he hated Jews goes too far in my opinion. His own Daughter, Eleanor Marx, declared herself to be Jewish after all and that her "Father was a Jew". Self-hatred is, of course, always a possibility, but at least your example lacks it's proper context.

The title of the work could also be translated as Concerning the "Jewish Question" , since it was areview of a text by Bruno Bauer called "The Jewish Question". Which does seperate it from the later Nazi use of the term.
The review can well be argued to be anti-semitic, but that necessitates the view that anti-religious materialism is automatically anti-semitism, since that's what meant by "emancipation".
There are a couple of words sligthly wrong or missing in your translation: the societal emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism. Which does mean that Jews should ideally rid themselves of religion, but in his view, so should everyone else.

The question still stands of course, if that constitutes an unfair singling out of the Jewish faith and thus straightforward ani-semitism , a simple coherent continuation of his general anti-religious beliefs or indeed a possible somewhat progressive counter to Bauers text. I don't know, since I have never read the latter.

The fact that parts of the text were later ripped out of context or edited by definite anti-semites in order to try and shore up broader support only muddies the water further.

[Manokan Republic]

[...]

Karl Marx, the founder of communism, hated the jews, and thought that the emancipation of mankind had to come from the emancipation of mankind from the jews. He wrote a book called "The Jewish question". He saw the jews as the rich bankers and leaders of capitalism, and thought they had to go, just like the Nazis, who were socialist. As far as it goes, the communists and nazis are really not all that different, in fact eerily similar in operation. The only difference is really socialism vs. communism.

Quote from Marx: "In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism."

While it's certainly true, that Marx did use phraseology and concepts that were tingend in anti-semitism, to simply say that he hated Jews goes too far in my opinion. His own Daughter, Eleanor Marx, declared herself to be Jewish after all and that her "Father was a Jew". Self-hatred is, of course, always a possibility, but at least your example lacks it's proper context.

The title of the work could also be translated as Concerning the "Jewish Question" , since it was areview of a text by Bruno Bauer called "The Jewish Question". Which does seperate it from the later Nazi use of the term.
The review can well be argued to be anti-semitic, but that necessitates the view that anti-religious materialism is automatically anti-semitism, since that's what meant by "emancipation".
There are a couple of words sligthly wrong or missing in your translation: the societal emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism. Which does mean that Jews should ideally rid themselves of religion, but in his view, so should everyone else.

The question still stands of course, if that constitutes an unfair singling out of the Jewish faith and thus straightforward ani-semitism , a simple coherent continuation of his general anti-religious beliefs or indeed a possible somewhat progressive counter to Bauers text. I don't know, since I have never read the latter.

The fact that parts of the text were later ripped out of context or edited by definite anti-semites in order to try and shore up broader support only muddies the water further.

He pretty clearly says that society needs to be emancipated from the jew in order to be free, and speaks of their greed and corruption. He also talks at lengths of their control of capitalism and the banks and whatnot. This isn't a translation issue, it's pretty obvious what the intent was. The term "emancipation of society from Judaism", or the idea that society should be rid of the jews, doesn't really change anything.

He work was titled "On the Jewish question", in his reference to his opinion, which he clearly stated was removing Judaism from mankind. Marx is referencing his viewpoint on the religion and less so the race of course, so a jew can convert to a non jew in this scenario. He was embarrassed by his jewish heritage and tried to distance himself from Judaism, even at times denying his jewish heritage. Being descendants from Judaism in this context is from the religion, as well, rather than as a race. His point was that while Jews can convert to Christianity to be personally alleviated from their jewishness, it still doesn't save society, and so all of it needs to be eliminated.


"The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.

In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism." What the reference is about is that the jew may emancipate himself from religion, but it does not emancipate society from him. There needs to be a total purge of Judaism, essentially.

[Claorica]

TIL responding to a request to condemn a specific happening with bothsiderism is good and not weak at all.

There are two sides of violent people with idiotic ideologies.