Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Volkari]

It's adorable how you realize you can't possibly debate me on any level approaching parity, so that you must resort to pathetic smears.

OEP isn't even a white nationalist, I don't think. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Considering his fervent desire to defend a white supremacist state, even if he didn't call himself one, he's certainly in that ballpark.

[Confederate States of German America]

It's adorable how you realize you can't possibly debate me on any level approaching parity, so that you must resort to pathetic smears.

OEP isn't even a white nationalist, I don't think. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're not wrong.

[Confederate States of German America]

OEP isn't even a white nationalist, I don't think. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Considering his fervent desire to defend a white supremacist state, even if he didn't call himself one, he's certainly in that ballpark.

There's easier ways to admit you're intimidated.

[Volkari]

Considering his fervent desire to defend a white supremacist state, even if he didn't call himself one, he's certainly in that ballpark.

There's easier ways to admit you're intimidated.

Calling a spade a spade implies fear now?

That's an impressive amount of self-aggrandizement.

[Novo Vaticanus]

Yoooo where tf my Catholic monarchist gang at? We gotta rep against all these smelly, American-exceptionalist libertarians lmao

[Volkari]

Yoooo where tf my Catholic monarchist gang at? We gotta rep against all these smelly, American-exceptionalist libertarians lmao

The Risorgimento didn't go far enough.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

>MFW people think Hitlerite Nazis were left-wing while the ACTUAL left-wing Nazis (i.e. Strasserists) got purged by them

How do people claim Naziism was left wing when it was very demonstrably and aggressively anti-communist? Are people really just getting hung up on the "Socialist" part of "National Socialist"?

Again, Strasserism exists.

It’s more Third Positionist than anything else, but borrows heavily from the left-wing.

[Novo Vaticanus]

The Risorgimento didn't go far enough.

Honestly, that's pretty bunk dude. The Papal States > any form of a united Italy

[Volkari]

Why bother with WNs? Feels over reals for them, my man.

It's adorable how you realize you can't possibly debate me on any level approaching parity, so that you must resort to pathetic smears.

[Confederate States of German America]

There's easier ways to admit you're intimidated.

Calling a spade a spade implies fear now?

That's an impressive amount of self-aggrandizement.

Thank you, I like to set an example for everyone.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

It's adorable how you realize you can't possibly debate me on any level approaching parity, so that you must resort to pathetic smears.

I gladly volunteer to be the second Sherman if such shenanigans arise again!

[Volkari]

Calling a spade a spade implies fear now?

That's an impressive amount of self-aggrandizement.

Thank you, I like to set an example for everyone.

An example of how not to act if you want people to take you remotely seriously.

[Dumb Ideologies]

How do people claim Naziism was left wing when it was very demonstrably and aggressively anti-communist? Are people really just getting hung up on the "Socialist" part of "National Socialist"?

Again, Strasserism exists.

It’s more Third Positionist than anything else, but borrows heavily from the left-wing.

In the late 20s and early 30s the Strassers, as well as some others who later "switched sides" such as Goebbels, ran notably more socialistic campaigns in the north of the country. In a few cases the party coordinated with the KPD in organising strikes.

The ideology of this "faction" (it's difficult to draw firm boundaries becuase the various groups were still working together under the same banner, engaging in dialogue through official party publications etc) involved ideas such as breaking up the large landed estates, bank reform, and a new industrial economy in which owners would have to cede control of a share of their businesses to their workers and the state to achieve a more equitable division of profit and the orientation of the economy to fairly reflect the interets of all classes.

The broad argument was for a hybrid form of socialism that retained capitalism's "spirit" of competing businesses and incentive structures that encouraged growth while part-socializing, part-nationalizing profit to improve the living conditions of ordinary workers and fund social programs.

There were a lot of jokes about the SA being full of "beefsteaks" (brown on the outside, red on the inside), particularly when a lot of ex-communists and socialists joined in 1932. And after the Night of the Long Knives the remnants who joined the dissident Black Front argued for cooperation with communists in overthrowing the regime.

Hitler threatened to leave the Party at one point when the left tried to push through a merger with another economic-left leaning party, and had to give several keynote speeches during the 20s where he pretended to offer some crumbs to the socialist faction.

The party was split on how much socialism should go in their nationalism all the way up to the point when Hitler was in a strong enough position to fully impose his vision of "very little, except some vague rhetorical wishywashyness, can I go nuzzle some industrialists now?".

[Volkari]

The broad argument was for a hybrid form of socialism that retained capitalism's "spirit" of competing businesses and incentive structures that encouraged growth while part-socializing, part-nationalizing profit to improve the living conditions of ordinary workers and fund social programs.

Sounds about as socialist as Bernie.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The broad argument was for a hybrid form of socialism that retained capitalism's "spirit" of competing businesses and incentive structures that encouraged growth while part-socializing, part-nationalizing profit to improve the living conditions of ordinary workers and fund social programs.

Sounds about as socialist as Bernie.

It all depends what you mean by socialist I suppose.

If you're using a Marxian definition relating to class conflict and moving towards full worker ownership it's not very socialist at all as the future model many of the left-thinkers were proposing Involved cross-class collaboration.

But at the same time they were arguing that before class collaboration could occur the system needed to be rebalanced both in terms of land ownership and in terms of the structure of business ownership, with the changes in both favouring the less-well-off when compared to the status quo.

[Novus America]

“The plantation owners were pillars of their communities and the economy, the Urban North was envious of the easygoing Southern lifestyle, migrant labor was worse than slavery, and the acts committed against slaves were greatly exaggerated, don't @ me.“

This was the original quote, not from you.
This quote is complete BS.
That was my main point.
And yes many people have made that claim.
This is standard Lost Causer shit.

Anyways apparently we are using different definition of the North and South.
Some states your source cites as being part of the South were never part of the Confederacy or not wholly controlled by it.
Then there is the West Virginia and the divided Tennessee thing.

Besides your source does not break down the distribution of other grains, and there easily could be the definition of corn issue.
Nor does it account for the fact that big parts of the “upper South” where you say corn production was greater were NEVER PART OF THE CONFEDERACY!

Thus your quote actually says nothing about relative production during the war, and given the “South” numbers for corn are only slightly higher, actually supports that the North did produce more than the CSA during the war.
Because a big part of the “Upper South” stayed with the North during the war.

In fact this also means your other claims have the same issues.

The Upper South cannot be entirely included in CSA figures given much of it was never part of the CSA.
And that it was very different socially and economically than the the majority of the CSA.

Do you even understand what you are arguing or are you so desperate that you're blatantly moving the goalposts? As you said at the beginning of the post:

“The plantation owners were pillars of their communities and the economy, the Urban North was envious of the easygoing Southern lifestyle, migrant labor was worse than slavery, and the acts committed against slaves were greatly exaggerated, don't @ me.“

This was the original quote, not from you.
This quote is complete BS.
That was my main point.
And yes many people have made that claim.
This is standard Lost Causer shit.

This is an a debate regarding comparisons between the Antebellum North vs South, so I'm not sure what you're going on about with the majority of this post. As for one specific point I can address:

Besides your source does not break down the distribution of other grains, and there easily could be the definition of corn issue.

I'm forced to ask you, again, do you understand what's being debated or are you deliberately acting obtuse? You literally stated in your previous post:

A note on “corn”, historically “corn” just meant grain.
So when you say “corn” was the biggest export, “corn” actually often referred to wheat, not maize. See the British Corn Laws for example.
The laws were directed primarily at wheat, not maize.
The word “corn” was used differently then than now.

So which way is it?

Of course I am not sure what is being debated.
1) You randomly jumped into someone else’s argument that did not involve you one bit.
2) You conceded the main point, that the things in the South were NOT better for the average person.
3) You also cite the CSA government’s size to claim the South had adequate public services. But now claim you are only talking about the antebellum South.
Your arguments are completely confused, so I am of course confused.

But Okay, here is some stuff for you,

“The South’s transportation network was primitive by northern standards. Traveling the 1,460 overland miles from Baltimore to New Orleans in 1850 meant riding five different railroads, two stagecoaches, and two steamboats. Most southern railroads served primarily to transport cotton to southern ports, where the crop could be shipped on northern vessels to northern or British factories for processing.

Because of high rates of personal debt, Southern states kept taxation and government spending at much lower levels than did the states in the North. As a result, Southerners lagged far behind Northerners in their support for public education. Illiteracy was widespread. In 1850, 20 percent of all southern white adults could not read or write, while the illiteracy rate in New England was less than half of 1 percent.

Because large slaveholders owned most of the region’s slaves, wealth was more stratified than in the North. In the Deep South, the middle class held a relatively small proportion of the region’s property, while wealthy planters owned a very significant portion of the productive lands and slave labor. In 1850, 17 percent of the farming population held two-thirds of all acres in the rich cotton-growing regions of the South.”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_t ... &psid=3558

“Even in the agricultural sector, Northern farmers were out-producing their southern counterparts in several important areas, as Southern agriculture remained labor intensive while northern agriculture became increasingly mechanized. By 1860, the free states had nearly twice the value of farm machinery per acre and per farm worker as did the slave states, leading to increased productivity. As a result, in 1860, the Northern states produced half of the nation's corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats.”
https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm%3Fid%3D251

“The Southern plutocrats were considerably richer on average than their Northern counterparts, by a factor of roughly two to one. Indeed, nearly two out of every three males in the United States with wealth of $100,000 or more (the super rich of the era) lived in the South in 1860.”
The Slavery Debates, 1952-1990, Robert W. Fogel

[Joohan]

>MFW people think Hitlerite Nazis were left-wing while the ACTUAL left-wing Nazis (i.e. Strasserists) got purged by them

How do people claim Naziism was left wing when it was very demonstrably and aggressively anti-communist? Are people really just getting hung up on the "Socialist" part of "National Socialist"?

The left wing dichotomy sucks. The nazis ( fascists in general ) are third position.

[Valrifell]

How do people claim Naziism was left wing when it was very demonstrably and aggressively anti-communist? Are people really just getting hung up on the "Socialist" part of "National Socialist"?

Again, Strasserism exists.

It’s more Third Positionist than anything else, but borrows heavily from the left-wing.

I was referring to the strain that actually held government and directed Nazi Germany, I'm aware of the movements within that emphasized workers and the like.

[Valrifell]

How do people claim Naziism was left wing when it was very demonstrably and aggressively anti-communist? Are people really just getting hung up on the "Socialist" part of "National Socialist"?

The left wing dichotomy sucks. The nazis ( fascists in general ) are third position.

Fascists don't really have ideology, imo.

The entire modus operandi is "getting rid of the outgroup" at any costs, regardless of government structure, though they tend to totalitarianism. Of course, economically Fascists tend to also seek to exert control, but how this happens doesn't matter.

Unironically Fascism is closer to IngSoc than any "real" ideology. Power for powers sake.

[Volkari]

The left wing dichotomy sucks. The nazis ( fascists in general ) are third position.

Fascists don't really have ideology, imo.

The entire modus operandi is "getting rid of the outgroup" at any costs, regardless of government structure, though they tend to totalitarianism. Of course, economically Fascists tend to also seek to exert control, but how this happens doesn't matter.

Unironically Fascism is closer to IngSoc than any "real" ideology. Power for powers sake.

This is a particularly bad (but not unusual) hot take that betrays an ignorance about the history of fascism as a movement from the national syndicalist days to the end of the Second World War. Of the load of fascist philosophers of the 20th century (chiefly Rocco and Gentile) none of them had a philosophical framework as crude and simple as "just power lol."

[Conserative Morality]

This is a particularly bad (but not unusual) hot take that betrays an ignorance about the history of fascism as a movement from the national syndicalist days to the end of the Second World War. Of the load of fascist philosophers of the 20th century (chiefly Rocco and Gentile) none of them had a philosophical framework as crude and simple as "just power lol."

The problem is that fascist ideology (ironically) precludes ideologues, and without ideologues, movements inevitably devolve into "just power", like Juche.

[Joohan]

This is a particularly bad (but not unusual) hot take that betrays an ignorance about the history of fascism as a movement from the national syndicalist days to the end of the Second World War. Of the load of fascist philosophers of the 20th century (chiefly Rocco and Gentile) none of them had a philosophical framework as crude and simple as "just power lol."

The problem is that fascist ideology (ironically) precludes ideologues, and without ideologues, movements inevitably devolve into "just power", like Juche.

... could you explain your thought process here? Because there have been plenty of fascist ideologues

[Joohan]

The left wing dichotomy sucks. The nazis ( fascists in general ) are third position.

Fascists don't really have ideology, imo.

The entire modus operandi is "getting rid of the outgroup" at any costs, regardless of government structure, though they tend to totalitarianism. Of course, economically Fascists tend to also seek to exert control, but how this happens doesn't matter.

Unironically Fascism is closer to IngSoc than any "real" ideology. Power for powers sake.

I mean this in the most proactive way possible - that is an ignorant view brought on by fiction and propoganda.

To just give an extremely short summary:

Fascism is the view that all aspects of society should be organized towards the prosperity and security of the nation.

From that general premise onward, things begin to get creative. Because all nations are different, there is no one way to do things like in communism or liberalism. Typically though, most fascist systems have similar traits - things which are generally recognized as being the best methods by which achieve the aforementioned goals:

Totalitarianism, some form of mixed economy, patriotism, single party rule, militarism, and clash cooperation.

Though always varying from nation to nation, on account of its organic nature

[Conserative Morality]

... could you explain your thought process here? Because there have been plenty of fascist ideologues

Fascism, as an ideology, demands a worldview of constant change, revolution, and impermanence, coupled with obedience to the ruling authorities. Today's creed is tomorrow's heresy. Unlike an ideology that allows for ideologues, like Communism, there is a marked lack of debate, splitting, or witch-hunting - everything is the present, the past is nothing, the future is in our hands. Fascist philosophers often muse in great depth and detail on the underpinnings of fascism - but its workings preclude their ability to exercise their intellectual limits (not the right word but I can't think of what I'm looking for so close enough) within the confines of a fascist society. It's probably one of the reasons Giovanni Gentile thought that dissent shouldn't be suppressed under a fascist state, but that never seems to have caught on. Absent the ability to meaningfully dispute the ruling authorities, all lower supporters of the ideology become not ideologues, but loyalists - for who can claim to be the better fascist when fascism is determined by its leaders? The deviant is always wrong.

Due to this philosophical attitude of rule by ruler rather than rule by law, or reason, there is a inability to cultivate the kind of theological quibbling that, say, American Constitutionalists or Marxist-Leninists are perpetually embroiled in, once a fascist society is established. Any fascist ideologue that does not follow the fascist establishment is in essence self-contradictory.

[Joohan]

... could you explain your thought process here? Because there have been plenty of fascist ideologues

Fascism, as an ideology, demands a worldview of constant change, revolution, and impermanence, coupled with obedience to the ruling authorities. Today's creed is tomorrow's heresy. Unlike an ideology that allows for ideologues, like Communism, there is a marked lack of debate, splitting, or witch-hunting - everything is the present, the past is nothing, the future is in our hands. Fascist philosophers often muse in great depth and detail on the underpinnings of fascism - but its workings preclude their ability to exercise their intellectual limits (not the right word but I can't think of what I'm looking for so close enough) within the confines of a fascist society. It's probably one of the reasons Giovanni Gentile thought that dissent shouldn't be suppressed under a fascist state, but that never seems to have caught on. Absent the ability to meaningfully dispute the ruling authorities, all lower supporters of the ideology become not ideologues, but loyalists - for who can claim to be the better fascist when fascism is determined by its leaders? The deviant is always wrong.

Due to this philosophical attitude of rule by ruler rather than rule by law, or reason, there is a inability to cultivate the kind of theological quibbling that, say, American Constitutionalists or Marxist-Leninists are perpetually embroiled in, once a fascist society is established. Any fascist ideologue that does not follow the fascist establishment is in essence self-contradictory.

I would have to disagree here.

You are confusing debate with with disunity. Debate and disagreement is allowed under a fascist system, but not anything which could cause destruction or disunity.

To begin with, the view of constant violance and change is not a fascist one. The view point which you referenced is from Italian futurists, some of whom were supporters of fascism - but who were not intrinsically themselves fascists. Most fascists, especially those within established regimes, did neither desired permanent revolution nor constant change. The Japanese Empire ( with its numerous factions and philosophers ) quite explicitally invisioned an eternal and never ending royal system, built upon a foundation of centuries of ancient values and virtues. Then there were the Nazis, who just putting aside the propoganda of a thousand year reich, clearly had a long term goal set for the German nation ( Lebesraum, eugenics, natalism, etc ). In regards to reverance to the past, the more conservative and Christian fascist states ( as well as the Japanese ) clearly held a reverance for tradition and history.

Debate within fascism did exist during its hayday - but opinions and views perceived to be destructive were not allowed. The Nazis were a good example of this on two counts. The left of the NSDAP had very different ideas on the direction which Germany should in, opinions which were well known but permitted by Hitler any how. The left of the party was not purged until it was believed that a violent coup was imminent. They were not purged until it was believed they were a threat. A similar debate revolved around religion in the party, with the layman being Christian, much of the senior leadership being atheist, and the SS, as well as some leaders, being occultists. Three radically different opinions, but all permitted during their time because none was seen as being decisive or destructive.

I am not as well versed for the Japanese Empire, but I am aware that they had numerous differing philosophers and idealogues among the numerous factions.

This post isn't of the quality I want it to be, but I'm at work and in my phone.

Anyways. Fascism isn't one rigid opinion for the entire nation - fascism is a goal and a general direction. There is plenty of debate on how to get there.