“You see, both nazism and communism used the state to do things I didn’t like, ergo they are the same
“The article reads like satire written by someone who doesn’t quite understand satire.
authoritarianism is when the state
(I am smart)
This is the actual anarchist theory though.
Liberals are more so, authoritarianism is when the brown people state doesn’t bow to the white people state
Unusually full of bullshit even by horseshoe theory standards. Gleichschaltung was a media and organizational policy that enforced ideological unity in journalism, culture and public life, not anything that had the slightest thing to do with managing the economy. Gauleiter was a political office, basically the guy in charge of administering a county-sized area. A Gauleiter was very much not part of any managerial structure unless you were employed by the state.
Libs: You have to vote for democrats to oppose fascism!
Also libs: You have to vote for democrats to oppose socialism!
Other libs: you have to vote for democrats to advance socialism!
Fascists: we have to kill all the liberal islamo-communists!
Communists: hey maybe we should consider armed self defense?
Libs: That’s authoritarian you’re just as bad as the fascists!
Fascists: See They’re violent extremists which is why we must kill them!
Centrists: while I oppose murder and incivility the fascists have a point and we should entertain all sides
American politics in a nutshell.
Republicans are also liberal
I think the Republicans in this equation are the fascists i.e. scratched liberals
I’ve just begun calling them Liberal-Fascists. In my opinion they are the same thing, or different parts of the same gradient. Liberal during boom times and fascist during bust times, and their system cycles through them regularly
Please liberals, read more history, I beg you
The term “Gleichschaltung” was first created in the Weimar Republic during the debates about how much power the Länder should have within the federal system. The Nazis, after coming to power, made 2 laws containing the word Gleichschaltung to restructure the parliaments and municipial councils of the Länder according to the federal election results of 1933, and at the same time empowering the government of the Länder and installing a Reichsstatthalter above it. This move was done to disempower other parties and eliminate political pluralism in the parliaments. Almost always it was a Gauleiter, the leader of the local NSDAP organization of each electoral disctric, who were made Reichsstatthalter.
So a Gauleiter was a local party leader, who sometimes was also a governor of a territory. It has absolutely nothing to do with the leadership of a company. The vast majority of companies back then were in private hand, because the Third Reich was capitalist ffs.
After that, they made even more laws to completely abolish other parties and the parliaments and have a fully centralized state. Now, they went and got rid of pluralism on a societal level, by capturing the media, removing undesirables from bureaucratic institutions, abolishing unions, getting universities on their side, capturing youth organizations, sports organizations, and pretty much any organization there is.
They didn’t even need to be that thorough, because for the most part, those organizations pre-emptively tried to appease Hitler. They threw jews under the bus, banned them from sports, from universities, from pretty much any societal life, and yes, I’m definitely not the only one who sees the parallels here with liberals throwing trans people under the bus to appease Trump. This is what can happen if you go “Bruh, it’s just sports. Who cares”
Gleichschaltung is not just another word for party-state, it’s the complete eradication of diversity in every single aspect of public life, and thus it should not be used as a polemic term to just dunk on the tankies. In fact, wanting communists gone and at the same time decry the abolition of political pluralism is hypocritical, even for a shitlib
command-economy-ness
Communism is when command-economy. Fascism is when command-economy-ness?
Why were they in diametric opposition to one another on economic matters if they were supposedly similar economically? It’s nonsense. Pure drivel. The concept of mass “privatisation” literally comes from the nazis doing it to the state controlled industries of Weimar Germany first. You can’t both be the herald of modern privatisation and simultaneously be a command-economy, they’re opposites.
under national socialism you called your boss “gauleiter” and under communism you called him “comrade commissar”[…]
Got it, every “boss” is a nazbol
Communism is when one party state
Nazism is when one party state
Democracy is when two party state
Putting all of those characters over 140 to good use
https://daily.jstor.org/the-roots-of-privatization/
“Privatization” was coined in English descriptions of the German experience in the mid-1930s. In the early twentieth century, many European economies featured state ownership of vital sectors. Reprivatisierung, or re-privatization, marked the Nazi regime’s efforts to de-nationalize sectors of the German economy. As Bel notes, “German privatization of the 1930s was intended to benefit the wealthiest sectors and enhance the economic position and political support of the elite.”
The Nazis sold off public ownership in “steel, mining, banking, shipyard, ship-lines, and railways.” These had originally been nationalized in the early 1930s because of the economic disaster of the Great Depression.
And under capitalism you call the ‘Sir’ which is completely different you got damn communo-nazis
The term is Commu-Nazis.
Source: Peter Steele said so.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
deleted by creator
