The Far Left

goldenpuma84 said:Why is everyone so obsessed with communism? Is it really that hard to forget your family background? Screw communism.

So, based on your post, am I supposed to conclude that the groups still hiding behind Hitler throughout Europe today are actually leftists? Is Ante Pavelić a leftist? Were those hundred-odd Rightist parties actually left-wing groups?

The actual difference between left and right lies in the approach to nationalism—whether it's placed on a transcendental pedestal, or whether there's a focus on individual liberties. It's about whether things like abortion rights are considered personal choices, whether religious affiliation is a private matter, and whether individuals decide for themselves what constitutes a good life. It's about questioning nationalist myth-making, acknowledging that being part of a nation doesn't automatically make us right, and emphasizing equality among all people regardless of any single identifier.

By those standards, even that theoretical communism you're so fixated on (practice is a different story, as we see in America, where it's easy for a communist to become a nationalist—in fact, here, there's hardly a nationalist who wasn't once a communist) has absolutely nothing to in common with Nazism.

"All men are brothers," says the great communist, "except Aryans are the creators of culture, and everyone else is lesser," says the great Nazi. And that is a massive, unbridgeable gap. That's the essence.

Look, for the last time: the Nazis were a right-wing party. That's how they saw themselves, that's how neo-Nazis see themselves today, that's how the whole world sees them, and that's how they are presented in all academic literature and textbooks. The Nazis sit on the right side of the political spectrum; it's just you and people like you who see the world differently. Why? Because they weren't for liberal capitalism (which doesn't mean they weren't for capitalism at all).

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there... The Left is all about being cosmopolitan and universalist, while the Right just isn't. That’s the core grievance. Most people on this forum seem to think the Left's biggest sin is just being too rootless...[/HTML][/I]

vividfox9 said:I agree, they are definitely workers.
But I see them as people without any real momentum. It’s a crowd that just bends to the pressure, chasing after an extra buck or wherever they can find a quick win.
It feels more like a lottery than a stable working class. It's this fragmented group that lacks any sense of permanence.

On top of that, there's zero real interest in unions. There's just no motivation there.
If you can grab a little more today, you feel secure enough for tomorrow.

It's lottery-style labor. Unconventional work with zero stability.

Especially since there's no real union interest. No motivation at all.

mistycrane3 said:I don't get why people think international labor solidarity is some impossible dream just because American workers have a relatively higher standard of living—but hey, if that's what they want to believe, fine by me.

So, I was just scrolling through this global wealth tracker—you know, the kind of stuff that makes you realize just how much of a joke the whole economy is—and man, it really gets under my skin. You look at these lists of the ultra-wealthy, these massive numbers that don't even feel real anymore, and you have to wonder... what is actually going on? Is it all just one big shell game? It’s wild, honestly. You see these names popping up, billionaires jumping from one industry to another like they're playing a video game, while the rest of us are out here trying to figure out if we can afford the good coffee this week. It feels rigged, doesn't it? Like there's this invisible hand constantly tilting the scales in favor of the people who already own everything. I mean, think about it—how much money can one person actually need before it stops being about "success" and starts being about pure, unadulterated power? It's getting ridiculous. You start looking at the sheer scale of it, the way wealth concentrates in these tiny pockets of the country, and you can't help but get a little heated about it. Does anyone else feel like we're just living in some weird, distorted version of reality where the math just doesn't add up for the average person? Just me? Probably. But seriously, it's enough to make your head spin. Look, if you can't see that, you seriously need to figure out where you stand. There is no such thing as some unified "worker interest" on a global scale—it’s just a myth. The interests of a laborer here in the States aren't even remotely the same as the interests of a worker over in Africa. It's just not how the world works.

"Price adjusting" wages just so some local worker ends up being "cheaper" than an employee back in the capitalist's home country? That’s not a policy that helps workers—not here, and certainly not there. It's a joke. So, once again, you can't expect the Republican Party to actually stand up for labor rights by definition. Seriously, cutting paychecks and stripping away legal protections isn't "fighting for the little guy." It's just plain old exploitation.

Look, let’s just do the math here—it’s not exactly rocket science, right? If you’ve got someone working a minimum wage job over in Germany pulling in something like 1,100 bucks, and then you look at a worker here in the States making maybe 330... I mean, come on. If you actually sit down and crunch those numbers, the "fair" price for a local worker should be sitting right around 630 euros—which, by the way, is basically what the minimum wage would be if things were actually balanced out. It’s all about that gap, isn't it? Makes you wonder why the scale is so tilted in the first place. $1567Cut the red tape, roll out the red carpet for foreign investors—fine. But honestly, where’s the benefit for the American worker in all that? If we’re going to let big money move in, we better make sure they don't just drive up the cost of living without a catch. I mean, prices might climb, sure, but at the end of the day, people need to actually have cash left over after paying rent and utilities. It’s simple math, right? You can't live on nothing. Look at the situation right now—you’ve got guys in the military, even those doing volunteer service, pulling in maybe a thousand bucks or so. Who in their right mind is going to sign up for that when they could walk into a private company and make way more? Sure, the government covers their food and housing and whatnot, but still—it’s a joke. We need real incentives if we want people motivated to defend this country, and that depends entirely on how much control people actually have over their own capital.

That’s their headache, not mine. Honestly, the Democratic Party proved exactly where they stand during their time in power—they're firmly rooted in that liberal right-wing camp. It’s a totally different beast compared to the Republican Party, who clearly lean into the conservative right. I can't even remember a single major... The leftists... man, where do I even start with these people? Seriously, it's like they live in some alternate reality where nothing makes sense. They just keep pushing their agenda, over and over, thinking they're actually going somewhere with it. It’s honestly exhausting just watching them try to spin everything to fit their little worldview—it’s always the same tired talking points, isn't it? Just constant noise. So, what do you think about all those calls coming out of Milanović's administration lately? Seriously—what’s your take on it?

Is that really a left-wing move from Milanović's administration? Give me a break. Seriously, calling the Democratic Party "right-wing" is just laughable—how do you even manage to pull that one off?

Look, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again—the Nazi Party was never some kind of workers' party. Seriously, give me a break. Just because they used certain labels doesn't change what they actually were. At the end of the day, a right-wing party can still have a seat at the table and have something meaningful to say, you know? It's not that deep, but people love to twist things. worker Is it an adjective or what? Seriously, does anyone even know anymore? It’s like everything is just one big, blurry mess of grammar rules that nobody actually follows anyway—not that anyone cares! Why do we even bother overanalyzing this stuff? Is it an adjective? Or is it something else entirely? Honestly, it feels like we're just spinning our wheels at this point. Who decided this was worth the headache? Working class. In her own name, sure—but let’s be real, she’s basically just a mouthpiece for the rest of them. Look, I’ve been thinking about this—really chewing on it—and honestly? It’s just one of those things you can't escape. You know what I mean? It’s like that constant, nagging pressure that sits in the back of your mind, always there, whether you want it to be or not. It's almost like... well, it's just inevitable. You don't really have a choice in the matter, do you? It's just how things go. Everything leads right back to it eventually. It's unavoidable. Period. Going against the interests of the working class? Seriously? Let me ask you something—was banning strikes under the Nazis actually doing anything for the workers? Was all that "militarization of labor" stuff supposed to help them? We’re talking about stripping away rights, forcing longer hours, and basically crushing any kind of independent worker activity... just how does that benefit anyone on the ground? And at the end of the day, was the war even remotely in the interest of German workers? Please. It's a joke.

Look, let’s get one thing straight—the Nazi Party didn't just stumble into power; they were voted in democratically. It’s a hard pill for some people to swallow, but unlike certain other political movements, they actually had the mandate. We all know the working class makes up the vast majority of the population, right? So when they head to the polls, they vote based on their own interests. Back then, it wasn't even a choice between moderate options—it was basically a toss-up between Communism and Nazism. If Communism was such a massive force among German workers, why didn't it win? Simple: Hitler was one of them. And look, I'm not even trying to make this a debate about Nazism—I don't know why everyone keeps trying to pivot the conversation there. The thing is, "the worker" isn't just some category owned by the Left, no matter how much the progressives want it to be. Their version of internationalism usually boils down to nothing more than looting resources built up under capitalism. Once those reserves run dry, you get that inevitable collapse because they won't allow actual value to be created. They block out foreign companies that actually pay taxes to the state, refuse to offer competitive wages, and stop creating jobs altogether. You see countries that claim to be Communist on paper, but economically they act like something else entirely while staying nationalist in their politics—that’s what you call National Bolshevism. It's fascinating if you look at the way China or North Korea operates compared to the old USA—which, by the way, fell apart because it wasn't ethnically homogeneous like those two. A true labor-focused right wing would actually support private ownership of the means of production, specifically so workers could enjoy a higher standard of living. History has shown us time and again that when you strip away the tools used to create production, the quality of life for everyone just tanks.

Fantasy writer said:I wasn't talking about our neighbors or anything in Canada—I was talking about that whole model they run in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran. You know, even those Gulf states? I'm talking about how when someone cheats or breaks the rules there, it’s not just some local dispute; it's actually codified under Sharia law as part of their official state legal system. That's how it works over there, right?

A left-wing decision from Biden's administration? Give me a break. That's just absurd. The Democratic Party is firmly on the right; there is simply no way you can try to spin it that way.

The Nazi Party actually rose to power through democratic channels, which stands in stark contrast to other movements we've seen; since the working class makes up the vast majority of the electorate, they naturally voted in their own self-interest, effectively making the choice a binary struggle between communism and Nazism. If communist ideology had truly taken hold among the German workforce, one has to wonder why it wasn't the outcome that prevailed. After all, even Hitler was one of them.

It’s fascinating to look at national-Bolshevik China or North Korea and then compare them to the national-Bolshevik America, which eventually fell apart because it lacked the ethnic homogeneity found in those two.

As far as I know regarding those countries, they don't want to take anyone in; it was something about why they wouldn't just move to the wealthy Arab nations.

mistycrane3 said:"Quote:"

Steven Murphy2 As if I haven't heard this all before. If you want to understand where you truly stand in this messy world, you need to look at things through a more realistic lens. There simply is no such thing as a unified global working class with shared goals. The interests of a laborer here in the States are fundamentally different from those of a worker halfway across the world in Africa.

It’s honestly a bit foolish. We are living in an era defined by global capital, where multinational corporations are just part of the daily landscape. I fail to see how the interests of an American worker at a major firm differ fundamentally from those of a worker at a branch office in Gabon. How can anyone argue that an American employee wouldn't have more leverage to demand a raise if their counterparts in Gabon were striking simultaneously? At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if the American worker is pulling in eighty thousand dollars while the person in Gabon is scraping by on five hundred; the structural pressure on the corporation remains the same.

"Quote:"

If you look at the math, it’s pretty sobering. If a worker over in Germany is pulling in a minimum wage of around $1,100, while an American worker is scraping by on roughly $350, you start to see where the logic shifts. It makes sense that the cost of hiring someone locally would settle around $700—essentially matching that higher baseline. It's a cynical way to view labor, I know, but when you run the numbers, the disparity becomes impossible to ignore. $1567If we strip away the bureaucratic red tape and start rolling out the red carpet for foreign capital, people will inevitably ask what’s in it for the American worker. It’s a fair question, really. I remember sitting in a diner back in Ohio, listening to guys talk about how every time a massive multinational corporation moves in, they promise the moon, only to leave the local workforce high and dry once the tax breaks expire. There's a certain cynicism that comes with watching the gears of industry turn; you have to wonder if cutting those regulatory hurdles actually builds something lasting for the person on the factory floor, or if it just clears a path for big money to sweep in, take what they need, and move on to the next frontier.

When politicians start throwing around phrases like "cutting through bureaucratic red tape," I can't help but feel a certain sense of dread. In most cases, it’s really just a polite little euphemism for stripping away workers' rights. I remember sitting in a small diner back in Ohio, listening to a group of factory guys talk about how much they feared the latest round of "deregulation" coming out of D.C., and it struck me then that the language used by those in power is rarely as innocent as it sounds. It’s a calculated way to frame the erosion of protections as some sort of victory for efficiency, when in reality, it's usually just a way to leave the American worker more vulnerable than they were before.

A left-wing decision from Biden's administration? Give me a break. That's just absurd. The Democratic Party is firmly on the right; there is simply no way you can try to spin it that way.

It seems like the Democratic Party has decided to hike up the premiums for supplemental health insurance again. It’s becoming quite difficult to ignore how these incremental shifts in policy always seem to land squarely on the shoulders of the average person just trying to keep their family covered. I remember back when I was working that desk job in Chicago, dealing with my own benefits package, and even then, the feeling of watching those monthly deductions creep upward while the actual service remained stagnant felt incredibly draining. It’s a wearying cycle we find ourselves in.I can't see any link here. If you have something you want me to look at, go ahead and drop it in.We should probably take a moment to look back at that attempt to outsource public sector roles—an initiative that only stalled because the unions finally decided to get aggressive. It felt remarkably similar to the push for privatizing the interstate highway system. Then came those labor law amendments, which were essentially just Clinton picking up where Reagan left off with his anti-labor agenda. link With all their endless talk about introducing atypical work arrangements, this supposed "flexibility" that serves no one but the bosses, and making it easier to gut collective bargaining agreements, they've shown their true colors. On the global stage, the Democratic Party is fully behind the imperialistic policies of the USA, and under Biden's administration, we've seen them actively arming Islamists in Syria. It’s the same old story of institutional betrayal, just wrapped in different packaging.

A Swiss person doesn't even come close to comparing to this mess.

The Nazi Party actually rose to power through democratic channels, which stands in stark contrast to other movements we've seen; since the working class makes up the vast majority of the electorate, they naturally voted in their own self-interest, effectively making the choice a binary struggle between communism and Nazism. If communist ideology had truly taken hold among the German workforce, one has to wonder why it wasn't the outcome that prevailed. After all, even Hitler was one of them.

The Nazi Party never actually held much sway among the working class; their true foundation was always, and will forever remain, that shrinking middle class, bolstered by massive financial injections from powerful industrial titans. Back in 1932, their quasi-union Nazi organization—the NSBO—managed to scrape together about 300,000 members, which pales in comparison to the social democratic unions of the era, which boasted memberships numbering in the millions.

Why wasn't communism chosen? Unfortunately, you can't simply vote for communism in an election. Why didn't the Communist Party ever take power? Because by the 1930s, it had devolved into a Stalinist sect with a shrinking base among the working class. And frankly, there's a good reason for that.

It’s fascinating to look at national-Bolshevik China or North Korea and then compare them to the national-Bolshevik America, which eventually fell apart because it lacked the ethnic homogeneity found in those two.

Every single one of those countries is purely capitalist, and America was no different during its existence.

As far as I know regarding those countries, they don't want to take anyone in; it was something about why they wouldn't just move to the wealthy Arab nations.

In Saudi Arabia alone, there are at least 500,000 refugees from Syria (link). Not to mention the sheer number currently in Jordan.

How can you honestly sit there and claim that an American worker at that company won't have more leverage—like, say, actually fighting for a decent raise—if workers in Gabon are striking at the exact same time? It’s all connected, isn't it?

Look, does it even matter if an American worker is pulling in like $800 while some guy over in Gabon is scraping by on fifty? Honestly, who cares? It’s all just noise at this point—it doesn't change the reality of things, does it?

Let’s be real for a second—whenever some suit starts preaching about "cutting through the red tape" or "removing bureaucratic hurdles," it’s almost always just a fancy, polished way of saying they want to strip away workers' rights. It's such a classic move, isn't it? They wrap it up in this shiny, pro-business packaging, making it sound like they're just trying to make things more efficient... but what they're actually doing is gutting the protections that keep people from being exploited. It’s all just code, really. Why call it what it is when you can hide behind corporate jargon?

Look, let's get one thing straight—the Nazi Party never actually had the support of the working class. Not even close. Their whole power base was always, and will always be, that struggling middle class—you know, the people feeling squeezed by everything—all backed by massive, deep-pocketed checks from big industrial titans. It’s a classic playbook. I mean, just look at the numbers! That quasi-union Nazi organization, the NSBO, only managed to scrape together about 300,000 members back in 1932. Meanwhile, the social democratic unions were sitting on memberships in the millions. Millions! So, how can anyone honestly claim they represented the workers? It’s a joke.

Why isn't communism actually a thing? I mean, seriously, let's get into it—why hasn't it ever actually worked out like the theorists promised? You look at history, you look at the absolute mess that was the USSR, and you have to wonder... where was the disconnect? Was it the theory itself, or just the people trying to run the show? It’s like they had this grand vision of equality, right? But then you factor in human nature—which, let's be honest, is usually pretty messy—and the whole house of cards just falls apart. Is it because people naturally want to own stuff? Or is it because once you give a tiny group of people all that power, they aren't exactly about to hand it back over? It feels like a cycle of "we'll fix everything" followed by "wait, why is everyone starving?" Does anyone actually believe the math adds up, or are we all just pretending? Chosen.Look, you can't exactly vote your way into communism—sad, but true. Why didn't the Communist Party ever actually seize power? Well, because by the 1930s, they had morphed into this total Stalinist sect that was losing its grip on the working class by the day. And honestly? They had it coming.

So, come on, give me one good reason. Seriously—how is it even possible that the Nazi Party didn't have total control over the workforce if workers make up the vast majority and capitalists are just a tiny minority? Makes zero sense, right?

Every single one of those countries is purely capitalist, and honestly, the US was the exact same way back in its heyday.

Yeah, okay, go ahead and try explaining that to their leaders. So, wait—if the US is capitalist, what do you "forum communists" have to say to that? I always heard people calling that old system "socialist with a market twist"—whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean.

Steven Murphy2 said:Based on market value, if an American worker sits in the upper half of the total global population, then a "dictatorship of the proletariat" occurring somewhere else—say, at the expense of Western workers three-quarters of the way down the line—effectively means the expropriation of Western workers. You simply cannot turn mathematics into philosophy.

An American worker isn't going to feel the ripple effects of a strike in Gabon. Global labor solidarity doesn't exist, and multiculturalism is headed for a collapse because we aren't all the same.

It matters because this isn't a classless society.

Removing bureaucratic hurdles means allowing people to build on their own land without paying taxes, drinking beer without excise taxes, and eliminating the parasites who produce nothing—in other words, getting rid of unproductive professions.

And what was Hitler, if not a worker?

What does an impoverished middle class represent if not workers?

Then tell me why. If workers make up the majority and capitalists are just a minority, how is it that the Nazis didn't have a solid base among the working class?

So America was capitalist; I wonder what the forum communists have to say about that? I heard it was "real socialist" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

mistycrane3 said:What kind of expropriation of workers are we talking about? No one has ever actually proposed that. Besides, I wasn't even specifically referring to the dictatorship of the proletariat; I was speaking about the left in general terms.

An American worker isn't going to feel the ripple effects of a strike in Gabon. Global labor solidarity doesn't exist, and multiculturalism is headed for a collapse because we aren't all the same.

The corporation will certainly feel the impact of a strike in Gabon, and they'll feel the impact of a strike in America too. Two strikes carry more weight than one; if workers in both Gabon and America fight together, they have a much better shot at securing their rights than if they remain at odds. That is the essence of internationalism as the left—or at least the socialists—understands it. I have no idea how you managed to spin that into a commentary on multiculturalism, but fine. What part of this is unclear?

And you're not wrong about one thing: global labor solidarity doesn't exist. It needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

It matters because this isn't a classless society.

???

A worker in Gabon wants a raise of maybe 50 dollars. An American worker wants a raise of several hundred or even thousands. I'm using the most basic example possible. If they fight together against the management of their firm, they stand a much higher chance of success. Again, what is so difficult to grasp here?

Removing bureaucratic hurdles means allowing people to build on their own land without paying taxes, drinking beer without excise taxes, and eliminating the parasites who produce nothing—in other words, getting rid of unproductive professions.

Ah, so that translates to cutting funding for healthcare, education, social services, and so on. I see. Naturally, the right can't advocate for workers' interests; if they did, they’d just be the left.

And what was Hitler, if not a worker?

Are you seriously asking me that? A failed artist, an adventurer, essentially a drifter for most of his life, coming from a family of state bureaucrats... yeah, he was the product of an impoverished, angry middle class; somewhat lumpenproletariat.

What does an impoverished middle class represent if not workers?

It was a bit of everything, really. Small business owners, local tradespeople, a significant portion of the German peasantry, intellectuals, government bureaucrats, merchants, and so on. Yes, even a segment of what one might economically classify as the "working class," alongside various management teams and such. But you make a fair point; I suppose I should provide some context. The proportion of the middle class that supported the Nazi Party within the total middle class was actually larger than the share of workers who supported them within the overall German working class. And you’re right to suggest that a subset of those "proletarianized" small-scale bourgeois—those whose livelihoods were so thoroughly gutted by the crisis that they essentially slid into the working class—saw their salvation in the Nazi Party. That doesn't change the fundamental reality, however, that the actual laborers were a constant source of friction and trouble for the Nazi regime.

Then tell me why. If workers make up the majority and capitalists are just a minority, how is it that the Nazis didn't have a solid base among the working class?

I’m not entirely convinced that workers constituted a majority, and they certainly weren't a dominant one. Society isn't strictly bifurcated into brawny factory hands on one side and top-hatted capitalists puffing on thick cigars on the other.

So America was capitalist; I wonder what the forum communists have to say about that? I heard it was "real socialist" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

Exactly. Self-management essentially meant introducing market economy principles on a much larger scale than anything seen in the Eastern Bloc. It was, in many ways, an incredibly intense version of social democracy. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the systems in the Soviet bloc were any better; far from it.

Look, if a company feels the heat from a strike over in Gabon, they’re gonna feel it right here in the States too—it’s all connected. And honestly? Two strikes hitting at once carry way more weight than just one. If workers in Gabon and workers here in America actually teamed up to fight for their rights instead of fighting each other, they'd have so much more leverage. That’s exactly what internationalism looks like—or at least, how the left—specifically the socialists, anyway—sees it. I have no clue how you managed to spin that into "multiculturalism," but fine, whatever. Is it really that hard to wrap your head around?

You know what? You're actually right—there's no such thing as any kind of global worker solidarity anymore. It’s just gone. We need to build it all from scratch again—and I mean really build it, not just some half-baked version of it.

Look, let’s take a super basic, almost stupidly simple example here—just to make the point. You’ve got a worker over in Gabon asking for a fifty-two dollar raise. Then you’ve got an American worker looking for an eight hundred and ten dollar bump. I'm just laying out the simplest scenario possible, okay? But if they're actually fighting for it... together If they actually go up against their own corporate overlords, they might actually stand a chance—for once. I mean, seriously, what part of that isn't crystal clear?

Look, you just don't get it—it’s simple math. The government sets the rules of the game, period. And in a massive economy like America, you've got way more companies competing than in some tiny place. I mean, an average worker here makes significantly more than someone working in Gabon, right? But does that actually mean anything in terms of worker solidarity? Not even close. Why? Because there isn't any! You can't talk about "success" when the whole concept of workers standing together is basically non-existent. It's all just individual survival at that point.

So, what you’re saying is they're basically slashing the budget for healthcare, schools, social services, and all that stuff... I get it. Honestly? It makes sense. You can't exactly claim to be fighting for the working class when you're cutting the very things that keep people afloat—unless, of course, you were actually part of the left wing. But hey, if you're on the Republican side, that's just how the game is played, right?

Look, slapping a massive sales tax on a cup of coffee isn't some grand master plan to fund our hospitals, schools, or social safety nets—it’s just plain robbery. Seriously, you can't compare a little extra tax on my morning caffeine fix to actually fixing the crumbling infrastructure of our healthcare and education systems. It feels cheap, you know? Like they're just grabbing at pennies instead of doing the real work. Honestly, I’m all for the government stepping in with selective subsidies when it actually serves the common good—you know, things that benefit everyone—but this? This is just predatory. Why can't we focus on actual investments instead of taxing the small stuff?

Are you seriously asking me that? A failed artist, an adventurer, basically a bum for most of his life, coming from a family of government bureaucrats... yeah, the disgruntled, pissed-off middle class; bordering on the lumpenproletariat.

He was a worker, a soldier, a war vet who actually handled the crisis in Germany—proving he was a better organizer than any of those capitalists or politicians over there. While the capitalists only cared about their own firms and the politicians were just looking out for the establishment class, this guy managed an entire nation of 80 million people. I mean, I doubt any single capitalist has that many employees under them. You’re making it sound like Germany only consisted of the upper and middle classes, but that’s just not how it worked. So, look, the most capable, most dedicated soldier should lead the state, and later, the military would select a successor through merit rather than inheritance because, honestly, I’m not a fan of monarchies. This isn't even about Nazi Party ideology per se, but that party acted as a version of the rabble-right; it served as a cover for an idea I'm convinced is the only thing that can actually unite workers. The focus shouldn't be on parliamentarianism, but on the military and political movements within the NATO alliance. Only the most competent soldier should have the right to lead such an order. That immediately cuts out the room for populism and political conformism, because the military itself doesn't play those games. Basically, the idea of a right-wing populist movement would be to hit the sweet spot between the workers and the capitalists who want the survival of the American people without that violent cultural shift that breeds extremes—you know, like Nazism, fascism, communism, or even this extreme liberalism that's currently imploding. These aren't just stories anymore because of what's happening in the US and the future that's going to hit Europe as a direct result of liberals ignoring political reality.

A little bit of everything. Small business owners, tradespeople, a good chunk of the German peasantry, intellectuals, government bureaucrats, merchants, etc. And yeah, part of what you could economically call the "working class," management types, and all that. But hey, you've got a point, I should probably explain. The share of the middle class that voted for the Nazis within the total middle class was actually larger than the share of Nazi workers within the total German working class. And yeah, you're right that a segment of the "proletarianized" petty bourgeoisie—basically those whom the crisis crushed so hard they fell into the working class—saw salvation in the Nazis. But that doesn't change the fact that workers were constantly a major source of problems for the Nazi regime.

Not everyone in the middle class is a capitalist; we're talking upper-middle class here. If there had been that much capitalism in Germany, there would have been enough jobs and the system would have survived. Workers being the biggest problem in Nazism? Honestly, I wouldn't even comment on that because you can clearly see the transition of the common man during and after their rise. The workers were the greatest force in Nazism; the worker led the Nazi Party.

I'm not sure if the workers represented the majority, and they definitely didn't represent a huge one. Society isn't strictly divided into brawny factory workers and capitalists in top hats smoking fat cigars.

You don't need to be sure—the facts are right there.

Look, let me be clear. Self-management was actually about injecting market economics on a much larger scale than anything you’d see in the Eastern Bloc. It was basically supercharged social democracy. And don't get me wrong—I'm not saying the system over in the Soviet Union was any better. Far from it.

Self-management and the market economy (though I bet you're probably thinking "free market" if we're being precise)...

Honestly, it feels like you're just criticizing for the sake of criticizing because you clearly don't even grasp the basics of the left. Seriously, take some advice: go read up or at least watch some deep dives into the actual worldviews you claim to support—or oppose—so you actually know what you're talking about. I've had people in my inner circle who were hardcore Communists, and I've seen this pattern before—this weird contradiction where they swear off leftist thought, yet they're still fundamentally leftist. They're ideologically lost; just people who love to critique everything without ever offering a single solution. I know the type well. Of course, none of them have actually bothered to read the foundational Communist thinkers, and nobody's even familiar with the classic texts of the traditional left. At the end of the day, ideas don't start with the masses—because the masses can scream fascist slogans one day and communist ones the next. Real ideas are built on standards tied to ideology.

crimsonwolf20 said:The Nationalists advocated for "American socialism," which means the leftists and collectivists—at least when it comes to the most vital part of a political program—deal with the relationship between the state and the citizen. Just Google "American socialism."

Just because they were nationalists doesn't take away from their leftist worldview regarding a massive state, the nationalization of industry, stripping away economic freedoms, state monopolies on services, an all-powerful government that dictates prices, central redistribution of wealth based on the planners' whims, a central bank under total state control, and de facto party ownership of what is nominally private property.

It's just like the National Socialist German Workers' Party in Germany, which is socialist at its core, just like their name and platform confirm. They were economic leftists. You supporters of the centrally planned society might find that uncomfortable to admit, but your struggling won't change the cold, hard facts.

Steven Murphy2 As stated by:
So, they’re actually suggesting Marx to you? I've already laid out the mathematical reality of the situation once, and frankly, I have very little desire to go through the motions again by explaining exactly what communism would do to the American workforce on the global stage.

It seems we’re circling the same drain here. From what I can gather, the left essentially falls into those classic categories you're always tearing into—whether it's outright communism or that whole national-bolshevik strain where the means of production are handed over to the workers regardless of race, gender, or creed. You seem to categorize all of that under the umbrella of capitalism, which is an interesting choice of words. Based on your logic, since you’ve already taken aim at worker-managed factories as being non-capitalist, it feels like you've backed yourself into a corner. If communism isn't capitalist by your definition, and even decentralized worker control is off the table, I find myself wondering: what exactly is left on the menu?

While some worker halfway across the globe is out there striking and making noise, the guy here in America just keeps showing up to work.

Taxing coffee is one thing, but slapping an extra sales tax on a daily ritual feels fundamentally different from the massive budget cuts we're seeing in healthcare, education, and social services. It’s a matter of principle, really. I’ve always felt that if the government is going to take our money, they should be focusing on the essentials. Personally, I’m a firm believer in selective state subsidies—using those funds to bolster things that actually serve the common good rather than just draining the pockets of everyday people for marginal gains.

You don't need to be certain about anything; the facts are staring us right in the face.

Self-management and a market economy (though I suspect you're thinking of a completely free market, if we're being honest)...

It strikes me that you’re criticizing just for the sake of being critical; frankly, it feels like you lack even a basic grasp of the left's own tenets. I would sincerely suggest you pick up a book or at least watch some lectures from the very ideologies you claim to champion—or oppose—just so you actually understand the ground you're standing on.

mistycrane3 said:

Steven Murphy2 As stated by:
So, they’re actually suggesting Marx to you? I've already laid out the mathematical reality of the situation once, and frankly, I have very little desire to go through the motions again by explaining exactly what communism would do to the American workforce on the global stage.

Where exactly does Marx suggest the expropriation of workers? I'd love to see a quote.

It seems we’re circling the same drain here. From what I can gather, the left essentially falls into those classic categories you're always tearing into—whether it's outright communism or that whole national-bolshevik strain where the means of production are handed over to the workers regardless of race, gender, or creed. You seem to categorize all of that under the umbrella of capitalism, which is an interesting choice of words. Based on your logic, since you’ve already taken aim at worker-managed factories as being non-capitalist, it feels like you've backed yourself into a corner. If communism isn't capitalist by your definition, and even decentralized worker control is off the table, I find myself wondering: what exactly is left on the menu?

I find myself constantly revisiting my critiques of that old American "self-management" myth. Let’s be honest: communism, at its core, is about social control over the means of production; it isn't some whimsical collection of autonomous cooperatives—not that those actually existed under the old regime anyway, as "self-management" was little more than a hollow rhetorical flourish used to mask state dominance. Furthermore, I suspect you haven't quite grasped the actual tenets of national Bolshevism; I imagine you simply find the term aesthetically pleasing, which is a rather superficial way to approach such heavy political theory.

While some worker halfway across the globe is out there striking and making noise, the guy here in America just keeps showing up to work.

It really shouldn't be this difficult to grasp, but an American worker would find much more leverage in fighting for their rights if they weren't standing alone—if they were striking in lockstep with workers across the rest of the country. It’s basic math, isn't it? Why on earth is that concept so hard for people to wrap their heads around?

"Quote:"

Again? When was that ever even a reality? I honestly can't recall a single instance of genuine, global worker solidarity that actually held water.

Here’s a more recent one for you, looking back at that time when those rail workers in Scotland refused to transport the weaponry used during the 2003 invasion of Iraq— The Forgotten Story of How American train drivers tried to derail the Iraq WarThey couldn't have possibly expected anything in return, yet there it was—pure, unadulterated solidarity.

Taxing coffee is one thing, but slapping an extra sales tax on a daily ritual feels fundamentally different from the massive budget cuts we're seeing in healthcare, education, and social services. It’s a matter of principle, really. I’ve always felt that if the government is going to take our money, they should be focusing on the essentials. Personally, I’m a firm believer in selective state subsidies—using those funds to bolster things that actually serve the common good rather than just draining the pockets of everyday people for marginal gains.

Tax cuts lead to shrinking government revenue, which inevitably necessitates spending cuts—and I think we all know exactly where those blades will fall first.

You don't need to be certain about anything; the facts are staring us right in the face.

What’s your source for that? Honestly, I don't even have the energy to go back and forth with you about Hitler; you seem far too enamored with him for my liking. If everything I just laid out regarding the Nazi Party's political playbook—the criminalization of strikes, the systematic dismantling of independent unions and labor organizations, the total militarization of the workforce, and so on—isn't enough to make you realize how this all works, then we're clearly past the point of productive conversation. wasn't actually a workers' party, and honestly, I don't have the energy to litigate that point any further.

Self-management and a market economy (though I suspect you're thinking of a completely free market, if we're being honest)...

It strikes me that you’re criticizing just for the sake of being critical; frankly, it feels like you lack even a basic grasp of the left's own tenets. I would sincerely suggest you pick up a book or at least watch some lectures from the very ideologies you claim to champion—or oppose—just so you actually understand the ground you're standing on.

The truth is, I know this subject quite intimately because I consider myself a Marxist; I’ve spent my time with Marx, rather than relying on secondhand hearsay or, heaven forbid, Kardelj's writings. It is an objective fact that the American economy operated on market principles, and I truly don't see how anyone could dispute that. It wasn't laissez-faire capitalism—far from it—but it was capitalism nonetheless. If those American firms were competing for market share, and Western corporations were investing in them and exporting their goods abroad...

By the way, I find it quite amusing how you glossed over all those right-wing policies favored by the Democratic Party😍

Look, I’m calling out that whole "self-management" nonsense from the old America days. Let’s get one thing straight: Communism is about social control over the means of production—it isn't some massive pile of autonomous cooperatives. Honestly, even that wasn't really happening back then; "self-management" was nothing more than a fancy buzzword used to mask the reality of things. And as for you? I really don't think you grasp what national Bolshevism actually entails. You probably just think it sounds cool, don't you?

Look, it’s pretty damn obvious, isn't it? An American worker is going to have a much easier time fighting for their rights if they actually strike at the same time as workers in other countries. I mean, seriously—how is that not clicking for people yet?! It's basic math!

So, I just came across this one from more recently—it’s about that time back in 2003 when those train drivers over in Scotland actually dug their heels in and refused to haul all the weaponry meant for the invasion of Iraq. The Forgotten Story of How American train drivers tried to derail the Iraq WarI mean, they weren't even expecting anything in return, you know? Like, seriously—but still... that kind of solidarity? It's something else entirely.

And that helped them so much... lol. Like, seriously? It’s not like the left even holds any power in Iraq anyway.

Lower taxes leads to lower government revenue—which means we have to slash spending—and then you just have to guess which essential services are gonna get gutted first, right? It’s a total domino effect.

Everything’s just crumbling under the weight of all this bureaucracy and these useless parasites—seriously, it's exhausting. Look, there's a massive difference between cutting taxes on some stupid nonsense and actually cutting taxes that help prevent a country from falling apart. If you honestly don't see anything wrong with taxing someone when they're trying to build a house on their own land, buy their first home, or even just produce something themselves... man, I don't even know what to say to you anymore. What are we even doing?

Source? Honestly, I really don’t have the energy to sit here and go back and forth about how obsessed you are with Hitler—seriously, what is that even about? If everything I just laid out regarding the Nazi Party's political playbook—you know, things like criminalizing strikes, smashing independent unions and labor organizations, and basically turning the entire workforce into a military machine—isn't enough to make you realize how this all works... then I'm clearly talking to a brick wall. It wasn't even a workers' party—let's be real about that.Honestly, I don't even know what else that guy is capable of at this point—so I’m just done. I'm officially walking away from the whole thing. Why bother?

So, you're seriously questioning if workers actually made up the majority? I mean, hello? That’s literally how democracy works—you vote based on the majority, right? Workers in Germany clearly knew exactly why they were casting their ballots for them back then. Plus, let’s be real—the country had to gear up for war, and when that happens, everyone goes into overdrive. If those labor groups, unions, and strikes had actually been successful at the time, workers wouldn't have felt the need to vote for them in the first place. It was just a matter of timing—the window after WWI was way too short for people to just forget about militarism and the whole mess of fighting against the USA and Russia. But hey, since I feel like poking fun at your logic for a second—why on earth would the far-right in the USSR and the far-right in the West be fighting against left-wing Central Europe? It’s common knowledge that the anti-communist West wasn't exactly jumping into a coalition with Hitler.

Look, I actually know my stuff on this—pretty much because I consider myself a Marxist and I've spent way too much time buried in books... Marx.Look, I wasn't just sitting around listening to some secondhand gossip or digging through old pieces of Kardelj's papers to form an opinion. Seriously, why would I? The fact is—and I don't care who tries to argue with me on this—the economy back in the America days actually operated on market principles. I mean, how can anyone even dispute that? Now, don't get it twisted—it wasn't exactly some pure, hands-off laissez-faire capitalism. Far from it. But it was definitely capitalism, nonetheless. If those American companies were out there competing for market share, and if Western corporations were actually pouring money into them and shipping products to foreign markets... then you know what that was. It was a real market. Period.

If that whole system had actually operated on market principles, it wouldn't have fallen apart in the first place. But hey, I bet Marxism was practically a mandatory subject back in your school days, wasn't it? Honestly, the fact that you’re out here acting like a Marxist tells me pretty much everything I need to know about you. Let’s get one thing straight: Marxism is nothing more than a weapon used by a specific nation's capitalist elite to take down the rest of civilization. It’s designed to mobilize every single worker from underdeveloped nations to tear down developed ones—and what does that actually result in? Some kind of paradise on earth? Please. We've seen exactly how that plays out in the real world. Even Churchill pointed this out in an article once, discussing who was actually pulling the strings behind Marxism in Russia. It's the same crowd that mobilized people from the catacombs in Rome and dragged us straight into the Dark Ages. Now, look at the Vatican—they openly side with the poor, specifically those "modern catacombs" from the Third World. This would happen even without them, really. That’s why selective population policies are so necessary—policies that democracy and liberalism either refuse to acknowledge or simply don't understand. And because of that blind spot, civilization finds itself under attack from the East over and over again.

Honestly, I thought it was pretty hilarious how you just breezed right through all those Democratic Party right-wing policies—like, seriously, you didn't even blink. 😍

Look, I really don't have the energy to get sucked into some irrational debate about how the Democratic Party is "shifting right." It’s such a tired trope—you’ve got these hardcore right-wingers constantly whining about how the Republican Party is "turning left" just to score cheap points. Honestly? It’s just a calculated, sneaky way to smear the opposition. It’s exactly like what those old-school German labor parties used to do back in the day—just a total setup to make their rivals look worse than they actually are. Why do people even fall for this stuff?

mistycrane3 said:Sure, a right-wing party might toss the word "worker" into its branding to sound more populist, but let’s be honest: a party running on a right-wing platform is, by its very definition, incapable of actually representing the interests of the working class.

The fact that the Democratic Party and several others are essentially just rebranded versions of the liberal right is a completely separate issue altogether.

Amanda Allen4 said:Economic leftists and rightists loathe one another because they are rivals within the same project—the "centrally planned society," as you so aptly put it.

In reality, an outcast or a heretic from within one's own faith is hated far more intensely than someone following a completely different religion! Therefore, it stands to reason that the proponents of the "centrally planned society" catechism cannot stand one another—namely, those who demand power through nationalization and the total abolition of private property (the Communists), and those who prefer the simpler route of exercising power by controlling private property (the Fascists).

crimsonwolf20 said:They can't stand each other mostly because they're wrestling for the exact same voter base! That's why the Nazi Party were such bitter rivals to the international socialists—it wasn't even about doctrine, which was almost identical at times, but about the brutal struggle to actually seize power.

If you look at what's happening here in the States, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are basically just economic leftists in disguise—total true believers in the cult of statism and the idea that the government needs to stick its nose into every single corner of life (not just the economy!). You hit the nail on the head there; they only really speak the language of bans and coercion. And honestly, the only reason these economic leftists fight so hard over World War II is because if they didn't have that, they'd be virtually indistinguishable from one another!

In America, we don't really have a functioning liberal right, which would actually be the best friend to both workers and entrepreneurs. That's exactly why millions fled those leftist economic experiments to head toward the capitalist West—nobody ever fled the other way! Even today, people are still running away from economically restrictive environments toward freer markets. The results of decades of this economic leftist nonsense and everyone competing to see who can be the biggest socialist are staring us right in the face. Just look at how things are going...

You hit the nail on the head there—honestly, they don't know anything else. It’s like their entire playbook is just built on censorship and force. If they can't ban it or bully you into silence, they don't even know how to handle it. Seriously, what else do they have in their toolkit? Nothing.

Look, let’s be real—there isn't even a functioning liberal right in America. And that’s a massive problem because they should be the only ones actually looking out for both the working class and small business owners. I mean, think about it. Why do you think millions of people have packed up and fled these disastrous leftist economic experiments to head toward the capitalist West? It’s because nobody is running *away* from capitalism into some socialist fever dream—it’s always the other way around. People move toward opportunity, not away from it. It's common sense, really.

Steven Murphy2 said:Look, liberals and leftists actually have one thing in common that National Socialism completely lacks—and that’s a fundamental belief in equality and democracy. Because of that, National Socialism is basically the polar opposite of everything stemming from liberalism—whether you're talking about the classic left, the right, the center, or even Communism (which, let's face it, is all about economic equality). It’s even the antithesis of Christianity, which was the whole precursor to liberal thought. That’s exactly why this kind of right-wing radicalism is so dangerous. Unlike those egalitarian ideologies, National Socialism was built on different foundations entirely, using "scientific" arguments to try and dismantle the whole concept of religious equality. I’m actually sitting here reading right now about how conservative theorists were actually against totalitarianism back then—they were genuinely terrified of Hitler. It’s honestly such a shame because their concerns ended up giving people the idea that being a conservative after WWII meant something inherently bad. But the truth is, that specific brand of socialism you're attacking? It was the only real barrier keeping Communism from sweeping through France, Spain, and probably most of Europe.

You hit the nail on the head there—honestly, they don't know anything else. It’s like their entire playbook is just built on censorship and force. If they can't ban it or bully you into silence, they don't even know how to handle it. Seriously, what else do they have in their toolkit? Nothing.

What are "wars for democracy" if not just raw force being used to trigger an inevitable clash of cultures? I mean, really, think about it—what’s an employment contract besides a way to force people to play by someone else's rules? And poverty? That's nothing more than the direct result of the strong squeezing the weak. You can't just look the other way and pretend force doesn't exist—it's right there in front of us. So, how does the fight for equality actually show up in the real world? It manifests through terrorist attacks. There, I said it.

Look, let’s be real—there isn't even a functioning liberal right in America. And that’s a massive problem because they should be the only ones actually looking out for both the working class and small business owners. I mean, think about it. Why do you think millions of people have packed up and fled these disastrous leftist economic experiments to head toward the capitalist West? It’s because nobody is running *away* from capitalism into some socialist fever dream—it’s always the other way around. People move toward opportunity, not away from it. It's common sense, really.

The "liberal right" is a total oxymoron—like, seriously, how does that even make sense? The right doesn't peddle those tired old slogans about "equal opportunity for everyone," and honestly, if the liberal capitalist West keeps heading down this path, we’re looking at a total meltdown. Think about it—back during the last major elections, like 70% of the population turned out to vote. You really think all of them were pulling for Trump? Of course not. The problem is that conservatives are clinging to this version of liberalism that only looks at things through the lens of a single individual rather than the nation as a whole. If you don't account for birth rates and instead just reduce everything to some cold, ruthless market logic, you're asking for trouble. You'll end up waking up an aggressive, non-Western proletariat—which, let's be real, is exactly what the communists are banking on. This whole obsession with the "dogma of equality" is just a slippery slope straight to communism, which always talks big about economic equality but has never, ever actually worked in practice.

crimsonwolf20 said:So, here's the deal: Nazis and international socialists both believe in equality of outcome—except the first group only cares about it for specific races, while the second group claims they want to make it happen for everyone.

But honestly? The real issue lies in the core belief driving these ideologies—the idea that you can just force some kind of equality (especially economic equality) onto people. This connection between them is super important because trying to force "equality" in the real world requires a massive government machine, rigid laws, draconian punishments, and it gives the regime a perfect excuse to paint anyone who breaks the rules as a traitor to the national interest just to grab more power and stay in control. To pull this off, they end up using informants, spies, invading privacy, and all sorts of human rights violations. In other words, to get that level of economic control suggested by all socialists—including these two different flavors—you absolutely need a police state. The more control you want, the more brute force you have to use.

Classic liberals—the ones who actually believe in freedom—believe in equality of opportunity through equality before the law, not forcing equality of outcome through government coercion. That’s why, at their core, they are fundamentally different from those socialist variants.

Classical liberals—the ones who actually give a damn about freedom—believe in equality of opportunity through equality before the law, not equality of outcome forced by a regime. That’s why they are fundamentally different from those socialist variants mentioned earlier.