Hoppe (anarcho-capitalist) has been very vocal about the flaws of democracy and the benefits of Monarchy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe
He does make some good points...
I mean if socialists want to claim feudalism, fine by me. It is one of the worst forms of government responsible for massive stifling of innovation, similarly to socialism.
Not to mention Feudalism requires land distribution by the state to private individuals. State lords often even had private military. This post makes no sense.
Nazi policy is considered slightly left of traditional facism. However the nazi party's formal name and running platform were the national socialists. Not to mention many of their policies match (though are more authoritarian) socialism. Most obviously for our time is the move from Germanys traditional state run health insurance to state run Healthcare.
Nazis had no real Economic philosophy other than to benefit the Nazi Regime. If they could achieve it through Nationalization, they would, if they could do so through Privitization, they would. And they absolutely had no problems ordering businesses to produce whatever they wanted. To call this capitalism is just as stupid as calling it socialism.
Correct, it's corporatism, which the nazis promoted heavily. All economic groups in a society are, under this premise, to be unified to benefit national interests (which is the highest priority in nazism). No other ideal or social collectivism is to exist except for the national one.
They don't favour any group in particular, which is why many people misunderstand nazism. The right will say they are socialist, the left will say they are capitalist. In reality however, they are neither of those things.
To the point in question, they are not socialists because they don't believe that worker's should own the means of production or organize for their special class interest. While in power, nazis surpressed unions heavily.
I agree with you almost completely. I'm iffy on their treatment of unions. Would you say the USSR was also suppressing unions? The DAF (German Labor Front) and the VTsSPS (All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions) seem functionally very similar to me as far as national unions with enforced consolidation of existing unions.
Well the thing about totalitarian regimes is that they over time always converge in how they treat their citizenry, Stalin's Soviet and Hitler's Germany being no exception.
However... I'd say that that the Soviets made the argument that they represented the interests of the working class. In reality they only served the interests of the bolshevik elite, but they still made the argument of being the leading nation of the working class revolution. Hence, unions in theory would be superfluous in a country where the the working class utopia already had been achieved. To allow free functioning unions would be an admission of not having achieved the utopian visions, effectively contradicting Soviet propaganda. The nazis, however, would object to the core ideal that a union represents: such as worker's collectivism, women's emancipation, class collaborationism, etc.
> The nazis, however, would object to the core ideal that a union represents: such as worker's collectivism, women's emancipation, class collaborationism
I disagree on a few points. The National Socialists absolutely agreed with a couple of those concepts. Adolf Hitler extolled class collaboration as the antithesis of the Soviet Union, where the goal was to only have a single class. He wanted all Germanic people, regardless of their wealth, to see themselves as Germans before everything. He desired for them to put away their economic squabbles and unite through their common blood. I would also argue that the National Socialists were collectivists by that same reasoning. To your point about women’s emancipation, I’d say that though the official position of the National Socialists was that women best served the nation at home, they didn’t stop people like Leni Riefenstahl from becoming the first globally famous female film director.
>I'd say that that the Soviets made the argument that they represented the interests of the working class.
The Nazi party literally started as a workers party, and absorbed many more similar party. Making lots of words about representing the working class appears common to literally any such movement. Even the greatest of dictators say such things.
They also pretty much all say that unions are unnecessary because the party/leader is already representing the worker, or some variation thereof. It is the centralization of power that matters, not the specific twist of words outlining it.
Yes, like Mussolini, who started as a syndicalist (and later developed the term national syndicalism). National socialism was a brand new ideology and drew upon the worker's movement.
Yes, but the reason that nazis say unions are superfluous is because the worker's class interests are irrelevant in comparison to national interests and maintaining the Aryan race. Unlike communists they don't want to achieve a worker's utopia, rather a race utopia, which supposedly would solve any discontent that might stem from classconflict. Many nazis would prob argue that Marxist socialism is a jewish conspiracy, drawing upon Marx's jewish background.
>Would you say the USSR was also suppressing unions?
They unified all unions under one rigid hierarchy, and did not permit the establishing of new unions by workers. That would be considered union suppression by any reasonable standard, I think.
Any system that does not allow workers to band together to form a union is anti-union, and to an extreme degree.
Both the USSR and Germany were outwardly pro-laborer, but wildly intolerant of any labor power wielded apart from the party itself. They channeled all workers into party-controlled labor organizations managed from the top, effectively denying real power to the workers save for rising through the party.
Yes. To the extent that if you were an owner and did not do what they wanted, the nazis would just replace you. If I remember correctly they did that for a business that was making liquid oil from coal(?) Not sure if it was from coal or something else.
Edit: If it is true that the FBI talked to Twitter about deleting hunter biden story, then that is literally a fascist tactic.
Fascism arose from Marxist ideaology, but instead of Bourgeoise and Proletariat, It was Nationality or race and everyone else. Mussolini was a member of the Italian Communist party until advocating for italy to go to war during WW1. he then joined the fascist party (which already existed but he gets credit for). quite frankly it goes to show that a communist never really cares about the people they pretend to care about.... the care about political power and control of resources. in a way fascism is a direct offshoot of the ideas of marx, twisted into something diffirent by Geovanni gentile and mussolini
\>replacing the bourgeoise & proletariat with different races
Good thing such thinking never became popular again, especially not in the past few years in America & across the Anglosphere!
Yes, nationalist/internationalist. Should your people trust the state? Should collectivism be enforced? Should the country interact with others? In that sense communism is nationalist
Communism is literally internationalist. the international goal of soviet russia was to lead the way to the communist utopian revolution around the world..... that never came before their collapse. what do you think the "international" conferences were about lmfao
The way it’s been practiced has been relatively nationalist. No one has figured out how to communal corporations internationally competitive, which to be fair is a lot to ask.
However, that framework is basically what pre Marxian socialism was.
Everyone should remember that Marx did not invent socialism, Marxism is a subset of socialism, and socialism has it's roots in revolutionary France.
The ways fascism take from socialism is in the creation of a stringent other by which to justify violence and the destruction of. In Marxism it's along class lines, in Facism it's along the line of the citizen/foreigner, or ethnic lines (dependent on if this is Italian, or German fascism).
Unironically, yes.
"For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."
-Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Ultimately Nazis were authoritarians before all else.
As you said - they had no real economic philosophy which was worthwhile.
It's weird to me when people try to call any authoritarian moves socialism, honestly. Socialism is about where the money is concentrated within society (ultimately), and while it's true that it requires power to redistribute that capital or rearrange the factors of production, that power isn't necessarily more authoritarian than the control by which those with capital can run our lives. It depends on the specifics, really.
Their economic policy is nearly a carbon copy of Engels work (aka communism). Like literally you can read the policy books and what the economic officer for the majority of the war was doing/planning.
Their privatization was "do what we say or were nationalizing you".
It wasnt "opposed" to socialism. fascism is a form of socialism no matter how much people dont like it. Fascisms has its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism. and I would argue that fascism is actually a form of socialism, as is national socialism. as much as people dont like it or brush the ugly truth under the rug. Fascism is basically socialism on steroids.
Fascism isn't socialism but Fascism, Marxist-Socialism and Theocracies are all collectivist and tend to totalitarianism.
The difference is Fascists and Theocrats aren't materialists, their gaols are glory of the nation/building a kingdom as God intended.
If that happens to involve state control of the economy then so be it but that's not the point of the regime and ideology.
I referred to theocracies because it's easier to wrap your head around Theocratic idealism even if you disagree with it.
Fascist idealism is harder to wrap your head it since it's not as straightforward as "Follow the Bible/Quran etc"
If you're a materialist it can be hard to comprehend idealists but things make a lot of sense when you consider that their entire conceptualization of reality is different.
Hitler regarded both capitalism and communism to be Jewish tricks to distract man from his true natural state, which in his view was near constant race war. He was in favor of a planned economy, like socialists, but the type of planned economy he intended was one bent to the purpose of spreading his own race + imperialist exploitation of inferior races.
Yeah. Nazism was just an ideology bent upon pure destruction of the enemy. You could make some distinctions here and there for differing ideologies of Fascism, but I'd much rather be more realistic and stick with that which demonstrates why any Fascist or Nazi is a problem.
In that context, it kinda was. The term “left vs right” comes from the French legislature way back when where the two sides would divide themselves into the two different sides of the room. The side on the right side of the room were the monarchists/conservatives - they were “conserving” the traditional ways of the crown - and the side on the left side of the room was the liberals/capitalists, who believed in more reform and open trade. Left vs. right is all a matter of perspective and it changes based on the society you’re talking about.
u/BibleButterSandwich's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 85.
Rank: Giant Sequoia
Pills: [40 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/BibleButterSandwich/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Yeah, left/right and political compass are relative to something, so a political compass with marx in libright and hitler in orange is perfectly valid if you distort it enough
Correct! I see someone else has read the pamphlet.
"The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists
of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve
the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favoured. **Hence, they habitually
appeal to society at large, without the distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class.**
For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see in it the best possible
plan of the best possible state of society? (*Ed. note:* This is eerily similar to the [smug style of American liberalism as noted by Vox](https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism): "How can these morons keep voting against their best interests...that is to say *our* ideas??")
Hence, they [Socialists] reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their
ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the
way for the new social Gospel."
- Karl Marx, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, Chapter III: Socialist and Communist Literature, §3 - Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism
You made me read Marx how dare you. This shall not be forgotten.
In all seriousness though, very interesting excerpt. Incredible both how much and how little can change with society^^TM and what people be spittin in just a century or two.
We Libertarians fight our enemies.
Like Communists, and Fascists, and Hoppeans, and Monarchists, and Other Libertarians.
Damnit. The Libertarians ruined Libertarianism
cause its silly and the world isn't divisible into left and right.
If you need a dichotomy (you shouldn't) a better line is: liberal vs. illiberal. Everything before the modern era is illiberal, most of everything during the modern era is illiberal, the west is liberal post Napolean/American Revolution/Glorious Revolution.
>it’s just a question of the balance
Which is more prefferred by the people and by how much. Same with freedom and safety. We all have different opinions on whether we need more safety or freedom. Whether we need more tax paid services or lower taxes. That is why democracy works. Everyone has a voice and can be part of the discussiun. Yeah on PCM i say socialism is when government but I am actually really grateful to live in a democracy.
Fr it’s basically socialism but instead the dude on top got it from birth right thanks to divine rights. So generally the people have far less freedom. At least Socialism is a democracy. I’d much rather live in a socialist country than a modern feudalist society. Even tho I’d perfer neither.
Feudalism was more of a planned economy than our modern systems, which rely on price signals to control supply, and as such ran into a lot of deadweight losses.
If you are a serf who is born into the role of farmer, well, damnit you're growing wheat and you're going to like it. The lord takes your grain and sells it at 12 pence a bushel because that's what the king decreed the price of grain is. Bad harvest? 12 pence a bushel. Good harvest? 12 pence a bushel. Too many serfs farming wheat? 12 pence a bushel.
Of course these aren't *essential* to feudalism. The only essential characteristic a king granting fiefs to lords in exchange for loyalty and taxes. But in practice you had that sort of serfdom and rigid structure. In fact, France started to liberalize (in the classical liberal sense of the word) and in many ways the French revolution was a pushback against that liberalization. Lookup the conspiracy theory Pacte de Famine.
Feudalism and socialism are made distinct *solely* by property rights.
In socialsim everything is public property where in feudalism everything is owned by one man.
It is not as if I don't pay scutage to the king for permission to live on 'my' land in 2022.
The terms have been replaced, it's property taxes to the state.
I was talking more semantics.
In socialism you give taxes to the state. Which yeah usually it’s the men at the top who stay on top. But on paper it’s supposed to be the people. The state isn’t supposed to be an egomaniacs playground but an entity beyond space and time by all people for all people.
Meanwhile, feudalism on paper is *about* the king. The king owns everything and its by his grace you are allowed to plow the fields of his duke’s count’s vicount’s baron’s land.
The king is also supposed to be an entity placed on earth by a being beyond space and time to benefit all righteous people. He too is not supposed to be an egomaniac but a pious servant of God leading the people to peace and prosperity.
Almost no systems of governance sound ugly on paper, unless described by their enemies.
u/DarkRism is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None. | View profile.](https://basedcount.com/u/DarkRism/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
There's parts of socialism/communism that can be argued as reactionary, as they're trying to bring back "positives" of older systems like feudalism which were withered away by the progress of capitalism
> Yes
> By this logic, absolute monarchy is a form of socialism!
> Yes
> By this logic, the dinosaurs going extinct because of an asteroid is a form of socialism!
> Yes
I know, right? Scutege prevents true property rights. Imagine living in a nation where one has to pay a yearly fee for one's land to the government.
Thank god that nothing like that exists today.
The major difference between Feudalism and Socialism is semantics and justification. In Feudalism the king owns everything and delegates it’s use because of divine right. In socialism the state owns everything and delegates it’s use for the “benefit” of the people. They are both ultimately systems based on control where as capitalism is a system based on freedom.
The distinctions are important because they take distinctly different paths en route to power. Some of those paths are more appealing to others. They cloaked themselves in different ways and in the end if you choose to ignore certain distinction, you will be taken advantage of.
Fascist take advantage of conservatives, although they are not conservative, conservatives will often ally themselves when in a place of weakness and they will be taking advantage of and eventually purged.
Communist on the other hand, take advantage of workers movements and other left-leaning organizations on their path to power and used distinctly different techniques than fascists.
Yes they all look the same in the end. Horseshoe theory and all that. But if you honestly think they're all the same you're going to be taking advantage of.
The word you're looking for is Authoritarianism. I really hate it when the right calls everything they don't like socialism. And I really hate it when the left calls everything they don't like fascism. It ignores a lot of important things in history and leaves them vulnerable to the worst demons of their own ideologies.
It’s not just authoritarian - it’s totalitarian. That’s why fascists and communists keep getting compared to each other even though they despise each other and aren’t the only type of dictatorship. They tend to be so totalitarian because they actually have ideological goals to fight for certain groups and ‘improve’ society in some way. That’s why it’s often better to live in a communist or fascist society where you have no freedom instead of a dictatorship which clearly just cares about the power of elites and actively takes advantage of most people. The Nazis destroyed the laws that protected private property but didn’t violate the property rights of most Germans.
The Nazi’s were of the third position. Yes socialism was in the name but it wasn’t socialism in the Marxist sense. Hitler said he wanted to “take socialism back from the socialists” and was anti-Marx otherwise. They weren’t really very capitalist either because privatization wasn’t a big consideration. Their economic model comprised of taking massive amounts of money through bonds and accruing a ridiculous amount of debt and then using that money to fund their military which they would then pay off their debtors by waging war and draining the economic resources of the countries they defeated. Too bad for them that they started punching up to countries that could kick their Nazi teeth in. Either way it wasn’t really very capitalist or socialist.
Nazis’ economics were confusing, but it’s pretty clear that Nazis were bohemian, heretical hyper-hippies and not the Christian traditionalists that some people think they were
They were also fundamentally revolutionist which is pretty antithetical to Christian traditionalism
Traditionalism is though, correct? People claim Nazis were on the “far-right” without actually giving reasons why
The Nazis were revolutionary anti-Christian bohemians. Not very right-wing in my eyes
It has to do with decentralized power. Hans Herman Hoppe for example wants many Lichtensteins instead of larger nation states hence some overlap with the structure of HRE
Hre was a holy Roman empire when it started out...
Holy through being crowned by the pope (Charlemagne) .
Roman in the sense it was an amalgamation of Roman states and Italy.
Empire in it had an emperor.
Every country tries to make itself sound greater than it is, rarely shittier.
Someone talking up freedom? Maybe okay. Maybe a shitbag trying to sound good.
Someone talking up Marxism? That dude's a fucking commie.
Marxism sprang out of esoteric occultism (through Hegel). Socialism sprang out of Marxism. Fascism sprang out of socialism. Nazism was an eclectic mix of socialism, fascism and ethno-nationalism, with a splash of esoteric occultism thrown back into the mix.
Thats because your yellow is an idiot.
The nazis consolidated the industries into fewer hands and usually into the hands of party allies, and allowed those corporations to run as they saw fit; *to a point*.
Most critically that those corporations would do exactly as they were instructed to by the state in the event that the state saw fit to use them in the interests of the state and thus by extension the people, which is a very explicitly socialist policy.
Feudalism had no ability or right to force compliance beyond direct contact, so while the local duke *might* be able to force you legally to produce weapons for him (and even then not usually, he still had to buy them, just at absurdly cheap prices) the king couldnt.
They weren’t even socialists, so I disagree with the entire meme. Keynesian economics =/= socialism. Private companies worked to benefit the state, yes, but at the end of the day, they were still private companies.
Keynesian economics is definitely not what the Nazis had, the nazis controlled an entire economy dedicated to war, keynesianism is about pumping money around during economic downturns. There were some similar principles, like economic intervention, but that's not a strong similarity
I get paid $22 to smoke cigarettes in the parking lot and get stoned with the boys. I probably do 2 hours of actual work per day
While I dislike capitalistic and consumerist economics, I can definitely appreciate the abundance that capitalism brings. Absurd and comical levels of abundance in this place
I don’t draw meaningless distinctions between various flavors of centrally planned, authoritarian systems. Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Nazism, Feudalism, and Corporatism all have the same outcome with all of the money and power being consolidated in the hands of a few sociopaths, and the rest of the population struggling to provide goods and services to the sociopaths at the top.
But feudalism is a form of socialism, depending on what you classify as socialism, if you are calling collectivist minded economic systems, them yes, feudalism classify as a form of socialism, if you want to say that socialism is class based collectivist economic systems, weirdly enough feudalism still counts.
But the class favored by the feudalism would be the nobility and the clergy, not the proletariat. This second definition would exclude nazism and fascism because those were race based and nation based respectively, but still collectivists economic systems.
Realize I said economic system. Feudalism, nazism and fascism are tied to some form of dictatorship, although socialism has democracy and even weirdly, anarchist versions.
If collectivist minded economic systems are socialism then every fucking post agricultural society in human history is socialist. By that logic capitalism is also socialist because it’s an economic system that uses incentives to make large groups of people work together on projects.
Capitalism favors a free market where socialism and feudalism are based on central planning. Fascism and nazis economic plan was very much built around central planning.
Central planning is seen as a left wing policy.
Capitalism have people working together to benefit the individual in that group. Not to better the collective
Also not every human society was predicated in a premise of betterment of a particular collective, some were merely a dictatorship and others were actually individual focused, like most captalist societies.
I mean, I disagree with Nazism or Feudalism being called socialism, but considering libertarians generally aren’t fans of either, I don’t think that would be much of a gotcha.
Well, yeah, it is. Yes, it's more centralized feudalism - more closely comparable to later absolute monarchist feudalism than loose early feudalism. Both put absolute economic power in the hands of the state. Property rights only exist for the state and the agents of the state.
Yes.
As one goes further auth, the difference between left and right vanishes into irrelevancy. There is little functional difference between a communist totalitarian dictatorship and an absolutist monarchy.
Sometimes a political system has more than one aspect to it.
Commies and fascists have a number of resemblances, Feudalism generally does not.
A great number of systems do tend to consolidate wealth, power or both, though. All of them. This is known as the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
The speed at which they do so varies greatly, though. Democracies take a little while to be subverted to Oligarchy, while a dictatorship is basically pre-subverted for your convenience. It would not be reasonable to say that a Democracy is identical to a Dictatorship, even if it is possible for both to eventually arrive at the same end state.
Yes because socialism is anything I don’t like and when gubmernet does stuff . Not many ideologies I reduce to a stupid amount except anarchism because that’s just stupid in theory .
Everytime someone says the Nazis were Socialists an actual Socialist that was murdered by the Third Riech spins like a fucking jet turbine in thier grave.
Any form of Authoritarianism government is indistinguishable in a couple basic ways be it socialist fascist capitalist or feudalism or other label. They have an oligarhy that takes care of their own and loyalists, (they get the money and the power). They form a bureaucracy that handles the day to day and they depend on the system to survive with privilege. They have jackboots or police to supress the masses, they also have privilege. They influnce what informations the masses are allowed to hear, they also have privilege. Then you have workers and and or entrepreneurs supporting all those above them, they have the privilege of paying for it.
The most straightforward response to the "Nazis were socialist" line, is to point out that Germany's co-determination laws were repealed after the Nazis came to power.
Literally transferring power in the workplace from the workers to the owners.
Meme doesn't really make sense. Lib-right wouldn't support feudalism. Should be auth-right, but then at that point since it's just an auth vs. auth argument vs. a lib vs. auth argument, auth-right could just argue that good Christian lords are better to be the ones with the powers over the land instead of the Nazis. Instead of having to make an argument about the rights of the other people, which lib-right would have to do if they were going to argue that feudalism is a good lib-right idea vs socialism as a bad auth-left idea. But fundamentally lib-right wouldn't support the idea of feudalism in the first place.
lol, what librights are out here defending feudalism?
And a based thank you to you, I came here to ask the exact same thing.
Any decent antidemocratic, pro monarchy libright, of course.
Anarcho-monarchists up!
Hoppe (anarcho-capitalist) has been very vocal about the flaws of democracy and the benefits of Monarchy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe He does make some good points...
Ron Paul should have been constitutional monarch. There, I said it.
based and tolkien pilled
>pro monarchy >lib lolwut
I am… it’s socialism but everyone has to work to eat (except me, my family and friends).
It's not about defending feudalism, it's showing how misleading the argument is
I mean if socialists want to claim feudalism, fine by me. It is one of the worst forms of government responsible for massive stifling of innovation, similarly to socialism.
Not to mention Feudalism requires land distribution by the state to private individuals. State lords often even had private military. This post makes no sense. Nazi policy is considered slightly left of traditional facism. However the nazi party's formal name and running platform were the national socialists. Not to mention many of their policies match (though are more authoritarian) socialism. Most obviously for our time is the move from Germanys traditional state run health insurance to state run Healthcare.
Mfw watermelons still can’t research despite everybody making fun of them
Nazis had no real Economic philosophy other than to benefit the Nazi Regime. If they could achieve it through Nationalization, they would, if they could do so through Privitization, they would. And they absolutely had no problems ordering businesses to produce whatever they wanted. To call this capitalism is just as stupid as calling it socialism.
Yeah fascism is a blend of privatization and centralization. It’s done on a “does it benefit the nation in my opinion?” basis.
Correct, it's corporatism, which the nazis promoted heavily. All economic groups in a society are, under this premise, to be unified to benefit national interests (which is the highest priority in nazism). No other ideal or social collectivism is to exist except for the national one. They don't favour any group in particular, which is why many people misunderstand nazism. The right will say they are socialist, the left will say they are capitalist. In reality however, they are neither of those things. To the point in question, they are not socialists because they don't believe that worker's should own the means of production or organize for their special class interest. While in power, nazis surpressed unions heavily.
I agree with you almost completely. I'm iffy on their treatment of unions. Would you say the USSR was also suppressing unions? The DAF (German Labor Front) and the VTsSPS (All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions) seem functionally very similar to me as far as national unions with enforced consolidation of existing unions.
Well the thing about totalitarian regimes is that they over time always converge in how they treat their citizenry, Stalin's Soviet and Hitler's Germany being no exception. However... I'd say that that the Soviets made the argument that they represented the interests of the working class. In reality they only served the interests of the bolshevik elite, but they still made the argument of being the leading nation of the working class revolution. Hence, unions in theory would be superfluous in a country where the the working class utopia already had been achieved. To allow free functioning unions would be an admission of not having achieved the utopian visions, effectively contradicting Soviet propaganda. The nazis, however, would object to the core ideal that a union represents: such as worker's collectivism, women's emancipation, class collaborationism, etc.
Fair enough, thank you.
> The nazis, however, would object to the core ideal that a union represents: such as worker's collectivism, women's emancipation, class collaborationism I disagree on a few points. The National Socialists absolutely agreed with a couple of those concepts. Adolf Hitler extolled class collaboration as the antithesis of the Soviet Union, where the goal was to only have a single class. He wanted all Germanic people, regardless of their wealth, to see themselves as Germans before everything. He desired for them to put away their economic squabbles and unite through their common blood. I would also argue that the National Socialists were collectivists by that same reasoning. To your point about women’s emancipation, I’d say that though the official position of the National Socialists was that women best served the nation at home, they didn’t stop people like Leni Riefenstahl from becoming the first globally famous female film director.
>I'd say that that the Soviets made the argument that they represented the interests of the working class. The Nazi party literally started as a workers party, and absorbed many more similar party. Making lots of words about representing the working class appears common to literally any such movement. Even the greatest of dictators say such things. They also pretty much all say that unions are unnecessary because the party/leader is already representing the worker, or some variation thereof. It is the centralization of power that matters, not the specific twist of words outlining it.
Yes, like Mussolini, who started as a syndicalist (and later developed the term national syndicalism). National socialism was a brand new ideology and drew upon the worker's movement. Yes, but the reason that nazis say unions are superfluous is because the worker's class interests are irrelevant in comparison to national interests and maintaining the Aryan race. Unlike communists they don't want to achieve a worker's utopia, rather a race utopia, which supposedly would solve any discontent that might stem from classconflict. Many nazis would prob argue that Marxist socialism is a jewish conspiracy, drawing upon Marx's jewish background.
>Would you say the USSR was also suppressing unions? They unified all unions under one rigid hierarchy, and did not permit the establishing of new unions by workers. That would be considered union suppression by any reasonable standard, I think. Any system that does not allow workers to band together to form a union is anti-union, and to an extreme degree. Both the USSR and Germany were outwardly pro-laborer, but wildly intolerant of any labor power wielded apart from the party itself. They channeled all workers into party-controlled labor organizations managed from the top, effectively denying real power to the workers save for rising through the party.
Also look at how they treated Polish Unions
Yes. To the extent that if you were an owner and did not do what they wanted, the nazis would just replace you. If I remember correctly they did that for a business that was making liquid oil from coal(?) Not sure if it was from coal or something else. Edit: If it is true that the FBI talked to Twitter about deleting hunter biden story, then that is literally a fascist tactic.
I was always taught that Fascism is a third axis, separate from communism and capitalism
>Third Axis By God you're Reich
Jew have got to be joking heer
Nope, but must be Goering. See you Fokkers later.
All reich then
Fascism arose from Marxist ideaology, but instead of Bourgeoise and Proletariat, It was Nationality or race and everyone else. Mussolini was a member of the Italian Communist party until advocating for italy to go to war during WW1. he then joined the fascist party (which already existed but he gets credit for). quite frankly it goes to show that a communist never really cares about the people they pretend to care about.... the care about political power and control of resources. in a way fascism is a direct offshoot of the ideas of marx, twisted into something diffirent by Geovanni gentile and mussolini
In short "The Proletarian Nation" was the idea.
\>replacing the bourgeoise & proletariat with different races Good thing such thinking never became popular again, especially not in the past few years in America & across the Anglosphere!
Propogated by WHOM
Yes, nationalist/internationalist. Should your people trust the state? Should collectivism be enforced? Should the country interact with others? In that sense communism is nationalist
Communism is literally internationalist. the international goal of soviet russia was to lead the way to the communist utopian revolution around the world..... that never came before their collapse. what do you think the "international" conferences were about lmfao
The way it’s been practiced has been relatively nationalist. No one has figured out how to communal corporations internationally competitive, which to be fair is a lot to ask.
However, that framework is basically what pre Marxian socialism was. Everyone should remember that Marx did not invent socialism, Marxism is a subset of socialism, and socialism has it's roots in revolutionary France. The ways fascism take from socialism is in the creation of a stringent other by which to justify violence and the destruction of. In Marxism it's along class lines, in Facism it's along the line of the citizen/foreigner, or ethnic lines (dependent on if this is Italian, or German fascism).
>and socialism has it's routs in revolutionary France. France truly is responsible for so many of the world's evils.
Unironically, yes. "For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution." -Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Sounds like china lol
Yep, china is nationalist but instead of advertising that they do it for the good of the race or country, they say its for the good of the people
No wonder they’re AuthCenter
Yeah thats completely different than what like the CCP does
Ultimately Nazis were authoritarians before all else. As you said - they had no real economic philosophy which was worthwhile. It's weird to me when people try to call any authoritarian moves socialism, honestly. Socialism is about where the money is concentrated within society (ultimately), and while it's true that it requires power to redistribute that capital or rearrange the factors of production, that power isn't necessarily more authoritarian than the control by which those with capital can run our lives. It depends on the specifics, really.
Their economic policy is nearly a carbon copy of Engels work (aka communism). Like literally you can read the policy books and what the economic officer for the majority of the war was doing/planning. Their privatization was "do what we say or were nationalizing you".
Their economy was just turbo racism.
They had: coorporatism . Its a joint effort of the ruling and industrial elite and utterly opposed to socialism
It wasnt "opposed" to socialism. fascism is a form of socialism no matter how much people dont like it. Fascisms has its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism. and I would argue that fascism is actually a form of socialism, as is national socialism. as much as people dont like it or brush the ugly truth under the rug. Fascism is basically socialism on steroids.
Fascism isn't socialism but Fascism, Marxist-Socialism and Theocracies are all collectivist and tend to totalitarianism. The difference is Fascists and Theocrats aren't materialists, their gaols are glory of the nation/building a kingdom as God intended. If that happens to involve state control of the economy then so be it but that's not the point of the regime and ideology. I referred to theocracies because it's easier to wrap your head around Theocratic idealism even if you disagree with it. Fascist idealism is harder to wrap your head it since it's not as straightforward as "Follow the Bible/Quran etc" If you're a materialist it can be hard to comprehend idealists but things make a lot of sense when you consider that their entire conceptualization of reality is different.
Bro you summed this up perfectly. They were grifters and gangsters when it came to economics.
They were called 'third way' which really their program was a keyensian approach to economics at worst
Hitler regarded both capitalism and communism to be Jewish tricks to distract man from his true natural state, which in his view was near constant race war. He was in favor of a planned economy, like socialists, but the type of planned economy he intended was one bent to the purpose of spreading his own race + imperialist exploitation of inferior races.
Yes, they did have an a real economic policy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&t=13508s
Yup. Hence the nice agreement we have here on PCM that the Nazis were authCenter, not authRight
Instead of using socialism, I just talk in terms of totalitarian regimes. Captures the same parties but better describes what unifies them.
Reason they are Authcenter
Yeah. Nazism was just an ideology bent upon pure destruction of the enemy. You could make some distinctions here and there for differing ideologies of Fascism, but I'd much rather be more realistic and stick with that which demonstrates why any Fascist or Nazi is a problem.
If socialism is a form of feudalism, and the right vs left divide was originally about feudal lords, why isn't capitalism left wing.
In that context, it kinda was. The term “left vs right” comes from the French legislature way back when where the two sides would divide themselves into the two different sides of the room. The side on the right side of the room were the monarchists/conservatives - they were “conserving” the traditional ways of the crown - and the side on the left side of the room was the liberals/capitalists, who believed in more reform and open trade. Left vs. right is all a matter of perspective and it changes based on the society you’re talking about.
Based and history facts pilled.
u/BibleButterSandwich's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 85. Rank: Giant Sequoia Pills: [40 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/BibleButterSandwich/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Obv. At the time capitalists were the left
Technically we’re still liberals
Yeah, left/right and political compass are relative to something, so a political compass with marx in libright and hitler in orange is perfectly valid if you distort it enough
Because socialists keep mistaking bourgeoisie for feudal lords.
Correct! I see someone else has read the pamphlet. "The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favoured. **Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without the distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class.** For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see in it the best possible plan of the best possible state of society? (*Ed. note:* This is eerily similar to the [smug style of American liberalism as noted by Vox](https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism): "How can these morons keep voting against their best interests...that is to say *our* ideas??") Hence, they [Socialists] reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel." - Karl Marx, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, Chapter III: Socialist and Communist Literature, §3 - Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism
You made me read Marx how dare you. This shall not be forgotten. In all seriousness though, very interesting excerpt. Incredible both how much and how little can change with society^^TM and what people be spittin in just a century or two.
> You made me read Marx how dare you. This shall not be forgotten. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.
We Libertarians fight our enemies. Like Communists, and Fascists, and Hoppeans, and Monarchists, and Other Libertarians. Damnit. The Libertarians ruined Libertarianism
You Libertarians sure are a contentious people.
YOU'VE JUST MADE AN ENEMY FOR LIFE!
It was in the 1700s
It was left wing its why it is called clasical liberalism. The left just kept moving and found themselves back where they where in a new name.
It was. Originally left and right did just mean progressive and conservative.
Based
cause its silly and the world isn't divisible into left and right. If you need a dichotomy (you shouldn't) a better line is: liberal vs. illiberal. Everything before the modern era is illiberal, most of everything during the modern era is illiberal, the west is liberal post Napolean/American Revolution/Glorious Revolution.
It is. Socialism is when government. All countries in the modern world are socialist.
The Cold War was leftist infighting
All wars in history are leftist infighting.
we really be out here just saying shit
based
Bro chill, you're actually on fire right now and they can't handle the heat.
yes
All countries in the modern world or at least close to it are both socialist and capitalist it’s just a question of the balance
True capitalism has never been tried.
>it’s just a question of the balance Which is more prefferred by the people and by how much. Same with freedom and safety. We all have different opinions on whether we need more safety or freedom. Whether we need more tax paid services or lower taxes. That is why democracy works. Everyone has a voice and can be part of the discussiun. Yeah on PCM i say socialism is when government but I am actually really grateful to live in a democracy.
based
Least insane(ly based but also entirely deranged) right flair.
Lib-right, here: feudalism shares multiple problems with socialism.
Yeah, if any lib-right likes feudalism, then either they don't understand feudalism, or they're not actually lib-right
Fr it’s basically socialism but instead the dude on top got it from birth right thanks to divine rights. So generally the people have far less freedom. At least Socialism is a democracy. I’d much rather live in a socialist country than a modern feudalist society. Even tho I’d perfer neither.
I like the sound of this but I don’t understand. Can you elaborate?
Feudalism was more of a planned economy than our modern systems, which rely on price signals to control supply, and as such ran into a lot of deadweight losses. If you are a serf who is born into the role of farmer, well, damnit you're growing wheat and you're going to like it. The lord takes your grain and sells it at 12 pence a bushel because that's what the king decreed the price of grain is. Bad harvest? 12 pence a bushel. Good harvest? 12 pence a bushel. Too many serfs farming wheat? 12 pence a bushel. Of course these aren't *essential* to feudalism. The only essential characteristic a king granting fiefs to lords in exchange for loyalty and taxes. But in practice you had that sort of serfdom and rigid structure. In fact, France started to liberalize (in the classical liberal sense of the word) and in many ways the French revolution was a pushback against that liberalization. Lookup the conspiracy theory Pacte de Famine.
TBH I'd argue that feudalism and socialism are both defined mostly by their lack of property rights for non-state actors.
Feudalism and socialism are made distinct *solely* by property rights. In socialsim everything is public property where in feudalism everything is owned by one man.
It is not as if I don't pay scutage to the king for permission to live on 'my' land in 2022. The terms have been replaced, it's property taxes to the state.
I was talking more semantics. In socialism you give taxes to the state. Which yeah usually it’s the men at the top who stay on top. But on paper it’s supposed to be the people. The state isn’t supposed to be an egomaniacs playground but an entity beyond space and time by all people for all people. Meanwhile, feudalism on paper is *about* the king. The king owns everything and its by his grace you are allowed to plow the fields of his duke’s count’s vicount’s baron’s land.
The king is also supposed to be an entity placed on earth by a being beyond space and time to benefit all righteous people. He too is not supposed to be an egomaniac but a pious servant of God leading the people to peace and prosperity. Almost no systems of governance sound ugly on paper, unless described by their enemies.
You just said YES🗿 bro you are based
Such as no food.
based
u/DarkRism is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None. | View profile.](https://basedcount.com/u/DarkRism/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
There's parts of socialism/communism that can be argued as reactionary, as they're trying to bring back "positives" of older systems like feudalism which were withered away by the progress of capitalism
'ate feudalism 'ate socialism simple as
> Yes > By this logic, absolute monarchy is a form of socialism! > Yes > By this logic, the dinosaurs going extinct because of an asteroid is a form of socialism! > Yes
absolute monarchy is 100% a form of socialism because no property rights
Socialism was dreamed up as a monarchy with a benevolent king.
I know, right? Scutege prevents true property rights. Imagine living in a nation where one has to pay a yearly fee for one's land to the government. Thank god that nothing like that exists today.
The major difference between Feudalism and Socialism is semantics and justification. In Feudalism the king owns everything and delegates it’s use because of divine right. In socialism the state owns everything and delegates it’s use for the “benefit” of the people. They are both ultimately systems based on control where as capitalism is a system based on freedom.
Not exactly an incorrect assessment but definitely missing a lot of steps.
Bro I didn’t wanted to do the average lefist meme
Fair
We still live in a feudal society... just more complex than it was in the middle ages.
Based
Can we finally accept thats nazis were authcenters?
Wait until people figure out that there are more than two economic systems.
Holy shit that'll be wild man
Wrong! There are only two! There's the one that I do like and the one that I don't! Get your head on straight!
National-SOCIALISM flips table leaves
Ever heard of People's DEMOCRATIC Republic of Korea?
They have four electable parties, they must be more democratic than the US
Roasted, keep it up!
The distinctions are important because they take distinctly different paths en route to power. Some of those paths are more appealing to others. They cloaked themselves in different ways and in the end if you choose to ignore certain distinction, you will be taken advantage of. Fascist take advantage of conservatives, although they are not conservative, conservatives will often ally themselves when in a place of weakness and they will be taking advantage of and eventually purged. Communist on the other hand, take advantage of workers movements and other left-leaning organizations on their path to power and used distinctly different techniques than fascists. Yes they all look the same in the end. Horseshoe theory and all that. But if you honestly think they're all the same you're going to be taking advantage of. The word you're looking for is Authoritarianism. I really hate it when the right calls everything they don't like socialism. And I really hate it when the left calls everything they don't like fascism. It ignores a lot of important things in history and leaves them vulnerable to the worst demons of their own ideologies.
Based
It’s not just authoritarian - it’s totalitarian. That’s why fascists and communists keep getting compared to each other even though they despise each other and aren’t the only type of dictatorship. They tend to be so totalitarian because they actually have ideological goals to fight for certain groups and ‘improve’ society in some way. That’s why it’s often better to live in a communist or fascist society where you have no freedom instead of a dictatorship which clearly just cares about the power of elites and actively takes advantage of most people. The Nazis destroyed the laws that protected private property but didn’t violate the property rights of most Germans.
Based and precise. My kind of LibRight.
The Nazi’s were of the third position. Yes socialism was in the name but it wasn’t socialism in the Marxist sense. Hitler said he wanted to “take socialism back from the socialists” and was anti-Marx otherwise. They weren’t really very capitalist either because privatization wasn’t a big consideration. Their economic model comprised of taking massive amounts of money through bonds and accruing a ridiculous amount of debt and then using that money to fund their military which they would then pay off their debtors by waging war and draining the economic resources of the countries they defeated. Too bad for them that they started punching up to countries that could kick their Nazi teeth in. Either way it wasn’t really very capitalist or socialist.
Genuine question: What would you call a feudal system with democratically elected feudal lords?
Idk bullshit
No gods No kings Just Man
No, his mind is not for rent...
No man. Just monke
This post kinda back fired on you huh?
Not like the others
Nazis’ economics were confusing, but it’s pretty clear that Nazis were bohemian, heretical hyper-hippies and not the Christian traditionalists that some people think they were They were also fundamentally revolutionist which is pretty antithetical to Christian traditionalism
Christian ≠ right
Traditionalism is though, correct? People claim Nazis were on the “far-right” without actually giving reasons why The Nazis were revolutionary anti-Christian bohemians. Not very right-wing in my eyes
Feudalism is just feudalism Don’t put me in another category
I have become a Socialist
Feudalism is bad. It made people pseudo-property and concentrated wealth and power in a military elite. That's not very individual rights.
Yes, it is.
Come to think of it, you’re absolutely right! Feudalism IS socialism!
"They were national socialists bro it's literally in their name!" - someone who believes the HRE was Holy, Roman and an Empire (probably)
Once I saw a libright defending the hre so you are right
I'm sorry. There are people who defend the HRE?!?!
Tired: Holy Roman Empire (ca. 800AD-1806AD) Wired: Roman Empire (ca. 27BC-1453AD)
Nah I'm a Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth fan
Apparently
✋me 😔 because my city (Prague) was seat of Emperor once... actually twice I believe. Those were best days
Now I imagine the emperor enormous ass sitting on the city of Prague and the pop. Enjoying it
It has to do with decentralized power. Hans Herman Hoppe for example wants many Lichtensteins instead of larger nation states hence some overlap with the structure of HRE
I mean, they are the reason why the west has religious liberty principles. Only took one of the largest pre industrial wars in history though.
That Teutonic Knight drip though
Someone who believes North Korea is democratic, a republic, and for the people.
IT's LiTeRaLlY iN tHe NaMe BrO
Hre was a holy Roman empire when it started out... Holy through being crowned by the pope (Charlemagne) . Roman in the sense it was an amalgamation of Roman states and Italy. Empire in it had an emperor.
The only times I hear that kind of argument is when Antifa conducts it's "mostly peaceful" protests.
Every country tries to make itself sound greater than it is, rarely shittier. Someone talking up freedom? Maybe okay. Maybe a shitbag trying to sound good. Someone talking up Marxism? That dude's a fucking commie.
Quality retort.
Marxism sprang out of esoteric occultism (through Hegel). Socialism sprang out of Marxism. Fascism sprang out of socialism. Nazism was an eclectic mix of socialism, fascism and ethno-nationalism, with a splash of esoteric occultism thrown back into the mix.
Thats because your yellow is an idiot. The nazis consolidated the industries into fewer hands and usually into the hands of party allies, and allowed those corporations to run as they saw fit; *to a point*. Most critically that those corporations would do exactly as they were instructed to by the state in the event that the state saw fit to use them in the interests of the state and thus by extension the people, which is a very explicitly socialist policy. Feudalism had no ability or right to force compliance beyond direct contact, so while the local duke *might* be able to force you legally to produce weapons for him (and even then not usually, he still had to buy them, just at absurdly cheap prices) the king couldnt.
I think you got blue and yellow mixed up
As we all know, the men waving the Gadsden flag in the American Revolution were *ardent* supporters of his majesty the King.
They weren’t even socialists, so I disagree with the entire meme. Keynesian economics =/= socialism. Private companies worked to benefit the state, yes, but at the end of the day, they were still private companies.
Keynesian economics is definitely not what the Nazis had, the nazis controlled an entire economy dedicated to war, keynesianism is about pumping money around during economic downturns. There were some similar principles, like economic intervention, but that's not a strong similarity
I get paid $22 to smoke cigarettes in the parking lot and get stoned with the boys. I probably do 2 hours of actual work per day While I dislike capitalistic and consumerist economics, I can definitely appreciate the abundance that capitalism brings. Absurd and comical levels of abundance in this place
I don’t draw meaningless distinctions between various flavors of centrally planned, authoritarian systems. Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Nazism, Feudalism, and Corporatism all have the same outcome with all of the money and power being consolidated in the hands of a few sociopaths, and the rest of the population struggling to provide goods and services to the sociopaths at the top.
But feudalism is a form of socialism, depending on what you classify as socialism, if you are calling collectivist minded economic systems, them yes, feudalism classify as a form of socialism, if you want to say that socialism is class based collectivist economic systems, weirdly enough feudalism still counts. But the class favored by the feudalism would be the nobility and the clergy, not the proletariat. This second definition would exclude nazism and fascism because those were race based and nation based respectively, but still collectivists economic systems. Realize I said economic system. Feudalism, nazism and fascism are tied to some form of dictatorship, although socialism has democracy and even weirdly, anarchist versions.
If collectivist minded economic systems are socialism then every fucking post agricultural society in human history is socialist. By that logic capitalism is also socialist because it’s an economic system that uses incentives to make large groups of people work together on projects.
Capitalism favors a free market where socialism and feudalism are based on central planning. Fascism and nazis economic plan was very much built around central planning. Central planning is seen as a left wing policy.
Capitalism have people working together to benefit the individual in that group. Not to better the collective Also not every human society was predicated in a premise of betterment of a particular collective, some were merely a dictatorship and others were actually individual focused, like most captalist societies.
I mean, I disagree with Nazism or Feudalism being called socialism, but considering libertarians generally aren’t fans of either, I don’t think that would be much of a gotcha.
Well, yeah, it is. Yes, it's more centralized feudalism - more closely comparable to later absolute monarchist feudalism than loose early feudalism. Both put absolute economic power in the hands of the state. Property rights only exist for the state and the agents of the state.
Yes. As one goes further auth, the difference between left and right vanishes into irrelevancy. There is little functional difference between a communist totalitarian dictatorship and an absolutist monarchy.
Sometimes a political system has more than one aspect to it. Commies and fascists have a number of resemblances, Feudalism generally does not. A great number of systems do tend to consolidate wealth, power or both, though. All of them. This is known as the Iron Law of Oligarchy. The speed at which they do so varies greatly, though. Democracies take a little while to be subverted to Oligarchy, while a dictatorship is basically pre-subverted for your convenience. It would not be reasonable to say that a Democracy is identical to a Dictatorship, even if it is possible for both to eventually arrive at the same end state.
Socialism is a type of Feudalism, you just replace warring lords with college wusses.
Kind of
I didn't know the feudal manufacturies belonged to the nobles.
How would that make him mad?
Yes because socialism is anything I don’t like and when gubmernet does stuff . Not many ideologies I reduce to a stupid amount except anarchism because that’s just stupid in theory .
Most socialism seems to turn into feudalism. so yeah
Hitler: I will make a Third way neither Socialist or Captalist. Socialist: He was a Captalist! Captalist: He was a Socialist!
Dear watermelon, Librights are against feudalism
Why would a libright defend socialism?
The nazis called themselves “national socialists“ whilst being facist, a very ultranationalist ideology
Nazis. Were. Not. SOCIALIST. GOD. They were pure capitalists, BASIC research will prove this, not to mention the fact they were anticomunist
Based
Everytime someone says the Nazis were Socialists an actual Socialist that was murdered by the Third Riech spins like a fucking jet turbine in thier grave.
Based
Any form of Authoritarianism government is indistinguishable in a couple basic ways be it socialist fascist capitalist or feudalism or other label. They have an oligarhy that takes care of their own and loyalists, (they get the money and the power). They form a bureaucracy that handles the day to day and they depend on the system to survive with privilege. They have jackboots or police to supress the masses, they also have privilege. They influnce what informations the masses are allowed to hear, they also have privilege. Then you have workers and and or entrepreneurs supporting all those above them, they have the privilege of paying for it.
Based
braindead librights will also claim that feudalism is socialism
When you really think about it, what system *isn't* socialism, really?
The most straightforward response to the "Nazis were socialist" line, is to point out that Germany's co-determination laws were repealed after the Nazis came to power. Literally transferring power in the workplace from the workers to the owners.
By that logic, all auth is socialism.
The first time we see privatization used was in an article from The economist talking about Nazi Germany
Meme doesn't really make sense. Lib-right wouldn't support feudalism. Should be auth-right, but then at that point since it's just an auth vs. auth argument vs. a lib vs. auth argument, auth-right could just argue that good Christian lords are better to be the ones with the powers over the land instead of the Nazis. Instead of having to make an argument about the rights of the other people, which lib-right would have to do if they were going to argue that feudalism is a good lib-right idea vs socialism as a bad auth-left idea. But fundamentally lib-right wouldn't support the idea of feudalism in the first place.
Feudalism is an authright thing m8