The Nazis were not socialists. Their entire goal was to latch onto a popular political movement and redefine it to fit their needs(as all fascists typically do).

They did not support worker ownership of the means of production and the right for workers to work for themselves. Hitler repealed legislation that nationalized industry in Germany, and oversaw the expansion of private industry. The first modern implementation of privatization on a grand scale took place under the supervision of the Nazis. The word "privatization" was coined to describe a central tenet of Nazi economic policy. The Nazis raided and imprisoned union leaders and broke up trade unions. They repealed worker rights.

Behold Hitler's own words:

"There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."

—Hitler, explaining that he vehemently opposes the Left, and believes only Rightists like himself can make Germany great again.

"Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not."

—Hitler, literally admitting his "socialism" is a whole new thing and has nothing to do with the usual definition of the word.

"The ideology that dominates us is in diametrical contradiction to that of Soviet Russia. National Socialism is a doctrine that has reference exclusively to the German people. Bolshevism lays stress on international mission. We National Socialists believe a man can, in the long run, be happy only among his own people."

—Hitler, trying so hard to explain that he isn't a socialist, that he opposes socialism, and that the term National Socialist is something he made up and only has meaning within the context of its own paradigm.

"We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."

—Hitler, spelling it out in very clear terms that he wholeheartedly supports private ownership of property, i.e. capitalism, and opposes worker ownership of property, which he calls "Bolshevism", i.e. real, actual socialism.

"What right do these people have to demand a share of property or even in administration?... The employer who accepts the responsibility for production also gives the workpeople their means of livelihood. Our greatest industrialists are not concerned with the acquisition of wealth or with good living, but, above all else, with responsibility and power. They have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead."

—Hitler, attacking the notion of worker ownership of property and licking capitalist boot.

disgusting

nice pipeline, it'd be a shame if something happened to it

death to america
death to capitalism

a selection from Red Sails

• Why Marxism?
• China Has Billionaires
• "Brainwashing"
• Masses, Elites, and Rebels
• "Tankies"
• Concessions
• False Witnesses
• Really Existing Fascism
• The Path Which Led Me To Leninism by Ho Chi Minh
• The Swerve
• The Lost Horse from 139 BC
• On Chomsky
• On Orwell
• A Critical Read of Animal Farm by Jones Manoel
• “Black Ribbon Day” and “Double Genocide” in Canada
• On Anthony Bourdain
• Democracy is Not an Ornament
• Water Droplets Drilling Through Rock
• Another View of Tiananmen
• The Xinjiang Atrocity Propaganda Blitz
• Ads Don't Work That Way

Gush Dan? more like Gush Danger

Can there really be a third-party option that can alter the direction of US imperialism without the billions of dollars that both Democrats and Republicans raise through their connections to Wall Street and domestic and foreign lobby groups?

no

democracy is not possible under capitalism due to the outsized power of the ownership class over the means of production

weird how all these inconsistencies disappear once one stops pretending it's a democracy

https://redsails.org/black-ribbon-day/#chrystia-freeland

川建国

death to amerikkkkkkkkkkkkkkkka

this logo is really cool because the Chinese character 互 means "mutual" or "reciprocal" and you can see it contained in the graphics here

big mood

yes

You can hunt me with those photos

this turn of phrase is new to me, what does it mean? I am familiar with "miss me with ___", is it a similar thing?

western chauvinism is deeply racist

Not trying to undermine his work,

lol. lmao

UPDATE: the court said the strike was illegal and the union folded

pledged to intoduce a resolution

wow Bernie, don't sprain anything. maybe try using the term "genocide" to warm up

where Uygur one, Uygur all

if you haven't read Marx on Capital as a Real God I think it will interest you

conflating zionism and Judaism is itself antisemitic, a cynical attempt to displace blame for zionist colonial crimes onto all Jews worldwide. the zionist entity actively promotes antisemitism globally to encourage migration to itself, with no regard for the safety of Jews.

reminds me of this zhenli polemic against anarchism, which argues the centralization of production is necessary to build socialism on

Anarchism is almost polar opposite to Marxism. The fact we agree on statelessness is a nonsensical talking point, for two reasons.

First, it ignores that Marxists and anarchists define the state entirely differently, meaning that anarchists want to implement things we would consider a state but then say it's not a state. This makes the whole "statelessness" distinction largely useless. Anarchists will implement states anyways but then claim it isn't one.

Second, it ignores the actual, real distinction between Marxists and anarchists, which is centralization and decentralization, originating from differing views on historical materialism and idealism.

Anarchists want to break up society into decentralized units, they see the centralization tendency of capitalist society as a bad thing and want to smash it and build an entirely new and different society out of a void, while Marxists see the development of capitalist society as in fact laying the foundations for socialism which it will be built on top of, i.e. it will be centralized.

Bukharin explained this brilliantly a century ago.

Communist society is, as such, a STATELESS society. If this is the case - and there is no doubt that it is - then what, in reality, does the distinction between anarchists and marxist communists consist of? Does the distinction, as such, vanish at least when it comes to examining the problem of the society to come and the "ultimate goal"? No, the distinction does exist; but it is to be found elsewhere; and can be defined as a distinction between production centralised under large trusts and small, decentralised production.

...Our ideal solution to this is centralised production, methodically organised in large units and, in the final analysis, the organisation of the world economy as a whole. Anarchists, on the other hand, prefer a completely different type of relations of production; their ideal consists of tiny communes which by their very structure are disqualified from managing any large enterprises, but reach "agreements" with one another and link up through a network of free contracts. From an economic point of view, that sort of system of production is clearly closer to the medieval communes, rather than the mode of production destined to supplant the capitalist system. But this system is not merely a retrograde step: it is also utterly utopian. The society of the future will not be conjured out of a void, nor will it be brought by a heavenly angel. It will arise out of the old society, out of the relations created by the gigantic apparatus of finance capital.

—Bukharin, Anarchy and Scientific Communism

It is very important to understand that anarchists aren't simply Marxists who want to get to statelessness faster. They are in many ways the polar opposite of Marxists, the gulf that separates Marxists from anarchists is just as large as pretty much any other ideology.

Anarchists reject historical materialism and view history through an idealist lens, believing that all new societies are "conjured out of a void" as Bukharin put it, and thus they believe this new society can be anything they want it to be, if they can imagine it then it can be implemented.

Marxists on the other hand, with a historical materialist analysis, see new systems as inherently being built upon new conditions brought into existence by the old system, i.e. socialism cannot be anything we want it to be but must be built upon foundations created by capitalism itself.

Hence, Marxists see the centralization tendency of capitalism as the basis for what socialism will be built upon, while anarchists not only do not hold this view, but they view the conditions capitalism is bringing forth as a bad thing that must be entirely destroyed.

A wide gulf separates socialism from anarchism, and it is in vain that the agents-provocateurs of the secret police and the news paper lackeys of reactionary governments pretend that this gulf does not exist. The philosophy of the anarchists is bourgeois philosophy turned inside out. Their individualistic theories and their individualistic ideal are the very opposite of socialism. Their views express, not the future of bourgeois society, which is striding with irresistible force towards the socialisation of labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the domination of blind chance over the scattered and isolated small, producer.

—Lenin, Socialism and Anarchism

Anarcho-communism has its basis in peasant communism. Peasants were not able to— without the leadership of the proletariat— be a revolutionary class due to their extreme isolation from one another, but they wereexploited by landlords, so they still shared a collective interest.

When the proletariat did begin to unite them, many pushed for this collective interest to be realized, i.e. to get rid of the landlords, which would transform society into a society of decentralized collective farms, where everyone is still isolated, but they own their own means of production directly.

Anarcho-communist ideas came out of feudal society from the peasantry. Peter Kropotkin grew up observing feudal Russia and his ideas are very agricultural-centered. Peasant communism is a reactionary ideology that has no historical basis and only managed to have some small-scale implementation by attaching themselves to proletarian revolutions.

I really despise this insistence that Marxists are just anarchists who disagree on the state. Marxism and anarchism are almost polar opposites to one another. The gulf between Marxists and anarchists is just as wide as between Marxists and right-wing libertarians.

Maybe at times they could be strategic allies, in the same sense Marxists can sometimes work with right-libertarians on anti-war issues, but they are in no way similar to us and it is dangerous to pretend they are.

the process of determining the price of a commodity in the marketplace through the interactions of buyers and sellers. in this case farmers are trying to forecast what the price will be after the growing season

Tolkien never gave him a name, he only gets referred to as The Mouth of Sauron

despite what seems like an attempt to distance themselves from Trotsky I read a few articles on their site and I can't take a group seriously if they are ambivalent about Stalin. but that's why I'm a weird recluse I suppose

like the ocean background, he chose a good location for his video

10% think Trump is far left

I love how every time I talk about politics with a liberal I provide historical events they are unaware of, and their counterarguments are the same tired garbage takes you see in mass media. "which of us is demonstrably more informed here, you genocide-excusing worm? I've read multiple books on this topic and you've read only headlines, and you dare to have an opinion? fuck you!"

death to The Economist

“We found that the well-arranged edge-on PM6 chains can be twisted into face-on orientation by the dipole–dipole interaction with L8-ThCl, and refined into nanofibrils with enhanced and denser π−π stacks,” the scientists explain in the paper. “Meanwhile, the good miscibility and intermolecular interactions between L8-BO and L8-ThCl in W and S-shaped packed dimers can effectively strengthen and regulate the packing networks of acceptors into one-dimension fibrils with high crystallinity.”

damn, it seems obvious when they lay it out like that.

I know what it's not— it's not an ornament

Whether a country is a democracy or not depends on whether its people are really the masters of the country. If the people are awakened only for voting but enter a dormant period soon after, if they are given a song and dance during campaigning but have no say after the election, or if they are favored during canvassing but are left out in the cold after the election, such a democracy is not a true democracy.

see also https://redsails.org/xi-on-democracy/

Jake Sullivan is in China too, I wouldn't take his fucking word for anything

without class consciousness you get nothing but an empty aesthetic definition of fascism that usually reduces to vague concepts about violence and civility

the CPC censors news of 6/4

oh is that why it's easily findable on Baidu? western chauvinist garbage

The Tian’anmen Square ‘Massacre’: The West’s Most Persuasive, Most Pervasive Lie | Mango Press

Another View of Tiananmen | Red Sails

I'm sure you care just as much about the Palestinian kids getting bombed right now as you do about this little nazi shit