/lit/ - Literature

>>18102510
National socialism, literally. The 'socialism' term in national socialism doesn't refer to an economic system, but rather a focus on the community and the benefit of society. You had national socialists all over the economic spectrum, from Strasser to more capitalistic minded people. At the end of the day Germany ended up running on a sort of "state/social capitalism" similar to China today.

>>18102510
Many 'far right' parties in Europe hold moderate to extreme left economic positions

>>18102550
Both Nazi Germany and current China are too capitalist to properly call 'economically socialist'. The obvious answer to OP's question is Stalin, who implemented quite a bit of reactionary social policy, but his economics were still clearly not capitalist.

>>18102569
>The obvious answer to OP's question is Stalin, who implemented quite a bit of reactionary social policy
QRD?

>>18102510
You can't be a real socialist or Marxist UNLESS you actively reject bourgeois degeneracy such as homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. I'm not a tankie but honestly seeing a 'pride parade' makes me think bringing back gulags might not be such a bad idea.

>>18102577
recriminalized homosexuality, promoted motherhood, that sort of thing

>>18102577
Not the guy you're responding to but Stalin among other things
>recriminalized homosexuality
>practically banned abortion
>destroyed the remaining authority of the Soviets and centralized all power in his hands (this is debatable since dictatorship can be both left wing and right wing but I think the idea of the Soviets is closer to leftism)
>reversed Lenin's anti-Orthodox policies (as a young man he was actually a student at a seminary)
>on a symbolic level his propaganda during the 30s and especially after the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War was very nationalistic, it was pretty much Make Russia Great Again

>>18102510
Yeah a bunch of this image is cringe as fuck. The Soviets in Afghanistan and the US in the Middle East were totally different. But anyway yes you can be.

>>18102593
But literally 99% of modern marxists have pronouns on their bio and are constantly spreading gender, race, feminist and queer theory.

>>18102510
>Can you be economically "left wing" or socialist and socially conservative or "right wing"?
no, anon, you can't
it is not allowed

>>18102577
>Fucked over the “cosmopolitans”
>Recriminalized Homosexuality
>Stopped persecution of the Church
>Promoted Soviet nationalism
Shame he surrounded himself with literal retards(I’m not exaggerating, he did this purposefully to get yesmen)so that when he died they took over.

You can be whatever you want, bro.

To be socially conservative is to reject economics in the first place. If you take a stand on "the issues" (trade, regulation, inflation, etc.) you have already fallen into the materialist mud. Imagine asking Aristotle or Confucius such questions, do you think they would take you seriously? There is a reason economics was born at the same time as secular rationalism.

>>18102656
That's because they're Neoliberals in disguise and use Marx for social commodity.

>>18102672
>Imagine asking Aristotle or Confucius such questions
Aristotle literally discussed these issues in Politics and Nicomachean Ethics

>>18102663
>>18102668
I know you can but I just wanted to know some authors or books to read and get to know other perspectives.

>>18102510
>thinks feminism divides the nation and the class
??? The Soviet Union strongly championed feminism, Rosa Luxemburg and Clara Zetkin were part of a lot of soviet propaganda, the latter even moved to the Soviet Union where she died in the 30s. International womens day was a national holiday in USSR and still is in a lot of post soviet republics.

>>18102510
National Bolshevism.

>>18102667
sad. the worst part of all political systems is the problem of continuity past death/elected position.

>>18102672
>Aristotle
You could have chosen literally any other Greek philosopher, it isn't that hard.

>>18102629
>>18102636
>>18102667
Interesting, is this a good introduction to Stalin?

>>18102672
>Imagine asking Aristotle or Confucius such questions
y-you havent read aristotle, have you?
and you are aware that most western political theory sprouted from Nichomachean ethics, righf?

>>18102717
>political
ment politico-economic.

The idea of the corpore, body of organs, levels of community, trade, etc.

>>18102715
yes, it's decent. my dad reads an awful lot about Stalin and Stalinist Russia since his dad and my grandfather was a prisoner in the gulag. his favorite biography of the funny Georgian guy is Montefiore's Stalin. The Court of the Red Tsar. he also reads a lot of books written by a Russian historical revisionist Suvorov who is estranged from the mainstream of Sovietology as he propounds the thesis that Stalin was not surprised by the Operation Barbarossa

>>18102715
Yeah, I liked it. Just make sure to check sources and read other books, I’ve caught a book about communism citing the Black Book before. I’d recommend you check out EH Carr too.

>>18102691
true, but it was a phenomenally different femism, as it is one which bases female subjugation as a product of class, not an a prioi problem that is cosubstantial with class in the vague sense a more liberal veiw of things have. do it is not against traditional roles as long as it is not class based. thats why soviet “feminism” felt so much more based.

>>18102691
>implying that the current third wave intersectional feminism funded by trillion dollar corporations and subversive academia would be considered "feminism" in soviet times

>>18102762
Also if you like videos check out Vladimir Brovkin. He’s made a lot about the civil war and USSR.

>>18102510
wow, an actual political discussion unlike /pol/

Sure but you're going to struggle quite a bit finding theoretical principles that are valid for both. I myself imagine you becoming a cringe religious larper at some point in order to solve the conundrum.

>>18102550
Nazis were anti-religious freedom and racists. Neither of those things are acceptable within the remit of being socially conservative.

>>18102777
>>18102782
Which is why it should be made clearly distinct instead of being generalised as just "feminism"

>>18102510
There is no true divide between what is "economic" and what is "social". If you are against economic hierarchy then you are against social hierarchy, making you a leftist.

>>18103512
Bullshit

>>18102715
Stalinism by Robert Tucker - although I don't think the focus of the Russian Revolution post Stalin should start from Stalin. You really should read about the Workers Opposition along with Stephan Cohen's book "Bukharin and The Boleshivik Revolution"

>>18102636
Lenin explitically supported abortion, and was extremely critical of the "bourgeise" family

>>18103522
Being higher on the social hierarchy but lower or on par with everyone else on the economic hierarchy (and visa versa) is impossible. Being in higher social standing means being in higher economic standing; indirectly via your social network opening up opportunities, directly via privileges granted by the presiding authority, whatever. For example, look at any "communist" country. The grorious reader lives like a king and the vanguard party or whatever is the class of loyal ideologies are granted special privileges and access to more resources, like North Korea with Kimmy and the people allowed into Pyongyang. The socially disadvantaged are by necessity economically disadvantaged, often in the most extreme sense (you can't acquire wealth when you are dead).

>>18103595
*loyal ideologues

>>18102593
This argument is trash because it assumes Marx was the only socialist, or the only authority of socialist theory when socialism as movement predates him. Nobody has to give a fuck what Marx thought about socialism, and honestly, his views are socialism are utterly terrible - as confirmed by history. The more decentralized types such as mutualism and co-operative socialism are probably the best saving grace it has.

>>18102841
>Nazis were anti-religious freedom
They weren't though, they managed to unite prots and caths and atheists and even had some high ranking pagans.
>racists
>Neither of those things are acceptable within the remit of being socially conservative.
How are you going to be a conservative without conserving your own people?? That makes no sense.

>>18103595
Bullshit.

>>18103633
Are you stupid? Just do a search online "nazi persecution of the Catholic Church", and use what modicum of intellect there is in your shrivelled moronic brain to consider the systematic destruction of all the Jews living under nazi rule. If you still don't think they were totally opposed to religious freedom then I don't know what to tell you, you're unironically possibly insane.

>conservative without conserving your own people
Here you're playing with semantics and you probably don't understand where the idea of racism comes from, it isn't traditional.

>>18102510
Tolstoy vs Dostoevsky

>>18103727
>Here you're playing with semantics and you probably don't understand where the idea of racism comes from, it isn't traditional.
Bit of a weak answer. I agree with him that conservatism clearly encompasses a degree of nativism and xenophobia. It can be purely of a defensive variety, but wanting to maintain your ethnic group and its culture is obviously conservative.

Literally just check out the Nouvelle Droite. Alain de Benoist's Manifesto for a European Renaissance is alright, his View from the Right series is based

>>18103727
You're being disingenuous. There was religious freedom for Germans, the inhabitants of Germany. Why would they give religious freedom for Japanese to practice Shinto? There were no Japanese. Same things for jews, they wanted jews out of Germany, and without jews there is no one to practice Judaism. The issue was with their ethnicity, not specifically with their religion though (Hitler himself said he had less of an issue with Orthodox jews than with secular ones - the latter tended to be communists).
>nazi persecution of the Catholic Church
Yes, the Catholic Church. They had no issue with people being Catholic by itself.
>shrivelled moronic brain
You're really triggered huh? Why?
>Here you're playing with semantics and you probably don't understand where the idea of racism comes from, it isn't traditional.
What >>18103741 said. A culture cannot exist without the people who practice that culture.

>>18102841
>>18103633
>>18103727
>>18103996
re: religion you're both partially right. The NSDAP left metaphysics largely to one's conscience but at the same time they ruthlessly shattered the institutional power of the churches for pragmatic reasons and planned on doing away with the churches entirely as they considered the Abrahamic weltanschauung to be fundamentally and irreconcilably at odds with that of National Socialism. Pic related is quite interesting in this regard.

>>18103741
You're applying the word meaning "to conserve" with the political stance of conservatism. By your logic my Presbyterian Granny is a Conservative because she makes jam.

And no, nativism and xenophobia are not broadly speaking conservative policies, in actual fact it was the trade unions and the Labour Party who were originally behind the promulgation of these ideas: "they're taking our jobs" kind of thing directed at the Chinese miners and so on later to elements of the KKK using the same arguments in Northern towns at the time when the sons of former slaves were moving out of the South.

The entire concept of racialism is a modern idea which came later than conservatism and was, if anything, co-opted into a reaction against economic freedoms which were being promoted by the actual conservatives at the time. Something else to consider in America the racist vote used to go to the Democrats.

>>18103996
Culture and ethnicity are distinct from conservatism, until I am convinced otherwise. What I'm seeing itt is ethno-fascists trying to shoehorn themselves and their ideology into conservatism. I'll have none of it.

>>18104046
Try and convince a conservative Japanese person they can be conservative by replacing themselves with socially conservative Chinese or Pakis. Won't happen, because they know that without them, there won't be anything left to conserve.
>ethno-fascists trying to shoehorn themselves and their ideology into conservatism
No, just explaining that it's a part of national socialism. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it any less true.
>I'll have none of it.
Lmao

>>18104029
>The entire concept of racialism is a modern idea which came later than conservatism
The older concept of ethnic identity was just even more granular, you identified with family, clan, village, etc. It's the same principle of conservation in either case, and the smaller more fine-grained identities depend for their existence on the larger structures surrounding them. It's not like an older conservative who had little conception of race as we see it today would therefore approve of the country beyond his personal region being invaded by outsiders.

There is nothing conservative about intermixture of culture and race or mass immigration.

>>18102510
It doesn't make sense. The socialist mode of production has its roots in an anti-capitalist critique that goes against any "conservative" values.

>>18104046
>Culture and ethnicity are distinct from conservatism, until I am convinced otherwise.
An argument can be made that if the cultural characteristics of a group derive at least in part from that group's heritage, genetics and shared experiences then the conservation of that group AS a distinct group plays a role in conserving that culture.

>What I'm seeing itt is ethno-fascists trying to shoehorn themselves and their ideology into conservatism. I'll have none of it.
Many people have a very poor understanding of National Socialism, especially Americans.
>t. unironic Nazi

>>18104154
You might like this screencap.

>>18104076
>by replacing themselves
drawing a long bow
>Japanese conservatives
cherry picking a special case which is by the way from a different political tradition
>>18104099
>being invaded by outsiders
like a war or something. This kind of rubbish arguments make me feel bad for talking to you, like I'm telling a special needs person why they must wash the shit off their hands before they can have a sandwich.

>>18104167
>An argument can be made that if the cultural characteristics of a group derive at least in part from that group's heritage, genetics and shared experiences then the conservation of that group AS a distinct group plays a role in conserving that culture.
Yeah, I agree but that's not political conservatism. It is ethnic/cultural/racial conservation which can be and is a political stance but again it is distinct from conservatism.

>>18104223
No not really, there is no actual conservative group that thinks they can be conservative while also replacing themselves. You seem to have a very autistic and restriced view of what "conservative" means, seems like you're the one playing semantic games.

>>18102510
I'm a socialist but idk if I'd call myself a social conservative or just a social centrist. I personally think abortion is immoral once the brain starts developing, but I think the best way to reduce it is to reduce poverty. I don't really care about gay people and think they should have equal rights. I hate porn and consider it degenerate, same with a lot of drugs (people should go to rehabilitation for that though, not jail). The basic family unit with one parent saying home and not working should return. Trans people I also don't care about but I don't think they should compete in the other gender's sports and people under 18 shouldn't be allowed to transition. I'm not religious but I can understand it's value 8n bringing communities together. Does this make me conservative?

>>18104223
>like a war or something.
or like mass immigration

>>18104154
Yes it does. You're assuming social conservatism equals capitalism when in fact its quite the opposite, just look at all the ultra capitalist corporations, media conglomerates and neocons pushing for anti conservative sentiment and propaganda. You're also assuming that "conservatism" as a politcal ideology doesnt change when in reality is just a reaction to the current modernist progressive trends and/or a political movement that aims to revert certain polical, sociological or cultural trends to desired status that was previously considered the norm. Just look at the OP picture and as much as it is a meme its quite true in the sense that in the eyes of a modern gender queer neomarxist the original soviets would be considered fascists due to their ultra nationalistic and social conservative views. Also, Hitler detested Capitalism and its does really make you wonder since its the ultra billionaires that are funding all the propaganda and degeneracy through the academia and the media while subverting cultures all over the world for their capitalist ambitions.

>>18104242
>there is no actual conservative group that thinks they can be conservative while also replacing
themselves
You're wrong and what you've said makes no sense and you don't understand what "conservative" means politically.
>>18104258
mass immigration is not invasion, you can disagree but if you do it only means that you and I aren't using the same language.

>>18104433
>mass immigration is not invasion, you can disagree but if you do it only means that you and I aren't using the same language.
I don't care if it's an invasion, no conservative in history would ever have approved of his town, county, or country being replaced by foreigners. Even if they were genetically and culturally identical it would cause problems, but they are very far from being identical. The fact that you are even trying to seriously argue this is honestly amusing

>>18104433
>You're wrong and what you've said makes no sense and you don't understand what "conservative" means politically.
How am I wrong? Give me one example of an ethnic group that called themselves conservative while also replacing themselves?
I know very well what it means, I'm just proving it cannot go hand in hand with ethnic replacement and why it's almost always directly coupled to cultural and ethnic conservatism. Prove me wrong.

>>18104455
>being replaced by
I've a problem with your language. Nobody is "being replaced by" without some kind of mass exile or genocide, the clearances by Cromwell in Ireland was an attempt at that for example. It's a stupid argument because literally nobody would want that to happen to themselves ever.

>>18104470
Here, it's the same >>18104482 why do you fags always come in pairs?

>>18104482
> Nobody is "being replaced by" without some kind of mass exile or genocide
How about whites in the US and western Europe? They're not literally being genocided nor leaving en masse, yet they are being replaced.
>It's a stupid argument because literally nobody would want that to happen to themselves ever.
You don't seem to speak to many white leftists.

>>18104482
>>18104487
low birth rates + mass immigration = literal replacement

>>18104482
what did the UN mean by this

>>18104433
>and you don't understand what "conservative" means politically.

>>18102510
Left and right are labels for retards which were designed to keep the masses at bay. On one side, the "left", you have a bunch of crazies who can be conflated with baby killing, weed smoking, tranny enabling, niggard fucking, immigrant loving communists, and on the "right" you have "capitalists". It makes it very easy to persuade people to pick a side necause one side you can dump all sorts of libel, and the other remains unchanged, as soon as "nazis" crane their necks, the right goes "no no no they're the alt-right, not like us". It's a sneaky propaganda tool, designed by jews no doubt, to get people to agree to extreme laissez-faire capitalism under the guise of "common sense".

What you, and everyone, needs to do is abandon these labels. Vote in terms of policies, not parties or leaders. I'm not American, but it's said to see the American apathy has leaked into our country, where the only thing stopping people voting for the objectively better party is that they're conflated as the loony lefties, and portrayed as being in bed with the green party. I fucking hate that politics is a popularity contest, democracy is a farce, your common man shouldn't be allowed to have a say in who manages his country. 2008 China had it right, it's a shame they fucked it with their Reddit-esque social credit system.

>>18103594
Lenin isn't Stalin.

>>18104491
Nothing can be replaced if it remains in place.
>>18104494
This would require proof that the birth rates are purposefully being manipulated rather than the obvious explanation that people are choosing of their own free will not to have large families.
>>18104502
The word "replacement" is being used in a different sense here, this is implicitly about maintaining overall population not about removing population and replacing with other population, usually to fulfill labour shortages brought about by aging population.

>>18104573
>Nothing can be replaced if it remains in place.
If less of A is produced over time, and more of B, leading to eventual disappearance of A, that is replacement. Don't be disingenuous.
>This would require proof that the birth rates are purposefully being manipulated rather than the obvious explanation that people are choosing of their own free will not to have large families.
The proof is propganda to not have children targeted at whites, plus ever increasing immigration of people from cultures with high birthrates. It's not hard to figure out.
>usually to fulfill labour shortages brought about by aging population.
If you keep up immigration to take care of that you'll keep running into the same problem, thus eventually replacing the original population. Thanks for proving the point.

>>18104573
>The word "replacement" is being used in a different sense here, this is implicitly about maintaining overall population not about removing population and replacing with other population, usually to fulfill labour shortages brought about by aging population.
lol. The effect is the same, the country's ethnic composition is altered. One ethnicity is replaced with another.
>This would require proof that the birth rates are purposefully being manipulated rather than the obvious explanation that people are choosing of their own free will not to have large families.
it's happening either way, regardless of whether it is planned. But yeah there are in fact policies and top-down cultural conditioning that are depressing birth rates.

Yeah why the fuck not? What about your beliefs regarding the means of production has to do with shit like the family unit or conventional morality?

>>18102841
How is racism contrary to conservatism?

>>18103631
>Marx wasnt a real Marxist

>>18104029
You can read Burkes "Reflections on the Revolution In France" and see where he explicitly states that the French were morons for extending their rights to all people. He goes on to explain that in the British system the ancient rites are reserved only to the British people and necessarily exclusionary on an ethnic basis. It is of absolutely no significance that labor parties embraced anti immigration policies. To say that some economically leftist types were racist does not exclude the possibility of any other category of person from being racist.

>>18104433
>you don't understand what "conservatism" means politically
So what does it mean?

>>18104595
>proof is propganda to not have children targeted at whites
Show it.
>>18104639
You're conflating ethnicity with genetic makeup. In western countries there exist ethnicities which are entirely geographically determined, and others which are based upon shared ideals not bloodlines. I cannot even think of any western ethnicity which is based entirely upon genetics.

What I do know is that in western democracies the government will pay you to have children, it's encouraged by policy. Clearly it is the populace not willing to have larger families and the immigration therefore to be seen as an economic imperative. It'll get a bit tricky once you figure out that baby payments have to come from the state treasury.

Would we agree that baby payments to encourage people to have families would ostensibly be social-conservatism?

Just to be clear I think both of you are full of shit and are trying to fear monger in spite of the both the evidence against your claims and the overwhelming lack of evidence to support your case. I think it's because you are racists and therefore highly susceptible to pseudoscience (race, IQ, astrology, flat earth, personality types, etc.) and unable to recognise cognitive dissonance when it is apparent.

>>18104658
Racism is a mental disorder and can manifest within an array of political positions.

>>18104755
I am so disgusted with contemporary man's need to pathologize every belief contrary to his own.

>>18104664
No, you illiterate retard. Marxists don't have to agree with Marx on everything, and no one has to ask Marx's theories on socialism when he wasn't the only person who had these theories nor was he the first. You're just spouting really retarded logical fallacies with no basis on reality.

>>18104744
ethnicity and genetics are the same thing, and there are many policies that reduce fertility, especially welfare and women's rights. Also lol that you think IQ is pseudoscience when it reliably predicts for outcomes

>>18104766
You're pathologizing people for not using race as a measure of social utility.

>>18104772
No I'm not. I never said anything like that.

>>18104755
Are you a Marxist or whats your political ideology?

>>18104744
>Show it.
Here you go.
>rest of your post
Are you denying that only a few decades ago, native (western) Europeans made up 99% of the population of their countries, while it's now dropping below 70% (France, UK)? What is that if not replacement?
Not wanting my people to be replaced is not racism. You're being very disingenuous. Where are you from and what is your ethnic background?

>>18102510
not what your asking for but this essay will let you know that ideologies are bullshit in general and it´s safer to trust your gut

https://usa.anarchistlibraries.net/library/robert-anton-wilson-left-and-right-a-non-euclidean-perspective

>>18104814
>what is your ethnic background?
The nose knows.

>>18102510
Watch/read some Michael Hudson.
Chomsky is “conservative”. MLK was after a fashion. The Pope is anticapitalist too.
Don’t let the fidgety poltards talk you into believing everyone on the left is purple haired etc.