By "top-down" I do not mean that socialism is non-hierarchical. What I mean is that fascists revolutions are typically supported from the wealthy or influential classes, those "on top." Socialism does have hierarchies but are generally supported by the "bottom" of economic classes, specifically the labor classes.
as is and was the National Socialist German
Workers Party. but union membership is not the "bottom" of the economic class, and it wasn't until Mao that anyone argued that peasantry could be mobilized.
And yet Nazism is based on the racial supremacy of the German peoples and cultures over all other races, and their claim that such supremacy is so inherent in their race and culture that they shall have a Thousand Year Reign. Which is nationalist in nature.
yes. that also doesn't make them anything other than part and parcel of the general intellectual thrust of the day. Everything that the Nazi's believed in their heart of hearts about the superiority of the 'Aryan' German people, Progressives in this country believed in their heart of hearts about the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon.
you seem to be repeating the argument that national socialism was nationalist, and therefore couldn't be socialist. that's no better than arguing that since they followed a socialist domestic model, they couldn't have been nationalists.
And also why I stated that Nazism is neither socialist or fascist - I was just pointing out the two major differences in fascism and socialism in general.
you are citing the differences
within socialism, namely by pointing to the split between the nationalists and internationalists.
Yes, really, because I wanted to focus on instances here in the U.S., which is rather difficult since the U.S. has not gone through either a fascist or socialist revolution and I was just using it as an example.
revolution? eh, no. but we have absolutely gone through a fascist era, and we saw more than a few points of commonality (due to the relatedness of their intellectual basis) at the same time in this country. at least, that's what FDR thought:
...What we were doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some of the things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we were doing them in an orderly way."
-FDR
Many of which learn to become technical workers themselves and, according to socialist rhetoric, may be exploited by the capitalist class as well even though their labor is intellectual or technical in nature rather than manual.
no, actually,
as students. Intellectuals and students are generally the vanguard of socialist movements, as described by Lenin, who in turn was drawing heavily on Russias anarchist revolutionary history.
Again, I was talking about the differences between fascism and socialism in general and not how they pertained to Nazism.
then you are incorrect there as well, though the specific expression of Fascism in Germany is what we are discussing.
With regards to Nazism, Hitler used doctrines of any kind he could to attain power and have Germany re-emerge as a world power in the post Great War era while also initiating his hatred against Jews and other non-Germanic peoples.
that is incorrect - though you are right that Hitler was no genius, he absolutely had a solid doctrine, applying the same socialist-progressive top-down organizational structure to Ratzels' notion of the State as an organic entity.
Historically speaking much of socialist rhetoric supports what I mentioned rather than what you mention, and the majority of socialist and communist groups attempt to act with international cooperation rather than against their fellow labor class in other nations, even possible enemy nations.
many do. many socialisms' also compete. Communist China had a long-running competition with the USSR, for example, and invaded Communist Vietnam.
This is why the socialists and communists of the 1920's protested the Great War - because they believed that the war was oppressing the labor class of all the nations involved for the benefit of the wealth class of those individual nations.
that is why Comintern oriented Socialists did so. Nationally oriented Socialists did not. Which, again, is why Germany, Italy, and Japan called their alliance the
Anti-Comintern Pact.
