NAZI GREENS - An Inconvenient History • Martin Durkin

originally posted by: ScepticScot
...
Hitler also said "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative". Does that mean Nazism is the same as libertarianism.

Hitler took over the property of millions of Jewish people, and other minorities "for the common good of Germany"... He also forced businesses to do as he wanted "for the common good".

He proclaimed on wanting to "protect private property", but in reality regulated it "for the good of Germany"... He was "very" socialist.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta

There are many forms of anarchist thought. Perhaps trying to shoe horn their system (NAs) into a western system of thought causes us to miss something. They didn't use a system of currency, they had decentralized government which would meet periodically.

Native Americans were not in any way anarchists... They did/do have a form of government, and whatever the elder/elders decided that was it. No ifs, or buts.

BTW, many Native Americans tribes were "traders". Trading with other tribes for resources they didn't have.

Before the white man came to NA, many NA tribes did have one or another form of economy. Some used the "Wampun".

Wampum

Wampum is, strictly speaking, a string of white beads, typically made from the shells of mollusks indigenous to the seacoasts of eastern North America (1). The beads were prized by North American Indians as ornament for the body or for weaving into fabric, and they were valued as [b/]"shell money" or "currency" in barter (1). It has been claimed that only the white beads are properly called wampum, but those made from the purple of clam shells have also been included, and with post-Columbian blue glass beads, they were even more highly prized (1-4).
...

www.lc.pitt.edu...

While others like the Aztecs used powdered gold as currency, or cocoa beans, jewels, cotton, etc as trade/barter before the white man ever set foot in the Americas...

Many NA tribes were capitalists. Those who were not most often resorted to violence and to stealing, and killing other tribes to gain resources, women, etc, etc.

Not to mention that when a NA wanted to marry a woman he had to give a large dowry from his own private property to the father of the bride.

To the NA if one of them gave you a gift they expected something in return... That's capitalism right there buddy.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
This is hardly authoritative but the following is from the website The Daily Anarchist.
...

Quoting from an anarchist website which tries to twist the truth for their agenda?... Sounds like true propaganda.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I don't disagree with much of what you are saying but, while perhaps not completely without leadership, the native cultures were vastly less regulated and policed which is what people tend to associate with "anarchy".

I should also point out that "anarchy" is clearly an inadequate term without qualifications since you gleaned opposition to capitalism from NihilistSanta's comments which I wouldn't say is accurate.

As I understand it, there are anarcho-capitalists who view the state as only serving to introduce disfunction into a naturally self-healing market economy and anarcho-communists who view the state as an unnecessary stage in the transition to Marx's utopian stateless society, socialism without state administration (I don't believe in that either but, I am trying to express it as agreeably to communists as possible).

This has been a great conversation and I thank you for your input!

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I agree with greencmp's assessment above. I think we are getting bogged down in terminology. Collectivist systems seem to have their roots in a lot of tribal behaviors. The main comparison with anarchy is the decentralization and the low power distance, low uncertainty avoidance, high degree of indulgence vs restraint, and short term orientation (they werent building empires for financial gains) . There will always be some outliers of course so this is again generalizing.

As far as the daily anarchist I merely used that as a source so that people would not claim a right wing source was being biased. Oh well cant win them all

There is so much ignorance propagated and supported on a website whose motto is 'deny ignorance.' 'Socialism is fascism.' 'Environmentalism is fascism.' Just lol.

a reply to: TheJourney

Then enlighten us. Tell us where we are wrong. You are saying that there is not a tendency for these systems to become authoritarian and thus resemble each other?

originally posted by: TheJourney
There is so much ignorance propagated and supported on a website whose motto is 'deny ignorance.' 'Socialism is fascism.' 'Environmentalism is fascism.' Just lol.

It's interesting that you bring this up. Obviously, the first part of your statement is correct.

"Socialism" is the root of all collectivist socioeconomic engineering and management schemas. All of them.

The arguments among the different schools of thought are inconsequential regarding the specific threat to liberty that all of its incarnations represent.

originally posted by: greencmp
"Socialism" is the root of all collectivist socioeconomic engineering and management schemas. All of them.

By socialism you mean social constructs of any kind or the political system that started out in the 18th century?

Socioeconomic engineering and management schemas existed before the political theory. I don't see how you can say that it is the root of all of collectivism.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
"Socialism" is the root of all collectivist socioeconomic engineering and management schemas. All of them.

By socialism you mean social constructs of any kind or the political system that started out in the 18th century?

Socioeconomic engineering and management schemas existed before the political theory. I don't see how you can say that it is the root of all of collectivism.

That's why I italicized collectivist.

a reply to: greencmp

I saw it but I'm not sure what it means.

If you are going to lump everyone into a group because they work together then stand by that and throw every system in that pile.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

I saw it but I'm not sure what it means.

If you are going to lump everyone into a group because they work together then stand by that and throw every system in that pile.

It's certainly possible that there were older collectivisms but, they would be protosocialisms.

a reply to: greencmp

I don't understand why people who differentiate between different "socialist" political theories are often accused of splitting hairs but here you are doing the same.

If the measure is complete liberty then you have to put everything that limits liberty in that group. Early US gov, minarchy, tribe councils and just about everything else.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

I don't understand why people who differentiate between different "socialist" political theories are often accused of splitting hairs but here you are doing the same.

If the measure is complete liberty then you have to put everything that limits liberty in that group. Early US gov, minarchy, tribe councils and just about everything else.

But that is the reality of compromise when it comes to liberty vs subjugation.

Essentially we are both opting out of that crucial debate by saying very similar things though I would describe it slightly differently.

I would say that I am willing to tolerate a bare minimum of state authority with immense reservations and that you are willing tolerate with immense reservations, individual liberty.

At least we are mostly ideal in our rhetoric.

a reply to: daskakik

Im not sure why we are hung up on anarchy and tribalism I merely brought that up since you said that no real world examples of free markets or decentralized government existed.

Socialism is collectivist as is fascism the rub is really in how things are distributed and "why". Ecological fascism is a call for authoritarian means for arriving at a socialist (collectivist) ends for environmental sustainability. The fear here being that there is a hand and glove relationship between authoritarianism, collectivism, and environmentalism because they are all operating like a tripod or triangle each reinforcing the other. Just as the overlaps in folkish movements, romanticism and new age beliefs , racial theories, and environmentalism/ecology/biology etc helped to reinforce Nazi rhetoric.

The Nazi disdain and dehumanization for certain groups is no different in many ways to the environmentalist exultation of nature over man. Calls to wipe out the population for the sake of the earth is identical in spirit to any other genocidal regime and is as much nihilistic/fatalistic as much of Nazi ideology.

originally posted by: greencmp
But that is the reality of compromise when it comes to liberty vs subjugation.

And that reality is what I am always pointing out.

Essentially we are both opting out of that crucial debate by saying very similar things though I would describe it slightly differently.

No I am pointing out the hypocrisy of lumping political ideas but setting aside certain types because they are something that you would tolerate.

I would say that I am willing to tolerate a bare minimum of state authority with immense reservations and that you are willing tolerate with immense reservations, individual liberty.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't support any political ideal.

Truth be told, you are probably tolerating greater state authority than I am.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

It was just part of a list.

From where I am standing, everything is collectivism. You are all pissing into the wind.

a reply to: daskakik

How is everything collectivism? Could you clarify? I would say collectivism is enforced. You mistake willing contracts and associations as somehow being collectivist.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

All existing governments and all social constructs are enforced.

I'm not mistaking anything, willing contracts and associations within enforced social structures don't make you free.

a reply to: daskakik

I am trying to see your point. You are saying everything is collectivist? Well for a society to function I admit resources and efforts are pooled but for them to be collectivist they would need to be centralized and enforced. What I mean by enforcement is the authority to take resources or capital from some in order to redistribute to others.

How would you summarize your main issue with the OP?

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
I am trying to see your point. You are saying everything is collectivist? Well for a society to function I admit resources and efforts are pooled but for them to be collectivist they would need to be centralized and enforced.

You are adding conditions so that you can keep certain political ideals out of the "collectivist" bag.

First you said enforced now you are adding centralized. Why? Just call things what they are.

What I mean by enforcement is the authority to take resources or capital from some in order to redistribute to others.

Sounds a lot like red scare propaganda?

How would you summarize your main issue with the OP?

Politically motivated non sequitur.