DENVER (AP) — A teenager suspected in a shooting attack at a suburban Denver high school that left two students in critical condition appeared fascinated with previous mass shootings including Columbine and expressed neo-Nazi views online, according to experts.
Since December, Desmond Holly, 16, had been active on an online forum where users watch videos of killings and violence, mixed in with content on white supremacism and antisemitism, the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism said in a report.
Holly shot himself following Wednesday’s shooting at Evergreen High School in Jefferson County. He died of his injuries. It is still unclear how he selected his victims. The county was also the scene of the 1999 Columbine High School massacre that killed 14 people.
Holly’s TikTok accounts contained white supremacist symbols, the ADL said, and the name of his most recent account included a reference to a popular white supremacist slogan. The account was unavailable Friday. TikTok said accounts associated with Holly had been banned.
Holly’s family could not be reached. The Associated Press left a message at a telephone number associated with the house that police searched after the shooting.
see your problem there
And how do you define socialism?
Socialism is 1:1 Capitalism, simply with democracy extended to the workplace.
Nothing the Nazis did follows this, they did fascism, corporatism.
Co-opting the popular aesthetics of socialism, they did fake populism like every other far-right group in history.
Tell me, do you believe the DPRK is democratic?
I don’t think I’ve ever heard that definition of socialism before. I gave the American Heritage definition of socialism earlier in the thread, which was ‘the state controlling the means of production and distribution’. Does that mesh well with your understanding of socialism? Corporatism is the public ownership of a business. It’s in the name, corpo, body, the people, the state…the state controlling the means of production.
Not trying to be difficult by asking this, but how are you defining fascism? And how are you defining ‘far-right’?
I ask, because both these terms are kind of floaty, especially in modern parlance, and have changed over the years. The Nazi and Fascist (the fascism being promoted by Giovanni Gentile and adopted by Mussolini) ideologies were a bit at odds with each other, hence why so many Jews fled Germany and Eastern Europe and were safe in Fascist Italy and why Mr. Fascist himself, Mussolini, had a Jewish mistress for some 20+ years. It should be noted, Mussolini did start vocalizing some racist shit a few years after allying with the Nazis, but it was very much not in line with what he was saying through the rest of his political career and completely flew in the face of what Gentile was promoting. There was some amount cross over in the ideologies (namely the state controlling the means of production bit), but the Nazis were not Fascists and the Fascists were not Nazis. Just to reiterate, I’m talking about the historical definition of fascism that was being used by the fascists at the time, not whatever that word has morphed into over the years.
The left/right thing has always been an overly simplistic way to classify policies and political movements to me. The Nazis did align themselves with a powerful conservative party during their rise to power and disallowed the socialist and communist parties from participating in the government, but they also implemented a great deal of social welfare programs, unemployment programs, brought woman into positions of power within the government, allowed woman the right to vote as well, and had state funded vacations for citizens. I don’t know if you can classify all of that as right wing or not, maybe you can, I don’t know 🤷♀️
No, I do not believe the DPRK is democratic. Why do you ask?
No, that definition is inherently incongruent with my understanding - that is Communism as I understand. In Socialism, the means of production is controlled by the workers, businesses are similar to co-operatives.
There can be structural hierarchies within, but workers have democratic input on the direction of the means of production. By definition today, the U.S. (while implementing social policy) is not Socialist, the Capitalist structure ensures the worker is subjugated. The worker has no bearing on the direction of the company, and thus democratic voice in the work place.
Most countries adopted the ideals of popular framework of socialism (the classic Marxian sense) to some degree after WW2, they put the worker at the heart and center of the society. Through unions, workers were the central organizing unit of society - they demanded political reforms, and thus society was geared towards making the lives of the middle class/working class better. There was excellent public healthcare, great public schools, cheap universities in the 50s, 60s and 70s. So… although Socialism didn’t win and was stomped out, it was only by adopting the frameworks (by having unions that fought for the rights of the workers) would the public accept this, as their lives would improve.
That is, until the 80s, with ‘The Revolt of the Elite’, and the rise of Neoliberalism. Here is where the worker was slipped away, and the Consumer became the organizing unit of society. The mentality of the consumer, infected the minds of the masses, and it’s consequences have fundamentally changed our society. Today unions have no significant power, society is catered to the elite, while the middle class and especially the working class are left to ROT.
Corporatism was one of the main tenets of Mussolini’s Fascism. I mangled my neurons, because ‘Italian Fascism’ is fascism in the as is ‘National Socialism’ modern sense.
As to why Corporatism was present in Mussolini’s Italy but not Hitler’s Germany, this was because of two main things:
Either way, what is happening in the US right now is more similarly Corporatocracy, which is what I actually meant the Nazis were engaged in when I made my comment. They essentially pioneered authoritarian capitalism.
Fascism as in the Cambridge definition:
While some people escaped Germany and lived fine in Italy, that does not indicate any specific traits of those countries, as the person who escaped Germany could have just been Italian… They were at odds with each other because they are/were unique nations with differing material conditions to bring forth different outcomes. A-la how Corporatism was present in one, but never came to fruition in the other.
Fascism is a ‘far-right’, authoritarian and ultranationalist political ideology.
‘Far-right’ refers to right-wing extremism. A range of ideologies marked by ultraconservatism, authoritarianism, ultranationalism, radical anticommunism and nativism. It distinguishes itself from more mainstream right-wing ideology by its opposition to liberal democratic norms and emphasis on exclusivist views.
While it is, yes, an overly simplistic division tactic, it’s ubiquity throughout society means it is unavoidable. People have tried to improve on it (with the 2-axis political spectrum), but it is insufficient, has created worse problems, and probably was an even further division tactic.
The Nazis could align with the conservative party, because their politics are most alike. Because they both exist on the right side of the political spectrum. Disallowing political opposition as you describe, banning the opposite side of the spectrum, socialists and communists, is pure fascism.
Implementing social welfare programs and unemployment programs, is not inherently Socialist. Just because something benefits a subset of the population does not mean it it socialist. Furthermore, the reason for these benefits is not least to provide the necessary national myth of unity to hold the remaining society together.
When these benefits come off the backs off of an ethnic cleansing campaign, they can no longer be considered Socialist. Socialism would have required Nazi Germany to NOT have built an ethno-state to serve with those benefits, rather serving the entire existing community as democratically would benefit them the most.
Providing those benefits is also not inherently against a far-right ideology either, and thus isn’t evidence against them being on the right. Since every one of those benefits was only provided in an ultranationalist, anticommunist and nativist sense.
Welfare chauvinism is a common tenet of far-right ideology.
I asked because I figured you were on the opposite side of the informed spectrum, like the majority who say the Nazis were socialist, saying they are simply because they have it in their name. I.E. the Democratic People’s Republics of Korea must be Democratic. However you are quite informed, with a curious perspective. So that gotcha fell flat 🤣
Let me just start with my working definitions so that we are on the same page.
Socialism - the state controlling the means of production/distribution Communism - a stateless, moneyless, and classless society; as described by Marx/Engels Capitalism - privately controlled means of production/distribution, personal property, free markets, etc; as described by Adam Smith Authoritarianism - strict obedience to an authority at the expense of individual freedoms and democratic processes
In most of my interactions on the topic, these definitions are well accepted. These ‘-isms’ are ideological goals and never truly achievable. A system of governance will simply lean more towards one system or the other. There are capitalist policies inside of communist China. There are socialist policies inside capitalist USA. The world is messy.
The communism definition is the one that generally produces the most confusion due to some nations claiming to be communist, but having radically different social and economic policies from each other. Thankfully, we have the 10 planks from the ‘Communist Manifesto’ that we can always reference if we need to get into the weeds. Which, I don’t think we really need to get into for this. Obviously there are lots of different versions of these ‘-isms’ as well (i.e. democratic socialism, laissez-faire capitalism, stakeholder capitalism), but let’s just ignore all those for now.
Just to touch on unionization. This concept is something that I would put in a somewhat separate category. In theory you can have moderate to strong unions in most of the mentioned ‘-isms’ so long as government policies align to allow such things; I’m thinking of the ‘Nordic model’ as a good example of market based economies with strong unions and good social welfare programs. This is all an aside though.
Ok, so with those definitions in mind, let’s visit this idea of ‘authoritarian capitalism’ that you mentioned. I’ve heard this term before and find it frustrating. Let’s break these terms down via an analogy. Imagine a soccer game:
Maybe this isn’t a perfect analogy, but you get my point. Smashing these two words next to each other becomes oxymoronic. An authoritarian system cannot also be a capitalist system. The premise of each concept is in direct conflict with each other. In Adam Smith’s “The wealth of nations” he discusses the folly of a similarly centralized planning authority extensively. He was mostly talking about monarchs, but for our purposes they are close enough. The less a centralized authority is involved in the economy, the more capitalist it is. If you want to make the argument that the Nazis (the state) were an authoritarian regime AND heavily involved in the means of production/distribution, then we’re talking about a form of socialism.
In Richard J. Evans’ “The Coming of the Third Reich” he made a somewhat similar claim as you had about the Nazis ‘privatizing’ the industries after they came to power. Perhaps he had been working under a different set of definitions or understanding, but this choice of word left me baffled the first time I read it (btw, I have the utmost respect for Evans, he’s great). By Evans’ own account, the Nazis took over the government and became the state. Then they used their state powers to take control of businesses and industries to better accommodate their needs and provide the welfare programs they promised…the state took over the means of production/distribution…that’s the opposite of ‘privatizing’, it’s socialism.
You had also mentioned ‘welfare chauvinism’ which would still fall under the state controlling the means of distribution under the definitions I started with. It’s a shitty form of state controlled distribution, but still the state deciding who gets what resources. Aaaaaaaandddd I’m pretty sure the rest of the points you made are similarly addressed given the definitions. If I missed anything important to you let me know.
Also, I’m not alone in these thoughts about the Nazis being socialist, today I also randomly stumbled on historian Dr. Rainer Zitelmann echoing this sentiment. As I said yesterday though, I think we mostly just disagree on definitions. Where did you get your definition for socialism anyway?
Wow, thanks for the awesome write up and keeping it super respectful and even complimentary! Yeah, we were using a few of the same words a bit differently. Once I shifted my thinking to your definitions, we might not have a whole lot of daylight between us.
I don’t have time for a full response at the moment, but I can see the argument you’re making for the Nazis practicing authoritarian capitalism and find it somewhat compelling. The amount that they spoke out against ‘the jewish money system’ of capitalism does give me pause though, perhaps it was more rhetoric than policy. I’ll have to dig into when I have a bit more time tomorrow night.
We might have some differences on what counts as left/right policies, but I think that’s mostly on me struggling to define what is left/right. We’re also probably in massive agreement on the travesty of the unions losing relevance in the US and the harm that it’s done.
Democracy is a funny word. At some point the world decided that the word democracy means good and we should slap that label on anything we want to be perceived as good. Plato is rolling in his grave. Thanks again for the feedback friend.