Fascism is marxism. Can go read/listen to the Big guy in charge of Italy in the 1930's who "invented" his flavor of marxism, called fascism.
They are like flavors of ice cream; but they are still ice cream. You can argue that vanilla is not chocolate is not strawberry; but it's all flavors of ice cream.
Each "leader" of marxism, takes it and adjusts it to their location (people, culture, business/industry, etc.) to make it so they can take power. Like Gov Gavin Newsom, wouldn't need to "nationalize" Big Tech in Chi-Comm Valley, because they're already controlled by the marxists; but he needs to take over PG&E.
Remember, like most ideologies; the branches/flavors often fight amongst themselves more than they fight "outsiders". Be this Islam; or Christianity for instance as good examples. How many times in history do Protestants v Catholics v Eastern Orthodox v Church of England fight each other over who's the "right" one to carry the title; vs fighting outsiders.
So you can say that Adolf and his pal in Italy were both vehemently anti-Communist; since like all marxist/Lefties they purge out others in their own wing of ideology to control power (there's only room for 1; just like all the others purge out to get power or after getting power... Lenin, Castro, Mao, etc.)
Historical Redpill also: Adolf was going to forceably colonize eastern Europe, with or without Marxism/Communism/Fascism; it was one of his "goals" for a long time, marxism let him achieve power without checks and balances as that is what marxism does.
Okay, I see what you're trying to say, but you're confusing Marxism with socialism. Marxism is a form of socialism; socialism is NOT a form of Marxism. Fascism is a form of socialism that is anti-Marxist; fascism is NOT a form of Marxism.
It would be like confusing a Ford and a car. A Ford is a TYPE of car, but a car is not a type of Ford. Make sense?
On 18 February, Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels gave the famous Sportpalast speech in Berlin, encouraging the Germans to accept a total war that would claim all resources and efforts from the entire population.
Because you see, Germany never was on a "total war" effort/economy. If the German marxists in charge tried forcing even more Marxism, into more heavily to the communism spectrum, they would have lost political power domestically (aka coup, revolt, electoral loss, money/talent exodus, etc.)
So same with socialism, if the leaders in there locations push too hard for more Marxism than politically possible, they lose power.
That's not true. Germany literally had everyone involved in the war effort in some way, shape, or form. They literally had child soldiers who were raised from youth to become soldiers, and later in the war, they had untrained boys fight too. On top of that, no coup was possible because Germany banned all guns.
That aside, yes it's true that the first modern concept of socialism came from Marx & Engels, but socialism in and of itself just refers to when the government controls everything (or as commies like to put it, "when the people own the means of production"). HOW that socialism develops/comes about is what makes it either Marxist socialism or fascism, or general socialism unlabeled because they don't fall under either category.
The *end of the war type child soldiers scenes are towards the last of the end of the war, where much of the internal power was already below the threshold but so too was the country. In other words, it wasn't a total war footing, it was a last ditch effort to buy some time.
And I am happy to discuss and dispense redpills, but I should give you fair warning that as humbly as possible be saying, my memory and knowledge is extremely autisticly VSG, in classes I was that kid who corrected the errors in the textbook in class. Sometimes I have typos, etc, and am very happy to learn new things too. But generally speaking, the phrases like "I don't know what I'm talking about" or "that's not true" etc don't apply to my words. I'm a Quaker, and put a high importance on integrity and honesty and truth.
first modern concept of socialism came from Marx & Engels, but socialism in and of itself just refers to when the government controls everything...
Redpill: One key thing about Marxism, is it plays the old testament lawyer game of redefining words.. "it depends on what the definition of is, is." And many educated in Marxism, greatly enjoy this sport, of saying how eg non-marxist sports analogy: American soccer and FIFA football; or indoor and outdoor; are completely different / not the same things.
Another way, is to invert the issue at hand. To put it simply, how to logically attach socialism to say "the Enlightenment" line of thinking of things like:
where does government get it's power
how money works
how property or labour works
Etc.
Does it fit? or does it fit under the Marxism umbrella?
Fascism is marxism. Can go read/listen to the Big guy in charge of Italy in the 1930's who "invented" his flavor of marxism, called fascism.
They are like flavors of ice cream; but they are still ice cream. You can argue that vanilla is not chocolate is not strawberry; but it's all flavors of ice cream.
Each "leader" of marxism, takes it and adjusts it to their location (people, culture, business/industry, etc.) to make it so they can take power. Like Gov Gavin Newsom, wouldn't need to "nationalize" Big Tech in Chi-Comm Valley, because they're already controlled by the marxists; but he needs to take over PG&E.
Remember, like most ideologies; the branches/flavors often fight amongst themselves more than they fight "outsiders". Be this Islam; or Christianity for instance as good examples. How many times in history do Protestants v Catholics v Eastern Orthodox v Church of England fight each other over who's the "right" one to carry the title; vs fighting outsiders.
So you can say that Adolf and his pal in Italy were both vehemently anti-Communist; since like all marxist/Lefties they purge out others in their own wing of ideology to control power (there's only room for 1; just like all the others purge out to get power or after getting power... Lenin, Castro, Mao, etc.)
Historical Redpill also: Adolf was going to forceably colonize eastern Europe, with or without Marxism/Communism/Fascism; it was one of his "goals" for a long time, marxism let him achieve power without checks and balances as that is what marxism does.
Okay, I see what you're trying to say, but you're confusing Marxism with socialism. Marxism is a form of socialism; socialism is NOT a form of Marxism. Fascism is a form of socialism that is anti-Marxist; fascism is NOT a form of Marxism.
It would be like confusing a Ford and a car. A Ford is a TYPE of car, but a car is not a type of Ford. Make sense?
Your redpilling journey is underway ;)
Socialism-Fascism-Communism all sprouts from the same evil Marx(& Engels) ideology seed.
The main reality way they differ, is in how much their "leaders/proponents" can push for without losing control or/of political power.
I give this as an example in the spectrum of Marxism:
At the end, the German 6th Army was encircled and lost. The Eastern Front and WW2, (is going in reverse) badly now for Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad
Because you see, Germany never was on a "total war" effort/economy. If the German marxists in charge tried forcing even more Marxism, into more heavily to the communism spectrum, they would have lost political power domestically (aka coup, revolt, electoral loss, money/talent exodus, etc.)
So same with socialism, if the leaders in there locations push too hard for more Marxism than politically possible, they lose power.
That's not true. Germany literally had everyone involved in the war effort in some way, shape, or form. They literally had child soldiers who were raised from youth to become soldiers, and later in the war, they had untrained boys fight too. On top of that, no coup was possible because Germany banned all guns.
That aside, yes it's true that the first modern concept of socialism came from Marx & Engels, but socialism in and of itself just refers to when the government controls everything (or as commies like to put it, "when the people own the means of production"). HOW that socialism develops/comes about is what makes it either Marxist socialism or fascism, or general socialism unlabeled because they don't fall under either category.
Redpills sauce...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportpalast_speech
The *end of the war type child soldiers scenes are towards the last of the end of the war, where much of the internal power was already below the threshold but so too was the country. In other words, it wasn't a total war footing, it was a last ditch effort to buy some time.
And I am happy to discuss and dispense redpills, but I should give you fair warning that as humbly as possible be saying, my memory and knowledge is extremely autisticly VSG, in classes I was that kid who corrected the errors in the textbook in class. Sometimes I have typos, etc, and am very happy to learn new things too. But generally speaking, the phrases like "I don't know what I'm talking about" or "that's not true" etc don't apply to my words. I'm a Quaker, and put a high importance on integrity and honesty and truth.
Redpill: One key thing about Marxism, is it plays the old testament lawyer game of redefining words.. "it depends on what the definition of is, is." And many educated in Marxism, greatly enjoy this sport, of saying how eg non-marxist sports analogy: American soccer and FIFA football; or indoor and outdoor; are completely different / not the same things.
Another way, is to invert the issue at hand. To put it simply, how to logically attach socialism to say "the Enlightenment" line of thinking of things like:
where does government get it's power
how money works
how property or labour works
Etc.
Does it fit? or does it fit under the Marxism umbrella?