Was Hitler A Socialist? Of Course, He Was

[Philthy_Phil]

I use all my tremendous intelligence and smashing figure every day.

Lmao, strike 2.

 

[DeluxAuto]

You look like a man whether you want to admit it or not. There is nothing feminine about your look. That's why you suck dick for a living, because no respectable business would hire some creepy old dude who thinks he's a woman.

Is that TrailerSwitch's new alt?

 

[Bigtitsbitch1000x]

Thanks for the input, haters! I love this!

Here's a little intel for the unintelligent.

1. Ugly people trying to whore don't get any action except with repugnant troglodytes like you. I can work because I am beautiful.

You can't get a job because you look like this:

https://images.***********2vsFJ2VNebuc77739

2. I informed many people on this site that I had financial success as a male. Since coming out as trans I have two major long term entertainment projects, one with a signed contract. I don't whore to survive. I whore because I enjoy it.

3. Your comments constitute extreme hate speech, probably caused by a serious mental disorder. The USG says I am a woman. Litsters mainly flirt with me. The pic you deride was taken at a fashion show. 'Nuff said.

I am going to call Philly (the Silly) Capgun because you always go off half-cocked. A sex date with you would be interesting. I am certain you would shoot some weak cum all over yourself before you got your unlaundered pants off. I could then send you on your way. I wouldn't have to touch you.

I wouldn't go near you. As a ho I'm expected to go with anyone, and my former cock is now tiny. But you act like a castrated ladyboy high on meth. And I wouldn't want to have to carry an electron microscope to locate your lost microwanger.

I understand your pain. Kind of. To have to face dying as a virgin would be hideous. I do not masturbate when I read this site. With only a boyclit, it would require time for me to do so. I would have to lube up, sit on my buttplug, etc.

You are, literally, a dingleberry. Own it.

( . )( . )

 

[RandyRebecca]

We're both correct. But there was no will among the masses for the establishment of a single party dictatorship. Indeed, Lenin's first government included the Left Socisl Revolutionaries.

Left SRs were in the Soviet government until March 1918, after a fallout over the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that got Russia out of WW1.

There wasn't a "single party state" in Russia until March 1921, after years of civil war.

Anybody with serious training as a historian must agree that October was the product of a conspiracy by the RCP(b) acting through the Revolutionary Military Committee.

Leon Trotsky and the Revolutionary Military Committee were acting on behalf of the Bolshevik Party, which had a majority in most Soviets in the country by the time, particularly in working class areas in the big cities. Ask yourself why the Bolsheviks didn't take power in July 1917, when the most militant workers in Petrograd demanded that they did so. Lenin and Trotsky at that time were straining to calm down those demands. The reason is obvious. At that time, the Mensheviks and SRs still controlled the Soviets, even in Petrograd. If the Bolsheviks had taken power in Petrograd at that time, the Provisional Government would have raised forces from rural areas to crush the revolution.

I saw one historian claim that Lenin "bottled it" in July. This historian didn't have a clue as to what was really going on.

The latter did not hold mass consultative meetings of the workers and peasants to gain approval for the strategy and tactics pursued by Lenin and Trotsky.

That Revolutionary Military Committee were carrying out the will of the Soviets, and to transfer all political power in the country to the Soviets, which meant sweeping away the capitalist Provisional Government. The only reason the Provisional Government existed at all was because the Cadets (i.e. liberals) were trying to buy some time after the February Revolution had forced the abolition of the monarchy. And by "buy time", I mean waiting until they could go onto the offensive against the Soviets.

About 2 months before the October Revolution, there had been an attempted military coup by Kornilov against Kerensky's Provisional Government. This coup had the support of most of Russia's capitalist and aristocratic classes. The coup failed. Had it succeeded, Kornilov would have installed a military dictatorship and smashed all the Soviets in the country. Because it failed, it meant a continuation of Kerensky's Provisional Government, meaning continual crisis for his government, and the continued rise of the Bolsheviks inside the Soviets, preparing the way for the socialist revolutionary takeover.

It was a coup.

No, it wasn't. It was a revolution.

There are coups that take place in front of the world. The Pinochet coup is an example. It did not take place behind the backs of the masses; the right had undertaken a long campaign to undermine the Allende government.

But the actual taking of power was behind the backs of the masses. Allende was the democratically elected leader, and Pinochet in the military. Pinochet took it upon himself, serving his masters in the US, to install himself as dictator and use Chile as a laboratory experiment for neo-liberal economics without any democratic mandate.

I'm actually quite familiar with Hitler's rise to power. In 1930, Nationalist Hitler got 2% of the vote. He rebranded himself and his party as a "socialist" and got roughly 1/3 of the vote in 1932, second to Hindenburg and beating the Communist faction (Thallmann).

The Nazi vote massively rose because of the collapse of the Creditanstalt Bank in Vienna, Austria, in May 1931. For the European continent, this was another Wall Street crash effect. The rise in the Nazi vote was also a result of the two left parties in Germany, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Communist Party (KPD), having incorrect policies and failing to lead German society out of the capitalist crisis in the Weimar Republic. As the crisis intensified, the most despairing people in German society were seduced by the Nazi Party, and this is why the term "National Socialism" was developed, to draw in those ex-socialists and ex-communists who had been driven to utter despair, and to wield them into a mass base for the Nazis.

Trotsky noted the rising danger of fascism in Germany in a 1930 article. He pointed out that as the Social Democrats lost votes due to the deepening capitalist crisis, the Nazi vote was rising much more than the Communist vote.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Is that TrailerSwitch's new alt?

Thanks for the input, haters! I love this!

I was right!

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Thanks for the input, haters! I love this!

Here's a little intel for the unintelligent.

1. Ugly people trying to whore don't get any action except with repugnant troglodytes like you. I can work because I am beautiful.

You can't get a job because you look like this:

https://images.***********2vsFJ2VNebuc77739

2. I informed many people on this site that I had financial success as a male. Since coming out as trans I have two major long term entertainment projects, one with a signed contract. I don't whore to survive. I whore because I enjoy it.

3. Your comments constitute extreme hate speech, probably caused by a serious mental disorder. The USG says I am a woman. Litsters mainly flirt with me. The pic you deride was taken at a fashion show. 'Nuff said.

I am going to call Philly (the Silly) Capgun because you always go off half-cocked. A sex date with you would be interesting. I am certain you would shoot some weak cum all over yourself before you got your unlaundered pants off. I could then send you on your way. I wouldn't have to touch you.

I wouldn't go near you. As a ho I'm expected to go with anyone, and my former cock is now tiny. But you act like a castrated ladyboy high on meth. And I wouldn't want to have to carry an electron microscope to locate your lost microwanger.

I understand your pain. Kind of. To have to face dying as a virgin would be hideous. I do not masturbate when I read this site. With only a boyclit, it would require time for me to do so. I would have to lube up, sit on my buttplug, etc.

You are, literally, a dingleberry. Own it.

( . )( . )

lmao. Your doctor needs to adjust your meds, dude. You're a creepy, delusional old man playing dress-up. You're good for a laugh, not much else, hence your dick sucking. You look more like a WWF wrestler than a woman.

 

[Bigtitsbitch1000x]

lmao. Your doctor needs to adjust your meds, dude. You're a creepy, delusional old man playing dress-up. You're good for a laugh, not much else, hence your dick sucking. You look more like a WWF wrestler than a woman.

I was assaulted on the street today while minding my own business. I just filed a police report on the incident. I defended myself and did not suffer serious injury.

I consider you and all purveyors of transphobic propaganda to share responsibility for episodes like this.

The First Amendment may protect you. But it is very clear from the comments that accrue whenever you defecate here that you are greatly resented on this site.

You don't act like an American.

1. You have no knowledge of my medical condition.

2. You have no standing to declare anybody delusional. Presenting yourself as possessing psychiatric competency is a crime.

We live in a society where yelling about meds and calling people delusional has replaced dialogue.

I would stipulate that I am untroubled by descriptions of me as retaining male aspects in my appearance, and even by the claim that I look like a man. The WWE part is delish!

I am a transwoman. I don't try to fool anybody. I want America to accept us on those terms. Yes, transwomen were "born" men. Some of us have male facial characteristics. But we have rights.

I was born without a uterus.
You were born without a brain or a heart.

Do you think the attached image shows someone born a man?

( . )( . )

 

[Bigtitsbitch1000x]

Where were you on January 6, 2021?

 

[Bigtitsbitch1000x]

Left SRs were in the Soviet government until March 1918, after a fallout over the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that got Russia out of WW1.

There wasn't a "single party state" in Russia until March 1921, after years of civil war.


Leon Trotsky and the Revolutionary Military Committee were acting on behalf of the Bolshevik Party, which had a majority in most Soviets in the country by the time, particularly in working class areas in the big cities. Ask yourself why the Bolsheviks didn't take power in July 1917, when the most militant workers in Petrograd demanded that they did so. Lenin and Trotsky at that time were straining to calm down those demands. The reason is obvious. At that time, the Mensheviks and SRs still controlled the Soviets, even in Petrograd. If the Bolsheviks had taken power in Petrograd at that time, the Provisional Government would have raised forces from rural areas to crush the revolution.

I saw one historian claim that Lenin "bottled it" in July. This historian didn't have a clue as to what was really going on.


That Revolutionary Military Committee were carrying out the will of the Soviets, and to transfer all political power in the country to the Soviets, which meant sweeping away the capitalist Provisional Government. The only reason the Provisional Government existed at all was because the Cadets (i.e. liberals) were trying to buy some time after the February Revolution had forced the abolition of the monarchy. And by "buy time", I mean waiting until they could go onto the offensive against the Soviets.

About 2 months before the October Revolution, there had been an attempted military coup by Kornilov against Kerensky's Provisional Government. This coup had the support of most of Russia's capitalist and aristocratic classes. The coup failed. Had it succeeded, Kornilov would have installed a military dictatorship and smashed all the Soviets in the country. Because it failed, it meant a continuation of Kerensky's Provisional Government, meaning continual crisis for his government, and the continued rise of the Bolsheviks inside the Soviets, preparing the way for the socialist revolutionary takeover.


No, it wasn't. It was a revolution.


But the actual taking of power was behind the backs of the masses. Allende was the democratically elected leader, and Pinochet in the military. Pinochet took it upon himself, serving his masters in the US, to install himself as dictator and use Chile as a laboratory experiment for neo-liberal economics without any democratic mandate.


The Nazi vote massively rose because of the collapse of the Creditanstalt Bank in Vienna, Austria, in May 1931. For the European continent, this was another Wall Street crash effect. The rise in the Nazi vote was also a result of the two left parties in Germany, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Communist Party (KPD), having incorrect policies and failing to lead German society out of the capitalist crisis in the Weimar Republic. As the crisis intensified, the most despairing people in German society were seduced by the Nazi Party, and this is why the term "National Socialism" was developed, to draw in those ex-socialists and ex-communists who had been driven to utter despair, and to wield them into a mass base for the Nazis.

Trotsky noted the rising danger of fascism in Germany in a 1930 article. He pointed out that as the Social Democrats lost votes due to the deepening capitalist crisis, the Nazi vote was rising much more than the Communist vote.

Rebuttal Part 1

First, I am pleased to see you intervening in this discussion. You at least are acquainted with the essential facts of the history debated here.

Nevertheless, your interpretation of these events represents nothing more than an ideological catechism, rather than historical analysis. Historians emphasize dissonance and nuances, and do not attempt a single, seamless account. The latter effort reflects a will to overlook crucial issues dismaying ton political sectarians.

On the issue of "coup," all Bolshevik sources refer to October as "the seizure of power."

Toward the Seizure of Power Part One

""Toward the Seizure of Power V1"" is a political treatise written by the Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin." The book is a collection of Lenin's speeches and writings from 1917, ​

To describe a "seizure of power" as other than a coup is on the same level as Bill Clinton saying he did not "have sex" with Monica Lewinsky. But Clinton did that on the advice of attorneys.

To say "it was a revolution," not a coup, is the same as saying Clinton's act was "sex" but not a blowjob.

Further on you refer to a "socialist revolutionary takeover." That's a coup, honey.

Your attempted dialectic is mere collegiate posturing, a stew of hurried improvisations.

You have fabricated the claim, unknown to the historians, that the Bolshevik coup represented the will of the masses. That is absurd. The workers and peasants of Russia never never expressed a demand for a single-party dictatorship. Nor did the Revolutionary Military Committee have anything to do with the will of the Soviets.

Your treatment of Kerensky vs. Kornilov is ignorant bluffing. Every Communist in the world was educated in the simple need to defend Kerensky against Kornilov.

You do not wish to defend liberal democracy against military dictatorship. You want to stand aside from that imperative and to claim that the one is no better than the other. This reflects the same political impotence visible in contemporary American leftism treating Biden as worse than Trump.
Your scenario in which the Ka-Dets were "buying time" to attack the Soviets is pure revisionist speculation. You lack any understanding of the meaning of a revolution. The Ka-Det party was not a competitor for power after February. It represented the prewar Russian liberal tradition.

February did not "force the abolition of the monarchy." The Tsar abdicated after the outbreak of violent protests that could not be suppressed. It's not the same. Political language should clarify, not confuse. It should be precise, not vague. It should describe reality as it is, not replace it with a distorted vision based on a need for reassurance about ideological yearnings.

In July the masses fought for a government of Soviets, not of parties.

Continued...

 

[Bigtitsbitch1000x]

Rebuttal Part 1

First, I am pleased to see you intervening in this discussion. You at least are acquainted with the essential facts of the history debated here.

Nevertheless, your interpretation of these events represents nothing more than an ideological catechism, rather than historical analysis. Historians emphasize dissonance and nuances, and do not attempt a single, seamless account. The latter effort reflects a will to overlook crucial issues dismaying ton political sectarians.

On the issue of "coup," all Bolshevik sources refer to October as "the seizure of power."

Toward the Seizure of Power Part One

""Toward the Seizure of Power V1"" is a political treatise written by the Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin." The book is a collection of Lenin's speeches and writings from 1917,​

To describe a "seizure of power" as other than a coup is on the same level as Bill Clinton saying he did not "have sex" with Monica Lewinsky. But Clinton did that on the advice of attorneys.

To say "it was a revolution," not a coup, is the same as saying Clinton's act was "sex" but not a blowjob.

Further on you refer to a "socialist revolutionary takeover." That's a coup, honey.

Your attempted dialectic is mere collegiate posturing, a stew of hurried improvisations.

You have fabricated the claim, unknown to the historians, that the Bolshevik coup represented the will of the masses. That is absurd. The workers and peasants of Russia never never expressed a demand for a single-party dictatorship. Nor did the Revolutionary Military Committee have anything to do with the will of the Soviets.

Your treatment of Kerensky vs. Kornilov is ignorant bluffing. Every Communist in the world was educated in the simple need to defend Kerensky against Kornilov.

You do not wish to defend liberal democracy against military dictatorship. You want to stand aside from that imperative and to claim that the one is no better than the other. This reflects the same political impotence visible in contemporary American leftism treating Biden as worse than Trump.
Your scenario in which the Ka-Dets were "buying time" to attack the Soviets is pure revisionist speculation. You lack any understanding of the meaning of a revolution. The Ka-Det party was not a competitor for power after February. It represented the prewar Russian liberal tradition.

February did not "force the abolition of the monarchy." The Tsar abdicated after the outbreak of violent protests that could not be suppressed. It's not the same. Political language should clarify, not confuse. It should be precise, not vague. It should describe reality as it is, not replace it with a distorted vision based on a need for reassurance about ideological yearnings.

In July the masses fought for a government of Soviets, not of parties.

Continued...

Rebuttal Part Two

Your digression on Pinochet is ignorant. Pinochet was motivated by a need to suppress the left, not by so-called neo-liberalism. Neither of the post-Pinochet socialist presidents, Lagos or Bachelet, reversed or abolished Pinochet's economic policies.

Your latest contribution on Nazism is an embarrassing botch.

Do I really have to repeat that National Socialism originated in the early 1920s, not in response to the Great Depression? It was formulated to confront the Social Democrats who were accused of stabbing Germany in the back in 1918, not to wean away disgruntled leftists.

The Nazis never sought to recruit Social Democrats. By contrast, they openly praised Communists for their fascistic nihilism and welcomed them in their ranks. Leftist workers never formed the mass base of the Nazi party, which was solidly petty-bourgeois.

The failure of the Credit Anstalt drove a section of the wavering petty-bourgeoisie toward the Nazis. But much more important for the increase of the Nazi vote was that only the German press reported in detail on the horrific Russian famine of 1930-33, which was caused deliberately by Stalin's forced collectivization. Revulsion at this news pushed more of the German peasants into the arms of the Nazis.

Finally, it is indicative of your shallowness in dealing with these matters that you have ignored the two events that most occupy the attention of historians of Nazi-Soviet relations:

1. From 1930 to 1934 the German Communists actively supported the Nazi march to power. The Communist International only changed its line of accommodation to the Nazis after the attempted overthrow of the French government on February 6, 1934 by an alliance of fascists and Communists. William L. Shirer, a witness to those events, wrote "the Communists fought on the same side of the barricades... as the fascists. I do not like that."

Do you like that? Which side are you on?

2. You quoted Trotsky, as a figleaf to cover your ignorant improvisations, and as if he had provided no more than a hint of the fascist danger, from one of his 1930 articles. You did this to support your ridiculous explanation of things that is no explanation at all.

IRL, Trotsky's greatest journalistic effort outside Russia is this: The Struggle against Fascism in Germany (Merit S).

In it, Trotsky analyzes thoroughly the criminal collaboration of your hero Thälmann's party with that of Göbbels. The Thälmann terror cadres followed the dictum: "Hitler must come to power first, then the requirements for a revolutionary crisis [will] arrive more quickly.” This is the same guff peddled by American leftwats who say "the worse the better."

3. There's a minor issue you overlooked: the Stalin-Hitler Pact of 1939. Originally this thread dealt with whether Fascism had grown out of socialism. You avoided confronting that issue and deflected by generating guff on the failures of the German left.

Back to the books, honey. Trotsky. Reich. Heiden. The basics. Accept no substitutes.

( . )( . )

 

[Bigtitsbitch1000x]

But recall that Mussolini was a Socialist and did edit the Italian Socialist magazine, Avanti.

Correct. But Avanti! was the main daily of the Eyetal Socialist movement.

( . )( . )

 

[Bigtitsbitch1000x]

lmao. Your doctor needs to adjust your meds, dude. You're a creepy, delusional old man playing dress-up. You're good for a laugh, not much else, hence your dick sucking. You look more like a WWF wrestler than a woman.

I don't understand why people would go on a sex website with a transgender section and attack other people for sucking dick and being trans.

I also don't understand why such a site would tolerate such gross slurs.

I do understand why these obsessed dungbeetles act this way.. they are lifelong virgins and hate to see other people having fun.

( , )( , )

 

[Bray123]

Socialism in 1930's Germany and Italy is as relevant to 2024 as the 1930's American Republican party.

 

[Bigtitsbitch1000x]

I couldn't agree more. While the contradictions of political ideology in state crises are worthy of comparison, i.e. how strong states become weak states, socialism failed. Period.

Even the parallel of Putin with Stalin is fraught. Stalin wanted to defend the security of his empire. If by ruthless means. In that scenario, America was a threat worthy of targeting for espionage, sabotage, and terrorism.

But Putin sees himself as a new Chinggis Khan, laying waste to the West. Ukraine is a rehearsal for this.

Lenin and Trotsky would have approved this message.

( . )( . )

 

[Philthy_Phil]

I don't understand why people would go on a sex website with a transgender section and attack other people for sucking dick and being trans.

I also don't understand why such a site would tolerate such gross slurs.

I do understand why these obsessed dungbeetles act this way.. they are lifelong virgins and hate to see other people having fun.

( , )( , )

You attacked me first, dude. There's obviously a lot in life you don't understand, like what a woman is and what is beauty. Get your doctor to up your meds, dipshit.

 

[Bigtitsbitch1000x]

Once again to Dickless Fool, aka Philthy Phil:

Your opinion is protected by U.S. law.

So is my gender personality.

I will service any cock anywhere anytime. I would blow you.

But my craft is not limited to sucking dicks, delightful as that invariably is. I spend time with men; nights, days, weeks.

Until the QBar Massacre yelling that i am a man was something i expected from the criminal element. I did not expect it on Literotica. Either from you or from Saint Ann.

Years ago Literotica inspired me to boldness in coming out.

But I should have understood that finally this medium serves lonely old men jerking off

You attacked me first, dude. There's obviously a lot in life you don't understand, like what a woman is and what is beauty. Get your doctor to up your meds, dipshit.

No. You mouthed off about a subject of which you know nothing and I corrected you, at which point you turned into a trembling little fairy who had to indulge in a snowflake meltdown. Poor man.

Still, what specific meds would you recommend for me? Being you're a pharmacist and all. I respect that. You can't have meant a slur employed about 500 million times daily by the denizens of cheap bars, i.e. the lumpen proletariat.

Honey, I can rock your world. I can make you forget any trepidation you ever felt about me and my gender. My boobies are real. Squeeze them. As so many men have before you. LIPS, TITS, HIPS.

All the real men on Lit want to fuck me. We all know that

Welcome to the Garden of Earthly Delights!

( . )( . )

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Your opinion is protected by U.S. law.

Umm no it's not.

 

[Bigtitsbitch1000x]

Please explain. I have a very extensive background in media, including the legal side. It is my understanding that saying I look like a man is protected opinion.
Plus I am admittedly a sex worker so MIGHT be seen to have forfeited any claim of damage to reputation. I am untroubled by these childish insults. I have dealt with much more.

( . )( . )

P.S. Attached is a still from a porn video in rerelease. 10% photoshopped. Strangely, I thought this was what interested Lit, not the nose picking of lifelong virgins.

 

[Rightguide]

You are correct.
The Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe ran the POW camps.
A lifetime of watching Hogan's Heroes has finally paid dividends.

My dad and grandfather were aviators they had a business partner who was in the Army Air Corps in WWII. He was shot down over the Adriatic Sea while flying a bombing mission in a B-24. He was captured and held by the Luftwaffe in a POW camp in Italy until the end of the war.

 

[P0peye]

What difference does it make what economic theories he endorsed? He was a horrible person!

 

[PaxNurgle]

My dad and grandfather were aviators they had a business partner who was in the Army Air Corps in WWII. He was shot down over the Adriatic Sea while flying a bombing mission in a B-24. He was captured and held by the Luftwaffe in a POW camp in Italy until the end of the war.

Your dad and Grandfather would be ashamed of you, betraying everything they fought and suffered for.

Unless you are lying trying to gain sympathy- or they fought for the Russian military, who likewise fought Germany in WWII.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Once again to Dickless Fool, aka Philthy Phil:

Your opinion is protected by U.S. law.

So is my gender personality.

I will service any cock anywhere anytime. I would blow you.

But my craft is not limited to sucking dicks, delightful as that invariably is. I spend time with men; nights, days, weeks.

Until the QBar Massacre yelling that i am a man was something i expected from the criminal element. I did not expect it on Literotica. Either from you or from Saint Ann.

Years ago Literotica inspired me to boldness in coming out.

But I should have understood that finally this medium serves lonely old men jerking off

No. You mouthed off about a subject of which you know nothing and I corrected you, at which point you turned into a trembling little fairy who had to indulge in a snowflake meltdown. Poor man.

Still, what specific meds would you recommend for me? Being you're a pharmacist and all. I respect that. You can't have meant a slur employed about 500 million times daily by the denizens of cheap bars, i.e. the lumpen proletariat.

Honey, I can rock your world. I can make you forget any trepidation you ever felt about me and my gender. My boobies are real. Squeeze them. As so many men have before you. LIPS, TITS, HIPS.

All the real men on Lit want to fuck me. We all know that

Welcome to the Garden of Earthly Delights!

( . )( . )

Wrong as usual. You attacked me first and you look like a man. Nobody would mistake you for a woman. NOBODY.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Socialism in 1930's Germany and Italy is as relevant to 2024 as the 1930's American Republican party.

Respectfully disagree.
The machinations of political minorities to subvert the law and institute "minority rule' in 1930 Germany and 2020 America are eerily similar.

Also the Republican party in 1930 America made strides towards their own fascist takeover America but were stopped by one right-wing USMC General, Smedley Butler.

Butler may have been the last of his kind: A Republican who put Country before Party.

 

[RandyRebecca]

February did not "force the abolition of the monarchy." The Tsar abdicated after the outbreak of violent protests that could not be suppressed. It's not the same.

I'm talking about afterwards. During the February Revolution, Tsar Nicholas II abdicated from the throne in favor of his son Mikhail. The Soviets, at that time controlled by Mensheviks and SRs, basically had power in their hands, but the Menshevik and SR leaders offered power to the Cadets (i.e. liberals). The liberals in turn offered power to the monarchy! Because of the militancy on the streets against these proceedings, it forced the abolition of the monarchy, instead of Mikhail becoming the Tsar. That's why the capitalist Provisional Government then came into being, initially headed by Prince Georgy Lvov, as the liberals were forced to buy time, to wait until they could go onto the offensive against the Soviets.

In July the masses fought for a government of Soviets, not of parties.

The most advanced sections of the Petrograd workers wanted the Bolsheviks to transfer all political power to the Soviets in July 1917. Only they had gone over to the Bolsheviks at that time in terms of wanting socialist revolution. The masses elsewhere still had illusions in the reformist leaders of the Mensheviks and SRs at that time.

Your latest contribution on Nazism is an embarrassing botch.

Do I really have to repeat that National Socialism originated in the early 1920s, not in response to the Great Depression? It was formulated to confront the Social Democrats who were accused of stabbing Germany in the back in 1918, not to wean away disgruntled leftists.

I told you before. If you want to see what happened to the Nazi "left", look up Otto Strasser, Strasserism, Beefsteak Nazis and the Night of the Long Knives.

When the Nazis spoke of the "November criminals" who "stabbed Germany in the back" at the end of WW1, they were talking about the German revolutionaries of November 1918 that ended WW1, most obviously the Kiel uprising. The outbreak of this revolution caused the Kaiser to flee Germany for the Netherlands. Liberal and conservative historians like to claim that the "November criminals" were a myth. No, they weren't, Hitler was talking about the revolutionaries. Naturally, the far right saw the revolutionaries as criminals who had betrayed Germany.

The Nazis never sought to recruit Social Democrats. By contrast, they openly praised Communists for their fascistic nihilism and welcomed them in their ranks. Leftist workers never formed the mass base of the Nazi party, which was solidly petty-bourgeois.

The Nazis sought to draw in all despairing elements in German society, including ex-social democrats.

There were plenty of Beefsteak Nazis in the SA (i.e. Brown Shirt Storm Troopers). Beefsteak was a term used because it means brown on the outside and red on the inside, i.e. red being the color of socialism and communism. The Treaty of Versailles from 1919 limited the German Army to 100,000 troops, while the SA's numbers up to its June 1934 suppression was numbered in the millions. The Beefsteak Nazis were demanding a "second revolution" after January 1933 to establish "national socialism". Instead, Hitler and Himmler purged them during the Night of the Long Knives in June 1934. The Nazi "left" was utterly annihilated, smashed to bits, after they had done the dirty work of smashing the German labor movement and using force on the streets.

The Nazis saw Communism and the Soviet Union as their ultimate enemies. When the Nazis got into power, they went for the communists first, then trade unionists, then social democrats.

Socialism in 1930's Germany and Italy is as relevant to 2024 as the 1930's American Republican party.

If we don't understand history, how can we understand how we have arrived at the present day situation?

 

[RandyRebecca]

Respectfully disagree.
The machinations of political minorities to subvert the law and institute "minority rule' in 1930 Germany and 2020 America are eerily similar.

Also the Republican party in 1930 America made strides towards their own fascist takeover America but were stopped by one right-wing USMC General, Smedley Butler.

Butler may have been the last of his kind: A Republican who put Country before Party.

I think modern day America is more similar to the Roman Republic around 50 or 49 BC (before Julius Caesar's dictatorship), or perhaps the Roman Empire of the 2nd or 3rd century AD as the corruption eats away at the increasingly zombiefied superpower.