How we know Hitler was right wing.

[jgarden]

Hitler perceived Bolshevism as a tool of "worldwide Jewry" and Germany's greatest threat.

He was opposed to "Marxist Socialism" and systematically alligned himself with those right-wing regimes of Italy {Musolinni), Spain (Franco) and Japan.

Hitler never attempted to nationalize private property and redistribute it among the workers, create communes or erase class distinctions - all characteristics associated with a communist state.

 

[jgarden]

How we know Hitler was right wing.

"The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."
(Adolf Hitler)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2183517

 

[buckeye45_73]

Prior coming to this board, I had never heard anyone suggest Hitler was anything but right wing. This may be something to do with living in Europe where the awareness of fascism is so very high because it occured here, or maybe it's something our education system focuses on. Or maybe coincidence.

Either way, recently I've noticed two posters recently insist Hitler was left wing....and even liberal.

Here is SSDD:

Hitler's government was called right wing by communists and socialists of the time, but his governemnt was still socialist. It consisted of a large and powerful central authority which is, by definition, not a conservative, or classically lberal government

Right wing and left wing are two wings of the same house and the house is socialism.

In cases like this, I am not sure facts have a great deal of impact, but maybe it is interesting to discuss some of the features of Fascism anyway.

Let's start with some quotes from Hitler:

"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism."

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere."

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction."

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews."

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."

Myth: Hitler was a leftist

First of all political groupings depend on your point of view. Mine is that the more centralized you get....the more socialist you get, and the NAZI were socialist even in their name. Marxist/communists and NAzis/facists were very similar, the only real difference was the illusion of private property in facism....which could and was taken away if the government decided it needed to...hence it's basically the same as communism. .....the war between them wasnt ideological as much as power politics. Hitler hammered the commies, because he wanted to be the guy in charge, but in reallity he signed an agreement with Stalin. And the Nazis were full of commies or ex commies.

The right is less centralized, so it's foundation would be anarchy....
The difference is right wingers know you need government, but we want it as small and weak as we can without it being too weak. We think anarchy leads to chaos, which is why those two are synonyms.

Now comming full circle, anarchy is the negative way of stating utopian socialism, because they are the same thing, one is a positive spin, the other negative or as I call it realist. You cant achieve a classless, stateless world, so why go down that road? Because if you fall short, you are in facism/communism.....the worst of the options. And if you reach it, then you have anarchy, a lawless, chaotic world.

Now growing up in Europe, you'll know the historical root of the terms right winger and left winger are based on the side of the king. left wing was anti-monarchy and right-wing was pro monarchy. I see monarchy again as nothing more than a protype verison of facism/communism. The king ruled and that was it, nothing else counted....if you rebelled you were killed, end of story.

Now your point of right-left being socialist is correct...because the left disguised itself as classical liberals, but in reality the left were truley the pre marxist commies of the jacobians in revolutionary france. So what happend to the right? Well they were pro monarchy, aka socialist, but the monarchies fell and somone had to grab the mantle of the classical liberals and so it's now on the right. And American politics is somewhat different from European, but it kinda works that way.

The reason you havent heard that before is it is not taught by the left, who controls education as they want a facist-communist axis, but as before, they're two sides of the same coin.

 

[Saigon]

Buckeye -

First of all political groupings depend on your point of view.

I think you've really nailed the issue here.

Quite a few posters prefer to ignore what dictionaries and historians tell us, and simply define terms according to their own political views. In other words, people decide for themselves what separates a right wing government from a left wing one, what constitutes fascism and so forth.

This isn't a realistic way of viewing politics, and it unfortunately means that those posters are never going to really get to grips with the political spectrum, why it exists or how it functions.

In reality there are fairly clear, precise and universally agreed upon definitions of all political terms, because it is impossible to debate political theory without universally understood terms.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Buckeye -

First of all political groupings depend on your point of view.

I think you've really nailed the issue here.

Quite a few posters prefer to ignore what dictionaries and historians tell us, and simply define terms according to their own political views. In other words, people decide for themselves what separates a right wing government from a left wing one, what constitutes fascism and so forth.

This isn't a realistic way of viewing politics, and it unfortunately means that those posters are never going to really get to grips with the political spectrum, why it exists or how it functions.

In reality there are fairly clear, precise and universally agreed upon definitions of all political terms, because it is impossible to debate political theory without universally understood terms.

Well Saigon, it's not that hard.....I just told you how it really is. Some people think it's based on xenophobia, that the nazis had it and the republicans have it, therefore republicans equal nazis, neither of which is true. the best way to measure it is to go by government power, which is what I do, and I showed you where it came from and how it really works.

Hitler and Stalin, were they different? Not really.

 

[Saigon]

Buckeye -

Establishing whether a political party or ideology is left wing or right wing has nothing whatsoever to do with xenophobia, any more than it does large vs small government, which has been perhaps the most common trap people seem to have fallen into on this thread. It's an understandable mistake, but on the other hand view all history from the perspective of 2013 USA is not particularly useful. Historical events must be understood within the context in which they occured. The benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing, but can also skew our interpretation of events.

Right and left wing ideologies are determined by:

- attitudes towards capital, and the role of capital in society (the right wing promotes capital and capitalism, the left wing seeks to reduce or remove the impact of capital)

- attitudes towards class (the right wing seeks to enrich the upper classes and derive support from them, wheras the left focuses on workers or lower classes)

and to a slightly lesser extent

- attitudes towards race, ethnicity, nationalism and community (the right wing emphasising patriotism, loyalty to the state and the rights of the majority racial group, the left promoting ethnic equality, civil rights etc).

 

[buckeye45_73]

Buckeye -

Establishing whether a political party or ideology is left wing or right wing has nothing whatsoever to do with xenophobia, any more than it does large vs small government, which has been perhaps the most common trap people seem to have fallen into on this thread. It's an understandable mistake, but on the other hand view all history from the perspective of 2013 USA is not particularly useful. Historical events must be understood within the context in which they occured. The benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing, but can also skew our interpretation of events.

Right and left wing ideologies are determined by:

- attitudes towards capital, and the role of capital in society (the right wing promotes capital and capitalism, the left wing seeks to reduce or remove the impact of capital)

- attitudes towards class (the right wing seeks to enrich the upper classes and derive support from them, wheras the left focuses on workers or lower classes)

and to a slightly lesser extent

- attitudes towards race, ethnicity, nationalism and community (the right wing emphasising patriotism, loyalty to the state and the rights of the majority racial group, the left promoting ethnic equality, civil rights etc).

Saigon, again, they all are used as measuring the politics, you can get a spectrum on any issue.
But to me government power is the main issue. When I think right wing, I think of political ideology, not economic.
Ok the right promotes capitalism and the left socialism, and class, the right doesnt give a shit about class and neither does the left, those are more european ways of looking at things. But class, capitalism and governement power align all the same way. So if you look at class or capitalism, and I look at government power...then we basically look at it the same exact way.

See you're using the definitions, but definitions can change, but more importantly, I look at the practical results, not from some bs theory.


And Facism, was.....drumroll...socialism, in name AND practice......hitler wanted a company to make tanks, guess what, they made tanks........if they refused they were shot and the state just gained a new company. Hence the term illusion. yes Hitler allowed Mr VW to run VW, but he did what Hitler said, so in practice, it wasnt any different that communism. Again Hitler or Stalin....same person.

PS I love this arguement....I do it with liberals all the time. They see giant difference between NAzis and Bolsheviks, and I ask them what differneces? All they have is private property, and well I've already said it.

But here is Websters definition of Facism.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

1ften capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Autocratic, again government power..and it has the race element, which you ignored...and I do too, but I put it out there because people do have a spectrum based on that, ,even though most of their suppositions are wrong.

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality &#8212; J. W. Aldridge>

autocratic and dictatorial, I said I use that as a definition, so even the official definition proves me right

Definition of COMMUNISM

1
a: a theory advocating elimination of private property

b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

a and b :Here is your economic theory, interesting they didnt mention any for facism? My theory is because facism was not really economic at all....they were commies masquerading as capitalists.


2
capitalized

a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

d: communist systems collectively

a is more of a historical view than an actual definition
b is my connection, because I use a view based on government power....so my way is valid in both definitions and they link.
c is utopian socialism...I discussed that earlier....us righties call it anarchy
d a general term with no real definition



So my point is government power is the major defining characteristic

 

[Saigon]

Buckeye -

Since we're posting dictionary definitions....

noun
[mass noun]

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices: this is yet another example of health fascism in action

Definition of fascism in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

Most dictionary definitions will tell you the same thing, for the reasons I explained earlier.

If you're a smart person, you might start to wonder why what you believe is NOT what dictionaries confirm is fact.

btw. It would be useful for you to really look at the difference between 'tyranny' or 'dictatorship' and 'fascist' - that seems to be where you are going wrong on this. A dictatorship can be left wing or right wing, and both Hitler and Stalin were dictators, but fascism CAN NOT be left wing because of the policies on class and capital. Private ownership is an aspect of both, but it is not the key issue.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Buckeye -

Since we're posting dictionary definitions....

noun
[mass noun]

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices: this is yet another example of health fascism in action

Definition of fascism in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

Most dictionary definitions will tell you the same thing, for the reasons I explained earlier.

If you're a smart person, you might start to wonder why what you believe is NOT what dictionaries confirm is fact.

btw. It would be useful for you to really look at the difference between 'tyranny' or 'dictatorship' and 'fascist' - that seems to be where you are going wrong on this. A dictatorship can be left wing or right wing, and both Hitler and Stalin were dictators, but fascism CAN NOT be left wing because of the policies on class and capital. Private ownership is an aspect of both, but it is not the key issue.

SAigon, dont be a dumbass, again what is the differnce between Hitler and STalin, nothing, I've explained it and you want to use your libtard college definitions.

How is the right wing authoritarian IF they want smaller and weaker government?

And didnt you say that was not how you define it? Are you saying it is now? Did you learn something?

Fact is europe is different from us and in the US and in Britain the right wing wants smaller government. We're the ones that want our own weapons because we dont like or trust ANY government.

So both of our sources say similar things.....here is one on communism

The most familiar form of communism is that established by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution of 1917, and it has generally been understood in terms of the system practised by the former Soviet Union and its allies in eastern Europe, in China since 1949, and in some developing countries such as Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea. In this form of communism it was held that the state would wither away after the overthrow of the capitalist system. In practice, however, the state grew to control all aspects of communist society. Communism in eastern Europe collapsed in the late 1980s and early 1990s against a background of failure to meet people&#8217;s economic expectations, a shift to more democracy in political life, and increasing nationalism such as that which led to the break-up of the Soviet Union

You're talking intellectual theory, I'm talking practice.....

So again, you can take your snobby intellectual liberal bs and go **** yourself with it. I explained my point of view, you are using some bs crap conjured up by commies themselves. There is NO difference in PRACTICE between communism and facism.......

 

[Saigon]

Buckeye -

You have explained YOUR OPINION, which is, unfortunately, contradicted by virtually all dictionaries, encyclopedias and history books.

There are very clear reasons for this, which I explained a couple of times earlier, i.e. policies on capital, on class and social policy.

Small government is not relevent here, as it is only associated with right wing government in modern America - it is NOT a feature of right wong governments in other countries or in other eras. It was NOT a feature of right wing governments in Europe in the 1930's and 1940's.


This is probably a good time to remind you that this is what I work with on a daily basis, so have a fairly strong understanding of both terminology and practice. It's hard to work in countries like Belarus and Poland without it.

 

[bripat9643]

Buckeye -

Establishing whether a political party or ideology is left wing or right wing has nothing whatsoever to do with xenophobia, any more than it does large vs small government, which has been perhaps the most common trap people seem to have fallen into on this thread. It's an understandable mistake, but on the other hand view all history from the perspective of 2013 USA is not particularly useful. Historical events must be understood within the context in which they occured. The benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing, but can also skew our interpretation of events.

Right and left wing ideologies are determined by:

- attitudes towards capital, and the role of capital in society (the right wing promotes capital and capitalism, the left wing seeks to reduce or remove the impact of capital)

That's deliberate obfuscation. The determination is your attitude towards capitalism, not capital. I can't imagine anyone who has a negative attitude towards capital. a cat scanner is capital. Are you saying left-wingers are hostile to medical equipment? They do only if they are morons.

- attitudes towards class (the right wing seeks to enrich the upper classes and derive support from them, wheras the left focuses on workers or lower classes)

More bullshit. Right-wingers don't even recognize the validity of the concept of "class." However, it's purely a creation of left-wing propaganda. Before 1800 "class" was purely a legal distinction. since then, leftists have tried to claim the income differences amount to the same thing, but that's pure propaganda.

and to a slightly lesser extent

- attitudes towards race, ethnicity, nationalism and community (the right wing emphasising patriotism, loyalty to the state and the rights of the majority racial group, the left promoting ethnic equality, civil rights etc).

More horseshit. Left-wingers have come down on both sides of every one of those issues. The left likes to pretend that racism is purely an afflictionn of the right. The reality is that feeling smug is purely an affliction of the left.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

Capital refers to money, and by extension to business.

Right wing ideologies such as fascism promote the role of capital, investment and private business.

Left wing ideologies such as communism seek to limit or even remove the role of capital entirely.

Before 1800 "class" was purely a legal distinction

I think if you compare the lifestyle of Queen Victoria and the British aristoracy with that of the street urchins and itinerant farmers, you will find they most definitely belonged to different classes.

This is actually the reason for both the French and Russian revolutions, of course.

Left-wingers have come down on both sides of every one of those issues.

Not really, no. Of course there might be isolated examples of left wing societies promoting racism or racial segregation, but by and large it is a right wing strategy - as we have seen in Apartheid South Africa, in Hitler's Germany, in Antonescu's Romania and in Rios Montte's Guatemala.

This in no way means that conservatism is inherently racist, because conservatism is a moderate ideology.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Buckeye -

You have explained YOUR OPINION, which is, unfortunately, contradicted by virtually all dictionaries, encyclopedias and history books.

There are very clear reasons for this, which I explained a couple of times earlier, i.e. policies on capital, on class and social policy.

Small government is not relevent here, as it is only associated with right wing government in modern America - it is NOT a feature of right wong governments in other countries or in other eras. It was NOT a feature of right wing governments in Europe in the 1930's and 1940's.


This is probably a good time to remind you that this is what I work with on a daily basis, so have a fairly strong understanding of both terminology and practice. It's hard to work in countries like Belarus and Poland without it.

Saigon again, what is the difference, I saw this list and thought of you

1. Fascism is an expression of middle-class discontent.
2. Marxism and other forms of Socialism are expressions of lower-class and working-class discontent.

Class, who cares what class it started in? Again we're looking at real world implementation of them. This discussion is for pseudo intellecuals that leads to nothing. It might explain WHY they came to power, but it has little to do with HOW they operated.


3. Hitler was brought to power by Fascism.
4. The Russian Revolution was Marxist.
how are these different?


5. Fascism is nationalist: The Nazis were vehemently opposed to internationalism. They quit the League of Nations.
6. Marxism and Socialism are internationalist.
Facism wasnt internationalist? Uh..........do the late 1930s ring a bell????


7. Fascists believed that God was on their side. Wrong they were atheists as well
Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The adult Adolf Hitler was an atheist,[1][2] who saw Christianity as a religion fit for slaves
8. Marxism is atheist.

Both atheist


9. Fascism is militaristic.
Communism wasnt?

10. Fascism is racist.
And communism wasnt?
Hitler commended Stalin for seeking to purify the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of Jewish influences

11. Fascism is homophobic. Before his onslaught on Jews, Hitler exterminated the gays.
Communism and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Funny how he doesnt mention that it was illegal in communist countries. The article is pro gay but still has to admit that.


12. Fascism is for traditional family values (Only three roles for women: Kinder, Kuche und Kirche). LOL so now Ozzie and Harriet is facist....really?So Commies think what?


13. Fascism is cosy with the conglomerates. Remember Krupp, Siemens, IG Farben and all the other corporations that supported the Nazis.....

And according to Hilter they werent far right, so who was back then?

Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics.[23] Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.[10] Adolf Hitler and other proponents officially portrayed Nazism as being neither left- nor right-wing, but syncretic.[24][25] Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany, saying:

Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors [...] But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms.[26]
​

AGain you think they're so different, because professor x said it originated from a lower class and it who gives a shit about that?

What were the differences. EVerything I have said is true, in practicle terms. I said people base them on all kinds of subjects, you said it was just class and capitalism...WRONG, noone cares about class in the US

You see Saigon you read from a book on how things SHOULD work....but we had both happen and there was little to no difference.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

Capital refers to money, and by extension to business.

Right wing ideologies such as fascism promote the role of capital, investment and private business.

That's meaningless horseshit from someone who has no understanding of economics or who deliberately wants to obfuscate the facts. Money and capital are one thing. Business is another. Even socialists want society to accumulate capital. To be against capital is to be against material prosperity. The only issue is who controls the capital. Left-wingers want government to control it. Right-wingers want it to be controlled through the institution of private property.

Left wing ideologies such as communism seek to limit or even remove the role of capital entirely.

ROFL! They most certainly do not. Do you actually mean to say that Stalin wanted to limit the number of bridges, damns and factories in the Soviet Union?

Before 1800 "class" was purely a legal distinction

I think if you compare the lifestyle of Queen Victoria and the British aristoracy with that of the street urchins and itinerant farmers, you will find they most definitely belonged to different classes.

In other words you're saying class is purely a matter of income difference. By the time of Queen Vitoria the legal privileges of the aristocracy had largely aleady been abolished. Prior to 1800, there were legal distinctions between classes. Laws that applied to peasants didn't necessarily apply to the aristocracy. That's what people meant when they referred to "class." The Marxists have corrupted the meaning of the term for propaganda purposes.

This is actually the reason for both the French and Russian revolutions, of course.

The real reason was scumbag leftist demagogues like you.

Left-wingers have come down on both sides of every one of those issues.

Not really, no. Of course there might be isolated examples of left wing societies promoting racism or racial segregation, but by and large it is a right wing strategy - as we have seen in Apartheid South Africa, in Hitler's Germany, in Antonescu's Romania and in Rios Montte's Guatemala.

Of course, Hitler's Germany was a left-wing society. So are the others you have labelled "right-wing." What you're doing here is called "begging the question." Your using your conclusion as one of the premises in your argument. That's a logical fallacy. Woodrow Wilson, certainly no right-winger, was a virulent racist and anti-Semite who re instituted segregation in the U.S. military. FDR sent Japanese Americans to concentration camps.

Your claim is simply horseshit.

This in no way means that conservatism is inherently racist, because conservatism is a moderate ideology.

 

[Saigon]

Bripat -

Do you actually mean to say that Stalin wanted to limit the number of bridges, damns and factories in the Soviet Union?

No, quite obviously I am not saying that. I really am trying to explain this in as simple terms as I can here.

When communist societies want bridges, they build them.

When capitalist countries want bridges, they pay private companies to build them.

As one example of this, nothing in the Chernobyl nuclear plant was purchased from a private company or supplier. Not the components, not the labour, not the research, not the building materials.

btw, They are "dams", not "damns".

 

[buckeye45_73]

BriPat -

Capital refers to money, and by extension to business.

Right wing ideologies such as fascism promote the role of capital, investment and private business.

Left wing ideologies such as communism seek to limit or even remove the role of capital entirely.

Before 1800 "class" was purely a legal distinction

I think if you compare the lifestyle of Queen Victoria and the British aristoracy with that of the street urchins and itinerant farmers, you will find they most definitely belonged to different classes.

This is actually the reason for both the French and Russian revolutions, of course.

Left-wingers have come down on both sides of every one of those issues.

Not really, no. Of course there might be isolated examples of left wing societies promoting racism or racial segregation, but by and large it is a right wing strategy - as we have seen in Apartheid South Africa, in Hitler's Germany, in Antonescu's Romania and in Rios Montte's Guatemala.

This in no way means that conservatism is inherently racist, because conservatism is a moderate ideology.

Communism was anti jewish just like facism... Saigon you have to quit confusing what your professors put in the books and actually look at the results of the practice. Again I have always stated that my view is of government power....BUT most importantly of PRACTICE........

so lets do a checklist shall we
facism-autocratic communism-autocratic
facism-racist communsim-racist
facism-militaristic comunism-militaristic
facism-allowed private property communism-no private property


feel free to add more...so like I stated in the begining Hitler facism and stalin communism are different really by private property and even then if hitler wanted the company to do something, it did it...he controlled it, not the ceo.

 

[bripat9643]

Bripat -

Do you actually mean to say that Stalin wanted to limit the number of bridges, damns and factories in the Soviet Union?

No, quite obviously I am not saying that. I really am trying to explain this in as simple terms as I can here.

When communist societies want bridges, they build them.

When capitalist countries want bridges, they pay private companies to build them.

As one example of this, nothing in the Chernobyl nuclear plant was purchased from a private company or supplier. Not the components, not the labour, not the research, not the building materials.

btw, They are "dams", not "damns".

Power plants are capital, so you haven't supported your case.

 

[Saigon]

Communism was anti jewish just like facism..

Jesus wept.....if you don't know - why not ask? You can not just make up historical fact!!

Trotsky was Jewish, genius. So were dozens of the inner circle of the communist party from 1915 - 1935. Lenin actively sought out and worked with Jews, who despised the anti-Semitic Tsar, and were keen to join any party that would rid them of the Tsar. Lenin saw communism as being a society of one country, but many peoples, and no racism or heirarchy between those peoples.

It was only when the leadership passed from Lenin to Stalin that the USSR became anti-Semitic, and Jews began to be purged from the leadership during the mid-1930's.

actually look at the results of the practice

So how much time have you spent in the former Soviet states?

 

[Saigon]

Power plants are capital, so you haven't supported your case.

No, power plants are infrastructure.

Capital refers to MONEY, and by extension to business.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Power plants are capital, so you haven't supported your case.

No, power plants are infrastructure.

Capital refers to MONEY, and by extension to business.

Hitler was right-wing

Stalin and Mao were left-wing

Does that make Stalin a better person?

The only difference between the two is there position on Marxism vs Capitalism