I think it would just be a complex interplay between the smart Nazis, the imperial fascists, and the CEOs. The smart Nazis might be small in number, but if they can make their case before various crucial members of the bourgeoisie, the reins of state power will be handed to them and everyone else will either do or forced to do as they're told. I guess the key factor would be whether those CEOs are ideologically sympathetic enough towards their ideology in order to look past their small numbers.

Yeah but this will eventually lead to a swapping of power. The only way the smart nazis take and then maintain their power is by having enough of them to do it at a scale where they can at least somewhat competently fill in most leadership positions. They won't liquidate the imperial fascists while they still require their competence. So there will be a power struggle between the two and a permanent exchanging of power until they've got the numbers.

A lot of the rise to power of the original Nazis boils down to various German industrialists and bankers thinking Nazis will be champions to their class. It had little to do with the Nazis being alleged brilliant political strategists. Obviously, liberal historians don't like to focus on this since it's an indictment of liberalism and capitalism that they'll decay to fascism, so they tunnelvision on Hitler being a charismatic speaker or Goebbels being able to brainwash people with propaganda.

Yes but crucially I think there were a lot more smart nazis than there are today. The fascist movements across europe had festered for many decades and they had organised and organised and organised, very much in the open and without being taboo.

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes but crucially I think there were a lot more smart nazis than there are today. The fascist movements across europe had festered for many decades and they had organised and organised and organised, very much in the open and without being taboo.

Yes, that makes sense. I think in general, socialists and other progressive elements have learned from their past mistakes while reactionaries have gotten worse. Zionism then and now is an illustrative comparison. Labor Zionism was completely insidious to the point of even fooling Stalin while modern Kahanists think bioengineering a red heifer will bring about the Messiah.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

It does not escape my amusement that we're talking about smart nazis and imperial fascists (the neoliberals) as also smart... But in the context of the past they're dumb as shit.

I think the strongest illustration of this has been how we got to watch Kissinger get shunned for being pragmatic and coherent about the Ukraine war and situation with China.

Part of the reason these people are doing badly and have also not really organised very well at all is that they have no competence and shun one another much too hard for not following this dogma or that dogma.

I think a problem that exists for empires once they become large enough is that when you become the makers of reality your leadership can't keep up with the pace of change when that is no longer true. They are still trying to bend reality, to make and invent it. They had the power to do so before, they could just make it so. They still try to but it doesn't work anymore and those that have tried to point this out have been cast aside as they fruitlessly try to make-reality even harder.

This blinds them to the need to accept and follow the changing material conditions.