A message from the young thinkers of the University College London Union:
This Union resolves to… struggle against fascism and the far-right… with the perspective of fighting the root cause of fascism – capitalism.
Apparently fascism is “far-right” – a claim that Mussolini and Hitler, avowed socialists, might have found puzzling – and is caused by capitalism. And not caused by, say, dogmatic collectivism and its endless justifications for authoritarian urges. Urges not unlike those of the Union itself, with its intent to ban student groups that it deems both “sexist” and “anti-Marxist,” and which therefore must be met with “unconditional resistance.” To say nothing of the Union’s somewhat ambitious plan to bring about “a socialist transformation of society.”
Via BenSix.
It’s quite sweet really, students thinking they are actually important and can change the World with their anti-establishment, progressive views. It’s like being back in the 60s in a way, only without the sex and drugs and rock and roll (well, beer and rock and roll in my case).
I suspect the majority of these clones will be middle-management family men and women in 10 years time.
“It’s quite sweet really, students thinking they are actually important and can change the World with their anti-establishment, progressive views. It’s like being back in the 60s in a way”
Well, thos ‘progressives’ in the 60s did change the world, didn’t they/ I realise that some think it was for the worse, but nonetheless.
Socialists want (or wanted) the means of production to be owned by the people who produce, the workers, not the state.
Let’s try the wikiped:
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[3][4] “Social ownership” may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.
Oh dear. While it looks like some strains of socialism might agree with you, other strains do in fact see the state as the ultimate owner of all property.
I bet there’s a political system where it’s always the case that the people own the property in common, though!
Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of classes, money,[1][2] and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.[3] The movement to develop communism, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the communist states in the Eastern bloc and the most developed capitalist states of the Western world.
So really you’re not in a good position to argue definitions here, since what you’re describing as “socialism” where people have nothing to do with the state is actually by definition communism.
“Oh dear. While it looks like some strains of socialism might agree with you, other strains do in fact see the state as the ultimate owner of all property.”
Wikipedia is not always your friend. Of course in many socialist experiments the state ended up engorged but it was never the original aim of the socialists, who always saw it as a means of devolving power and ownership to the workers. Fascism was different. Fascisms saw the state as the means and the end of social organisation. It was a moral and mystical entity that was identical to the race of the people it encompassed. The two views couldn’t be more different.
Of course in many socialist experiments the state ended up engorged
As if Marxist theory could ever play out any other way in the real world.
It depends what you mean svh. Most marxist theory is positive, it just tries to describe the world and I think it has had as many positive consequences as negative ones, welfare states and all that. We are going to end up with something like a communist world in the end, although not in our life times I don’t think.
We are going to end up with something like a communist world in the end,
Previous attempts just didn’t kill enough people obviously.
We are going to end up with something like a communist world in the end, although not in our life times I don’t think.
Oh, yes. It’s simply inevitable. Resistance is futile. Care to inform us from whence this inevitability originates?
Every time socialism fails the excuse is that it wasn’t true socialism. It’s the no true Scotsman fallacy. Of course any temporary stumbles of capitalism, you know the theory that has proved time and time again to work, becomes proof of the ultimate failure and un sustainability of capitalism. Socialism needs capitalism to provide the other peoples’ money for socialism to run out of. The latter meanwhile has little to no use for the former.
It’s just inevitable Anna, unless disaster strikes and the world starts getting poorer again. Marx was right, eventually there will be such a surplus of wealth that the questions will just be how it should be distributed. It won’t involve killing. Europe is already two thirds of the way there anyway. Marx was just wrong about the timescales. The usual problem.
eventually there will be such a surplus of wealth
It will just be. Well, that answers that.
Most marxist theory is positive, it just tries to describe the world and I think it has had as many positive consequences as negative ones, welfare states and all that.
Marxist theory, when put into practice, inevitably leads to totalitarian collectivism. We have a bizarre and pernicious meta-context in Western culture that totalitarian collectivism that’s perceived as coming from the right is so obviously evil, and anybody who suggests it might have done something good like providing full employment is immediately considered beyond polite society.
Totalitarian collectivism that’s perceived as coming from the left, however, is something that’s supposed to be considered well-intentioned, and how dare you suggest it was a bad thing.
No: Marxist totalitarian collectivism is just as wicked as fascist totalitarian collectivism, and we ned to have the courage to say that the people who make excuses for the former are just as evil as the people who make excuses for the latter.
Anna,
Previous attempts just didn’t kill enough people obviously.
Based on my own exchanges with Marxoid cultists, the fact that the Great Experiment repeatedly results in atrocity and institutional sociopathy is hardly the deterrent one might wish. This outcome is often regarded by devotees as somewhere between “justified” (see, for instance, Hobsbawm) and an added bonus (practically every Marxoid thug-in-chief you care to name).
Countless Marxist intellectuals – including Lukacs, Gramsci, Althusser and Hobsbawm – and of course Marx, Engels and Lenin – were pretty sure that their egomaniacal fantasy necessarily required a little unpleasantness. Or as Marx and Engels put it, “When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.” And if the word ‘terror’ is still a shade too ambiguous, let’s not forget Engels’ eagerness to see “the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples.” A global class genocide – an “extirpation” – that would be, in his words, “a step forward.”
But hey, if you boil those shoes long enough, the soup will be delicious.
“Or as Marx and Engels put it, “When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.” ”
You have to bear in mind that at the time of writing that the use of terror to maintain political and economic supremacy was the norm. The British empire at the time killed at will in order to continue its dominance, exterminating and immiserating hundreds and thousands of people to enrich just a few. Marx and Engels were clear that it was a war and it would have to be brutal, but it was a war of slaves against slave owners and you can understand that slaves will not always feel the slave owners merit pity. We know what happened in the 20th century and that the broken eggs contributed to no omelettes, but we should be careful to judge by the standards of the time.
“It will just be. Well, that answers that.”
At an average 2% growth globally and current projections for population growth? Yes, it will.
“But hey, if you boil those shoes long enough, the soup will be delicious.”
Five million or so Indians nod their ghostly heads, bwana.
“At an average 2% growth globally and current projections for population growth? Yes, it will.”
Yes, but that doesn’t eliminate scarcity, the central question of economics and the central failure of socialist theory. The fact that the average global peasant today has ready access to luxuries undreamed of by the wealthiest monarch of the 18th century doesn’t mean that the questions of wealth has gone away. You could reach the ultimate sci-fi matter replicator future and there will still be things that not everyone can have, which means that there will still be scarce resources to allocate.
And the fact that rather short-sighted sci-fi authors can describe a hypothetical utopian future where socialism works doesn’t make socialism a valid theory in the now anyways, and it hasn’t stopped present-day socialists from cheering on dictators (of the generic socialist, nationalist socialist, or communist varieties) as they have impoverished and outright murdered millions of people.
The problem with the theories of socialism that envision the state withering away is that when dealing with humans (as opposed to a hypothetical new-man with an entirely different psychology) a state-level of control is necessary. A capitalist system can allow a voluntary socialist collective within its system without breaking down or even breaking its own rules. A socialist system cannot allow a bunch of capitalist-minded humans to exist within itself without breaking down.
Within all current human-created socialist systems, you eventually see people reacting to the economic negatives of socialism by forming their own capitalist system, a black market. The socialist system either needs to let the black market exist as a safety valve (which will out-perform and eventually wreck the socialist system (see China)) or needs to use the power of the state to crack down on the market to the extent possible, which requires forcibly ‘re-educating’ or ‘removing’ (such pleasant terms) the non-conformists.
“You could reach the ultimate sci-fi matter replicator future and there will still be things that not everyone can have, which means that there will still be scarce resources to allocate.”
But not scarcity in the way it has been understood throughout history. Everybody will be able to have the lifestyle of an upper middle class American of today. So redistribution will be the only real challenge, those people who need status symbols will still compete among themselves of course. The alternative will be to create scarcity in order to maintain the privileges of the capitalists (the story of whisky galore). We can do that now, but it won’t be practical at future levels of wealth.
Everybody will be able to have the lifestyle of an upper middle class American of today.
Hmmm. Those in western Europe are already fabulously wealthy by historical standards, even by pre-war standards (with the exception of a tiny few who are either terribly unlucky or keeping themselves in poverty as a matter of choice). But have the calls for socialism disappeared? No.
So no matter how wealthy society gets, there will always be those who insist that the answer is “socialism” regardless of the question. Because for them, socialism is not about wealth or equality but power, and specifically wielding it over others.
Minnow,
I’ve previously enjoyed your contributions to this blog as counterpoints usually set up an interesting dynamic in the conversation.
However, on this occasion, in multiple posts in the thread above, I have to say I’m deeply disappointed to find that you have apparently given up any attempt at making sense and gone straight for “click bait”.
Not that you’re likely to care what I think of course, but I sincerely hope that you don’t actually believe in some of the nonsense you’ve written:
not the silly ‘Hitler was a socialist’ thing again,
There are many forms of socialism, of course, (no such thing as a ‘doctine of socialism’) but all of them, as far as I am aware, share the goal of liberating the worker from the state as well as capitalist exploitation, not increasing the power of the state.
Well, those ‘progressives’ in the 60s did change the world, didn’t they?
There are many forms of socialism, of course, (no such thing as a ‘doctine of socialism’) but all of them, as far as I am aware, share the goal of liberating the worker from the state as well as capitalist exploitation, not increasing the power of the state.
This is particularly egregious bollocks. The whole raison d’etre of the USSR was that nothing should be outside the scope of the state, and subject to the laws of the state. I’m trying to think of a single aspect of life that was not subject to political scrutiny and approval in the Soviet Union, and not coming up with anything. This was not an accident, it was by very design, and stated so. Nobody, not even the die-hard socialists, believed the state would disappear and communism would replace socialism, the whole system was set up to increase the power of the Soviet states.
“But not scarcity in the way it has been understood throughout history. Everybody will be able to have the lifestyle of an upper middle class American of today. So redistribution will be the only real challenge, those people who need status symbols will still compete among themselves of course. The alternative will be to create scarcity in order to maintain the privileges of the capitalists (the story of whisky galore). We can do that now, but it won’t be practical at future levels of wealth.”
What makes the “lifestyle of an upper-middle-class American of today” the be all and end all? Right now, the average global resident has a lifestyle with luxuries that the royalty of old, or for that matter Marx or Engels themselves, would consider inconceivable, and yet envy still exists, and people who call themselves socialist and are called socialist by most people that identify themselves as socialist still rally those people around envy. And, ironically, that lifestyle has been largely provided by capitalism. Places where the ‘communal good is first’ tend to be the worst complete and utter hellholes.
While science fiction has a very important place in conceptualizing philosophy and the human condition, it fails when you use a utopian fantasy filled with people that don’t act like real humans to understand the behavior of humans in the real world.
“eventually there will be such a surplus of wealth that the questions will just be how it should be distributed.”
It would be distributed at gunpoint – duh.
“This is particularly egregious bollocks. The whole raison d’etre of the USSR was that nothing should be outside the scope of the state”
No it wasn’t. The raison d’Etre of the USSR was to dismantle the state as it had then been and to devolve power to local councils, soviets, composed of workers. That isn’t how it happened, but that was obviously the intention, the clue is in the name.
There is a problem with your theory, Minnow. Free market capitalism created the middle class. That is historical fact. All that wealth came from capitalistic striving. Yes, there were issues overall – monopolistic behaviour, railroad barons, horrible working conditions, child labour. But overall, hundreds of millions of people all over the world saw a significant rise in their quality of life.
Communistic/socialistic states have not increased overall quality of life. You can actually argue – based on current conditions in Europe that you refer to – that these states consume wealth, they do not create it. The wealth that Europe is consuming right now is the accumulated wealth created in a capitalistic system. Disagree? Check Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Iceland, the Baltic states, the Balkans etc. etc. etc…
Socialism fails. Capitalism works. History cannot be denied.
“Socialists will always run out of other people’s money to spend.” Margaret Thatcher (sorry if I missed a word or two).
National Socialist German Workers Party. ‘The clue is in the name.’
“What makes the “lifestyle of an upper-middle-class American of today” the be all and end all? Right now, the average global resident has a lifestyle with luxuries that the royalty of old, or for that matter Marx or Engels themselves, would consider inconceivable, and yet envy still exists”
This isn’t the case. It might appear to be if you live in the west but a quick trip to Africa, or China, or even the Favelas of Rio will disabuse you. I do realise that some people, for rhetorical purposes, will want to claim that living in a one-room shack in a Brazilian slum is luxury compared with the lifestyles of the pre-20th century monarchs of Europe because the slum dweller sometimes has TV and the Kings and Queens did not, but it doesn’t wash with most of us.
For the poorest people to want to live lives that are not crushed with poverty is not really about ‘envy’, just desire. When we are able to offer that through a simple redistribution of cash, and we will, it will be interesting to understand the arguments against it.
“And, ironically, that lifestyle has been largely provided by capitalism. ”
Capitalism has been the dynamic economic model that has financed it, but that wealth was actually provided by workers digging, dragging, catching and making things.
“Places where the ‘communal good is first’ tend to be the worst complete and utter hellholes.”
Did you have a bad experience in Sweden or something?
You have to bear in mind that at the time of writing that the use of terror to maintain political and economic supremacy was the norm.
No, you don’t have to bear this in mind. Nobody bears these things in mind when it comes to the terror the Nazsi used to maintain their political and economic supremacy.
This is the sort of shit I mean when I wrote about the difference in the way we look at totalitarian collectivism that’s thought to come from the right, and totalitarian collectivism that’s thought to come from the left. Making excuses like this for Marxism is repulsive, wicked, and beyond the pale, and people like you deserve to be pilloried by the other commentors just as if you were making apologies for fascism.
(Sorry for the obscenity, David.)
Nik, I do care what you think I like arguing around here because there are a lot of of people like you, who can fight their corner without pearl clutching and displays of defensive aggression. And who have a sense of humour. When you are a Marxist you have to get used to a lot of humourlessness.
But I do mean what I said and it really isn’t very extreme to claim that:
– no Hitler was not a socialist, he was a fascist and that’s a different sort of thing
– the aim of socialism historically has been to liberate workers from the state as well as the capitalist, the state being, as Marx said, a committee for the management of bourgeois affairs
– the progressives of the 60s did change everything. When was the last time you heard of someone becoming a pariah because they had had an abortion, or got pregnant out of marriage, or lived with someone they weren’t married to, or had sex with someone of the same sex etc etc
“No, a national socialist is a fascist. This is not usually controversial. Its like the German Democratic Republic wasn’t really democratic. I know that may be hard to swallow. Like to buy a bridge?”
“No it wasn’t. The raison d’Etre of the USSR was to dismantle the state as it had then been and to devolve power to local councils, soviets, composed of workers. That isn’t how it happened, but that was obviously the intention, the clue is in the name.”
I love seeing the cognitive dissonance in play. The German nationalist socialists were lying about being socialists because they did something so evil we can’t deny it, but the Russian nationalist socialists were good intentioned but failed because we can paper over some of the evil stuff they did.
In theory, theory is the same as practice. In practice…
Perhaps there’s a reason that while in theory the state withers away under true socialism, that each and every time it is put into practice the state ends up being an all consuming monstrosity?
Sorry for the obscenity, David.
Don’t mind me. I’m off for a haircut.
“All that wealth came from capitalistic striving. Yes, there were issues overall – monopolistic behaviour, railroad barons, horrible working conditions, child labour.”
You missed out ‘the slave trade, empire, and genocide (especially in the US)’ which were pretty salient features of the period of early capitalism too. You are not the only one, those things generally do get left out but we could make a bit more effort not to forget.
And you missed the Cultural Revolution in China, amongst others. Along with damn near everything anyone else has said here. Have you ever run a business?
“I love seeing the cognitive dissonance in play. The German nationalist socialists were lying about being socialists because they did something so evil we can’t deny it, but the Russian nationalist socialists were good intentioned but failed because we can paper over some of the evil stuff they did.”
I don’t think you can honestly read that in anything I have written. The German Nazi party were national socialists. They meant something very different from what we usually mean when we say ‘socialist’ and they were quite clear about it, immediately imprisoning all socialists in the country when they came to power. The evil of Nazism is doctrinal, stated, it is the intention of the movement to harm people who are not ethnically ‘German’. They weren’t ‘lying’ about being socialists, they never meant the term to have the meaning that it had elsewhere. The ‘national’ modifier is all important. Just as when left organisations describe themselves as ‘democratically centrist’ they don’t meean democratic in the sense it is used elsewhere nor do they intend that to be understood, they intend to offer a radically different idea of what ‘democracy’ is.
Genocide isn’t a function of Capitalism. The British Empire WAS a function of Capitalism, because the Brits just wanted to trade with everybody. Did a good job of it, too; just about all Brit colonies prospered and fostered robust middle classes. History tells us what happened when the Brits left, and it wasn’t good. Clearly, capitalism as a force for improving the world, was an outcome of the British Empire.
Slavery was clearly a horrible salient feature of early capitalism. We have fixed that. Capitalism has fixed many of its early issues; we now have a good handle on monopolistic behaviour, child labour, unsafe working conditions and others. Socialism/communism continues to make the same mistakes over and over, leading to tyranny of the worst sort.
Winnow, I actually agree with you that Communism is a noble ideal. “From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.” VERY noble. The problem is it just doesn’t work, in any way. We have lots of data to prove that. We must move away from systems that don’t work, or we are dooming people to misery and death because of our own myopia.
A popular definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again in the hopes of a different outcome.
The raison d’Etre of the USSR was to dismantle the state as it had then been and to devolve power to local councils, soviets, composed of workers. That isn’t how it happened, but that was obviously the intention, the clue is in the name.
That would be more convincing if it moved in that direction for even a few seconds after its creation. Instead, it moved in the complete opposite direction right from the beginning. So I think we need to take these “intentions” with a rather large dollop of salt, freshly mined using Gulag labour.
“No, you don’t have to bear this in mind. Nobody bears these things in mind when it comes to the terror the Nazis used to maintain their political and economic supremacy.”
Yes we do. The terror tactics used by allied forces are justified in just those terms. US and UK planes dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives onto women and children throughout Germany during the war, for example. This is a gigantic crime if we do not recognise that the circumstances that the war had created made a differennce. Of course those circumstances don’t necessarily exonerate the allied war crews and like many people I think what they did was criminal, but to leave the context out does violence to the argument.
“This isn’t the case. It might appear to be if you live in the west but a quick trip to Africa, or China, or even the Favelas of Rio will disabuse you.”
Seriously? I’ve been to some of the worst parts of the former Soviet Workers Paradise, and seen the cell-phone ads on the side of every former workers barracks and the satellite dishes springing up from the one-room hovels of what used to be a collective farm, and have seen that virtually every central Asian that had been a serf under the Socialist oligarchy wants and can now afford both.
“For the poorest people to want to live lives that are not crushed with poverty is not really about ‘envy’, just desire. When we are able to offer that through a simple redistribution of cash, and we will, it will be interesting to understand the arguments against it.”
The problem is that their desire is being exploited by the people that take control and redistribute the wealth, and, invariably, the human beings that do the redistribution give themselves the biggest share of the wealth for the ‘work’ that they do for everyone else. That is the biggest failure of socialist theory, is that the way to get what you want is to be the person doing the redistributing, not the person producing the value (worker, manager, capitalist or inventor). And socialism breaks down as soon as the value producers decide to leave the system and trade amongst themselves, so the system needs the power of the state to keep them in line.
Socialism and fascism and communism are all different variations of the same theme. You can argue that Hitler wasn’t socialist according to some ideal definition, but you can’t argue that there was any serious difference in economic policies and practice between him and any other self-proclaimed socialist leader before or since that has actually had to try putting their ideals into practice in the real world.
This isn’t the case. It might appear to be if you live in the west but a quick trip to Africa, or China
China, you say? And how are they faring under Capitalism, as compared to the Socialism of yore?
‘Slavery was clearly a horrible salient feature of early capitalism.’
Slavery was actually a salient feature of pretty much every human civilization (just like Minnow’s ’empire’ and ‘genocide’, actually) until the capitalist British led the way in trying to abolish it – on the grounds that it was simply morally wrong – in the 19th century.
“And you missed the Cultural Revolution in China, amongst others.2
No I didn’t, we weren’t discussing it. But I am happy to say it was a terrible crime. I am just surprised that so few will admit that the capitalist order was built on crimes of a similar magnitude. The famine in India killed some 5 million for example. The slave trade millions more, the genocide of indiginous Americans millions more etc, etc.
“Have you ever run a business?”
Yes. It isn’t difficult in my experience if you have good people working for you
US and UK planes dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives onto women and children throughout Germany during the war, for example.
And the Germans the same. US and UK were not targeting said women and children however. Some might find that difference rather relevant. The sainted USSR gathered the elites of the Polish society and massacred them in cold blood. Not to mention what they did when they rolled back through Ukraine, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Tom Foster, you are correct. However, we must understand that amongst the many causes of slavery, the most prominent was capitalism.
OK fine. No system is perfect. Capitalism, however, has shown that it can change and improve. Can somebody show me where communism/socialism has improved at all? Minnow, is there an ideal, socialistic society somewhere on this planet that you can point to as a success?
If one exists I am certainly unaware of it.
You have to bear in mind that at the time of writing that the use of terror to maintain political and economic supremacy was the norm.
Maybe, but genocide and ethnic cleansing wasn’t, at least in Russia. So wrong, in both degree and form.
“I don’t think you can honestly read that in anything I have written. The German Nazi party were national socialists. They meant something very different from what we usually mean when we say ‘socialist’ and they were quite clear about it, immediately imprisoning all socialists in the country when they came to power. The evil of Nazism is doctrinal, stated, it is the intention of the movement to harm people who are not ethnically ‘German’. They weren’t ‘lying’ about being socialists, they never meant the term to have the meaning that it had elsewhere. The ‘national’ modifier is all important. Just as when left organizations describe themselves as ‘democratically centrist’ they don’t mean democratic in the sense it is used elsewhere nor do they intend that to be understood, they intend to offer a radically different idea of what ‘democracy’ is.”
Read a history book. All totalitarian systems have punished heretics and rivals of the people in power. The socialists that took power punished rival socialist factions both in Germany (Nazis punishing communists) and in the USSR (Bolsheviks punishing Menshiviks, Stalin punishing Trotsky and anyone else that looked to be a rival). The reason I call the ruling group in the USSR nationalist socialists was that for all practical purposes, the Russians punished non-Russians, especially Jews. Look at how China has pushed to establish a Han hegemony over the Tibetans, the Uighurs, and other ethnic minorities. The Nazis were just stupid enough to be open about what they were doing.
The Nazi and the Fascist party political platforms, as mentioned above and as implemented, is doctrianally socialist economically, and you have yet to say anything in response other than “No, it isn’t”. Go ahead and cite for me one bit of Nazi economic policy that was implemented that was different from that implemented by any other socialist state.
“And the Germans the same. US and UK were not targeting said women and children however. ”
Yes they were. The demoralisation of the civilian population was a stated aim of the strategy. Speer said that the allies could have put him out of business in three weeks if they had properly targeted industry. Not that he was a completely reliable witness.
Minnow, saying that a business isn’t hard to run makes those of us who have run businesses question your honesty. You may be telling the truth, but the statement itself is hard to believe. I do agree that good subordinates are a treasure and can make the whole thing much easier.
Your statement is too dismissive and unworthy of you.
Minnow, is there an ideal, socialistic society somewhere on this planet that you can point to as a success?
Ah, but they were not given time to develop before imperialists and/or counter-revolutionaries derailed the whole process. Given a little more time, and a few million more corpses, and we’d have been there.
“China, you say? And how are they faring under Capitalism, as compared to the Socialism of yore?”
You might take a trip to Shenzhen and ask them. Except they are not allowed to speak to you about work conditions. But hang on I am talking about the workers, and you mean the other lot, right?
“Go ahead and cite for me one bit of Nazi economic policy that was implemented that was different from that implemented by any other socialist state.”
Well, the Nazis didn’t nationalise German industry. Which is a pretty major part of what the socialist states did. I really don’t know why anyone feels the need to stick up for the Nazis.