Rhetoric wrote:The Nazis actually weren't very socialist at all. The term "socialist" in the party name was employed as a tactic in the right-wing fascist movement to win over working class people from the left. There was a strong awareness among that crowd of class division and socialist theory, but national socialism was deceptive in that the working class were convinced that minority expulsion and German expansion were the keys to digging themselves out of an economic hole.
Socialism is actually, in its purest form, the workers' democratic ownership and control of the means of production. And in socialist/communist theories, the proletariat (working class) overthrows the ruling class -- the bourgeoisie, the owners of the capitalist means of production.
This makes analyzing FLCL directly through commun/socialist theories a bit more difficult. One could twist Medical Mechanica, for example, to meet the needs of a fascist definition, or a bourgeoisie definition.
Just my $.02.
Agreed, a more standard vocabulary for what socialism is. I word it much differently though.
When you take ownership, capitalism promotes an artificial scarcity on the mean of production through the use a of property rights, from deeds to patent laws. These allow for an acclimation of "wealth" or capital. It is like Proudhon's use of Theater chairs in a his book What is Property. The capitalist who owns more than one seat can charge interest (rent) for the ones he is not using. This also removes opportunities for other who have no seat, and must pay the price.
Socialism is based in liberalism and humanism that we are equal. Socialism removes artificial scarcity by removing privilege; rentier income. The means of production is
"owned" directly to the users; those who use it. The capitalist does not use the means of production. They merely own it, usually through the banking buddies and financiers, who are not usually mentioned often except in the anarchistic forms of socialism, and even the strangely anarchistic form of capitalism.
Although, when it comes the anarchist form of capitalism, Benjamin Tucker and Murray Rothbard are big influences in my reading and understanding. And actually do have very socialist undertones, like Rothbard rejecting patents and limiting copyright, and overall, the organization of his Anarcho-capitalist society is still voluntary contractual agreement. While being an Austrian economist, the contractual agreement can still be quite socialist in the manner that they (a community) can easily directly own a sewage plant, and since it is held by a community, or can be considered communally held... as you can tell by these two words sharing the same root word...
Now, none of this has anything to do the FLCL. At All!
It can certainly take on the standard society (normal, which Naota explains at the beginning and end of the series) vs rebel (out of the ordinary, which is Haruko, and even Mamimi). This ties into the age range of Naota. When teens start to develop their individuality they can rebel against the "system", which includes a lot of sexualized tension.