Nazism and Capitalism

[Agnapostate]

We've previously discussed sources that evidence the fact that the economy of the National "Socialist" Third Reich was far from socialism in actuality, and solidly capitalist. This thread is meant as a place for a comprehensive list of peer-reviewed scholarly evidence, preferably open access materials so that we can read them in their entirety. Here are three that I've found so far, with the first two being open access PDF files.

1. Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany (http://www.ub.edu/irea/working_papers/2006/200607.pdf): "The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party."

2. The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry (http://aida.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh04/buchheim-041020.pdf) "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere formal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment patterns. Even regarding war-related projects freedom of contract was generally respected and, instead of using power, the state offered firms a bundle of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency."

3. Multinational Enterprise, ‘Corporate Responsibility’ and the Nazi Dictatorship: The Case of Unilever and Germany in the 1930s (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=988168): "The reason why a fuller understanding of the significance of the Hitler dictatorship did not emerge in prewar democracies remains a question of enduring historical interest. This article examines the way in which Unilever, one of the earliest multinational corporations, responded to the challenges of political risk posed by the Third Reich, and how aspects of business activity that gave rise to moral issues were weighed against the need to survive commercially. The realisation that Unilever could be seen as an unwitting accomplice in the dictatorship's criminal activities seems to have come late to the company. While corporate culture reflected the values of contemporary society, multinational business was partly responsible for the failure to sound the alarm over the unique dangers inherent in National Socialism."

Please update the thread if you find similar literature.

[Skooma Addict]

People actually thought the economy of the Third Reich was socialist?

[Revolution starts with U]

yes. i've seenit. particularly amongst misesians

[Nox]

Fascist and Capitalist!?

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse...

[Susurrus]

Has no one seen Schindler's List? I would have thought that would make it pretty clear.

[Skooma Addict]

Fascist and Capitalist!?

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse...

It was Fascist. There are elements of Capitalism present in Fascism.

[Rafiq]

Fascism isn't some economic theory proposed as a solution to capitalism. It is a different form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and of capital, much like Stalinism, Bourgeois Democracy and more recently Islamism.

[Dimmu]

People actually thought the economy of the Third Reich was socialist?

People still think this to this day.. I cannot count how many times i have encounterd that argument during the debates about socialism.

[Die Rote Fahne]

It's obviously socialist..

National Socialist...hello?

[Экс-фашистских]

It's obviously socialist..

National Socialist...hello?

I hope to all that is holy, you are being sarcastic about your dubious assumption.

I'm guessing it's safe to assume Vladimir Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democratic party of Russia is Left-wing. :rolleyes:

Party name =/= ideology.

Here are a couple quotes from Hitler himself:


Private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy; it is conceivable only if the people have a sound idea of authority and personality. Everything positive, good, and valuable, which has been achieved in the world in the field of economics and culture, is solely attributable to personality.


The Communist principle cannot be maintained. It is not by chance that one person accomplishes more than another. The principle of private ownership, which has slowly gone into the general conception of justice and has become a complicated process of economic life, is rooted in this fact. The course which we have to take is clearly indicated. It is, however, not enough to say: We do not want communism in (our) economy. If we continue on our old political course, then we shall perish.

Hitler is the bourgeois!

[Nox]

It was Fascist. There are elements of Capitalism present in Fascism.

I know. It was a semi-sarcastic statement ;)

[#FF0000]

The big thing that Hitler hated about Communism and "Capitalism", was that they were rooted in materialist analysis.

He hated the shit out of thinking that stemmed from, uh, looking at actual things, preferring an idealist conception of things where everything happened because of a handful of heroic individuals who were following some higher ideal.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I hope to all that is holy, you are being sarcastic about your dubious assumption.

I'm guessing it's safe to assume Vladimir Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democratic party of Russia is Left-wing. :rolleyes:

Party name =/= ideology.

Here are a couple quotes from Hitler himself:





Hitler is the bourgeois!

I'm more concerned that you think I might have been serious.

If I was that stupid, you'd think I'd have been restricted or banned some time ago haha.

[Экс-фашистских]

I'm more concerned that you think I might have been serious.

If I was that stupid, you'd think I'd have been restricted or banned some time ago haha.

Ok lol. I'm still taking my time adjusting to the RevLeft sense of sarcasm. :blushing:

[Dumb]

Ok lol. I'm still taking my time adjusting to the RevLeft sense of sarcasm. :blushing:

Sarcasm is our official tendency.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Ok lol. I'm still taking my time adjusting to the RevLeft sense of sarcasm. :blushing:
Didn't notice you were new, sorry. You'll get used to the sarcasm, and begin to use it yourself, eventually :thumbup:.

[kapitalyst]

People actually thought the economy of the Third Reich was socialist?

It was... Not what I'd call "genuine" socialism, like you good folks advocate, but it was a form of socialism. Yes, he was cozy with German industry for rearming, building up his military and economy and fueling the war effort, and he also contradicted his own ideology in many other ways too. But the economy was centrally planned... He even copied Stalin's economic policies. He used public works programs, deficit spending and other Socialist-Keynesian tactics. Nazi Germany was both a police state and welfare state. And his ultimate plan was, after the war, to totally dismantle what remained of capitalism and create a "new world" for his people to live in.

Hitler himself was harshly critical of capitalism, which he saw as a "Jewish creation" and "conspiracy". He also named his party NSDAP... the word "Socialist" was included because he really believed in socialist ideals -- in his own sick and weird way. Yes, yes... I've heard it a million times: "He did X, Y, Z so he wasn't! He wasn't, I tell ya!" But he was. Hitler was a two-faced maniac. He embraced whatever he thought would serve him best. So yes, he did some "borrowing" from capitalism to "upgrade" the Reich and fight the war. I imagine because it works; and his vision of "pure" Nazi-socialism would not work until he conquered the world and had total power over it.

It's kind of amusing to see people deny that the Reich was a socialist state, as if that would blemish the reputation of good-hearted and academic socialists. You don't need to get defensive... But just look at the facts...

[#FF0000]

It was... Not what I'd call "genuine" socialism, like you good folks advocate, but it was a form of socialism. Yes, he was cozy with German industry for rearming, building up his military and economy and fueling the war effort, and he also contradicted his own ideology in many other ways too. But the economy was centrally planned... He even copied Stalin's economic policies. He used public works programs, deficit spending and other Socialist-Keynesian tactics. Nazi Germany was both a police state and welfare state. And his ultimate plan was, after the war, to totally dismantle what remained of capitalism and create a "new world" for his people to live in.

Hitler himself was harshly critical of capitalism, which he saw as a "Jewish creation" and "conspiracy". He also named his party NSDAP... the word "Socialist" was included because he really believed in socialist ideals -- in his own sick and weird way. Yes, yes... I've heard it a million times: "He did X, Y, Z so he wasn't! He wasn't, I tell ya!" But he was. Hitler was a two-faced maniac. He embraced whatever he thought would serve him best. So yes, he did some "borrowing" from capitalism to "upgrade" the Reich and fight the war. I imagine because it works; and his vision of "pure" Nazi-socialism would not work until he conquered the world and had total power over it.

It's kind of amusing to see people deny that the Reich was a socialist state, as if that would blemish the reputation of good-hearted and academic socialists. You don't need to get defensive... But just look at the facts...

There's really nothing left-ish about Hitler's Germany except some of the rhetoric.

Can you give us a definition that would include Nazi germany?

[kapitalyst]

There's really nothing left-ish about Hitler's Germany except some of the rhetoric.

Can you give us a definition that would include Nazi germany?

I don't understand the question. What are you asking me to do? A definition of socialism itself?

[#FF0000]

I don't understand the question. What are you asking me to do?

Oh, yeah that was poorly worded. I'm asking you to define Socialism in your own words.

[RGacky3]

But the economy was centrally planned... He even copied Stalin's economic policies.

not a definition of socialism by any socialist.

Socialism = Democratic economy.

monarchies have centrally planned economies, no one ever calls them socialist.


He used public works programs, deficit spending and other Socialist-Keynesian tactics. Nazi Germany was both a police state and welfare state. And his ultimate plan was, after the war, to totally dismantle what remained of capitalism and create a "new world" for his people to live in.


Thats bullshit if you know anything about What hitler did, which was privatize, a lot, and cooperate with private buisiness.


the word "Socialist" was included because he really believed in socialist ideals -- in his own sick and weird way.

Really? read what he wrote about socialists, he used socialist because thats how you get elected in europe, (especially back then).


It's kind of amusing to see people deny that the Reich was a socialist state, as if that would blemish the reputation of good-hearted and academic socialists. You don't need to get defensive... But just look at the facts...

yeah, look at the facts.

[kapitalyst]

Oh, yeah that was poorly worded. I'm asking you to define Socialism in your own words.

The "academic" definition of socialism, from the works of Marx, is an economic system is which the means of production are, in some fashion, "publicly owned"... and everything functions based on social cooperation and sharing (of resources).

But I don't use this definition. Firstly, I think it's too abstracted when trying to look at real-world economics and politics. Secondly, I think it's too idealistic and such a thing never has (and never will) exist as it does in books.

So when I talk about "socialism", I'm talking about a system striving to be like Marx's ideological socialism (at least in some meaningful way), and I identify it by a few characteristics. I'm also talking about statist socialism, because there has never been anarcho-socialism or even anarchcy...



Central planning -- the state is the ultimate authority on how economic resources, property and capital is distributed. Even if Hitler, for instance, let German capitalists stay in control of their businesses it was because he was doing it as a means to his end (which I described).



Welfare State -- people ultimately rely on the state to meet their needs, rather than a private sector. Nazi Germany had a very large welfare system, and Hitler believed strongly that he was the "shepherd" of the people and had to care for them.



Wealth/Capital Redistribution -- wealth and capital is redistributed, by the state, in some way. This usually involves taxation, monetary inflation and deficit spending and sometimes outright confiscation. And Hitler did all of these things...

These are the key features of "practical" socialism in the real, modern world. If you're looking for Marx's flavor of socialism, you're not going to get it. It simply comes down to, at the lowest level, that individuals are not responsible for their own material situation; the state is. And the state uses its power to try to meet the needs of the people (or sometimes just part of them) through whatever means it so chooses.

[kapitalyst]

Socialism = Democratic economy.


:laugh:

Capitalism is the only "democratic economy". I vote with my dollars every day like the rest of America. Centrally-planned economies are oppressive, and the people have no say at all. And that's why countries with centrally-planned economies typically murdered people by the thousands to shut them up and make people "socially cooperate"...



monarchies have centrally planned economies, no one ever calls them socialist.


Monarchies do not have centrally-planned economies. The monarch is, however, autocratic. So he/she could do whatever they want.



Thats bullshit if you know anything about What hitler did, which was privatize, a lot, and cooperate with private buisiness.


By the same token, look at the other things he did... ;)

Let's say, for the sake of example, that you and a bunch of other Marxists win an election or revolution in the US and take power. But you're suddenly blind-sided by a major war that you've no choice but to fight. So you can't start making a bunch of changes domestically and trying to dismantle the capitalist system over-night. You've got to think about survival, first and foremost. So would you not be a socialist if you temporarily cooperated with some elements of capitalism?



Really? read what he wrote about socialists, he used socialist because thats how you get elected in europe, (especially back then).


Please give us an example from a reliable source...



yeah, look at the facts.

Word...

[RGacky3]

Capitalism is the only "democratic economy". I vote with my dollars every day like the rest of America. Centrally-planned economies are oppressive, and the people have no say at all. And that's why countries with centrally-planned economies typically murdered people by the thousands to shut them up and make people "socially cooperate"...


most socialists are not for centrally planned economies.

And in the US 1% of the people have 90% of the votes .... thats not socialism thats a centrally planned economy :).


Monarchies do not have centrally-planned economies. The monarch is, however, autocratic. So he/she could do whatever they want.


.... yes they do ... The Monarch can and does dictate economic policy.


Let's say, for the sake of example, that you and a bunch of other Marxists win an election or revolution in the US and take power. But you're suddenly blind-sided by a major war that you've no choice but to fight. So you can't start making a bunch of changes domestically and trying to dismantle the capitalist system over-night. You've got to think about survival, first and foremost. So would you not be a socialist if you temporarily cooperated with some elements of capitalism?


Ok, but we are going by facts here, not what you think he would have done.


Please give us an example from a reliable source...


I'll do that, if you really doubt that Hitler had a problem with socialists and communists and anarchists ....

[Per Levy]

Capitalism is the only "democratic economy". I vote with my dollars every day like the rest of America

like you have a choice, not to mention if you're poor you cant "vote" that much witht he little amount dollars you have.


Centrally-planned economies are oppressive, and the people have no say at all.

wich is interesting you and "the people" have nothing to say in the produtction process at all.


Hitler himself was harshly critical of capitalism, which he saw as a "Jewish creation" and "conspiracy".

the same goes to communism wich the jews are also behind according to antisemitc asses.


He also named his party NSDAP... the word "Socialist" was included because he really believed in socialist ideals -- in his own sick and weird way.

that is plain wrong, the usage of the word socialism had 2 reason:

1. propaganda, to that time socialism was huge and if you wanted to get votes from the workers you had to at least be for socialism a little bit.*

2. provocation, using socialism for a right wing and antiworker ideology was provocative towards the real worker parties the socialdemocrats and the communists.


Yes, yes... I've heard it a million times: "He did X, Y, Z so he wasn't! He wasn't, I tell ya!" But he was. Hitler was a two-faced maniac. He embraced whatever he thought would serve him best.

propaganda wise yes, but lets look at what he did, the leadership of the SA got purged the only ones that actually were for somemthing like "national socialism".
he didnt attack the bourgeoisie, only the jewish ones, because the nazis draw a distinction when it came to capitalists, the "bad" ones: the jews that only exploit and only take. and the "good" ones: the arians, who create and do good.
he got rid of all the marxists partys and the unions wich was one of the main goals of the nazis.
the nazi party was also backed by a shitload of capitalists who saw in the fascists the way to get rid of communists and unions.


So yes, he did some "borrowing" from capitalism to "upgrade" the Reich and fight the war. I imagine because it works; and his vision of "pure" Nazi-socialism would not work until he conquered the world and had total power over it.

wich is total bs, and this is only your belive and not rooted in historic facts.


Let's say, for the sake of example, that you and a bunch of other Marxists win an election or revolution in the US and take power. But you're suddenly blind-sided by a major war that you've no choice but to fight. So you can't start making a bunch of changes domestically and trying to dismantle the capitalist system over-night. You've got to think about survival, first and foremost. So would you not be a socialist if you temporarily cooperated with some elements of capitalism?

well that was what happend to the bolsheviks, and yet we call them socialists/communists becuase they were and because they actually attacked the bourgeoisie and got rid of it, in times of one of the most brutal and devastating civil wars in the history of human kind. the nazi party had 6 years before they started to attack the rest of europe, and they didnt attack the bourgeoisie only the workers were attacked, they're parties anihalated, they're unions broken and their rights stripped away.

[kapitalyst]

most socialists are not for centrally planned economies.


As I already said, I distinguish Marxist socialists (folks like you) from the socialists out there involved in politics in the western world. I consider most of the people here to be "academic" socialists/Marxists/communists. People on the outside always have a different view than those on the inside You are mostly a theoretical bunch who talk about how human society could, in your opinion, be better. I admit, your ideas are very "humanitarian" and beautiful, in many ways. The "practical" socialists, who are out there trying to make their vision of socialism work, are a different bunch.

Since you're not for a centrally-planned economy, your idea is never going to happen. You cannot expect that everyone will just "magically" cooperate someday and that it will all work somehow. People are self-interested and greedy. I've had socialists try to deny that, but then they support social welfare programs because they say that individuals and private organizations cannot be trusted to take care of the poor and needy -- which just proves the point.



And in the US 1% of the people have 90% of the votes .... thats not socialism thats a centrally planned economy :).


I've heard that before, though I've never seen the source of that claim or any data to back it up. My gut tells me that it's completely untrue. Some economists recently did a study, and found that government confiscation of 100% of the wealthy's money and income would not even be enough to run the US budget, much less "feed the masses".

And not to worry... Millionaires aren't spending $1M on soft drinks, light bulbs, food, medicine, etc every day: we are. So our votes are safely in tact and very powerful. Business cannot subsist without the consumer base. The voting power is firmly in our hands. ;)



.... yes they do ... The Monarch can and does dictate economic policy.


Sorry, Gacky, but you're wrong... And FYI, dictating economic policy and central planning are not the same thing.



Ok, but we are going by facts here, not what you think he would have done.


No, I'm asking you what you would do, and I tried to make a fictional scenario tailored to your ideology. So would you not be a Marxist if you had to work with the capitalists temporarily to rearm your country and fight a war -- and to avoid a civil war, possibly?



I'll do that, if you really doubt that Hitler had a problem with socialists and communists and anarchists....

Yes, I'd love to see a historical source which says Hitler had a problem with socialists or socialism.

Of course he hated anarchists... he was a hardcore authoritarian. And his rants against the "communists" were not because of communism and what it stands for. Specifically, he hated the Bolsheviks and everything Slavic or Russian. He called them Germany's "racial enemy".

And Hitler hated the communists in Germany because they were pro-USSR and, given their way, they would have Germany join the Soviet Union. Hitler was a psychopathic nationalist, so that was the last thing he wanted. Germany's sovereignty and his position of power was more important to him than anything.

[kapitalyst]

like you have a choice, not to mention if you're poor you cant "vote" that much witht he little amount dollars you have.


Yes, I DO have a choice. All consumers do. Except when the government forces us to do something (e.g., car insurance). Of course poor people don't have as much "voting power" because they have less dollars to "vote" with. But they're free to, like I did, create wealth for themselves. Everyone is. And since the people with the most dollars are typically the people who have contributed the most to the market or society, it makes good sense.



wich is interesting you and "the people" have nothing to say in the produtction process at all.


Oh really? Actually, we do. There are a lot of crap companies and products no longer in existence today because we put them out of business.



the same goes to communism wich the jews are also behind according to antisemitc asses.


He said that about Bolshevism... and that was often substituted for "the communists". But as I already pointed out above your post, it wasn't really about Marx and communist ideology. It was about hatred of the USSR and the Slavs...



that is plain wrong, the usage of the word socialism had 2 reason:

1. propaganda, to that time socialism was huge and if you wanted to get votes from the workers you had to at least be for socialism a little bit.*

2. provocation, using socialism for a right wing and antiworker ideology was provocative towards the real worker parties the socialdemocrats and the communists.


That's nonsense... And Hitler first joined the party that he eventually took over and turned into the Nazi party because he admired their mixture of socialism and German nationalism.



propaganda wise yes, but lets look at what he did, the leadership of the SA got purged the only ones that actually were for somemthing like "national socialism".


What?... You might want to look into that, and get back in touch with the history books. Hitler wanted to get rid of the SA because Röhm had too much power, he was a homosexual, he undermined Hitler's authority and the SA "brown shirts" were dangerously loyal to him.



he didnt attack the bourgeoisie, only the jewish ones, because the nazis draw a distinction when it came to capitalists, the "bad" ones: the jews that only exploit and only take. and the "good" ones: the arians, who create and do good.


Hitler attacked everyone who didn't bow to him. Not just Jews. The only capitalists he cozied up to were the ones which served him in some way (*cough* like the Soviet Union! *cough*).



he got rid of all the marxists partys and the unions wich was one of the main goals of the nazis.


He got rid of ALL political parties and organizations... And again *cough* so did the Soviets... ;)



the nazi party was also backed by a shitload of capitalists who saw in the fascists the way to get rid of communists and unions.


And that means: squat. There are murderers, gangsters and terrorists who supported Obama and other politicians... does that mean Obama is one of them? NO...



wich is total bs, and this is only your belive and not rooted in historic facts.


Sigh... I guess I better throw away all these history books I have lying around the house, forget both my formal and individual education and stop watching history documentaries... "it jus aint historic" :cool:



well that was what happend to the bolsheviks, and yet we call them socialists/communists becuase they were and because they actually attacked the bourgeoisie and got rid of it, in times of one of the most brutal and devastating civil wars in the history of human kind. the nazi party had 6 years before they started to attack the rest of europe, and they didnt attack the bourgeoisie only the workers were attacked, they're parties anihalated, they're unions broken and their rights stripped away.

Oh, did they? Because I seem to remember that the oligarchs of the USSR lived in luxury, while the people were living in communal apartment blocks, small houses and shanties. And I also seem to remember that they were very embracing especially of "military capitalism", and that those who made weapons for the Motherland lived in luxury too... that is, when Stalin wasn't purging them. :lol:

Germany was trying to rebuild and rearm after being totally raped by the Treaty of Versailles, the Great Depression, hyper-inflation and many other things. It wasn't a calm, laid-back 6 years in which Hitler was playing around. His mind was always on gearing up for war. And by the looks of it, those 6 years still weren't enough: we won!

[RGacky3]

As I already said, I distinguish Marxist socialists (folks like you) from the socialists out there involved in politics in the western world.

A: I'm not a Marxist
B: You don't know what Marxism is, obviously.
C: Marx never talked about centrally planned economies.


You are mostly a theoretical bunch who talk about how human society could, in your opinion, be better. I admit, your ideas are very "humanitarian" and beautiful, in many ways. The "practical" socialists, who are out there trying to make their vision of socialism work, are a different bunch.


Well you don't have a damn clue what your talking about, becaues youdon't know what anyone here does, speaking ofr myself, I've done plenty of union organizing and union activity.

(something you should be for if your for the free market, its not the state, its the workers themselves).


Since you're not for a centrally-planned economy, your idea is never going to happen. You cannot expect that everyone will just "magically" cooperate someday and that it will all work somehow.

My idea HAS worked and it DOES work, in Anarchist spain, in the Zapatista territories, in worker cooperatives, in non-profits, in democratic institutions ....


People are self-interested and greedy. I've had socialists try to deny that, but then they support social welfare programs because they say that individuals and private organizations cannot be trusted to take care of the poor and needy -- which just proves the point.


Actually anthropologists have found the opposite, people are generally more cooporative and compassionate when given the choice, Capitalism requires selfishness and greed, it rewards it, thus you see more if it.


I've heard that before, though I've never seen the source of that claim or any data to back it up. My gut tells me that it's completely untrue. Some economists recently did a study, and found that government confiscation of 100% of the wealthy's money and income would not even be enough to run the US budget, much less "feed the masses".


Well we did have a surplus under Clinton, But imagen what we could do if we nationalized the banks and oil industries, and put it under democratic control, well we don't have to imagen.


And not to worry... Millionaires aren't spending $1M on soft drinks, light bulbs, food, medicine, etc every day: we are. So our votes are safely in tact and very powerful. Business cannot subsist without the consumer base. The voting power is firmly in our hands. http://www.revleft.com/vb/nazism-and-capitalism-t161602/revleft/smilies/wink.gif


yeah, because the important decisions in life are coke or pepsi :).

If your for democracy, lets have co-determination? If CEOs are really worth that much they'll make as much if hte workers have half the votes on the board.


Sorry, Gacky, but you're wrong... And FYI, dictating economic policy and central planning are not the same thing.


No, I'm right, Monarchy = the King makes the decisions = He plans the economy.

Either way, centrally planned economy does not equal socialism, nor did marx talk about it.

tlaking about centrally planned economies, thats basically what we have in the US, except its planned by a few corporate executives.


No, I'm asking you what you would do, and I tried to make a fictional scenario tailored to your ideology. So would you not be a Marxist if you had to work with the capitalists temporarily to rearm your country and fight a war -- and to avoid a civil war, possibly?


What would I do ... first off, co-determination, (or full determination), nationalize the banks and major industries and set up coopratives grants ... As far as avoiding a civil war? How? Are Capitalists going to take up arms to over throw a democratic government?


Yes, I'd love to see a historical source which says Hitler had a problem with socialists or socialism.


Well ... the concentration camps is one exapmle.

Hitler called the 2 evils in the world Jewdeism and Communism, (not Slaves) in main kampf, and blamed the problems of Germany on Jews, Marxists AND social democrats.

[Per Levy]

Yes, I'd love to see a historical source which says Hitler had a problem with socialists or socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_political_views#Anticommunism


In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.
---
In this way the struggle against the present State was placed on a higher plane than that of petty revenge and small conspiracies. It was elevated to the level of a spiritual struggle on behalf of a WELTANSCHAUUNG, for the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms.

both quotes from "mein kampf"

and there is so much more, sadly the english wikiquote concentrates much more on hitlers speeches about god and church and how much he loves both. but really you could look up that quotes yourself, no one here needs to do your dirty work.

[kapitalyst]

@ Per Levy:

I wanted to copy things from the article you linked, but the forums won't let me... Anyway...

Hitler was a madman. Much of what he did and believed was based on personal delusions. For the 20th time, I say again that Hitler was not a Marxist socialist. He was, however, a National Socialist. And National Socialism was full of socialist conviction... problem was, it only applied to "Aryans" and was doled out at der Fuehrer's discretion.

Now... The dead horse has already taken enough of a beating... :lol:

@ RGacky3:

Ok, I did not know you were not a Marxist because you never said so. My bad for making the assumption, because most people here are... However, I've read both The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. I know more about Marxism (and well, most other things too) than you do... I'm quite confident of that. ;)

You obviously didn't listen to a damn thing I said about central-planning vs Marxism, since I never tried to equate the two things to each other. The fact is though, that Marxist socialism isn't the only socialism anymore.

No, if I'm for a free market I'm not for or against unions. Workers can make unions if they want to, since they have the liberty to do so. Businesses can also fire them if they want to... especially when the union causes severe problems and damages the business (as they all too often do). I will never support government-backed unions though. In an actual free market, it doesn't matter to me. Make your union. And I hope it works out for you... But don't whine when you get fired for some slowdown or scabs take your place. And don't go out beating people half to death to make them join and killing those who don't...

Yeah, people do cooperate and have compassion. But we're still selfish creatures. Wanna start a fight? Drop a piece of candy between two toddlers... you'll see unrestrained human nature at its finest. We're taught altruism, but we're born with a powerful, natural self-interest. It is vital to the survival of all species on this planet.

Oh God... the "surplus under Clinton" myth has reared its head again... :rolleyes:

And what is "democratic control"? Because we really have none of that in government today. And "publicly-owned" just means state-owned.


yeah, because the important decisions in life are coke or pepsi

"Millionaires aren't spending $1M on soft drinks, light bulbs, food, medicine, etc every day: we are"

These are simply examples. I'd say food and medicine are quite important, wouldn't you? How about housing? Transportation? Energy?


No, I'm right, Monarchy = the King makes the decisions = He plans the economy.

No, you're absolutely wrong. You obviously don't know the difference between autocracy and central-planning...

Kings didn't actually "plan" economies at all. They made policies to accomplish goals for their empire (e.g., embargo against an enemy, tariffs on foreign imports, tax on X, Y, X). That is NOT central-planning...


Either way, centrally planned economy does not equal socialism, nor did marx talk about it.

Duhhhhhhhhhh? :rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

I know more about Marxism (and well, most other things too) than you do... I'm quite confident of that. http://www.revleft.com/vb/nazism-and-capitalism-t161602/revleft/smilies/wink.gif


Obviously you don't, because then you'd know centrally planned economy has nothing to do with Marxism.


In an actual free market, it doesn't matter to me. Make your union. And I hope it works out for you... But don't whine when you get fired for some slowdown or scabs take your place. And don't go out beating people half to death to make them join and killing those who don't...


In an actual free market, you would'nt have capitalism ... Capitalism NEEDS the state to exist.


Yeah, people do cooperate and have compassion. But we're still selfish creatures.

We're taught altruism, but we're born with a powerful, natural self-interest. It is vital to the survival of all species on this planet.


SnOqanbHZi4
L5c5mZhDs4U
u6XAPnuFjJc

There have been tons of studies about the libertarian view of human nauture, and most of it is bullshit.


And what is "democratic control"? Because we really have none of that in government today. And "publicly-owned" just means state-owned.


Democratic control means if you want to do something with a publicly controlled industry you have to go through a democratic process and it is democratically accountable.

If a state is a functioning democracy (which the US is not), then the state owned = democraticly controlled.

Not all states are created equal.

[#FF0000]

Central planning -- the state is the ultimate authority on how economic resources, property and capital is distributed. Even if Hitler, for instance, let German capitalists stay in control of their businesses it was because he was doing it as a means to his end (which I described).The German state did not have central planning. If Germany had central planning, then every country on the planet has central planning. This is sorta inconsistent.I mean, the most intrusive government policies in the economy didn't even come around until the war, for obvious reasons.


Welfare State -- people ultimately rely on the state to meet their needs, rather than a private sector. Nazi Germany had a very large welfare system, and Hitler believed strongly that he was the "shepherd" of the people and had to care for them.Again this would mean that almost every country on the planet is socialist. Was Bismarck's Germany socialist? Was FDR?
Wealth/Capital Redistribution -- wealth and capital is redistributed, by the state, in some way. This usually involves taxation, monetary inflation and deficit spending and sometimes outright confiscation. And Hitler did all of these things...Every state in history, that has ever existed, has done these things.


These are the key features of "practical" socialism in the real, modern world. If you're looking for Marx's flavor of socialism, you're not going to get it.Then why call it socialism? All it does is ties up otherwise capitalist societies with interventionist policies with people who advocate for the complete abolition of the capitalist mode of production and who favor working class control of society.

It just seems like a dishonest use of semantics to me.

[Экс-фашистских]

Hitler was a part of the bourgeoisie:


Hitler's Speech to German Capitalists on 20 February 1933

With the year 1918 an entire system collapsed. That it had to come about was often predicted, also by economic leaders, especially by Geheimrat Kirdorf. The revolution which the year 1918 brought us was only conditional. In any case it did not bring about the revolution such as in Russia, but only a new school of thought which slowly initiated the dissolution of the existing order. Bismarck's statement: "Liberalism is the pacemaker of social democracy" is now scientifically established and proved for us. A given school of thought — thought direction — can unsuspectedly lead towards the dissolution of the foundation of the state. In our country also, a new direction of thought had gained ground which slowly led to internal disruption and became the pacemaker of Bolshevism.

Private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy; it is conceivable only if the people have a sound idea of authority and personality. Everything positive, good, and valuable, which has been achieved in the world in the field of economics and culture, is solely attributable to personality. When, however, the defense of the existing order, its political administration, is left to a majority it will irretrievably go under. All the worldly goods which we possess, we owe to the struggle of the chosen. Would we have had the present conditions in the Middle Ages, the foundations of our German Reich would never have been laid. The same mentality that was the basis for obtaining these values must be used to preserve these values. All values which make up the greatness of our culture originated from an entirely different mentality than that which seized control of these values since 1918. The revolution is the first result of a decade-old development of discord in our people. All over the world we witness this crisis of disunity. Only the reaction of the people varies, as for example, in Russia and Italy. In the other countries, Germany included, this crisis, in its last possibilities and consequences, is not yet being recognized. Our people have not yet sufficiently recognized that there are two souls struggling for it. Our entire life is based upon mutual agreements. The smallest example of this is the family and this holds true up to the state. It is an impossibility that part of the people recognize private ownership while another part denies it. Such a struggle splits the people. The struggle lasts until one side emerges victorious. When a man deserts his unit he can be punished. When, however, 15 to 20 percent disregard their oath of allegiance, the unit must fail as a military instrument. The same applies to a state; if 15 percent of the people deny the state as a permanent recognized social order, it is impossible to establish a system which will support the whole. Therefore, it is just as impossible to preserve a culture - its art, religion, and science - if a certain percentage of the nation refuses to abide by the thoughts which created such a culture. Justice also can only be established upon generally recognized theories. Therefore, it can also be Bolshevistic, if it has to protect the Bolshevist cause. Such a condition of discord leads slowly but surely to agony, to the death of an ideology. No two ideologies can continuously live alongside one another. In such struggles, the strength of a people completely spends itself internally and, therefore, cannot act externally. It does not rest. This condition of attrition lasts until one party emerges victorious or the state itself is dissolved, whereupon, a people loses its place in history. We live in such times now, when the die must be cast, and when we must decide whether we want to adopt a form of life that supports the state or to have communism. The latter is also thinkable. It is often being said that communism is the lowest step of humanity. I believe the very opposite, that it is the origin of human development. It represents the most primitive form of human life. The deeper one delves into nature, the more alike become its achievements, they become, as in communism, more and more homogeneous. The Communist principle cannot be maintained. It is not by chance that one person accomplishes more than another. The principle of private ownership, which has slowly gone into the general conception of justice and has become a complicated process of economic life, is rooted in this fact. The course which we have to take is clearly indicated. It is, however, not enough to say: We do not want communism in (our) economy. If we continue on our old political course, then we shall perish. We have had ample experience in the past years to prove that economics and politics cannot be separated. The political conduct of the struggle is the primary decisive factor. Therefore, politically too, things must be clarified. Economics alone has not created the German Reich, and neither did politics make economics, but each one built steadily higher upon the other. The hand-in-hand efforts of politics and economics brought us to our greatness, whereas working at cross-purposes, as we experienced it after the revolution resulted in continuous decline. As I lay in the hospital in 1918, I experienced the revolution in Bavaria. From the beginning, I saw it as a crisis in the development of the German people, as a period of transition. Life is forever dividing humanity. It is therefore the noblest task of a leader to find ideals that are stronger than the factors that pull the people apart. Even while in the hospital I recognized that one had to search for new ideas conducive to reconstruction. I found them in nationalism, in the evaluation of personality, in the denial of reconciliation between nations, in the strength and power of the individual. On this basis I tried to bring about harmony between the two souls struggling with one another within the German people. The struggle which I undertook was so much harder because it was conducted during a time when the law for the protection of the weak and decadent held true, a law under which every nation is doomed to perish. Of course, nothing is accomplished by simply opposing such trains of thought, one has to offer new thoughts. If one rejects pacifism, one must present a new idea in its place immediately. Everything which is to be pushed aside must be replaced by something better.

For 40 years we are experiencing a continuous growth of social democracy. Bismarck said shortly before he retired: "If this keeps up, Marx is bound to be victorious."

The creative and decomposing forces in a people always fight against one another. In this struggle one side always gains ever greater heights than the other, and therefore I have been following the development of social democracy with steadily growing concern, and said to myself, we must come to a decision. I have repeatedly taken the occasion to point out to responsible people what danger was threatening the German people. Time and again it was argued (among others, by von Seeckt, too) that, at the present, this would mean civil war. And when, a few years ago, the number of Socialist seats was decreased a little, I was told triumphantly: "Look here, the danger is already over." They always comforted themselves with the hope that the Socialist movement would slow down by itself. The danger, however, cannot be overcome by such means. Human beings are nothing less than equal, and if human beings are not led, they revert to the most primitive state. It was this perception that moved me to found a new Nationalist movement, which after 14 years of struggle has become a leading force in the German Reich. We must not forget that all the benefits of culture must be introduced more or less with an iron fist, just as once upon a time the farmers were forced to plant potatoes. For all this, however, courage, an iron will, and perseverance are essential.

We are today facing the following situation. The Weimar Government imposed upon us a certain constitutional order by which they put us on a democratic basis. By that we were, however, not provided with an able governmental authority. On the contrary, for the same reasons for which I criticized democracy before, it was inevitable that communism, in ever greater measure, penetrated the minds of the German people. The result was an ever-increasing tension, by which — and that is almost the worst — the courts too, did not remain uninfluenced. Two fronts have thus taken shape which put to us the choice: either Marxism in its purest form, or the other side. One cannot assume the point of view and say that the other side will gradually assert itself again. Such an attitude means defeat. When I wanted to act, I was advised to wait awhile. But I did not agree to such toleration. With the very same courage with which we set out to make amends for the evils of the last 14 years, we have withstood all attempts to deter us from the right way. We have turned down the benevolent offer of the Center Party (Zentrum) to tolerate us. Hugenberg's movement is too small. He has only considerably slowed down our development. We must first gain complete power if we want to crush the other side completely. While still in the process of gaining power, one should not start the struggle against the opponent. Only when one knows that one has reached the pinnacle of power, that there is no further possible upward development, should one strike. In Prussia, we must still gain another 10 seats, and in the Reich proper, another 33. That is not impossible if we exert all our strength. Then, only, begins the second action against communism.

Now we stand before the last election. Regardless of the outcome, there will be no retreat [Rueckfall], even if the coming election does not bring about a decision. One way or another, if the election does not decide, the decision simply will have to be brought about by other means. I have recommended that the people once more be given the chance to decide their fate by themselves. This determination is a strong asset for whatever might possibly happen later. Does the election bring no result, well, Germany will not go to ruin. Today, as never before, everyone is under the obligation to pledge himself to success. The necessity to make sacrifices has never been greater than now. For the economy I have but one wish — that its progress towards a calm future run parallel with the inner reconstruction. The question of restoration of the Wehrmacht will not be decided at Geneva, but in Germany, when we have gained internal strength through internal peace. There will, however, be no internal peace until Marxism is eliminated [erledigt]. Here lies the decision which we must face, hard as the struggle might be. I stake my life in the struggle day after day, as do all those who joined me in this struggle. There are only two possibilities, either to crowd back the opponent on constitutional grounds, and for this purpose once more this election, or a struggle will be conducted with other weapons, which may demand greater sacrifices. I would like to see them avoided. I hope the German people thus recognize the greatness of the hour. It shall decide over the next 10 or probably 100 years. It will become a turning point in German history, to which I pledge myself with glowing energy.

Hitler, a revolutionary socialist? What a laugh.

Look up on Wikipedia "Secret Meeting of 20 February 1933".

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, I DO have a choice. All consumers do. Except when the government forces us to do something (e.g., car insurance). Of course poor people don't have as much "voting power" because they have less dollars to "vote" with. But they're free to, like I did, create wealth for themselves. Everyone is. And since the people with the most dollars are typically the people who have contributed the most to the market or society, it makes good senseIn many, if not most, feudalist countries (and even in most slave programs) a peasant (or slave) could buy his freedom. All he had to do was save up for it.Money is not votes, plain and simple. It is not a democratic process if one party has or can have an infinite amount of votes more than another."Sigh... I guess I better throw away all these history books I have lying around the house, forget both my formal and individual education and stop watching history documentaries... "it jus aint historic""You probably should. They don't seem to be helping you understand history any better :DHonestly I could care less if Hiter, Stalin, or Reagan were socialists. The fact is they all support something completely antithetical to what I do. We can dance around these semantical issues all day on whether statism is socialism, whether capitalism has ever existed, whatever. It doesn't really matter. WHat YOU support (private enterprise) is the dominant model of economic policy across the world. WHat I do (public enterprise) has been rarely tried, largely succesful when it has, and vehemently opposed by the people who support what you support when it was.

[Revolution starts with U]

Something's wrong w my formatting. When looking for a thread it's all fine. But when I enter the thread it goes to like a white background w no clear delineations. And when I reply, I can't quote or insert smilies or anything. If anyone knows what is wrong, please PM me :D ty

[Catma]

And when, a few years ago, the number of Socialist seats was decreased a little, I was told triumphantly: "Look here, the danger is already over." They always comforted themselves with the hope that the Socialist movement would slow down by itself. The danger, however, cannot be overcome by such means.

That's pretty good. Kapitalyst wants a direct quote of Hitler saying something like "Socialism is evil!" Like most shallow thinkers, the name is everything. If someone shot a man in the face and called it socialism, to them it would be a black day for the socialist movement. Right wingers love to have arguments involving the definition of socialism, because a) they can make up whatever stupid shit they want and call it socialism, because few people know better, and b) socialists can't refute the point without explaining everything that socialism has ever meant to anyone anywhere, which is a long, confusing, and boring argument.

Kapitalyst is not really arguing honestly. He muddles arguments where there are grey areas, and flat out denies premises where there aren't. He does this because he knows it "in his gut" (I picture him waving a giant flag that says "I am a troll!" as he types this), and therefore can't be convinced by any evidence that could be presented on an internet forum.

[Lanky Wanker]

It's funny when people try and use "the Nazis were pro-socialist" against me when I say anything good about socialism lol.

[kapitalyst]

Obviously you don't, because then you'd know centrally planned economy has nothing to do with Marxism.


Duh, duh, duh, duhhhhhhhhhhhh! I'm shedding some tears for reading comprehension... :crying:



In an actual free market, you would'nt have capitalism ... Capitalism NEEDS the state to exist.


That's because of the way you define "capitalism". Which, if I'm understanding your views correctly, is defined simply by private ownership of property/capital. So you're suggesting there could be no capitalism with no state (anarchy) -- since there would be no "property rights"? I have an AK-47 (the best thing you commies ever made, lol) which begs to differ. Did a good job enforcing people's property rights in post-Katrina anarchy. :lol:

Anarchism simply isn't going to happen with any economic system. I think anarchism is the greatest idea ever, but it's just a shame that it could never work out. There simply has to be some way where the people can keep order in society and stop all hell from breaking loose: something which is called the state. Therefore, I'm a minarchist... and the state itself, entrusted with such authority, must be very limited in scope and power, lest it become a vehicle of abuse and oppression itself.



There have been tons of studies about the libertarian view of human nauture, and most of it is bullshit.


Yeah, right... :rolleyes:

I have a psychology text book from college in front of me right now that begs to differ on this. I may just have to scan some pages of this thing to show you...

Everything we do, even cooperation, is self-serving. It's in my best interest as an individual to not kill everyone I see and steal their things. I would forgo opportunities if I did (and I'd definitely never reproduce). There are cooperative and compassionate elements within human nature, but not only is it not the "unseen force" which makes us function but its purpose is the betterment of our situation as an individual. There is no "collective consciousness" motivating us to do anything. You don't feel the pains of hunger in your neighbor's stomach, nor does he feel yours. And if necessary, you'd both kill each other to ensure your family/children do not starve. One of the six major theories on motivation, Drive-Reduction Theory, offers the best explanation of it.

It's the socialist view of human nature which is regarded as bullshit by sociologists, psychologists and anthropologists. Nice try, posting videos from RT! :laugh:
"Various media figures and NGOs have criticized RT for its support of the Russian government, Soviet nostalgia, advancing conspiracy theories, offering a platform to commentators from the extreme-left and radical Islamism. RT acknowledges some of the criticisms, justifying them as an "alternative to mainstream media."
Those criticisms are *cough* true... but at least RT admits it, somewhat.



Democratic control means if you want to do something with a publicly controlled industry you have to go through a democratic process and it is democratically accountable.

If a state is a functioning democracy (which the US is not), then the state owned = democraticly controlled.


Fair enough.

[kapitalyst]

That's pretty good. Kapitalyst wants a direct quote of Hitler saying something like "Socialism is evil!" Like most shallow thinkers, the name is everything. If someone shot a man in the face and called it socialism, to them it would be a black day for the socialist movement. Right wingers love to have arguments involving the definition of socialism, because a) they can make up whatever stupid shit they want and call it socialism, because few people know better, and b) socialists can't refute the point without explaining everything that socialism has ever meant to anyone anywhere, which is a long, confusing, and boring argument.

Kapitalyst is not really arguing honestly. He muddles arguments where there are grey areas, and flat out denies premises where there aren't. He does this because he knows it "in his gut" (I picture him waving a giant flag that says "I am a troll!" as he types this), and therefore can't be convinced by any evidence that could be presented on an internet forum.

I've already explained where I'm coming from... And no, I'm not trolling...

The way socialism actually turns out when it is tried is not at all what Marx intended. It always turns into a statist oligarchy... it never delivers the promises it made to the proletariat. Maybe there is someone out there who could do a better job... maybe this has been the fault of the people who have tried it. But that's what has happened every time thus far. So, in all honesty, your ideas actually haven't ever been tried. You will disagree with me, but I don't think you'll ever see them tried... the Iron Law of Oligarchy prevents it from ever coming to fruition.

Therefore we've had to expand the definition of socialism, and acknowledge what forms "socialism" has taken on, because the academic Marxist definition cannot be applied. I see a lot of people praising the USSR around here... that is kind of shocking to me, because they were one of the most oppressive and brutal governments in human history -- in many ways, worse than even the Nazis. If that's your version of "true" socialism, then count me out -- I want no part of it. If it's not, then you have to at least see where I'm coming from.

[RGacky3]

Duh, duh, duh, duhhhhhhhhhhhh! I'm shedding some tears for reading comprehension... :crying:


... ok ...


That's because of the way you define "capitalism". Which, if I'm understanding your views correctly, is defined simply by private ownership of property/capital. So you're suggesting there could be no capitalism with no state (anarchy) -- since there would be no "property rights"? I have an AK-47 (the best thing you commies ever made, lol) which begs to differ. Did a good job enforcing people's property rights in post-Katrina anarchy. :lol:


Ok, well then we have Somalia, congratulations tough guy.

Capitalism is defined as private property, a profit motive and a mostly market system as well as a wage labor means of production, almost universally, by capitalists and socialists.


Anarchism simply isn't going to happen with any economic system. I think anarchism is the greatest idea ever, but it's just a shame that it could never work out. There simply has to be some way where the people can keep order in society and stop all hell from breaking loose: something which is called the state. Therefore, I'm a minarchist... and the state itself, entrusted with such authority, must be very limited in scope and power, lest it become a vehicle of abuse and oppression itself.


... Ever hear of Anarchist Catelonia? What about the Zapatista territories? Or Anarchist Ukriane? they did pretty fine self organizing.

BTW, anarchism does'nt necessarily mean no government, it means no state institution.

Who entrusts the state? The people? If so should'nt the state do what the people want?

Either way I'm much more of a syndicalist and a socialist than an anarchist.


Yeah, right... :rolleyes:

I have a psychology text book from college in front of me right now that begs to differ on this. I may just have to scan some pages of this thing to show you...


Do you want me to pull studies?


It's the socialist view of human nature which is regarded as bullshit by sociologists, psychologists and anthropologists. Nice try, posting videos from RT! :laugh:

What socialist view of human nature? WATCH the videos dumbass.

There is no socialist view of human nature, there is only the scientific one,

and most have said that human nature changes with circumstances all the time.

They roll with the conditions, either way human nature has nothing to do with socialism vs capitalism.


Those criticisms are *cough* true... but at least RT admits it, somewhat.


I don't care about RT, I'm talking about the people being interviewed, if you want I'll find something else from those people not with RT.

[kapitalyst]

Capitalism is defined as private property, a profit motive and a mostly market system as well as a wage labor means of production, almost universally, by capitalists and socialists.


Well, you're not as general as some of your comrades.



... Ever hear of Anarchist Catelonia? What about the Zapatista territories? Or Anarchist Ukriane? they did pretty fine self organizing.


Yes, Spain was a very peaceful place in the 1930s, and the Catalonian experiment was soooo successful. That's why the nation of Catalonia is so powerful today! wait a minute... :blushing:

I don't know much about the Ukrainian experiment, other than that it didn't work so well and was ultimately crushed by the beloved USSR. How ironic...

I think the Zapatistas are cool. I have no problem with them. However, they're not exactly anarchists... and they personally defy classification because of their unique social structure, culture and values.

I admire anarchists and think anarchism is a beautiful ideology. But if anyone thinks you can take, say, New Orleans and convert it to a peaceful anarchist society, think again. I lived through hurricane Katrina and its chaotic aftermath. That wasn't even anarchism... just a weak presence of state. And it was rather dreadful...

"Anarchism" might work ok in tight-knit communities of like-minded people of the same cultural background. As the scale gets larger and diversity becomes more prominent, however, it begins to break down. That is why human civilization has always tended toward central leadership. Unfortunately, we always seem to get carried away with that too. In all honesty though, I'd rather live in a "wild west-like" anarchy than the USSR or Nazi Germany...



BTW, anarchism does'nt necessarily mean no government, it means no state institution.


Yes?...



Who entrusts the state? The people? If so should'nt the state do what the people want?


Yes, they should. Problem is, they usually don't unless the people are so empowered that they can crush the state if it gets out of line. That's the way it should be. The state should serve and fear the people, not vice-versa...



Either way I'm much more of a syndicalist and a socialist than an anarchist.


Cool, I was beginning to think so. Thank you for clarifying. (not meant to sound sarcastic)



Do you want me to pull studies?


Want me to find studies which say evolution is a giant hoax and the holocaust didn't happen? Or a study that concludes JFK was assassinated by a sophisticated alien race? Please, don't bother... ;)



What socialist view of human nature? WATCH the videos dumbass.


It goes something like this video shows:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154845/lazy-hippies

I did watch your video. But don't go calling ANYONE names, and behaving like a 5th grader. I'm going to immediately begin to lose all respect for you. Until now, our debate, albeit a bit heated and at times sarcastic, was rather pleasant and civil. But I'm not going to talk to you if it descends into name-calling and a total lack of respect...



There is no socialist view of human nature, there is only the scientific one, and most have said that human nature changes with circumstances all the time. They roll with the conditions, either way human nature has nothing to do with socialism vs capitalism.


Oh, yes there is... Socialists jump through hoops and perform mental gymnastics to, when it suits their purposes, portray human beings as benign, peaceful and altruistic creatures... focusing on our few good qualities, and neglecting the truly dark side of humanity.

Just go out and lend three strangers all $100, and give them your address to mail it back to you. See if you end up with $300 back. Better yet, leave your doors unlocked at night, and leave the keys in your car. Always leave your wallet lying around in public places, and let your children wander in the mall. Since people are so kind and cooperative, you've nothing to worry about, right?



I don't care about RT, I'm talking about the people being interviewed, if you want I'll find something else from those people not with RT.

I don't mind you watching RT or posting videos from it. Just don't try to pass it off as matters of fact, that's all. ;)

[RGacky3]

Yes, Spain was a very peaceful place in the 1930s, and the Catalonian experiment was soooo successful. That's why the nation of Catalonia is so powerful today! wait a minute... :blushing:


It was'nt because there was a civil war, and it was successful, infact economically it did better than the rest of spain, and its not around today BECAUSE ... you had Franco fighting against it backed by germany and italy and the republicans fighting against it.

But all the horror stories people say would happen under an anarchist society did'nt happen, society functioned and functioned well (considering they were in a civil war).


I don't know much about the Ukrainian experiment, other than that it didn't work so well and was ultimately crushed by the beloved USSR. How ironic...


Yup, through military might.


I think the Zapatistas are cool. I have no problem with them. However, they're not exactly anarchists... and they personally defy classification because of their unique social structure, culture and values.


They arn't anarchists but the system they have set up is basically a socialist anarchist system.


New Orleans and convert it to a peaceful anarchist society, think again. I lived through hurricane Katrina and its chaotic aftermath. That wasn't even anarchism... just a weak presence of state. And it was rather dreadful...


Anarchism does not just mean take away the state, nor is it wipe away society with a hurricane and see what happens.

Anarchism is decentralizing both political and economic poewr and democratizing society and pursuing individual freedom.


"Anarchism" might work ok in tight-knit communities of like-minded people of the same cultural background. As the scale gets larger and diversity becomes more prominent, however, it begins to break down.

Barcelona was anarchist throughout the civil war, did'nt brake down, had to be bombed into submission.


Yes, they should. Problem is, they usually don't unless the people are so empowered that they can crush the state if it gets out of line. That's the way it should be. The state should serve and fear the people, not vice-versa...


They don't in the United States because you have a undemocratic economic system and a plutocracy.

In the US the state does'nt fear and serve the people, they fear and serve the rich and the corporate elite.

You know where the state is afraid of its people? France, because (unfortunately unlike Americans), they get out there and strike when they want to be heard, the capitalists there are also afraid of the people as they should be.


Want me to find studies which say evolution is a giant hoax and the holocaust didn't happen? Or a study that concludes JFK was assassinated by a sophisticated alien race? Please, don't bother... ;)


Ok ... you won't find peer revied studies on evolutoin or on the holocaust, you will about the subjectivity and changing and adaptatoin of human nature.

(for most of human history there was no capitalist private property or land btw, and for most of human history you did not have a predominantly market based system, there is nothing fundemental about capitalism in human beings).


I did watch your video. But don't go calling ANYONE names, and behaving like a 5th grader. I'm going to immediately begin to lose all respect for you. Until now, our debate, albeit a bit heated and at times sarcastic, was rather pleasant and civil. But I'm not going to talk to you if it descends into name-calling and a total lack of respect...


All right but if your going to make an argument agianst something I post, you have to KNOW what I'm posting, if I post a video you can't respond to it unless you watch it.


Oh, yes there is... Socialists jump through hoops and perform mental gymnastics to, when it suits their purposes, portray human beings as benign, peaceful and altruistic creatures... focusing on our few good qualities, and neglecting the truly dark side of humanity.


Thats not at all the case.

Hell if humans were naturally altruisitic always Capitalism would be fine because capitalists would look out for other people naturally, but they don't, so why should we have an institution like capitalism the rewards anti-social behavior, and rewards exploiting people?

It does'nt matter what human nature is, if there is such a thing (most socialists actually argue that there is no such thing as human nature).


Just go out and lend three strangers all $100, and give them your address to mail it back to you. See if you end up with $300 back. Better yet, leave your doors unlocked at night, and leave the keys in your car. Always leave your wallet lying around in public places, and let your children wander in the mall. Since people are so kind and cooperative, you've nothing to worry about, right?


Ok .... Irelevant to the discussion.

I'm not making the argument that people are naturally kind and cooperative.


Just don't try to pass it off as matters of fact, that's all. ;)

I'm passing it off as experts on certain subjects talking about those subjects ... which is what it is.

[Thirsty Crow]

Oh, yes there is... Socialists jump through hoops and perform mental gymnastics to, when it suits their purposes, portray human beings as benign, peaceful and altruistic creatures... focusing on our few good qualities, and neglecting the truly dark side of humanity.

Other than falsely identifying state intervention, in one way or another, as "practical socialism" (which is fine if you'd insist on conceptualizing socialism as a set of policies and principles which do not break with the existing social relations, but then I'd have to refuse to acknowledge such "socialism" as what I would work towards to), you seem to hold an absurdly wrong view about, let's say, philosophical anthropology taken up by revolutionary socialists, who commonly state that people act in their self-interest, and that in certain curcumstances whole groups of people act as a group on the basis of their common self-interest, which might lead to a radical social transformation. This, I'm sure you're aware, is very far from any notion of altruism. Also, I, as a revolutionary socialistm, surely hope that workers' and allied classes will not be peaceful even a bit when it comes to dealing with the existing state of affairs whereby they are domianted and exploited.



I'm not making the argument that people are naturally kind and cooperative.

You should be making such an argument. You should also be making an argument which states that humans are naturally self-interested and egotistical, as well as prone to violence (btw., there's no sarcasm here).
That tells us something about the "human nature", doesn't it? It seems that this stuff is awfully maleable and diverse, and most of all, dependent on the concrete social conditions in which a personality (meaning: behavior!) is formed.

But yeah, nice straw man.