Hitler was a Socialist

[capitalism is good]

Here is an article written by John Jay (PhD):

Hitler was a Socialist (http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html)

I just want to give you guys an alternative point of view. Here are some excerpts from the article:



Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.


The above quote came from the Nazi party manifesto. Sounds pretty left wing to me.




"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence".


The above quote came from Mein Kempf chapter 12.

Besides John Jay's article, i would like to ask who became who founded the Nazis and other Fascist parties? So I did some research and came up with this following list:

The National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi) was started by Anton Drexler. Drexler abandoned the Social Democratic Party which was not nationalistic enough for him and joined the Fatherland Party which he eventually left. He felt that the Fatherland Party lacked concern for Workers. That's when he decided to form the German Workers' Party. A few months later, Hitler joined the party and the name was changed to National Socialist German Workers' Party.

France - Jacques Doirot (http://turtledove.wikia.com/wiki/Jacques_Doriot)led the Fascist Party Populaire Francais (3). He was a devout Communist before that. He collaborated with Hitler during the occupation. He was also a member of Parliament.

Marcel Deat (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/154409/Marcel-Deat)was elected to Parliament as a Socialist (4) but quarreled with Leon Blum. He then left and helped to form the Parti Socialiste de France (Socialist Party of France) and was an admirer of German National Socialism. Needless to say, he collaborated with the Nazi regime after France fell.

Belgium - There was a smattering of fascist groups that were all pro-worker and anti-capitalist. The most interesting case was Socialist Henry de Man. (http://henri-de-man.co.tv/)He did not claim to be Fascist. (5) However, he flirted with Fascists, exchanging warm letters with Mussolini. Also when Belgium fell to the Nazis, he warmly welcomed them. He called the Belgium defeat as a 'deliverance from capitalist plutocracy'. He called upon his comrades to co-operate with the Nazis to 'realize the sovereignty of Labor'.

Hungary - Gyula Gombos who called himself, 'national Socialist' even before Hitler starting using those words. He later became Prime Minister.

Ferenc Szalasi (http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/hist/jpetropoulos/arrow/sbio.html)started the Hungarian National Socialist Party. (6)He was able to get support to his cause by adopting views that appealed to the industrial workers and the lower economic classes. When that was banned, he later formed the Arrow Cross Party. He also collaborated with the Nazis.

Norway - Vidkun Quisling tried to establish the Red Guards, for the Labor and Communist parties (7) before becoming a Fascist and formed the National Union Party. He was so notorious in his collaboration with the Nazis that his name entered the English language.

United Kingdom - Sir Oswald Mosley was a former Labour MP and youngest member of the Labour cabinet. He broke from his party to protest its failure to intervene more vigorously in the economy. With some disaffected leftists he founded the more radical New Party which later merged with the Imperial Fascist League to form the Union which changed its name in 1936 to the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists.

Italy - Mussolinni the Founder of Fascism was a former leader in the Socialist Party.

So it seems that those who formed Fascist parties all came from the Left. In other words, Fascists were cut from the same cloth as Socialists. They were the same kind of people ie people like you guys.

Finally, I wanted to know who voted for the Nazis? I found that it was the same kind of people who would normally vote for Socialist and other left wing parties. Here is an article:

Zurich University research shows voting patters on election that brought Hitler to power. (http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/foreign_affairs/Vote_for_Hitler_normal_in_economic_context.html?ci d=6952454)

Excerpt:



However this study, published in the Journal of Economic History, identifies a set of people – "the working poor" – who stood to benefit most from Nazi policies. It also confirms that they voted proportionally more for the Nazis.



This confirms that the Nazis were basically a left wing party. Their policies supported the 'have nots'. That is why the "working poor" voted for them.

In a typical democracy, at least one party (eg the Republicans in the USA, Conservative Party in the UK) caters for those with above average income. Also in a typical democracy, at least one party (eg Democrats in the USA, Labour Party in the UK) caters for those with below average income.

So the Nazis were on the left side of the spectrum. Summing up, the Nazis were left wing because:

1)the Nazi party manifesto made them so
2)The Nazis like other fascist parties were founded by leftists who were formerly from Socialist or Communist parties
3)The people who voted for them were from the lower income groups.

So the Nazis was a party of the Left.

[CommieCoss]

No.
1) Simply declaring something as socialist doesn't make it so
2) Hitler and the nazis hated communists, and they were sent to concentration camps alongside Jews and the others
3) Hitler wasn't voted in, he was appointed Chancellor. And just because some misled proletarians vote for something, doesn't make it socialist/communist

Is this your clever plan to expose leftists as nazis or something? :thumbdown:

[Zostrianos]

The Nazis were racist nationalists who wanted to wipe out most of the world's non-white population so they could replace them with Germans. That alone makes them completely opposed to real socialism. that they may have had leftist characteristics in some policies is possible, but that doesn't make them socialist.

"Unlike the Soviets, the Nazis could not even claim to be bringing justice and equality to oppressed peoples or classes. Everyone knew that Nazi Germany was for the Germans, and the Germans did not bother to pretend otherwise". (T. Snyder, Bloodlands)

[Leftsolidarity]

*facepalm*

No, not once in there did it talk about the abolition of private property and working class rule. Also, never once did it say that the aim was for a classless and stateless society.

On the contrary, Fascism is completely for the upholding of class society and the state. Fascists try to set up a weird system of "cooperation" between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in order to uphold the current property relations. It is not socialist in any way.

[Zostrianos]

The left aims to bring equality and justice to society. The Nazis would invade countries, kill most of the population, and keep a percentage alive as slave labour to serve them. There's nothing remotely leftist about this; it's a horrid perversion, colonialism on steroids.

[Prometeo liberado]

Socialism was the preferred throw around phrase in Germany of that time. If you didn't openly promote it then you stuck it somewhere in your literature. The same can be said today for a phrase like "democracy".

[Seth]

Looking back at myself when I thought like this, I'll say you look pretty ignorant right now.

[Zostrianos]

It's typical of US teabaggers to associate socialism with Hitler (and thereby to associate Hitler with social welfare, help to the poor, equality, and all the other stuff they oppose). Their logic is if you spit out bullshit often enough people will end up believing it. And sadly that's what happened in America.

[capitalism is good]

The Nazis were racist nationalists who wanted to wipe out most of the world's non-white population so they could replace them with Germans. That alone makes them completely opposed to real socialism. that they may have had leftist characteristics in some policies is possible, but that doesn't make them socialist.

"Unlike the Soviets, the Nazis could not even claim to be bringing justice and equality to oppressed peoples or classes. Everyone knew that Nazi Germany was for the Germans, and the Germans did not bother to pretend otherwise". (T. Snyder, Bloodlands)

See. That is the problem I have. Different people have different definations. To you, the Nazis were racists which they undoubtedly were and so disqualifies them in your eyes to being Socialist. You have a rosy idea of what Socialism means which precludes racism.

Social Darwinism was an idea that gained popularity with people from across the whole political spectrum in the early part of the 20th century, but its main backers came from the Left.

That is why Sweden where the Leftist parties are very strong only stop its eugenics program (http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/euge-19m.shtml)in 1976. While not as bad as Hitler's programs, Sweden foribly sterilized 62,000 people deemed to be inferior.

Excerpt:



The Sterilisation Act was passed in 1935, under the government of the Swedish social democratic party (SAP)


Social Darwinism did not appeal to Conservatives because it was based on atheism. But I don't want to deviate from discussion on whether the Nazis and other Fascist parties were left or right wing. So I won't say more.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Social Darwinism was an idea that gained popularity with people from across the whole political spectrum in the early part of the 20th century, but it gaine more ground especially from the Left.

That is why Sweden where the Leftist parties are very strong only stop its eugenics program (http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/euge-19m.shtml)in 1976. While not as bad as Hitler's programs, Sweden foribly sterilized 62,000 people deemed to be inferior.
more.

Fuck's sake you bloody idiot, the SAP was not socialist at any time in the 1900's, as social-democracy is not socialism. Social-democracy has a more clear relation to corporatism of fascism and many social-democratic groups were openly racist and promoted racial separatism, going back all the way to the repugnant Fabians in England and so on so forth, social-democrats have always been anti-socialist and rabidly anti-communist and opposed to revolution in favour of a strong state to support and nurture capitalism into "health".

Oh, sorry. Forgot who made this thread.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Sepioteuthis_lessoniana_%28Bigfin_reef_squid%29.jp g/800px-Sepioteuthis_lessoniana_%28Bigfin_reef_squid%29.jp g

[Per Levy]

See. That is the problem I have. Different people have different definations.

the problem is just that your defenition of fascism is wrong and you cant just break through you liberterian idiology to just accept facts. come on cappie you were uttely anihilated in almost every thread you participated in. just stop allready. besides it was proven to you countless times that fascism is not socialism, is not a "branch" of socialism and your opinion on fascism is wrong.


That is why Sweden where the Leftist parties are very strong only stop its eugenics program (http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/euge-19m.shtml)in 1976.

mmh i've read articles that claimed that in the usa poor(often black) women were sterilized sometimes pressured into doing so, sometimes even without their knowledge and this still did go on the 80s when these articles were written. so i dont know if that is still that way today.

[#FF0000]

Social Darwinism was an idea that gained popularity with people from across the whole political spectrum in the early part of the 20th century, but its main backers came from the Left.

So you're suggesting that Marxists, a part of what is considered "the left", advocated Social Darwinism?

[#FF0000]

actually i'm just gonna go back to sitting back and marvelling and not posting. Takayuki and Explosive Situation have both done better than I ever could at setting you straight on literally everything.

but who knows if that even makes a difference considering you just gloss over history where it suits you anyway. like how you never go into detail of these socialists who turned fascist.

[Revolution starts with U]

Is this all the one-trick pony has to offer, is guilt by association?

[roy]

See. That is the problem I have. Different people have different definations. To you, the Nazis were racists which they undoubtedly were and so disqualifies them in your eyes to being Socialist. You have a rosy idea of what Socialism means which precludes racism.

Social Darwinism was an idea that gained popularity with people from across the whole political spectrum in the early part of the 20th century, but its main backers came from the Left.

That is why Sweden where the Leftist parties are very strong only stop its eugenics program (http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/euge-19m.shtml)in 1976. While not as bad as Hitler's programs, Sweden foribly sterilized 62,000 people deemed to be inferior.

Excerpt:



Social Darwinism did not appeal to Conservatives because it was based on atheism. But I don't want to deviate from discussion on whether the Nazis and other Fascist parties were left or right wing. So I won't say more.

The Nazis were right-wing. This is obvious. Their goals were not those of socialists, despite the fact they called themselves "National Socialists". You're right, though, you do have a different understanding of socialism from us, in that your idea of socialism seems to have been informed by propaganda and a muddying of definition. Just because you've made up your own definition of socialism, doesn't mean it's correct at all.

By the way, why do you think vaguely conflating Hitler with socialism discredits the ideology? Your arguments against the mechanics of socialism have been so thoroughly shut down that you're resorting to throwing socialists in with fascists?

And "left-wing" does not equal socialist.

[Per Levy]

Fuck's sake you bloody idiot, the SAP was not socialist at any time in the 1900's, as social-democracy is not socialism.

ah you know, for cappie is good everythiong that is not libertarian is socialism in one way or another.

btw were we posting squid pics? good:

http://joannapary.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/humboldt-squid.jpg

[Deicide]

The OP is becoming more, and more erratic and nonsensical as time progresses, really, even for Anarcho-capitalists or libertarians, this is exceptionally desperate and ludicrous.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

So your argument is what again? That some people who considered themselves socialists or communists switched over to fascism? That doesn't make no kind of sense. I used to be a conservative, then I switched over to a communist. So conservatives are communists right? Just like some communists switch over to conservatism(I once saw a interview with an individual who worked with the Bush administration say he was a card carrying Communist Party member, wtf). This doesn't prove there is some connection there.

The Nazi party was kind of like Peron's Partido Justicialista. It had both a left and right-wing within it, said some pretty populist stuff(That by today's standards would be socialistic by the Republicans/conservatives/libertarians) but ultimately was won over by the right-wing. What was left of the left-wing of the Nazi party was kicked out by the time Hitler had come to power.

Hitler was a liar, he'd stand in front of one crowd and say one thing, stand in front of another and say it's exact opposite. He'd go before a crowd of workers and talk about how great socialism is and how they will be empowered, then while talking to a bunch of rich folks would say something like "We stand for the maintenance of private property. We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."

So which was it, he was a capitalist in front of his corporate buddies but a budding socialist when talking to workers saying how those same corporate buddies of his were evil.

Don't believe me? You quote him saying trade unions cannot be "dispense with" and that "they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life." Wasn't this the same guy that destroyed the labor movement, locked away it's leaders, and banned the unions? Oh god damn you just figured out Hitler was a snake ass motherfucking liar?

[Zostrianos]

Hitler's euthanasia program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4) was not only meant to rid Germany of the disabled and elderly, another of its goals was to reduce the state's expenses. Now where have I heard this talk of stopping spending? Oh yeah, it's the mantra of the American Right: 0 spending on welfare, healthcare, social programs, and everything else that's beneficial to society; after all, the poor don't really need to eat, but the rich need their tax cuts. :thumbdown:

Hitler was a capitalist, case closed.

[Revolutionair]

I don't understand why some people post in this thread like the OP is serious. And in the other thread, the "im a whtie guy why should i be a leftist thread", people were trolling him from minute one.

In one thread we have someone claiming Hitler was pro-working class (never mind he gassed half of it), in the other we have someone WANTING TO HAVE ARGUMENTS THROWN AGAINST HIM SO HE CAN BE A LEFTIST!

Conclusion:
Ban this OP. Clean up posts in the other thread and present arguments there!

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I don't understand why some people post in this thread like the OP is serious. And in the other thread, the "im a whtie guy why should i be a leftist thread", people were trolling him from minute one.

In one thread we have someone claiming Hitler was pro-working class (never mind he gassed half of it), in the other we have someone WANTING TO HAVE ARGUMENTS THROWN AGAINST HIM SO HE CAN BE A LEFTIST!

Conclusion:
Ban this OP. Clean up posts in the other thread and present arguments there!
Calm down, this is in OI, what do you expect?

[Revolutionair]

Calm down, this is in OI, what do you expect?

What I'd expect in a Hitler is socialist thread is way more trolling. There are only 2 pictures of animals here, why?

[Revolutionair]

To put 1 real argument in this thread:


See. That is the problem I have. Different people have different definations. To you, the Nazis were racists which they undoubtedly were and so disqualifies them in your eyes to being Socialist. You have a rosy idea of what Socialism means which precludes racism.

The common theme of socialism is the liberation of the working class. According to socialists, this is only possible when the working class is unified (not in politics per se but in class struggle):


Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded.So the Nazi's wanted to divide the working class. Thus no matter how you twist or turn it, socialism was, and is, impossible under Nazi guidance.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

What I'd expect in a Hitler is socialist thread is way more trolling. There are only 2 pictures of animals here, why?

I agree. This thread needs more squid to drown the troll.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Opalescent_inshore_squid.jpg/800px-Opalescent_inshore_squid.jpg

[Ostrinski]

This thread, again and once again.

[RGacky3]

Where did Hitler call for the democratization of the economy? Where did he call for worker control of industry? Never? Public control of industry? Never? Nope ok, case closed.

Infact he privatized and instilled a corporatist policy, so your patently wrong.

[GallowsBird]

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

I think that is ample evidence they weren't Socialist; we'll that and the fact that Nazism wasn't from Socialism it was from Fascism which is an extreme capitalist ideaology. Nazism may be "less capitalist" than Fascism but it is still an extreme rightist reaction to Socialism. Where did the Nazis give or call for Worker control of industry.

You can't be a racist imperialist and any sort of capitalist and then be a Socialist.

And no Nazism isn't Left-wing, almost no one (including scholars who have argued it is Socialist, who class it as Right-Wing Socialism... which shows they have no idea what they are writing about) think it is anything other than a Rightist ideology. You being a Rightist wish to diminish your connection to Nazism... which if possible still leaves you with Pinochet, Mobutu, Peron, Trujillo, Horthy, Amin, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar et al on top of various autocratic monarchs... who I suspect you'd probably find something to claim them as Leftist and Socialist.

But the fact remains that the Nazis classed their ideology as Rightist, the vast majority of its policies were Rightist.

[El Chuncho]

National Socialism had a bit more socialist inspired ideas than the proper fascists of Italy, who were even more capitalist. But the NAZI party certainly was not socialist, as it was corporatism and pro-business.

In the early years of the party, under Drexler, the party used rhetoric to appeal to socialist minded youths, such as anti-capitalism, anti-big business, however this was only rhetoric which they completely dropped in later years.

They were also anti-internationalist and had a racial system which was more terrifying than any other in human history. They believe that Romani (who were being exterminated long before any other ethnic or religious group in Germany), Jews and Slavs were ''mixed-raced'' parasites, and that black people were inferior (but not as bad as the mixed groups because they were allegedly unmixed, physically powerful and less intelligent; nonsense). Their system was both absurd and unbelievably evil. The fact that they had such an anti-internationalist stance would bar them from being leftists.

They were anti-trade unionism and anti-universal egalitarianism.

In short they were not socialists.

[daft punk]

Hitler was helped into power by German and American capitalists. he had written a letter to leading German industrialists assuring them that all his anti-capitalist talk was just talk.

When he got power he annihilated the workers organisations as promised. During the period from taking power to the war, at a time when most capitalist countries were nationalising to try to survive the great depression, Hitler was actually privatising.

During this period American capitalists increased their investments in Germany by 50%. many big American companies helped build Hitler's war machine, IBM, General Motors, ford and so on. Hitler was a big fan of Henry Ford, mentioned him in Mein Kampf, kept a photo of him in his office, and gave him the Third Reich's highest award. The boss of GM also got one.

http://www.traces.org/images/henryford.medal.jpg

Hitler's main ambition was to eradicate Marxism, which he considered a Jewish plot. Economically though he didn't have any theory, and considered his lack of theory to be a good thing.

Later they had more state interference as all countries do in a war. Britain had plenty too.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's not like it matters. Let's say Hitler is a socialist (lulz). His is an ideology I don't support. So the point this clown is trying to make is moot.

[RGacky3]

Good point .... Its just a word .... Just because you CALL it socialist does'nt mean its policies that I gotta support because I support other policies also called socialist ...

If Ronald Reagen supported nationalized healthcare, does that mean that I also have to support all his other policies? Or that they have any corrolation at all?

[capitalism is good]

Good point .... Its just a word .... Just because you CALL it socialist does'nt mean its policies that I gotta support because I support other policies also called socialist ...

If Ronald Reagen supported nationalized healthcare, does that mean that I also have to support all his other policies? Or that they have any corrolation at all?

It seems that we all have different definations of what Socialist means. For me, there are two opposing poles - Capitalism and Socialism.

Capitalism means lassiez faire approach to the economy ie the government adopts a hands off approach to the economy.

Socialism equality of wealth. Because the natural state in nature is inequality, it means the government must intervene in the economy to bring this about. In its extreme form, the government owns all means of production.

For the record, there are no completely capitalist or socialist economies in the world. All are hybrids - some more to the left and some more to the right. The more the government intervenes, the more Socialist it becomes. The less government intervenes or interferes, the more economic freedom we have.

Here is an article on Hitler's economy (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id10.html). It clearly is more to the left than to free markets.

Excerpts:




Summary: Below is a short economic analysis of German Economy under the Nazis. It is apparent they ran a centralized collectivist economy just like the Soviet Union. It was a political party that acted much in the same way the American Left does in regard to unemployment and trying to use the government to decrease it. It notes that the Nazis used public works to a large extent, which is exceedingly leftist, and put people to work for the State.
The Nazis started enacting other leftist ploys like price freezes and starting expanding the role of the government and destroying any freedom left in the Market. Private Property owners were dictated to by the State. Clearly Nazis were opponents of capitalism through and through.


<B>

Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:

"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."
(Source: Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1938.html); Jaunuary 2, 1939.)
</B>

[artanis17]

Even today every single party in my country likes to use leftist arguments to charm people because actually they are only valid arguments. Nobody goes out like "I'll exploit your flesh".

[RGacky3]

It seems that we all have different definations of what Socialist means. For me, there are two opposing poles - Capitalism and Socialism.

Capitalism means lassiez faire approach to the economy ie the government adopts a hands off approach to the economy.


Thats not what capitalism means at all.

Capitalism means a market economy (capital, labor and commodities), the profit motive, and private control of land and capital.

You can hav ea lassiez faire approach to the economy and havea socialist economy, a communist eocnomy and so on, for cpaitalism you need capitalist property laws (land and capital), a profit motive (investment, and control by investment), AND markets (not only for commodities, but also land and capital).


Socialism equality of wealth. Because the natural state in nature is inequality, it means the government must intervene in the economy to bring this about. In its extreme form, the government owns all means of production.


No its not, its not equality of wealth, its a democratic economy and a democratic workplace.

If your arguing against government intervention and wealth equality argue somewhere else, becasue NO ONE HERE advocaates that.

NOBODY ADVOCATES WHAT YOU CALL "SOCIALISM," your whole basis is a strawman.

We advocate a democratic economy, and a worker controlled workplace.

Its not about, and never has been about, more or less governemnt.

Infact I'm for less government, step one, get rid of limited liability, step two, get rid of property laws or make them democratically accontable.

[capitalism is good]

National Socialism had a bit more socialist inspired ideas than the proper fascists of Italy, who were even more capitalist. But the NAZI party certainly was not socialist, as it was corporatism and pro-business.

In the early years of the party, under Drexler, the party used rhetoric to appeal to socialist minded youths, such as anti-capitalism, anti-big business, however this was only rhetoric which they completely dropped in later years.

They were also anti-internationalist and had a racial system which was more terrifying than any other in human history. They believe that Romani (who were being exterminated long before any other ethnic or religious group in Germany), Jews and Slavs were ''mixed-raced'' parasites, and that black people were inferior (but not as bad as the mixed groups because they were allegedly unmixed, physically powerful and less intelligent; nonsense). Their system was both absurd and unbelievably evil. The fact that they had such an anti-internationalist stance would bar them from being leftists.

They were anti-trade unionism and anti-universal egalitarianism.

In short they were not socialists.

I don't think that eugenics had anything to do with Socialism or Capitalism. So it neither makes Hitler a rightist or leftist.

But Social Darwinism found favor more with leftists than with capitalists, albeit not to the same horrifying extremes that Hitler did. A good example was Sweden.

The Social Democrats of Sweden passed an eugenics law (http://www.thelocal.se/2727/20051221/)in 1935 that allowed the forced sterialization of "inferior people" which was only stopped in 1976.

[capitalism is good]

Thats not what capitalism means at all.

Capitalism means a market economy (capital, labor and commodities), the profit motive, and private control of land and capital.

You can hav ea lassiez faire approach to the economy and havea socialist economy, a communist eocnomy and so on, for cpaitalism you need capitalist property laws (land and capital), a profit motive (investment, and control by investment), AND markets (not only for commodities, but also land and capital).



No its not, its not equality of wealth, its a democratic economy and a democratic workplace.

If your arguing against government intervention and wealth equality argue somewhere else, becasue NO ONE HERE advocaates that.

NOBODY ADVOCATES WHAT YOU CALL "SOCIALISM," your whole basis is a strawman.

We advocate a democratic economy, and a worker controlled workplace.

Its not about, and never has been about, more or less governemnt.

Infact I'm for less government, step one, get rid of limited liability, step two, get rid of property laws or make them democratically accontable.

How would your economy work in practice? What would it look like? I suspect you have not thought it out and your ideas are not feasible.

How can you run an economy without property laws and profit motive?

[RGacky3]

The Social Democrats of Sweden passed an eugenics law (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.thelocal.se/2727/20051221/)in 1935 that allowed the forced sterialization of "inferior people" which was only stopped in 1976.

Thats one example, I can give you examples from the US as well, and other more captalistic countries.

the whole capitalist philosophy is based on the idea that some people are more capable and thus deserving of wealth and power than others.

[RGacky3]

How would your economy work in practice? What would it look like? I suspect you have not thought it out and your ideas are not feasible.

How can you run an economy without property laws and profit motive?

Easy, there are already tons of cooperative workplaces, there has been an exapmle of an economy like that in practice (anarchist catelonia) which was extremely succesfull until violently destroyed by the fascists and stalinists.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Hitler violated the human laws. Does this sound to you socialist? I don't think socialism states the violation of human rights.

[daft punk]

Here is an article on Hitler's economy (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id10.html). It clearly is more to the left than to free markets.

Excerpts:




er, I just debunked all that Hitler was a socialist nonsense. Answer the points I raised.


Summary: Below is a short economic analysis of German Economy under the Nazis. It is apparent they ran a centralized collectivist economy just like the Soviet Union.

No it didnt.



It was a political party that acted much in the same way the American Left does in regard to unemployment and trying to use the government to decrease it. It notes that the Nazis used public works to a large extent, which is exceedingly leftist, and put people to work for the State.
Yeah, privatisation is very left wing. Building motorways is a dirty Marxist plot.




The Nazis started enacting other leftist ploys like price freezes and starting expanding the role of the government and destroying any freedom left in the Market. Private Property owners were dictated to by the State. Clearly Nazis were opponents of capitalism through and through. This is nonsense.






Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:
"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."
(Source: Time Magazine (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1938.html); Jaunuary 2, 1939.)So, that well know communist magazine Time named him man of the year. They admit that Hitler was backed by capitalists. Of course lots of the capitalists' sales were to the government, they were preparing for WW2.

[Revolution starts with U]

Guys, did you hear that?! Primitive tribal economies are the only capitalism that has ever existed in the real world! All we've had is socialism for the last 10k years. Even 1800s America was a socialist country; government = socialism right?

[Revolution starts with U]

How would your economy work in practice? What would it look like? I suspect you have not thought it out and your ideas are not feasible.

How can you run an economy without property laws and profit motive?

Star Trek; nuff said :lol:

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Guys, did you hear that?! Primitive tribal economies are the only capitalism that has ever existed in the real world! All we've had is socialism for the last 10k years. Even 1800s America was a socialist country; government = socialism right?

Didn't some of the wackos hold 1400's Iceland as the ideal capitalist state? I think it was Freidman's anarcho-cappie son or someone along those lines...:laugh:

[RGacky3]

Didn't some of the wackos hold 1400's Iceland as the ideal capitalist state? I think it was Freidman's anarcho-cappie son or someone along those lines...:laugh:

yeah, then iceland listened to him, then look what happened :).

[Zealot]

You just won't fucking drop this, will you? You've been made to look like an idiot on this exact point in another thread, why do you keep embarrassing yourself? You must be a fucking troll man. Even if he was a Socialist, the Saudi monarch is capitalist, therefore, Saudi Arabia's oppressive Monarchy is pure pure Capitalism!!! There just ain't no other way, it's totally obvious Adam Smith predicted for himself that he wouldn't want women to drive

[danyboy27]

Lets see trought the ''demands''


Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
It was never intented to really happen. IG farben and other defense contractor made millions out of exploiting worker and slaves
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.
S.S officer made million out of exploiting the jews. The german people never saw the color of that money.
13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.
Never happened

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
Never happened
15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.
Never happened.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
Never happened.
17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
Never happened.
----------
Fascists are populist in appearance only, they always had to compromise everything to get into power, they had no choice.

This is why the wermarcht was not dissoluted when hitler became chancellor. He willingly decided to lose support from certain element of his base to get support from the old guard from the army.

There is no way industrial and petty bourgeois would have supported hitler if he would have kept pushing his populist agenda, so he dropped it.

Fascist are opportunists to the core and will do anything they can to get into power.

Dont forget, there is always a big difference between what a political party say, and what a political party do.

[The Young Pioneer]

This is hardly the first time I've seen someone ignorant about the left try to criticise it. OP is a bit unoriginal.


"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread." -Mein Kampf

[Bronco]

Didn't some of the wackos hold 1400's Iceland as the ideal capitalist state? I think it was Freidman's anarcho-cappie son or someone along those lines...:laugh:

Haha yes David Friedman, he wrote a paper (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html) on how medieval Iceland could be a good example of Anarcho-Capitalism in practice, and how a private legal system would work:


Killing was a civil offense resulting in a fine paid to the survivors of the victim. Laws were made by a "parliament," seats in which were a marketable commodity. Enforcement of law was entirely a private affair. And yet these extraordinary institutions survived for over three hundred years, and the society in which they survived appears to have been in many ways an attractive one . Its citizens were, by medieval standards, free; differences in status based on rank or sex were relatively small;[5] and its literary, output in relation to its size has been compared, with some justice, to that of Athens...

...Medieval Iceland, however, presents institutions of private enforcement of law in a purer form than any other well-recorded society of which I am aware... The Icelandic system developed without any central authority comparable to the Anglo-Saxon king;[14] as a result, even where the Icelandic legal system recognized an essentially "public" offense, it dealt with it by giving some individual (in some cases chosen by lot from those affected) the right to pursue the case and collect the resulting fine, thus fitting it into an essentially private system

In the structure of its legislature, Iceland again presents an almost pure form of an institution, elements of which exist elsewhere. British pocket boroughs, like Icelandic godord;, represented marketable seats in the legislature, but Parliament did not consist entirely of representatives from pocket boroughs. All godord were marketable and (with the exception, after Iceland's conversion to Christianity, of the two Icelandic bishops) all seats in the lögrétta were held by the owners of godord, or men chosen by them.

The early history of Iceland thus gives us a well-recorded picture of the workings of particularly pure forms of private enforcement and creation of law, and of the interaction between the two.

:lol:

[Franz Fanonipants]

socialist was a hitler

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Any claim to socialism within the Nazi party died with Rohm and Strasser.

[#FF0000]

they weren't socialists either tho.

i mean like explosive situation said in the other thread, there were definitely folks who had some left-wing rhetoric, anti-clerical attitudes, a lot of shit to talk about capitalism (and communism lol), and all that, but they were still ferverently nationalist and anti-egalitarian.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

if i was a stalinist and defined socialism as "anything nice that happens to workers or invovles the goverment" then i think i'd actually have a hard time arguing that hitler wasn't a socailist.

Which i why these arguemnts get confused, fyi, op, i think there are two stands; those that are trying to argue that hitelr wasnt a socialist because he did not in fact enact socialist policies in goverment, despite the socialistic nature of some of his statements, and those that see socialism as mabye something differnet than just the goveremnt being involved in something

[GallowsBird]

Oddly enough today is the anniversary of the final surrender of the last Axis forces at Stalingrad. Sort of ironic that the OP is arguing that Hitler wasn't a Right-wing, er, Fascist but actually a Socialist. Go figure. :closedeyes:

[Crux]

Here is an article written by John Jay (PhD):

Hitler was a Socialist (http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html)

I just want to give you guys an alternative point of view. Here are some excerpts from the article:



The above quote came from the Nazi party manifesto. Sounds pretty left wing to me. The above quote came from Mein Kempf chapter 12.

Besides John Jay's article, i would like to ask who became who founded the Nazis and other Fascist parties? So I did some research and came up with this following list:

The National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi) was started by Anton Drexler. Drexler abandoned the Social Democratic Party which was not nationalistic enough for him and joined the Fatherland Party which he eventually left. He felt that the Fatherland Party lacked concern for Workers. That's when he decided to form the German Workers' Party. A few months later, Hitler joined the party and the name was changed to National Socialist German Workers' Party.

France - Jacques Doirot (http://turtledove.wikia.com/wiki/Jacques_Doriot)led the Fascist Party Populaire Francais (3). He was a devout Communist before that. He collaborated with Hitler during the occupation. He was also a member of Parliament.

Marcel Deat (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/154409/Marcel-Deat)was elected to Parliament as a Socialist (4) but quarreled with Leon Blum. He then left and helped to form the Parti Socialiste de France (Socialist Party of France) and was an admirer of German National Socialism. Needless to say, he collaborated with the Nazi regime after France fell.

Belgium - There was a smattering of fascist groups that were all pro-worker and anti-capitalist. The most interesting case was Socialist Henry de Man. (http://henri-de-man.co.tv/)He did not claim to be Fascist. (5) However, he flirted with Fascists, exchanging warm letters with Mussolini. Also when Belgium fell to the Nazis, he warmly welcomed them. He called the Belgium defeat as a 'deliverance from capitalist plutocracy'. He called upon his comrades to co-operate with the Nazis to 'realize the sovereignty of Labor'.

Hungary - Gyula Gombos who called himself, 'national Socialist' even before Hitler starting using those words. He later became Prime Minister.

Ferenc Szalasi (http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/hist/jpetropoulos/arrow/sbio.html)started the Hungarian National Socialist Party. (6)He was able to get support to his cause by adopting views that appealed to the industrial workers and the lower economic classes. When that was banned, he later formed the Arrow Cross Party. He also collaborated with the Nazis.

Norway - Vidkun Quisling tried to establish the Red Guards, for the Labor and Communist parties (7) before becoming a Fascist and formed the National Union Party. He was so notorious in his collaboration with the Nazis that his name entered the English language.

United Kingdom - Sir Oswald Mosley was a former Labour MP and youngest member of the Labour cabinet. He broke from his party to protest its failure to intervene more vigorously in the economy. With some disaffected leftists he founded the more radical New Party which later merged with the Imperial Fascist League to form the Union which changed its name in 1936 to the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists.

Italy - Mussolinni the Founder of Fascism was a former leader in the Socialist Party.

So it seems that those who formed Fascist parties all came from the Left. In other words, Fascists were cut from the same cloth as Socialists. They were the same kind of people ie people like you guys.

Finally, I wanted to know who voted for the Nazis? I found that it was the same kind of people who would normally vote for Socialist and other left wing parties. Here is an article:

Zurich University research shows voting patters on election that brought Hitler to power. (http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/foreign_affairs/Vote_for_Hitler_normal_in_economic_context.html?ci d=6952454)

Excerpt:



This confirms that the Nazis were basically a left wing party. Their policies supported the 'have nots'. That is why the "working poor" voted for them.

In a typical democracy, at least one party (eg the Republicans in the USA, Conservative Party in the UK) caters for those with above average income. Also in a typical democracy, at least one party (eg Democrats in the USA, Labour Party in the UK) caters for those with below average income.

So the Nazis were on the left side of the spectrum. Summing up, the Nazis were left wing because:

1)the Nazi party manifesto made them so
2)The Nazis like other fascist parties were founded by leftists who were formerly from Socialist or Communist parties
3)The people who voted for them were from the lower income groups.

So the Nazis was a party of the Left.
This has pretty much already been dealt with but let's make this simple, what do you think the right wing parties were doing at the time? What was their position visa vis the nazis and the fascists? How many of them went over? The answer is simple, many many more. The right wing parties, like the Fatherland party in germany, supported the naizs. The Right Wing Party in sweden's youth organization became openly nazis, the Center Party (at the time called the Peasants League) in sweden were open anti-semites, as indeed was common among the right at the time.

[Rafiq]

People like rgacky keep giving the troll confodence.

[The Stalinator]

Hitler put communists and left-wingers in fucking death camps.
I'm pretty sure that's a good indicator we don't share many views.

[Doflamingo]

Oh capitalists, you so funny.

[kouchpotato]

First off, the Nazis massively were in bed with large corporations (Krupp Steel). Secondly, if you believe that any political party is going to 100% follow what it says it will you are very naive at best. This was in the midst of a depression, of course Hitler would pretend he gave a fuck about the poor to get their vote.

[ColonelCossack]

grooooooaaaaaaaaannnn

Why, then, did the Nazis;
-Say they wanted to eradicate Marxism?
-Try their upmost to eradicate Marxism?

Even before Hitler took power the nazis were beating up commies and trade unionists. I don't see how that means they're the same. And if you're gonna say it's because they both interfere with capitalism; that's complete bullshit. Why then did Hitler have massive corporate support? You are clearly ignorant of socialism, fascism, and indeed capitalism.

As Gallows mentioned, try telling everyone that died at Stalingrad, Leningrad, etc. that Hitler was a socialist.


http://media.onsugar.com/files/2011/03/12/2/1437/14373728/16e6c988215f8b09_squidward-tentacles-face.jpg

[The Stalinator]

grooooooaaaaaaaaannnn

Why, then, did the Nazis;
-Say they wanted to eradicate Marxism?
-Try their upmost to eradicate Marxism?

Even before Hitler took power the nazis were beating up commies and trade unionists. I don't see how that means they're the same. And if you're gonna say it's because they both interfere with capitalism; that's complete bullshit. Why then did Hitler have massive corporate support? You are clearly ignorant of socialism, fascism, and indeed capitalism.

As Gallows mentioned, try telling everyone that died at Stalingrad, Leningrad, etc. that Hitler was a socialist.


http://media.onsugar.com/files/2011/03/12/2/1437/14373728/16e6c988215f8b09_squidward-tentacles-face.jpg

"Since I'm such a huge socialist, I think I'll go imprison and/or kill all the other socialists in order to build my ideal society based on the socialist ideas I uphold."

Didn't he also dismiss Marxism as a Jewish idea or whatever the fuck?

[ColonelCossack]

"Since I'm such a huge socialist, I think I'll go imprison and/or kill all the other socialists in order to build my ideal society based on the socialist ideas I uphold."

Didn't he also dismiss Marxism as a Jewish idea or whatever the fuck?

Innit

The only thing more illogical than Hitler's views, are CIG's views on Hitler's views. da fok, verily.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Hitler put communists and left-wingers in fucking death camps.
I'm pretty sure that's a good indicator we don't share many views.

Ah yes, because it isn't possible to put people ideologically close to you in death camps. Stalin definately wouldn't of done anything like THAT.

[capitalism is good]

Hitler put communists and left-wingers in fucking death camps.
I'm pretty sure that's a good indicator we don't share many views.

But leftists keep doing stuff like that. Stalin sent someone to put an ice pick into the head of trotsky. Socialists cannot agree what is true socialism and kill one another when they don't agree.

[Philosopher Jay]

Yes, the OP is an exercise in fascist rhetoric. It does not belong on this website, which I assume does not wish to promote insane fascist lies and fascist rhetoric.

[The Stalinator]

But leftists keep doing stuff like that. Stalin sent someone to put an ice pick into the head of trotsky. Socialists cannot agree what is true socialism and kill one another when they don't agree.

There is blatant proof out there that Hitler's regime was not socialist in the very least -- and at the very best, his plan was to create socialism for one tiny group of people, oppressing all the rest of them. That is not true socialism by the standards of anybody but the National Socialists themselves.

If a party is "socialist" because it calls itself socialist, is a party democratic because it calls itself democratic?

[Klaatu]

"Hitler is socialist" does not mean that "socialists are Hitler"

A>B does not prove B>A

non-sequitur :rolleyes:

Take a course in LOGIC and get back to us

[Bronco]

I think people are kind of digressing from the main point by going on about Stalingrad and Hitler killing Communists etc. we shouldn't be looking towards what happened in practice to prove he's not Socialist because we all know that theory and practice are very different and the argument is normally that it was the Nazi's ideology that was Socialist even if their acts weren't. This is what we should be arguing against because anyone who claims that the Nazi's were Socialist based on their 25 points obviously knows nothing about what Socialism really is.

[Rafiq]

"Hitler is socialist" does not mean that "socialists are Hitler"

A>B does not prove B>A

non-sequitur :rolleyes:

Take a course in LOGIC and get back to us

Marx is socialist.

Socialists are Marx. ?

[capitalism is good]

Lets see trought the ''demands''


Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
It was never intented to really happen. IG farben and other defense contractor made millions out of exploiting worker and slaves
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.
S.S officer made million out of exploiting the jews. The german people never saw the color of that money.
13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.
Never happened

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
Never happened
15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.
Never happened.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
Never happened.
17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
Never happened.
----------
Fascists are populist in appearance only, they always had to compromise everything to get into power, they had no choice.

This is why the wermarcht was not dissoluted when hitler became chancellor. He willingly decided to lose support from certain element of his base to get support from the old guard from the army.

There is no way industrial and petty bourgeois would have supported hitler if he would have kept pushing his populist agenda, so he dropped it.

Fascist are opportunists to the core and will do anything they can to get into power.

Dont forget, there is always a big difference between what a political party say, and what a political party do.

You have a point there DannyBoy. Hitler like most politicians say one thing and do another. Reminds me of Obuma.

But what did he do? What was the German economy like when the National Socialist was in charge? Like all economies, it was a hybrid. I have repeatedly said that nobody has ever created a totally Socialist or Capitalist economy. In the end, everybody compromises.

All economies are hybrids of Capitalism and Socialism. We have to decide how to make a judgement on someone based on either his ideology or his actions. If the former, then the Nazis were clearly Socialist from their election manifesto. This is confirmed by the fact that it was the "working poor" that voted for him.

His policies attracted this group of voters and not the bourgeosie class. Whether he carried out his promises to this group of voters is another matter. (Generally, politicians do not keep all their promises but will keep enough of them to throw a crumb to those who voted for them.)

If you base it on Hitler's actions when he was running the economy then the picture becomes slightly more blurred but it is clear enough that he was running the economy along leftist lines.

Here are the two articles I cited earlier. It is worth repeating.

[capitalism is good]

Lets see trought the ''demands''


Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
It was never intented to really happen. IG farben and other defense contractor made millions out of exploiting worker and slaves
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.
S.S officer made million out of exploiting the jews. The german people never saw the color of that money.
13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.
Never happened

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
Never happened
15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.
Never happened.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
Never happened.
17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
Never happened.
----------
Fascists are populist in appearance only, they always had to compromise everything to get into power, they had no choice.

This is why the wermarcht was not dissoluted when hitler became chancellor. He willingly decided to lose support from certain element of his base to get support from the old guard from the army.

There is no way industrial and petty bourgeois would have supported hitler if he would have kept pushing his populist agenda, so he dropped it.

Fascist are opportunists to the core and will do anything they can to get into power.

Dont forget, there is always a big difference between what a political party say, and what a political party do.

You have a point there DannyBoy. Hitler like most politicians say one thing and do another. Reminds me of Obuma.


But what did he do? What was the German economy like when the National Socialist was in charge? Like all economies, it was a hybrid. I have repeatedly said that nobody has ever created a totally Socialist or Capitalist economy. In the end, everybody compromises.


All economies are hybrids of Capitalism and Socialism. We have to decide how to make a judgement on someone based on either his ideology or his actions. If the former, then the Nazis were clearly Socialist from their election manifesto. This is confirmed by the fact that it was the "working poor" that voted for him.


His policies attracted this group of voters and not the bourgeosie class. Whether he carried out his promises to this group of voters is another matter. (Generally, politicians do not keep all their promises but will keep enough of them to throw a crumb to those who voted for them.)


If you base it on Hitler's actions when he was running the economy then the picture becomes slightly more blurred but it is clear enough that he was running the economy along leftist lines.


Here are the two articles I cited earlier. It is worth repeating.

[Doflamingo]

But leftists keep doing stuff like that. Stalin sent someone to put an ice pick into the head of trotsky. Socialists cannot agree what is true socialism and kill one another when they don't agree.

But Hitler wasn't a leftist at all, nor did he ever claim to be.

[capitalism is good]

Lets see trought the ''demands''


Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
It was never intented to really happen. IG farben and other defense contractor made millions out of exploiting worker and slaves
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.
S.S officer made million out of exploiting the jews. The german people never saw the color of that money.
13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.
Never happened

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
Never happened
15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.
Never happened.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
Never happened.
17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
Never happened.
----------
Fascists are populist in appearance only, they always had to compromise everything to get into power, they had no choice.

This is why the wermarcht was not dissoluted when hitler became chancellor. He willingly decided to lose support from certain element of his base to get support from the old guard from the army.

There is no way industrial and petty bourgeois would have supported hitler if he would have kept pushing his populist agenda, so he dropped it.

Fascist are opportunists to the core and will do anything they can to get into power.

Dont forget, there is always a big difference between what a political party say, and what a political party do.

You have raised good points there DannyBoy. Hitler like most politicians say one thing and do another. Reminds me of Obuma.

But what did he do? What was the German economy like when the National Socialist was in charge? Like all economies, it was a hybrid. I have repeatedly said that nobody has ever created a totally Socialist or Capitalist economy. In the end, everybody compromises.

All economies are hybrids of Capitalism and Socialism. We have to decide how to make a judgement on someone based on either his ideology or his actions. If the former, then the Nazis were clearly Socialist from their election manifesto. This is confirmed by the fact that it was the "working poor" that voted for him.

His policies attracted this group of voters and not the bourgeosie class. Whether he carried out his promises to this group of voters is another matter. (Generally, politicians do not keep all their promises but will keep enough of them to throw a crumb to those who voted for them.)

If you base it on Hitler's actions when he was running the economy
then the picture becomes slightly more blurred but it is clear enough that he was running the economy along leftist lines.

Here are the two articles describing Hitler's economy:

Hitler's leftist economy (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id10.html)

Hitler's economics (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/hitlers-economics.html)

Excerpts:



Keynes's comment, which may shock many, did not come out of the blue. Hitler's economists rejected laissez-faire, and admired Keynes, even foreshadowing him in many ways. Similarly, the Keynesians admired Hitler


We free marketers believe in economic freedom which leftists see as economic anarchy.




What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national health care and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.


The policies underlined are also what your fellow Socialist Obuma is doing.

[Yuppie Grinder]

In the culture the Nazi's were born out of the word "socialist" had a lot of positive connotations attached to it, and the Nazi's were exploiting this. Hitler called socialism an "ancient germanic ideal" that had nothing to do with abolition of private property. If anyone has the specific quote him referencing please post it.
You're silly and should probably get out of my internet.

[Bronco]

In the culture the Nazi's were born out of the word "socialist" had a lot of positive connotations attached to it, and the Nazi's were exploiting this. Hitler called socialism an "ancient germanic ideal" that had nothing to do with abolition of private property. If anyone has the specific quote him referencing please post it.
You're silly and should probably get out of my internet.

I'm not sure if they were merely using the terminology for it's positive connotations, a large proportion of their vote came from them successfully exploiting anti-Communist sentiment after all

[Zostrianos]

But leftists keep doing stuff like that. Stalin sent someone to put an ice pick into the head of trotsky. Socialists cannot agree what is true socialism and kill one another when they don't agree.

Despotism is not an inherent characteristic of socialism, on the contrary. Just because Stalin and other self-proclaimed socialists oppressed and murdered millions of people doesn't make them representative of socialism; they're an embarrassment to true socialism, which seeks to free mankind and bring equality to all.

However, despotism and inequality were indeed official policies of Nazism from its inception. Therefore Hitler was not a socialist. He copied socialist symbolism in order to gain more appeal, but that doesn't make him a socialist.

[Revolution starts with U]

Cap is Good

Were primitive, pre-state, societies (aka hunter-gatherer tribalism) capitalism?

I'm just going to destroy your argument right now and be done with it... but of course you are not listening anyway...

[capitalism is good]

But Hitler wasn't a leftist at all, nor did he ever claim to be.

Well Hitler claimed to be a Socialist (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/)and we are now arguing whether he really was.




In 1927, Hitler said:
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The policies underlined are also what your fellow Socialist Obuma is doing.




Can you be any more of a fail troll? :rolleyes: It's like you aren't even trying now.

[capitalism is good]

Cap is Good

Were primitive, pre-state, societies (aka hunter-gatherer tribalism) capitalism?

I'm just going to destroy your argument right now and be done with it... but of course you are not listening anyway...

Hunter gatherer groups usually comprised of family members and close relatives and perhaps a few friends. Such groups probably practiced Socialism - sharing in whatever food they produced by hunting and gathering.

Socialism is possible in small group of kinsmen. That's because we are programmed to help those who share our genes. Thus you don't get a medal for saving a brother. It is expected of you. But you will be hailed a hero for saving a total stranger. This recognizes that altruism to strangers is rare.

When we live in large cities of mostly strangers, it becomes impossible to practice Socialism. That's because we are still programmed to pass on our genes. Thus we care more for ourselves, our family and kin.

Ants, bees, wasps practice Socialism in large numbers - maybe hundreds of thousands in a hive. That's because each insect is a sibling. They all have the same mother, if not the same father. So it makes genetic sense to live collectively. Helping a sibling is also helping to ensure the survival of your genes.

But Mammals only have small families. So those who advocate for Socialism are struggling against nature. It won't work.

[capitalism is good]

Despotism is not an inherent characteristic of socialism, on the contrary. Just because Stalin and other self-proclaimed socialists oppressed and murdered millions of people doesn't make them representative of socialism; they're an embarrassment to true socialism, which seeks to free mankind and bring equality to all.

However, despotism and inequality were indeed official policies of Nazism from its inception. Therefore Hitler was not a socialist. He copied socialist symbolism in order to gain more appeal, but that doesn't make him a socialist.

I agree with you that Socialism in theory does not embrace despotism. That is why Stalin is an embarassment to idealistic Socialists like yourself. But the problem with Socialism is that it concentrates power on the state and often in a small group of people.

When a state controls all means of production, it means economic power is concentrated. When power is concentrated, it invites abuse. This does not always happen. I can think of Socialist attempts where this did not happen or at least not so bad as Stalin eg Julius Nyerere.

But the tendency is there. In capitalism, the economy is in the hands of millions of people. Some capitalist just run the corner store or hamburger stand. Others may be large like say Exxon. But each is only a small part of the economy. Even Bill Gates, world's richest man, who controls Microsoft only owns a small part of the economy. So power is diffused.

It makes it much harder for really bad things to happen. Under socialism, economic and political power are very concentrated, you can get things like tens of millions starved or killed as happened under Stalin and Mao.

That is why the worst mass murderers are all from the Left - Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot and Hitler. OK I know there is some dispute about whether Hitler was from the Left.

Compare this to a right wing dictator like say Pinochet who is much reviled. He only killed about 3,000 people. Nobody starved to death. The economy grew and he even held a referendum. When the people said they did not want him any more, he stepped down. Today, Chile is a prosperous democracy. Compare that with Castro's Cuba where thousands drowned to escape his Socialist "parradise".

Pinochet was a capitalist dictator. He did much better for his people than castro did. That's because economic power was not concentrated even though political power was concentrated. He was not as powerful as Castro, Pol Pot etc. Thus really bad things cannot happen.

[∞]

"Landowners are not the enemy of the german people, Jews are,"
-A. Hitler. When addressing the "Left" and right factions of the National Socialist.

The Nazis were about as socialist as the DPRK is democratic.

[Deicide]

those who advocate for Socialism are struggling against nature. It won't work.

''The question of so-called "human nature" is one of the most commonly raised arguments against socialism - but it is also one of the easiest to debunk. Many people believe that the way people think has always been the same, and that we will always think the way we do now. But a few examples will show that nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is, like all things in nature, human consciousness and society are always in a state of change. Marx explained that "conditions determine consciousness". In other words, our environment determines to a large degree how we think. We know what rap music, Hollywood movies, and a Boeing 747 are because they exist in our world. For example, if we were born 5,000 years ago as peasants in China, our world-view would be very different! If we were born as royalty in China 5,000 years ago, we would also have a very different view of things than if we were peasants.

Human beings rose to the top of the food chain not by competing against each other and crushing one another in the struggle to "get ahead", but through cooperation. Only by cooperating were humans able to combine their resources to hunt, build shelters, and eventually domesticate plants, animals, develop pottery, build the pyramids, etc., etc. Just look at a human baby! Compared to a deer, which can stand up and run within minutes of birth, human young are totally helpless for years. Baby humans could not survive even a few days without the help of others! So you see, primitive humans needed to cooperate if they were to survive the elements, wild animals, find enough to eat, etc. For the vast majority of human existence, there were no classes, and we lived communally in small bands, dividing up the work and dividing up the wealth in the interests of everyone.

And although on the surface is appears that nowadays we are all "individuals", the truth is we are even more dependant on literally thousands and even millions of other humans around the world. Can any one person design a car, mine and process the metals and other materials needed, build the factory, and the put together a car themselves? To even pose the question shows how absurd the idea is. And what about the gasoline to fuel it? Or the roads to drive it on?What about the food we eat? The list goes on and on - and we have only scratched the surface.Think about it carefully, and you will see that under capitalism, almost everyone is indirectly linked to everyone else through the world market and the exchange of commodities.

We work together, live together, hang out together, go to the movies together, go to the park together, etc. Do we have police around 24 / 7 to make sure we don't all kill each other? Do we run around murdering each other "to get ahead"? If that were the case, then nothing would ever get done and we would all starve to death in a matter of days! So why do people have this strange idea that we are all "individuals"? Well, getting back to the first point we made, which is that conditions determine consciousness - the ruling class (the capitalists) do everything in their power to affect the way we think. Through our education, through the media, religion, etc., we are raised to have the values of the capitalist system.And what values are these? Precisely the "dog eat dog" attitude which states that the only way to get ahead is to stomp on your opponents. We are raised to look away and think nothing of the homeless, the starving, those killed in war, etc. - or at most to say a prayer for them and give a little "charity" to ease our conscience.

But if we look a little harder, we will see that these "values" benefit only a tiny handful of people - the ultra-rich capitalists! The rest of us, in our daily lives, gain nothing from this. What we want above all is peace, stability, a decent job, no worries about healthcare or education, time off for family and loved ones, etc. It is only the capitalist class which thrives off the individual competition between one company and another. One of the main contradictions of capitalist society is that we have social production (meaning we produce the things we use socially - like the example of the car), but private appropriation of the surplus wealth produced. In other words, we produce the wealth socially, but the profit goes into private hands!The thousands of workers who actually know how to produce the cars in a factory do not get to decide what to produce or how, or what to do with the extra wealth - the capitalist class does. Socialists want to end this contradiction by having social control over the socially produced wealth. The surplus wealth produced by working people would be used to provide better wages, benefits, healthcare, education, safety conditions, new technology that could reduce the working day, etc. - instead of for the private gain of a handful of people while millions starve, are homeless, and unemployed.This is not a utopian idea - the material pre-requisites for this exist now!The only barrier to this is the grip the capitalist class has on political and economic power. Only unity of the world working class can put an end to this situation, and end the horror, degradation, poverty, and instability of the capitalist system once and for all. Then a whole new world will open up!

So just imagine a baby born into a world with no hunger, no want, no poverty, no lack of jobs, etc. Since conditions determine consciousness, they would see the world in an entirely different way than we do today. Even babies born today do not notice differences in race, language, etc. Until these are pointed out to them as they get older. Under socialism, people will relate to each other as people, and not as mere commodities to be bought and sold.

The reason for the vast bulk of the problems we suffer under capitalism is scarcity – there is simply not enough to go around. To take an example form nature, if you take 100 rats and put them in a cage with enough food for 100 rats and then a little bit more, you will have docile, friendly, and gregarious animals before you. But if you put those same 100 rats in a cage with only enough food for only 50 of them, you will quickly see the situation deteriorate into a murderous, greedy, self-interested orgy of violence and bloodshed. Of course, humans and their society are much more complex and on a different level than 100 rats in a laboratory cage, but the example illustrates an important point.

As we all know, much of the scarcity we find is artificially produced. We have all heard the stories of farmers being paid not to plant or to destroy crops, even though there are millions of hungry and malnourished children right here in the United States, let alone around the world; of shoe or clothing stores which punch or tear holes in their old stock, to make them unusable, even though millions of people could use those products; of restaurants firing employees for taking food home, insisting instead that this perfectly good food be thrown in the dumpster; or of perfectly healthy, capable, and willing people being paid not to work, or forced into unemployment when they are willing to work, instead of creating meaningful jobs for them.

"Human nature", like all things, in a constant state of change. To accept that it is set in stone for all time does not stand up to even the most simple analysis. Humans have created wonderful tragedies, comedies, songs, poems, paintings, sculptures and countless other expressions of artistic creativity which are a reflection of our changing world view at any given time. Just take a walk through an art, science, or historical museum and you will see the changing consciousness of humanity graphically portrayed. As Marx explained, "the philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways - the point however, is to change it!" Our way of thinking will change with it!''

[Revolution starts with U]

Hunter gatherer groups usually comprised of family members and close relatives and perhaps a few friends. Such groups probably practiced Socialism - sharing in whatever food they produced by hunting and gathering.

1) No. H-Gs were/are not incestral.

2) So socialism is sharing? I thought it was government? There is no government/state in H-G societies.


Socialism is possible in small group of kinsmen. That's because we are programmed to help those who share our genes.
Proof? Tomorrow I'll be taking a friend of mine to the movies for his birthday, I routinely bring food out to him, because he's poor. Your hypothesis is failed.


Thus you don't get a medal for saving a brother. It is expected of you. But you will be hailed a hero for saving a total stranger. This recognizes that altruism to strangers is rare.

Why wouldn't you get a medal for saving a brother? Where did this even come from?


When we live in large cities of mostly strangers, it becomes impossible to practice Socialism. That's because we are still programmed to pass on our genes. Thus we care more for ourselves, our family and kin.


Paris Commune.



Ants, bees, wasps practice Socialism in large numbers - maybe hundreds of thousands in a hive. That's because each insect is a sibling. They all have the same mother, if not the same father. So it makes genetic sense to live collectively. Helping a sibling is also helping to ensure the survival of your genes.

That's not socialism you dolt. There's a queen and classes.

You said socialism is government control of the economy, and capitalism is lack of government control of the economy. Hunter gatherer societies have absolutely no government TO control the economy.
So, are you going to refine your definition, and claim H-Gs as pure capitalists? Or are you just going to keep trolling?

[Nox]

They had public healthcare, so they must have been socialist :rolleyes:

[CommunityBeliever]

That is why the worst mass murderers are all from the Left - Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot and Hitler. OK I know there is some dispute about whether Hitler was from the Left. There is only one mass murderer: capitalism.

[Nox]

There is only one mass murderer: capitalism.

The ironic thing is that all the people listed were technically capitalists

[CommunityBeliever]

The ironic thing is that all the people listed were technically capitalists

Comrade Mao certainly wasn't a capitalist.

[Jason]

Hitler wasn't a socialist, as many understand the term. In fact, one could argue the holocaust as well as World War II was a reaction to the Communist threat. In fact, one of Hitler's major programs was to destroy Communism. Of course, that shouldn't be no shock to anyone who has visited a major hate forum.

Hitler was obsessed with destroying Communist Russia much more so then dealing with the western front. He exterminated Jews because he saw them as the puppeteers of Communism, as well as what he viewed as degenerate Capitalism.

However, you can't say Hitler's regime was like modern day America. Sure, a type of fascist socialism did exist to maintain control; this would be necessary in any type of totalitarian state. A modern day example, though way less extreme, was apartheid era South Africa or even Israel.

[Nox]

Comrade Mao certainly wasn't a capitalist.

State capitalist

[Philosopher Jay]

Opposing Ideologies Forum Guidelines As of today, I've been assigned Moderator of Opposing Ideologies. My chief ambition is to ensure an as serious and political atmosphere in this forum as possible, with a minimum of offtopic content. I've been elected to the position by the BA specifically on this mandate and will attempt to develop the forum in such a direction, in cooperation with the other Mods and the Admins.

Why, you may ask. I will explain. As the name implies, RevLeft is a discussion board and community for revolutionary leftists. And as explained in the Read this -sticky, the OI section is the part of the forum where those opposing our views are not welcome but tolerated.

That may sound quite harsh, and as a matter of fact civil, polite and respectful OIers do contribute to the quality of this board significantly; they provide a valuable opportunity for 'newbie' leftists to practice their debating skills for real life political activity. So in a sense they are 'welcome'.

But that doesn't change the fact that OI is not meant to be a miniature right wing or anti-communist forum within RevLeft (with it's own surveys, music threads and what not), and that is precisely how I interpret this phrase.This OP is the type of imbecilic garbage propaganda that one hears on FOX television and the neo-Nazi conservative AM talk shows. There is no need to give such sick, ignorant and disgusting ideas a further forum here. It is not a serious discussion in any way shape or form.
It is as offensive as if a man stood up in a Jewish synogogue and proposed that Hitler and the Nazis were really Jewish, or when a racist writes a letter to the NAACP suggesting that blacks had really enslaved white people in the 18th and 19th century in the United States.

Please eliminate the OP and ban the writer so that reasonable and serious discussion can take place and not be disrupted by psychopathic clowns who think that their farts are ideas.
Please show some respect to the tens of millions of socialist men women and children who died so tragically fighting the insane rightwing conservative capitalist ideology of Hitler and his Nazis.

[Zostrianos]

I have a feeling this guy's with the FBI or the Republican party, and he's just posting here to make us socialists look bad and soil the forum's rep, by associating us with Hitler.

[CommunityBeliever]

State capitalist

I don't believe one line posts are acceptable in this forum. Anyways, comrade Mao was definitely a communist, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Have you read any of his works?

[Nox]

Have you read any of his works?

Yes, that's why I'm not a maoist

[CommunityBeliever]

Yes, that's why I'm not a maoist

You forgot to capitalise "maoist" or to add any specific details to your post.

[Klaatu]

Marx is socialist.

Socialists are Marx. ?

It is good debating practice to play The Devil's Advocate. So then:

Certainly, there are times when: (A>B) ∩ (B>A)

That is, factA leads to factB, and thus the converse factB leads to fact A

But C.I.G.'s argument does not hold, however, in part because Hitler was doing the very things
that Socialists abhor (exploitation, authoritarianism, discrimination, theft, war, violence, murder, rape, etc)

That is, if one does things that socialists abhor, one cannot rightly consider oneself to be socialist.

So I should have put it this way:

A>B does not necessarily prove B>A

That is all

[Nox]

You forgot to capitalise "maoist" or to add any specific details to your post.

maoism doesn't deserve a capital letter.

[∞]

There is only one mass murderer: capitalism.

inb4 giant leftist circlejerk.

[∞]

maoism doesn't deserve a capital letter.

inb4 giant anarcho/trot/leftcom circlejerk.

[Revolution starts with U]

It is good debating practice to play The Devil's Advocate. So then:

Certainly, there are times when: (A>B) ∩ (B>A)

That is, factA leads to factB, and thus the converse factB leads to fact A

But C.I.G.'s argument does not hold, however, in part because Hitler was doing the very things
that Socialists abhor (exploitation, authoritarianism, discrimination, theft, war, violence, murder, rape, etc)

That is, if one does things that socialists abhor, one cannot rightly consider oneself to be socialist.

So I should have put it this way:

A>B does not necessarily prove B>A

That is all

It goes like this;

A and B = B and A

If A then B != (does not equal) If B then A

Like, if I play guitar, I will make noises. But If I make noises, I might not be playing a guitar.

[CommunityBeliever]

But you will be hailed a hero for saving a total stranger. This recognizes that altruism to strangers is rare. I agree with you that altruism is rare, but it doesn't have to be. In communist society human beings will be far more friendly to one another then they are now because they wont be subjected to conditions of cut-throat competition.


So those who advocate for Socialism are struggling against nature. It won't work. I can imagine you on the African savannah in prehistoric times telling people: don't try to travel away from here, you will have to struggle against the harsh conditions of nature! Yet some people managed to construct clothes and utilise fire to spread across the entire landmass of the Earth. We are intelligent animals, we can construct tools and free ourselves from any of the constraints of nature.


That is why Stalin is an embarassment to idealistic Socialists like yourself. It is not so much Stalin himself who is an embarassment, but some of the things that arose during the Stalin era such as Lysenkoism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lysenkoism). However, it would be anti-materialist to blame Stalin for everything that occurred in the USSR, he was but a man.


But the problem with Socialism is that it concentrates power on the state and often in a small group of people. The purpose of socialism is to concentrate power in the majority of the people, the state depending upon how you define it, is sometimes used as a mechanism in this process.


But the tendency is there. In capitalism, the economy is in the hands of millions of people. That is essentially the opposite of what is true. In capitalism, the economy is in the hands of the bourgioisie minority.


Under socialism, economic and political power are very concentrated, you can get things like tens of millions starved or killed as happened under Stalin and Mao. As far as I know, over 20 million people died in the USSR during the Stalin era, and that was because of the anti-socialist Hitler, who led the largest invasion force ever against the USSR. Similarly, in China millions of people died as a result of imperialism and natural disasters. None of these things were the fault of socialism. It is thanks to socialism that China produced the greatest increase in living standards in human history.


That is why the worst mass murderers are all from the Left - Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot and Hitler. Individuals don't commit mass murder, large organisations do, and historically the majority of mass murdering organisations have been capitalist.


OK I know there is some dispute about whether Hitler was from the Left. The left does want Hitler and the right doesn't want him either. Nobody wants him. Who would want to associate themselves with the most destructive individual in human history?


Pinochet was a capitalist dictator. He did much better for his people than castro did. That's because economic power was not concentrated even though political power was concentrated. He was not as powerful as Castro, Pol Pot etc. Thus really bad things cannot happen. Your history is all twisted. Pinochet committed vast atrocities upon the Chilean people. On the other hand, the Cuban working class created some of the most impressive achievements in human history. Despite imperialist aggression, they managed to vastly improve their own living conditions.


Yes, that's why I'm not a maoist

On the other hand, the reason I am a Maoist is my own review of his works. I like comrade Mao's emphasis on revolutionising all aspects of society such as ideology and culture:

In the ideological field, the question of who will win in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie has not been really settled yet. We still have to wage a protracted struggle against bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideology. It is wrong not to understand this and to give up ideological struggle. All erroneous ideas, all poisonous weeds, all ghosts and monsters, must be subjected to criticism; in no circumstance should they be allowed to spread unchecked. However, the criticism should be fully reasoned, analytical and convincing, and not rough, bureaucratic, metaphysical or dogmatic.

In the world today all culture, all literature and art belong to definite classes and are geared to definite political lines. There is in fact no such thing as art for art's sake, art that stands above classes, art that is detached from or independent of politics. Proletarian literature and art are part of the whole proletarian revolutionary cause; they are, as Lenin said, cogs and wheels in the whole revolutionary machine.

[#FF0000]

hey quick question

was keynes a socialist

[∞]

Idk if you're serious. But he would really like the democrats.

[∞]

hey quick question

was keynes a socialist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynes#Involvement_with_the_Liberal_Party

Idk. if you were serious or not. He was a def. a liberal.

[RGacky3]

No he was'nt, his policies have influenced socialists though, and his insights and analysis are very useful to socialists, but his normative economics were not socialist, they were .... well, keynsian.

[Revolution starts with U]

They were capitalist, no matter what merits they may or not have for socialists. Kynes was a capitalist, trying to save capitalism.

[danyboy27]

Lets see....


Keynes's comment, which may shock many, did not come out of the blue. Hitler's economists rejected laissez-faire, and admired Keynes, even foreshadowing him in many ways. Similarly, the Keynesians admired Hitler We free marketers believe in economic freedom which leftists see as economic anarchy.
kenye was not a leftist, arguing that a capitalist economy should be regulated is not leftist all, the power dynamic remain the same has they where, the only difference is that, kenyesian politics try to keep the exploitative process stable..
Quote: What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard,
. does that mean richard Nixon was a leftist?

Quote: , embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns,
those programs where initially started by wermar germany and voted for by both the socialist and the conservatives.

Quote:
protected industry from foreign competition,
protectionism exist since mercantilism, it was hardly something
new.

Quote: expanded credit,
Mainly for big corporation and industries.

Quote: instituted jobs programs
More like forced everyone to work or be put in a camp. Its not like the worker had any control over their workplace anyway, thanks to hitler union busting.

Quote: bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions,
Just like every nation did when they embarked in ww2 AND ww1. Also, that whole price and production decision was dirrected at certain sectors. I can bet you my left hand that the guy making tanks and gun had the right to bid their contract has much has they wanted.

Quote: , vastly expanded the military,
That hardly a leftist charasteristic, the U.S and european power all did that at a moment or another.

Quote: enforced capital controls,
Then again, this is hardly leftist, a lot of european countries had to do the same after WW1, and after ww2.
Quote: instituted family planning,
Family planning like forcing women to have children or limiting a women number of children is not a leftist position.

Quote: , penalized smoking,
Mildly. Most SS officer where avid smoker. Banning someone from smoking is not leftist at all.

: , brought about national health care and unemployment insurance,
Something that most of european countries decided to implement after the horror of ww1, something even the conservatives backed beccause it was deemed common sense.


Quote: imposed education standards,
Education standard existed almost a hundred of year before.

Quote: and eventually ran huge deficits.
A deficit they where able to payoff with million of dollars of stolen good and slave labor.

Quote: The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.
Go tell that the to german private corporation CEO who where able to rack million of dollars of contract for the concentration camps construction, maintenance and for the weapon produced by all that non-unionised workforce. Nazi germany was capitalist to its verry core, So much so that the big monopoly like IG farben where finally able to crush all the competition and make money like crazy on the back of german worker and jewish slaves.It was the perfect dream for them.


The policies underlined are also what your fellow Socialist Obuma is doing.
No, not really.

[Krano]

Explains why he invaded the Soviet Union.

[#FF0000]

No he was'nt, his policies have influenced socialists though, and his insights and analysis are very useful to socialists, but his normative economics were not socialist, they were .... well, keynsian.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynes#Involvement_with_the_Liberal_Party

Idk. if you were serious or not. He was a def. a liberal.

I was asking capitalism is good. I know all about keynes.

[ColonelCossack]

But leftists keep doing stuff like that. Stalin sent someone to put an ice pick into the head of trotsky. Socialists cannot agree what is true socialism and kill one another when they don't agree.

Hitler killed them, because he thought they were socialist. Stalins motives were the opposite.


North Korea is the "Democratic people's reublic of Korea". That doesn't make them democratic.

By your logic I can say, "I am God!!!!" and that would make me so.

[Garret]

What Hitler considered socialism was different from what you consider socialism (Perfectly natural government intervention) and what we consider socialism (A synonym for communism or the stage preceding communism).

For Hitler it meant communitarianism and welfare for Aryans only.


“Why,” I asked Hitler, “do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?”
“Socialism,” he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, “is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
“Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
“We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1

[workersadvocate]

What Hitler considered socialism was different from what you consider socialism (Perfectly natural government intervention) what we consider socialism (A synonym for communism or the stage preceding communism).

For Hitler it meant communitarianism and welfare for Aryans only.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1

White middle class Americans prefer the Ron Paul kinda racism these days.
Ain't that right, 'capitalism is good'?

[RGacky3]

I was asking capitalism is good. I know all about keynes.

My bad, it did seam wierd you asking that ....

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

It seems that we all have different definations of what Socialist means. For me, there are two opposing poles - Capitalism and Socialism.

Capitalism means lassiez faire approach to the economy ie the government adopts a hands off approach to the economy.

Socialism equality of wealth. Because the natural state in nature is inequality, it means the government must intervene in the economy to bring this about. In its extreme form, the government owns all means of production.

For the record, there are no completely capitalist or socialist economies in the world. All are hybrids - some more to the left and some more to the right. The more the government intervenes, the more Socialist it becomes. The less government intervenes or interferes, the more economic freedom we have.

Here is an article on Hitler's economy (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id10.html). It clearly is more to the left than to free markets.

Excerpts:




<B>[/B]
Cappy, your arguments are lame and crappy. There are zero socialist economies in the world using a clear Marxist definition. Marx (and Lenin and Trotsky) stated MANY times that you cannot build socialism in a single country -- so National Socialism is an oxymoron. Other comrades have done a fine job in demolishing your idiotic assertion that Naziism represented even a bastard form of socialism.

I would add that Fascism in all of its flavors, is a REACTIONARY ideology. In Germany, it looked back to imagined days of Aryan glory. It grew out of the immiseration of the peasantry and the petite bourgeoisie. The concentration camps were originally constructed to imprison actual leftists from the SPD and KPD.

Socialism's precondition is the complete expropriation of the bourgeoisie, and the end of large scale private property. And the point is not to be equal, the point is develop productive capacity so that people can work (in the sense of having a job to make a living) less yet for everybody to have more.

So maybe you should develop some understanding of what socialism is, at least Marxian socialism before you wade into this discussion. You do appear like an imbecile here.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Explains why he invaded the Soviet Union.

hitler was a committed leftcom who aimed to abolish state capitalism

[El Chuncho]

If a party is "socialist" because it calls itself socialist, is a party democratic because it calls itself democratic?

Sure it is! CIG's logic is infallible. Democratic Kampuchea was certainly democratic as we all know. Infact, men, women and children were democratically bludgeoned to death in democratic killing fields.

[∞]

This guy is an obvious troll. Look at his name, and his avatar is none other than yours truly. This thread is perfect it is the one accusation leftists hate the most.

[DinodudeEpic]

Capitalism is good....

Socialism does not mean economic central planning or government planning.

It means workers control, which can be coupled with free markets.

I am a free market socialist! The ultimate bane for capitalists, for all their arguments fall apart at the very concept.

Free markets superior to central planning? Well, corporations work like central planning apparatuses.

Government control? Strawman!

Libertarianism either collapses when in contact with Liberal Socialism, or it becomes tyranny incarnate.

In total, Hitler was an anti-socialist who had something different in his mind when he said the word 'Socialism'. (Which was more like an appeal to German workers.)

[capitalism is good]

Thank you for the reply, Deicide. You wrote a long and interesting article, one of the best I have read here to date.


''The question of so-called "human nature" is one of the most commonly raised arguments against socialism - but it is also one of the easiest to debunk. Many people believe that the way people think has always been the same, and that we will always think the way we do now. But a few examples will show that nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is, like all things in nature, human consciousness and society are always in a state of change. Marx explained that "conditions determine consciousness". In other words, our environment determines to a large degree how we think. We know what rap music, Hollywood movies, and a Boeing 747 are because they exist in our world. For example, if we were born 5,000 years ago as peasants in China, our world-view would be very different! If we were born as royalty in China 5,000 years ago, we would also have a very different view of things than if we were peasants.

Human beings rose to the top of the food chain not by competing against each other and crushing one another in the struggle to "get ahead", but through cooperation. Only by cooperating were humans able to combine their resources to hunt, build shelters, and eventually domesticate plants, animals, develop pottery, build the pyramids, etc., etc. Just look at a human baby! Compared to a deer, which can stand up and run within minutes of birth, human young are totally helpless for years. Baby humans could not survive even a few days without the help of others! So you see, primitive humans needed to cooperate if they were to survive the elements, wild animals, find enough to eat, etc. For the vast majority of human existence, there were no classes, and we lived communally in small bands, dividing up the work and dividing up the wealth in the interests of everyone.

This is the old nature vs nuture debate. I believe human behavior is the result of both nature and nutre. But I feel that Marx had too much confidence in the nuture part.

Nature requires us to firstly survive and secondly to pass on our genes. That means we have to take care of ourselves and those who share our genes eg our kids and siblings. Now in a small community of hunter gatherers of mostly kin, this possible. But when the group growns larger we are struggling against nature. In the kind of Socialist state you guys imagine, everybody will pitch in for total strangers. All attempts at doing this failed. Try living in a commune and see if you can do it. No matter how hard you work, you share the same reward as everybody else. No matter how little you work, you get the same reward. Let's see how hard you and everyone else will work.

In fact America tried Communism at its birth. The pilgrims tried it and the meager was harvest. Then Govenor Bradford divided the land amongst each family and let everybody fend for themselves. The result was bountiful harvest. That's the real meaning of Thanksgiving (http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/819-the-real-meaning-of-thanksgiving-the-triumph-of-capitalism-over-collectivism)- Capitalism works and Socialism does not.

Excerpt:



In the New World, they wanted to erect a New Jerusalem that would not only be religiously devout, but be built on a new foundation of communal sharing and social altruism. Their goal was the communism of Plato’s Republic, in which all would work and share in common, knowing neither private property nor self-interested acquisitiveness.


It did not work.


In the wilderness of the New World, the Plymouth Pilgrims had progressed from the false dream of communism to the sound realism of capitalism. At a time of economic uncertainty, it is worthwhile recalling this beginning of the American experiment and experience with freedom.



The real meaning of Thanksgiving, in other words, is the triumph of Capitalism over the failure of Collectivism in all its forms.



Deicide wrote:



And although on the surface is appears that nowadays we are all "individuals", the truth is we are even more dependant on literally thousands and even millions of other humans around the world. Can any one person design a car, mine and process the metals and other materials needed, build the factory, and the put together a car themselves? To even pose the question shows how absurd the idea is. And what about the gasoline to fuel it? Or the roads to drive it on?What about the food we eat? The list goes on and on - and we have only scratched the surface.Think about it carefully, and you will see that under capitalism, almost everyone is indirectly linked to everyone else through the world market and the exchange of commodities.


We are interdependent, I agree. The co-operation to build a car is amazing. Thousands of individuals do different tasks as you say to build that car. They are able to co-operate because each expect to be individually rewarded for their work.




We work together, live together, hang out together, go to the movies together, go to the park together, etc. Do we have police around 24 / 7 to make sure we don't all kill each other? Do we run around murdering each other "to get ahead"? If that were the case, then nothing would ever get done and we would all starve to death in a matter of days! So why do people have this strange idea that we are all "individuals"? Well, getting back to the first point we made, which is that conditions determine consciousness - the ruling class (the capitalists) do everything in their power to affect the way we think. Through our education, through the media, religion, etc., we are raised to have the values of the capitalist system.And what values are these? Precisely the "dog eat dog" attitude which states that the only way to get ahead is to stomp on your opponents. We are raised to look away and think nothing of the homeless, the starving, those killed in war, etc. - or at most to say a prayer for them and give a little "charity" to ease our conscience.


That is not true. I find the news, education, movies to be pretty left wing actually. You keep talking about capitalists as the ruling class. Capitalists are not monolithic. They compete with one another. There are more than one car company, airline, bank etc. They interests collide. A car company wants to buy cheap steel and calls for free trade so as to buy it overseas. The steel companies want higher prices and so call for protection from foreign imports. They do not act in unison. This is a marxist myth that there is a capitalist ruling class that call the shots to oppress the workers.

There is no ruling class of rich capitalists. If they are so powerful, taxes won't be so high and so progressive. You know who has the power by watching where the money goes. Money will always flow from the less powerful to the more powerful. In the First world democracies at least, money flows from those with above average income to those with below average income. This was the reverse of the French Ancien Regime where money goes upwards from the peasants to the nobles and king. Today, the top 1% pay 38% of federal income tax (http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners) even though they earn 20% of total income. So if the rich are as poweful as you think the money would be flowing downwards as in the days of the Ancien Regime where the King and Nobles paid no taxes but got rich from the taxes peasants paid.



But if we look a little harder, we will see that these "values" benefit only a tiny handful of people - the ultra-rich capitalists! The rest of us, in our daily lives, gain nothing from this. What we want above all is peace, stability, a decent job, no worries about healthcare or education, time off for family and loved ones, etc. It is only the capitalist class which thrives off the individual competition between one company and another. One of the main contradictions of capitalist society is that we have social production (meaning we produce the things we use socially - like the example of the car), but private appropriation of the surplus wealth produced. In other words, we produce the wealth socially, but the profit goes into private hands!The thousands of workers who actually know how to produce the cars in a factory do not get to decide what to produce or how, or what to do with the extra wealth - the capitalist class does. Socialists want to end this contradiction by having social control over the socially produced wealth. The surplus wealth produced by working people would be used to provide better wages, benefits, healthcare, education, safety conditions, new technology that could reduce the working day, etc. - instead of for the private gain of a handful of people while millions starve, are homeless, and unemployed.This is not a utopian idea - the material pre-requisites for this exist now!The only barrier to this is the grip the capitalist class has on political and economic power. Only unity of the world working class can put an end to this situation, and end the horror, degradation, poverty, and instability of the capitalist system once and for all. Then a whole new world will open up!


If you want a good life, you have to work for it. You may not know this but you are up against stiff competition from the Chinese. They work harder and are hungrier and are willing to work cheaper. So jobs are going to China. Just about everything is made in China today. Now competition is global. Competition starts in school. Your kids have to work hard from day 1 in school. Later they have to work hard in their jobs in order to make a product cheaper and better than the Chinese can. Or you will be poor. Socialism cannot save you. Only work can.

It is a Marxist fallacy that workers deserve all the profits made. The capitalist has to put in his capital to buy land, pay wages, equipment etc. Even then he cannot be sure he will make money. Things can go wrong and he might go bust. So the reward he gets is to compensate him for the risk he took.




So just imagine a baby born into a world with no hunger, no want, no poverty, no lack of jobs, etc. Since conditions determine consciousness, they would see the world in an entirely different way than we do today. Even babies born today do not notice differences in race, language, etc. Until these are pointed out to them as they get older. Under socialism, people will relate to each other as people, and not as mere commodities to be bought and sold.


I think you have a totally naive idea of Socialism. What you imagine to be Socialism has never been implemented anywhere nor work as advertised.



The reason for the vast bulk of the problems we suffer under capitalism is scarcity – there is simply not enough to go around. To take an example form nature, if you take 100 rats and put them in a cage with enough food for 100 rats and then a little bit more, you will have docile, friendly, and gregarious animals before you. But if you put those same 100 rats in a cage with only enough food for only 50 of them, you will quickly see the situation deteriorate into a murderous, greedy, self-interested orgy of violence and bloodshed. Of course, humans and their society are much more complex and on a different level than 100 rats in a laboratory cage, but the example illustrates an important point.


So where is the food going to come from? Someone has to work to produce the food. Capitalism creates abundance not scarcity. Socialism creates scarcity. You have got things upside down.



As we all know, much of the scarcity we find is artificially produced. We have all heard the stories of farmers being paid not to plant or to destroy crops, even though there are millions of hungry and malnourished children right here in the United States, let alone around the world; of shoe or clothing stores which punch or tear holes in their old stock, to make them unusable, even though millions of people could use those products; of restaurants firing employees for taking food home, insisting instead that this perfectly good food be thrown in the dumpster; or of perfectly healthy, capable, and willing people being paid not to work, or forced into unemployment when they are willing to work, instead of creating meaningful jobs for them.



The people with the most scarcity are in Socialist countries like N Korea.



"Human nature", like all things, in a constant state of change. To accept that it is set in stone for all time does not stand up to even the most simple analysis. Humans have created wonderful tragedies, comedies, songs, poems, paintings, sculptures and countless other expressions of artistic creativity which are a reflection of our changing world view at any given time. Just take a walk through an art, science, or historical museum and you will see the changing consciousness of humanity graphically portrayed. As Marx explained, "the philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways - the point however, is to change it!" Our way of thinking will change with it!''


Its the old nature vs nuture debate again. Human nature cannot change and will always impact human behavior. The way we are nutured can affect the way we behave up to a point. To ask someone to act against his interest will take a lot of effort. That's why Socialist states like the Soviet Union and Communist China spent so much time at propaganda and brainwashing. Remember Mao's "little red book". It will also require oppression to compel people to act against their natural wishes. That is why Socialism produced the worst dictatorships.

[Ocean Seal]

Okay I'll humor this guy.
Hitler's revolution was based in the petit-bourgeoisie of one race. He didn't abolish all unearned income, and Germany was ruled by wealthy capitalists who directed markets. Relations to production were maintained, and oh my god why the fuck am I even bothering with this troll.

http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2001/dec21_clague/squid.jpg

[Strannik]

Its all there on the flag. :) National socialism - white circle with swastika on a red background. White circle symbolizes rule of national, "aryan" bourgeoise over working classes.

In practice national socialism is desperate last resort attempt by the national bourgeoise to maintain power in a country. Its a form of militaristic keinsialism that appeals to most backward elements and instincts in people.

Of course it includes left-wing elements - it's an attempt to highjack a powerful left-wing movement.

Already in the program it sets conditions to power of the workers - yes, power to the people, but... And the program is much more left wing compared to what they actually did. Bosses of the German corporations kept their riches because they were "earned", presumably?

[Black_Rose]

If you want a good life, you have to work for it. You may not know this but you are up against stiff competition from the Chinese. They work harder and are hungrier and are willing to work cheaper. So jobs are going to China. Just about everything is made in China today. Now competition is global. Competition starts in school. Your kids have to work hard from day 1 in school. Later they have to work hard in their jobs in order to make a product cheaper and better than the Chinese can. Or you will be poor. Socialism cannot save you. Only work can.
So where is the food going to come from? Someone has to work to produce the food. Capitalism creates abundance not scarcity. Socialism creates scarcity. You have got things upside down. How hebephrenic, incoherent, and contradictory of you, since the quotes contradict each other.

Let me get this straight: capitalism allegedly creates abundance, yet we have to compete against other people for scarce economic resources such as jobs? You're making me as confused as a Psyduck.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WZJuSBPiNZk/TPjthIXAfpI/AAAAAAAAAYQ/0mdLfwpL-7I/s400/psyduck.gif

Capitalism is a Hobbesian dystopia: a world of privation and barbarism characterized by a perpetual a war of all against all.

Capitalist, if you really are serious about learning, read this article.

http://henryckliu.com/page8.html


Neoclassical economics developed at a time when wealth was limited to what a relatively primitive industrial society could produce, and demand for goods was always greater than their supply. It is the economics of scarcity rooted in the medieval rule of parsimony, or principle of economy, frequently used by Franciscan monk William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349), which came to be known as Ockham’s Razor. Or to put it another way, scarcity, leading to the need for economy, is the determinant behind economics theory. The Franciscans, with their devotion to the poor and opposition to an opulent church, were the modern-day communists of the medieval Church.


...

Biblical faith itself has been a stunning moral source for the critique of biblically-based religious doctrine. The monotheism myth, the belief in the one true God, creator of heaven and earth, constitutes a system in which identity depends on the rejection of multiculturalism and the subjugation of personal free will and independence. Some modern writers have placed monotheism at the root of evil in the Western world. Monotheism’s vehement legacy is the implied consequence of the law of scarcity, which is built upon a logic that rules the scarcity paradigm that proclaims that there will never be enough of the blessings and good things necessary for prosperity, such as land, resources, even food and water, let alone oil, to go around for all to enjoy freely.

But the law of scarcity, like monotheism, is a baseless myth, because it does not reflect the visible truth about the real world. The scarcity myth has come to be regarded as a law in large measure through the enormous influence that the Bible has exerted on the making of the Western mind, and thus the Western fixation on material accumulation. There is ample evidence that scarcity is the result of man-made mal-distribution rather than a natural state.

Buddhism views the world as a place of plenty, thus Buddhists have no desire or need to accumulate material things. For Buddhists, the only accumulation worthy of effort is good deeds. Joy belongs to the giver. The law of scarcity does not derive its all-inclusive power and its pervasive influence from facts about the real world or communal human experiences. Its authority flows from faulty metaphysical principles and misguided Christian beliefs about the nature of God. Scarcity is encoded in the Bible as a principle of Oneness (one land, one people, one nation) and in monotheistic thinking (one Deity). It becomes a demand of exclusive allegiance that threatens with violence of exclusion. Imperialism and globalization are direct geopolitical outcomes of the Christian quest for the holy grail of Oneness.

While the dark side of the Bible sanctions the formation of a collective identity that is singular, static and exclusionary, it also provides hopeful glimpses of an identity that is multiple and mobile, inclusive and evolving, governed by the good “principle of plentitude” and not the evil law of scarcity. The principle of plentitude affirms that there are enough of the good things to go around, and proclaims the ethical imperative of generosity, and envisages a world of ceaseless giving. Neoclassical economics dismisses the principle of plentitude as being outside of the concerns of economics. Charity is a voluntarism in the province of morality, not economics. When President Bush promotes voluntarism as a substitute for public welfare programs, he is advocating the abdication of government responsibilities, declaring that compassion is a personal and not a state function, while he injects self-righteous morality in US foreign policy. Because Americans are a compassionate people, they are expected to exempt their government from being compassionate also. As for the all voluntary army, there is nothing voluntary about it; it is all economic coercion.

Economics science needs to repudiate scarcity and to rehabilitate plentitude. Today the monotheistic notion of market fundamentalism is given expression through the doctrine of free trade, with an unbalanced preoccupation with human political rights rather than human economic rights and welfare, and the flawed assumption that political equality can be achieved without economic equality, all of which are distorted moral principles that are so taken for granted in the neo-liberal West that it tends to view as a symptom of deformed mentality questions regarding the value system that underlies such warped morality. Neo-liberals have become decadently self-satisfied with unquestioned slogans of the indisputable economic benefits of political freedom and equality. They have become happily trapped in self-delusions that deny glaring realities that reflect neither freedom nor equality, nor economic benefits to the majority. They find solace in blaming the undeniably obscene outcome on the bad decisions by market participants rather than the structural fault of the market system. Cathedrals, the greatest achievement in Medieval Europe, were not built by market forces. Postmodernists are even worse; they are notoriously dismissive of the inquiring search for historical foundations to seek self-celebration in devising new meanings for well-understood words to justify contemporary anomalies as timeless truth.

[Strannik]

Having read the posts in this thread I come to the conclusion, that as long as people have different definitions of words, they can't agree with each other no matter how much they debate.

Bourgeois libertarians define socialism as the government intervention into the economy. It doesn't matter what type of government - feudal, bourgeois, workers government. That's why CapitalismIsGood argues that there are only hybrid economies - since every bourgeois economy requires government to exist, all actually existing bourgeois economies are by his definition "socialist"; and primitive communism of the hunter-gatherers the only "actual" capitalism because there was no central government.

Marxists, in contrast, try to transcend bourgeois government/economy opposition as a whole. For marxists, "state" and "economy" are two sides of the same bourgeois (or feudal) coin. Sometimes you have more bourgeois government intervention into movement of money and you get keinsialism. Sometimes there's less intervention and you get monetarism. But thats not the change marxists want - they want no bourgeois government and no flow of money.

I see bourgeois libertarianism as reaction by petty-bourgeoise to their objective historical situation. Petty-bourgeoise longs for the revolutionary bourgeois past since they can't see any solutions in their future. True bourgeois has no need for libertarianism: they control both the economy and the government - why would they require liberty? Capitalism generates petty-bourgeois only when it grows into an empty space: new countries, new industries, new markets. OR by redistribution of wealth when it is afraid of the working class. Right now the capitalism has run out of room to grow and doesn't fear the working class, so it is happily munching on petty-bourgeois. Hence, the Tea Party - majority of whom have to join the ranks with the proletariat soon. Not because they want but because there is nothing else there.

[capitalism is good]

How hebephrenic, incoherent, and contradictory of you, since the quotes contradict each other.

Let me get this straight: capitalism allegedly creates abundance, yet we have to compete against other people for scarce economic resources such as jobs? You're making me as confused as a Psyduck.

Yes, it does. All we have to do is to compare the results of Socialism and Capitalism after keeping culture constant. Comapre North to South Korea. Compare Taiwan/Hong Kong/Singapore to Communist China before Deng's reforms. Compare West and East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The countries that have more economic freedom (ie more capitalistic) were richer than their Socialist neighbours. I understand that some here do not regard N Korea, Communist China, East Germany as true Socialist countries because of some petty point. But the side with more government intervention in the economy (more Socialist by my defination) are the ones ending up poorer.

There is no contradiction to what I said. To achieve wealth, people must work hard. There is no other way. Capitalism makes people work harder than Socialism does. That's because if you are guaranteed the same standard of living regardless of your effort or skill you can be sure people are not going to work hard.

"He who does not work neither shall he eat." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat)Captain John Smith said it to the early settlers in Jamestown. So did Lenin. Capitalism makes it come true. So people work. Despite what Lenin said, it is not so in Socialism. What really happened in Socialist economies is:

"They pretend to pay us. We pretend to work." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_political_jokes)

[roy]

Yes, it does. All we have to do is to compare the results of Socialism and Capitalism after keeping culture constant. Comapre North to South Korea. Compare Taiwan/Hong Kong/Singapore to Communist China before Deng's reforms. Compare West and East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The countries that have more economic freedom (ie more capitalistic) were richer than their Socialist neighbours. I understand that some here do not regard N Korea, Communist China, East Germany as true Socialist countries because of some petty point. But the side with more government intervention in the economy (more Socialist by my defination) are the ones ending up poorer.

There is no contradiction to what I said. To achieve wealth, people must work hard. There is no other way. Capitalism makes people work harder than Socialism does. That's because if you are guaranteed the same standard of living regardless of your effort or skill you can be sure people are not going to work hard.

"He who does not work neither shall he eat." Captain John Smith said it to the early settlers in Jamestown. So did Lenin. Capitalism makes it come true. So people work. Despite what Lenin said, it is not so in Socialism. What really happened in Socialist economies is:

"They pretend to pay us. We pretend to work." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_political_jokes)

I must be insane to reply to this, but it's not as though I could be doing anything productive. Actually, I could, but that's besides the point. I think... Anywho:

North Korea isn't socialist. No, don't give me that "we have different definitions of socialism" stuff. Your definition is just wrong. China was never communist. Communism, by definition, does not exist within one country and socialism within one country is doomed to failure. Socialism's success is dependent on the spread of revolution.

Besides which, you may have heard this a few times by now, but if the workers don't control the means of production, it isn't socialism. This might sound trite after hearing it so much but that's pretty damned integral. Forget your Wikipedia socialism, this is the real shit. This is what we're talking about. That's the starting point. A country divided into classes through which money is circulated is never socialist, even if it is in its name. North Korea's constitution makes no mention of socialism or communism, by the way, so just shut up about that now, will you?

You can't hope to prove you're theory that competition makes people work. Throughout most of human existence, people didn't need money to work: they did it because it was in their interest and the interest of the community.

Despite what you may think, hard and work and sacrifice does not equal success in capitalism. Throughout most of the world, people work real hard just to stay alive and they have scarcely enough to survive. That's because capitalism relies on the exploitation of the majority for the gain of a tiny minority. You couldn't even enjoy the conditions you do now if the third world wasn't so insanely raped and taken advantage of. If you know this and you say "capitalism is good", then I think you're absolutely sick.

[capitalism is good]

Besides which, you may have heard this a few times by now, but if the workers don't control the means of production, it isn't socialism. This might sound trite after hearing it so much but that's pretty damned integral. Forget your Wikipedia socialism, this is the real shit. This is what we're talking about. That's the starting point. A country divided into classes through which money is circulated is never socialist, even if it is in its name. North Korea's constitution makes no mention of socialism or communism, by the way, so just shut up about that now, will you?.


That's your defination of Sociailsm. Comrade Brezhnev, Kim, Mao etc all considered their countries as Socialist. So different people have different definations of what Socialism means. I try to take the widest possibly defination to catch everybody into the net so to speak.

I define Socialism very broadly as government intervention in the economy to produce a more equal society. OK, let's say your defination is the correct one.


but if the workers don't control the means of production, it isn't socialism.

How does this work in practice? Let's have a simple example to see how it works in practice. Say we have a restaurant business. There are cooks and waitors who are the workers. Does this mean they own the restaurant? Who provides the capital to buy ovens, furniture, utensils, delivery van etc. Does it mean that the wokers chip in some money each to buy all this equipment?




You can't hope to prove you're theory that competition makes people work. Throughout most of human existence, people didn't need money to work: they did it because it was in their interest and the interest of the community.

Despite what you may think, hard and work and sacrifice does not equal success in capitalism. Throughout most of the world, people work real hard just to stay alive and they have scarcely enough to survive. That's because capitalism relies on the exploitation of the majority for the gain of a tiny minority. You couldn't even enjoy the conditions you do now if the third world wasn't so insanely raped and taken advantage of. If you know this and you say "capitalism is good", then I think you're absolutely sick


I don't agree with you on this. The Third World has benefitted from capitalism. A good example is Singapore. It started out as a Third World country and today is a first world country. But let's leave this matter alone for the time being. For now let's discuss how your idea of Socialism works in practice.

[CommunityBeliever]

Dear capitalism is good,

Replies to many of your posts not relating to Hitlerism are at http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-bad-t167404/index.html.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I define Socialism very broadly as government intervention in the economy to produce a more equal society. OK, let's say your defination is the correct one.That isn't even the pre-Marxist classical definition of socialism.

Broadly, socialism means an equal society. People had different ideas about this, some thought you could create an example commune other thought you could use reason and the rich themselves would see that socialism would be a better way.

Marxian socialism, or materialist socialism means a society run by the working class and is eliminating the need for class divisions. FYI, you should read his writings on the Paris commune. I'm not going to look up the exact quote because I don't want to spend the time, but he talked about how all capitalist revolutions had a slogan of "smaller government" but only increased the size and power of the central state (France increasingly became a unified state run from Paris, rather than a bunch of provinces, in the US, the colonies didn't just win independence, but created a state that increased in power and scope along with the needs of industrial capitalism, Germany and Japan in the late 1800s used the power of the state on behalf of capitalists in order to quickly industrialize and "catch up" with England and France). The Paris Commune, however, on day one, according to Marx, made this call for "smaller government" a reality by getting rid of the entrenched "officialdom" and the military.

After the Russian Revolution, socialism took on a different meaning as countries looked to this model as a way to "catch-up" with bigger countries and develop without being the underlings and subservient to the big imperialists. So both in Russia and in many 3rd world countries, socialism did come to mean "nationalized industrial efforts". But this is not socialism just because it retained the name anymore than the UK is actually a monarchy run by a King or Queen. It's actually more similar to the nationalist efforts of Bismark's Germany or other countries using the power of the state to try and jump-start industrialization while keeping foreign capitalists from controlling and running the economy.


How does this work in practice? Let's have a simple example to see how it works in practice. Say we have a restaurant business. There are cooks and waitors who are the workers. Does this mean they own the restaurant? Who provides the capital to buy ovens, furniture, utensils, delivery van etc. Does it mean that the wokers chip in some money each to buy all this equipment?They do chip in a lot to keep the company running, they pay for their own maintenance, rent, transportation, clothing, food, and often education - all things that add value to the end product since workers that need to be trained on how to dress themselves and read and write and use machines and show up on time are much more expensive to the boss than workers who already bought and paid for these skills.

Anyway, where does that capital that paid for all the means of production come from? Answer: profits. Where do profits come from? Answer: by paying workers less than the value of what they have produced. "Dead labor" in Marxist terms.

[CommunityBeliever]

For now let's discuss how your idea of Socialism works in practice.

Socialism works in practice through the efforts of the working class to maximise use-value. On the other hand, capitalism works through the efforts of the capitalist class to maximise profit.

[roy]

That's your defination of Sociailsm. Comrade Brezhnev, Kim, Mao etc all considered their countries as Socialist. So different people have different definations of what Socialism means. I try to take the widest possibly defination to catch everybody into the net so to speak.

I define Socialism very broadly as government intervention in the economy to produce a more equal society. OK, let's say your defination is the correct one.



How does this work in practice? Let's have a simple example to see how it works in practice. Say we have a restaurant business. There are cooks and waitors who are the workers. Does this mean they own the restaurant? Who provides the capital to buy ovens, furniture, utensils, delivery van etc. Does it mean that the wokers chip in some money each to buy all this equipment?




I don't agree with you on this. The Third World has benefitted from capitalism. A good example is Singapore. It started out as a Third World country and today is a first world country. But let's leave this matter alone for the time being. For now let's discuss how your idea of Socialism works in practice.

If I call a duck a lamp, it's still a duck, no matter how much I want it to be a lamp. Anyway, you know the British Labour Party's "socialism" isn't relevant here, so why not drop it?

Restaurant business? Money? In a socialist society, a restaurant would not be opened for the purpose of making a profit. Somebody produces the food, somebody distributes the food, somebody cooks it, somebody eats it. Life goes on. If you're gonna say, "that can't possibly work", well, there's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't see why you think people won't do this without a profit motivation. My motivation is survival, which is predicated on a functioning society, which in turn is predicated on everyone's participation within this society. People democratically decide what needs to be produced and they coordinate their own efforts. I don't see how cutting out the middle men and corporatism is impractical.

Yeah, I don't know a thing about Singapore but I'm not denying that some capitalist countries have it good. There are like, 200 countries in the world. Some of us are lucky enough to live in the ones with higher living standards. That said, the entire world is capitalist and it's mostly impoverished. How do you explain that away? Do you really think the entire world can exist at the same standard of living under capitalism? Someone's gotta get screwed. It's inevitable. The question is "who?"

[blake 3:17]

Comapre North to South Korea. Compare Cuba to the rest of the Caribbean countries.

[Decommissioner]

How does this work in practice? Let's have a simple example to see how it works in practice. Say we have a restaurant business. There are cooks and waitors who are the workers. Does this mean they own the restaurant? Who provides the capital to buy ovens, furniture, utensils, delivery van etc. Does it mean that the wokers chip in some money each to buy all this equipment?

I really really think you would benefit from doing some research on your own.

The workers would indeed own the restaurant, they would form there own council (or commune, or soviet or what have you). The council of this restaurant would coordinate with other councils, such as the council in which will build or maintains the building they are in, the council that provides the ovens (which gets the raw materials to make ovens from the councils that mined the materials). All of these councils would be run democratically, the least democratic they could get is to have people in management positions to coordinate the demands and goings-on of larger councils. Imagine small restaurants in an area forming a council to meet their and others human needs and demands, while coordinating with councils around the world for resources and capital. Imagine giant councils that span continents, where the heads of management of all industries coordinate based on the very specific needs that were democratically decided on from the lowest level (an egalitarian model, where those in "leadership" positions merely fulfill the orders of the whole instead of imposing any sort of real power, a true representative.)

That is just a scenerio, one of many possible scenerios that could work under socialism. You won't find many communists spelling it out that way because it is not up to us how a truly free democratic society comprised of workers for workers is to be run. In other words we don't write cake recipes for the future, but we have ideas. There are examples of this working in the real world, if only briefly. An obvious example is the soviets that formed in russia naturally and spontaneously by workers.

Also, as an aside, In another post of yours you mention how socialism is impossible because there is no altruism between strangers. Others have pointed out that being determines consciousness, and that indeed those born in raised under a communist society as we envision it would be naturally more altruistic, I would like to also point out that altruism is not a necessary trait for the majority of people to have for socialism or communism to work. Today hard work goes unrecognized and without reward, those who make the most do so off the work of others. We work more than necessary just to produce profit for capitalists. Socialists look to reduce the work of all individuals, to the point of ultimate redundancy so that it would be impractical for all of us to be working all the time at the same time (as far as socially necessary labor is concerned). Then it may stand to reason that if one were to want more than their fellow workers, they would devote more time working. This would reward those who are greedy, or in other words not altruistic in the slightest while still benefiting humanity as a whole as their work would not be siphoned by private interests and instead put towards the social surplus that guarantees everyone's economic freedoms.

Put simply, the majority of people in this world are either working extremely hard and have nothing to show for it, perhaps even starving in spite of working hard, or we are unable to find work due to lack of jobs (which is necessity to ensure profits). Humans always find something to do with their minds and hands. Capitalist ideologues put out this false notion that without money, people would become lazy and not work, let alone achieve anything. Not only does this go against recent findings of psychologists, but it goes against common sense. We do not live in a scarce society, we produce enough to provide for all and then some. You mean to tell me that without profit, and with each individual able to live life with free shelter, free education, free healthcare, free food, and free commodities in general, that our society would lose it's doctors, architects, engineers, chefs, and artists? That is asinine. People become doctors because they want to, and with free education and freedom from wondering where your next meal will come from, there will be even more of them and without monetary incentive! With redundancy in the workforce (with everyone being guaranteed work), there will be no such thing as career janitors, sewer inspectors, garbage men (though really there is nothing wrong with those professions) and with technology and automation constantly improving, that only means those living in a socialist society will have more free time to commit to things they care about. That is definitely what I would call incentive.

[Strannik]

North Korea - besieged military camp under strict economic blocade by surrounding capitalist countries. "Communist" China - mostly agrarian peasant dictatorship in which working class played secondary role. East Germany - protectorate of established bureaucratic state capitalism. At best these countries could be considered different forms of "military socialism". Well, Nazi Germany was military capitalism.

Perhaps in capitalism more people work "hard" (keep in mind, most are in reserve army of labour), but in socialism more people are working, so even if each individual works less, socialism gets more labour hours in total. :)

Socialism is above all equal opportunity for each to create what they consider valuable - to work. And that includes equal access to information, education, health care and means of production.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's become clear this guy isn't listening to anyone, and goes on to feign "not having time" so that he can pick and choose those critiques for which he has a pre-formed response to.

I'm not going to call troll. Maybe he does believe what he's saying. I'm just going to call him a sophist; truth is not what he is here for.

I mean, according to his definition capitalism only existed in pre-state hunter gatherer societies; because that's the only time there was no government intervention in the market.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Yes, it does. All we have to do is to compare the results of Socialism and Capitalism after keeping culture constant. Comapre North to South Korea. Compare Taiwan/Hong Kong/Singapore to Communist China before Deng's reforms. Compare West and East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The countries that have more economic freedom (ie more capitalistic) were richer than their Socialist neighbours. I understand that some here do not regard N Korea, Communist China, East Germany as true Socialist countries because of some petty point. But the side with more government intervention in the economy (more Socialist by my defination) are the ones ending up poorer.

There is no contradiction to what I said. To achieve wealth, people must work hard. There is no other way. Capitalism makes people work harder than Socialism does. That's because if you are guaranteed the same standard of living regardless of your effort or skill you can be sure people are not going to work hard.

"He who does not work neither shall he eat." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat)Captain John Smith said it to the early settlers in Jamestown. So did Lenin. Capitalism makes it come true. So people work. Despite what Lenin said, it is not so in Socialism. What really happened in Socialist economies is:

"They pretend to pay us. We pretend to work." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_political_jokes)

Actually, these comparisons are not terribly valid. I could turn it around and say, "let's look at Eastern Europe, especially Russia, before and after counterrevolutioin. Oooops, life expectancy dropped ten years. Ooops, quality of life for the masses has declined in many key ways and many have been immiserated. Face it bozo, capitalism just does not work.

Comparing Hong Kong and Taiwan to the rest of China? Give me a break. Compare China to India and you have a much closer comparison. Compare Cuba to Honduras. Compare the Soviet Union's relative economic position in the world in 1960 to what it was in 1917. It achieved it's amazing growth in spite of a Civil War and two catastrophic world wars (and despite the wretched management of industrialization and collectivization by Stalin). The underpinnings of the economy not only worked okay, they actually worked very well.

We can see in the US, and in Western Europe just how well capitalism works. Especially in the US we have a rich country, where 15 percent of the population lives in poverty. Where things like health care, employment, higher education, and housing are a privilege and not a right. Where most of the candidates running for president reject Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and who are all against the fucking Enlightenment. It is hard to imagine a more decadent system.

[artanis17]

Hitler was a communist

end of story

[capitalism is good]

Actually, these comparisons are not terribly valid. I could turn it around and say, "let's look at Eastern Europe, especially Russia, before and after counterrevolutioin. Oooops, life expectancy dropped ten years. Ooops, quality of life for the masses has declined in many key ways and many have been immiserated. Face it bozo, capitalism just does not work.

.

Life expectancy improved in most of Eastern Europe after the Berlin Wall fell. See page 4 of this article (http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Workshops/020619_paper27.pdf).

There was an initial dip because of the shock of transformation to a mostly capitalist economy. But they have recovered by 2000. By 2010, things should have improved further. The graph in the article is till 2000.

Since you defended the Soviet system, can I take it that you consider the Soviet Union was Socialist?

[capitalism is good]

Restaurant business? Money? In a socialist society, a restaurant would not be opened for the purpose of making a profit. Somebody produces the food, somebody distributes the food, somebody cooks it, somebody eats it. Life goes on.

Do the people who eat the food have to pay for the food? Do the workers who produced the food get paid?

[Conscript]

Life expectancy improved in most of Eastern Europe after the Berlin Wall fell. See page 4 of this article (http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Workshops/020619_paper27.pdf).

There was an initial dip because of the shock of transformation to a mostly capitalist economy. But they have recovered by 2000. By 2010, things should have improved further. The graph in the article is till 2000.

Since you defended the Soviet system, can I take it that you consider the Soviet Union was Socialist?

Congratulations on replying to about a 1/5th of his post.

You certainly are proving one thing:


It's become clear this guy isn't listening to anyone, and goes on to feign "not having time" so that he can pick and choose those critiques for which he has a pre-formed response to.

I'm not going to call troll. Maybe he does believe what he's saying. I'm just going to call him a sophist; truth is not what he is here for.

[DinodudeEpic]

Do the people who eat the food have to pay for the food? Do the workers who produced the food get paid?

For my sort of a socialist society, the workers OWN the restaurant, and they gain money through the surplus of the revenue and expense of the restaurant.

[manic expression]

Life expectancy improved in most of Eastern Europe after the Berlin Wall fell.
False. Russia (http://missinglink.ucsf.edu/lm/russia_guide/Russianhealth2.htm): From 1992 to 2000, the population of Russia declined by 3 million, from 148 to 145 million. Net immigration, mostly consisting of ethnic Russians returning from former Soviet Republics, has prevented Russian population losses from being even greater.

Ukraine (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ngczZkrw340/RquFHjG-iFI/AAAAAAAAAj0/218VQRwYxCc/s400/life%2Bexpectancy%2BUkraine.jpg)

In general (http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8455): In the early 1990s prospects for living a long and healthy life in Central and Eastern Europe dimmed considerably (1). In the late 1980s, life expectancy in the region was already 4 to 6 �years lower than it was in Western Europe, and that gap widened in the early 1990s. For males in Russia, life expectancy peaked at 64.9 years in 1987 then fell to 62 in 1992 and to 57.3 by 1994 (2). Similar, though generally less extreme, declines occurred in other nations in Central and Eastern Europe. Mortality rates increased sharply in this region between 1989 and 1993, followed by a gradual stabilization thereafter (3). Now, male life expectancy in Western Europe hovers around 73 or 74 (73.7 in France, 74.1 in Italy, 73.2 in Spain, 74.2 in the United Kingdom). In Central Europe, it is generally in the mid- to upper-60s: 64.8 in Hungary, 67.6 in Poland, and 69.5 in the Czech Republic. There is over a 9-year difference in male life expectancy between Hungary and the United Kingdom (4).

[Baseball]

Thats one example, I can give you examples from the US as well, and other more captalistic countries.

the whole capitalist philosophy is based on the idea that some people are more capable and thus deserving of wealth and power than others.

Well, if socialism objects to that state of affairs which allegedly exists in a capitalist community, is not reasonable to surmise that a socialist community would seek to end a state of affairs?
From a practical standpoint, how does a socialist community solve the "problem" of disparities of wealth? Certainly, a solution would be to support action which would equalize, or equalize as close as possible, wealth amongst the people?

[Baseball]

This has pretty much already been dealt with but let's make this simple, what do you think the right wing parties were doing at the time? What was their position visa vis the nazis and the fascists? How many of them went over? The answer is simple, many many more. The right wing parties, like the Fatherland party in germany, supported the naizs. The Right Wing Party in sweden's youth organization became openly nazis, the Center Party (at the time called the Peasants League) in sweden were open anti-semites, as indeed was common among the right at the time.

Ian Kershaw in his recent biography of Hitler pretty much demolishes the argument that, within Germany, the "rightwingers" flocked to the nazis, after 1933. There is simply no evidence for it.
However, there is ample evidence that many "leftwingers" went over in 1933. Hitler's declaration that he would only accept former Communists Party members into the browns was not simply hot air; it happened.
The collaboration of the various socialist parties indicated by the OP is truthful valid; the weak protests offered up in this thread in opposition notwithstanding.

[Baseball]

However, despotism and inequality were indeed official policies of Nazism from its inception. Therefore Hitler was not a socialist. He copied socialist symbolism in order to gain more appeal, but that doesn't make him a socialist.

The nazis ALWAYS spoke of freeing the Germans from the yoke of Jews, Versailles, the French and yes the capitalists. They argued the actions of others exploited the Germans for their own benefit.
Nor is it true that the nazis spoke about inequality. They spoke about equality quite frequently, even to the point of creating a "new" type of person (which incidentely, was something which socialists, pre-1933 to be sure, had often spoke about as a result of the victory of socialism). Equality for Germans only, true, but hey, socialism has to begin on a local level anyways.

[Baseball]

Socialism's success is dependent on the spread of revolution.

But unless the revolution is instantaneous, and global, the socialist is going to have face the fact of co-existing in a world (at least for a while) with capitalist societies. So the claims of a North Korea, or a Maoist China, to represent "true" socialism cannot be dismissed out of hand simply because YOU dissagree with how they chose to co-exist in a world with capitalist societies.


Besides which, you may have heard this a few times by now, but if the workers don't control the means of production,

Anti-socialists have also heard many times that socialism requires the workers to be "united." That certainly was achieved in National Socialist Germany, or communist Russia, and even in North Korea, yes? Even the defenders of the Cuban revolution wax eloquently now and then how the Cuban have been united to "defend" their revolution.

[RGacky3]

Well, if socialism objects to that state of affairs which allegedly exists in a capitalist community, is not reasonable to surmise that a socialist community would seek to end a state of affairs?
From a practical standpoint, how does a socialist community solve the "problem" of disparities of wealth? Certainly, a solution would be to support action which would equalize, or equalize as close as possible, wealth amongst the people?

Jesus Christ, enough with the strawmen, we are not against disparities of wealth based on the principle of disparities of wealth, we are against wealth extraction by the capitalists from the workers.

Equality of wealth is'nt a virtue in of itself. Disparities of wealth are bad when they cause contradictions that destroy the economy, or ruin things for the rest of society.

Also you've done these silly arguments before, you've never responded to the answers, you never even considered the empirical examples and evidence.

You've been here a long time, you have ONE trick, and its NEVER worked.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2351557]Jesus Christ, enough with the strawmen, we are not against disparities of wealth based on the principle of disparities of wealth, we are against wealth extraction by the capitalists from the workers.

Gacky, the socialists argue that all wealth is created by the actions of the workers? Yes?
If so, why doesn't disparity of wealth, within a socialist community, imply a worker is exploiting the labor of another worker?


Equality of wealth is'nt a virtue in of itself. Disparities of wealth are bad when they cause contradictions that destroy the economy, or ruin things for the rest of society.

So when does disparity of wealth, in a socialist community, ruin things for other workers? Or, if disparity of wealth does NOT cause a problem in a socialist community, why state it is a problem for the capitalist one?

[CommunityBeliever]

Dear Baseball,

Our vital concern is the control of the means of production that arose after industrialisation. The disparity of wealth in socialist society will be a non-issue because with exclusive control over the means of production they will be too minor to cause antagonistic contradictions.

[capitalism is good]

That isn't even the pre-Marxist classical definition of socialism.

Broadly, socialism means an equal society. People had different ideas about this, some thought you could create an example commune other thought you could use reason and the rich themselves would see that socialism would be a better way.

Thanks for the reply, Jimmie.

Essentially your idea of Socialism (an equal society) is the same as mine. I only added the words, "through government intervention", because I can't see how it can be achieved in our modern world without government intervention. That's because I believe that inequality is the natural state of affairs. We all have different abilities and drives to succeed.

You will find inequality in nature. For example, wolves have a social structure where the strongest wolves get most of the females in the pack. They don't have money of course to be the social divider but they have females!

Its the same for gorillas. The strongest (alpha male) gets the females.

So government intervention is needed to create a more equal society. So Socialism, like Christianity, has many branches. One branch - the Social Democratic Parties in Europe try to achieve equality by taxing and creating a welfare state. These parties see themselves as Socialists too and by our defination, they are.

But by the defination of some of the people here (true Socialism means a democratic economy), then they are not. So by this very limited defination, I can't think of any Socialist state in the world today.

So who is a Socialist depends on who you ask. Certainly, Hitler saw himself as a Socialist. He never called himself Fascist. He did try to redistribute wealth to create more equality. So I guess he qualifies. The fact that he practiced war and social darwinism had nothing to do with whether he was a Socialist or not. Most advanced countries whether oriented more towards socialism or capitalism practiced war and social darwinism to some extent in the first half of the 20th century before it went out of fashion.

We talk of countries as capitalist or socialist countries as though they are black and grey. They are not. All countries are actually hybrids with elements of both. There is a degree of capitalism and socialism in all economies. So its a matter of degree. Does a country tend more towards equality of wealth or more towards lassiez faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire)?



Marxian socialism, or materialist socialism means a society run by the working class and is eliminating the need for class divisions. FYI, you should read his writings on the Paris commune. I'm not going to look up the exact quote because I don't want to spend the time, but he talked about how all capitalist revolutions had a slogan of "smaller government" but only increased the size and power of the central state (France increasingly became a unified state run from Paris, rather than a bunch of provinces, in the US, the colonies didn't just win independence, but created a state that increased in power and scope along with the needs of industrial capitalism, Germany and Japan in the late 1800s used the power of the state on behalf of capitalists in order to quickly industrialize and "catch up" with England and France). The Paris Commune, however, on day one, according to Marx, made this call for "smaller government" a reality by getting rid of the entrenched "officialdom" and the military.

The Paris Commune was an attempt at Socialism but cannot be used as an example of a successful Socialist state because it did not last long enough for us to see the results. It was, as you know, crushed.

Had it continued, I am sure it would have failed as well. The "New Harmony" movement failed. The Israeli kibbutzim also failed. So I don't see why the Paris commune would not have failed if it had been allowed to continue. Read the book, "heaven on earth: The rise and fall of Sociaism" by a former Socialist, Joshua Muravchik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Muravchik). He detailed all the failures of Socialism. Born a diaper red (as I was), he grew disillusioned with Socialism and now groping towards Judaism. I guess he is exchanging one faith for another. I have always said that marxism is a quasi religion.




After the Russian Revolution, socialism took on a different meaning as countries looked to this model as a way to "catch-up" with bigger countries and develop without being the underlings and subservient to the big imperialists. So both in Russia and in many 3rd world countries, socialism did come to mean "nationalized industrial efforts". But this is not socialism just because it retained the name anymore than the UK is actually a monarchy run by a King or Queen. It's actually more similar to the nationalist efforts of Bismark's Germany or other countries using the power of the state to try and jump-start industrialization while keeping foreign capitalists from controlling and running the economy.


Socialism has a way of evolving to fit the needs of its practicioners. Thus as you said, it came to mean "nationalized industrial efforts" and the implication that it is nationalistic. It leading practitioners are also constrained by the need to pacifiy the nationalistic yearnings of its followers. So adding the ingredient of nationalism to socialism was a very, very common thing to do. That was what Hitler and Mussolinni did. But in the end, nearly every Socialist state succumbed to the very human call of nationalism. I know the armchair marxist here would object. Socialism means internationalism. yada, yada. These are people who never had to make things work in real life.



They do chip in a lot to keep the company running, they pay for their own maintenance, rent, transportation, clothing, food, and often education - all things that add value to the end product since workers that need to be trained on how to dress themselves and read and write and use machines and show up on time are much more expensive to the boss than workers who already bought and paid for these skills.

Anyway, where does that capital that paid for all the means of production come from? Answer: profits. Where do profits come from? Answer: by paying workers less than the value of what they have produced. "Dead labor" in Marxist terms.


If every worker chip in to keep the company running, does it mean that those who contribute more capital get a bigger share of the profits? After all, to start a restaurant you need to buy equipment, furniture, food, van etc. If they chip in money to buy shares in the company, it means the workers are also capitalists. What if one worker is more hardworking than another? Does he get paid more? What if one worker can serve the guests well while another keeps spilling soup on the customers? Does one get paid more than the other?

Marx regarded capital as dead labor and not worthy of being rewarded. That is why he believes that profits belong to the workers. He was wrong. Suppose we have two cooks in the restaurant. One spends his wages on women, wine and song. The other frugally saved his money by eschewing all the pleasures. In say 10 years' time, he can afford to start a restaurant because he has the money to buy all the equipment. He employs workers with his capital (dead labour you call it).

Now he is taking a risk with his hard earned and hard saved money. There is no guarantee that he can make a profit. He might lose all his money if his restaurant proves unpopular. If that happens, he would have saved for nothing and should have spent his money on women, wine and song. But if he succeeds, he deserves to be rewarded for he has done society some good - producing food that people want to buy and creating jobs. I believe his sacrifices and risk taking deserves to be rewarded. So instead of calling capital as "dead labor", I think capital should be called, "saved labor". Instead of exchanging his "saved labor" for women, wine and song, he is using it to create jobs and goods that benefit society.

[Veovis]

So government intervention is needed to create a more equal society. So Socialism, like Christianity, has many branches. One branch - the Social Democratic Parties in Europe try to achieve equality by taxing and creating a welfare state. These parties see themselves as Socialists too and by our defination, they are.

But private ownership and unaccountable control of the means of production are still present, so they by definition are not socialist. Notice they are called social democrats, not democratic socialists.


But by the defination of some of the people here (true Socialism means a democratic economy), then they are not. So by this very limited defination, I can't think of any Socialist state in the world today.Precisely.


So who is a Socialist depends on who you ask.No, it doesn't. It depends on objective criteria.


The Paris Commune was an attempt at Socialism but cannot be used as an example of a successful Socialist state because it did not last long enough for us to see the results. It was, as you know, crushed. Had it continued, I am sure it would have failed as well.It most certainly would have failed if it were not crushed but limited to Paris. The point was to spread the revolution to the rest of France (which they almost did), and then to the rest of Europe and the world.


Anyway, where does that capital that paid for all the means of production come from? Answer: profits. Where do profits come from? Answer: by paying workers less than the value of what they have produced. "Dead labor" in Marxist terms.Dead to the workers because they don't see any of it and don't have any say in how it's used.

[Baseball]

Dear Baseball,

Our vital concern is the control of the means of production that arose after industrialisation. The disparity of wealth in socialist society will be a non-issue because with exclusive control over the means of production they will be too minor to cause antagonistic contradictions.

Overly optimistic methinks. Unless your understanding of "exclusive control" means 100% (or close to) agreement by the workers on the issues.
Otherwise, that "exclusive control" is really nothing more than 50% +1 (or whatever arbitrary threshhold established) "control" with the struggle between differing groups seeking to gain that majority control.

[RGacky3]

Gacky, the socialists argue that all wealth is created by the actions of the workers? Yes?
If so, why doesn't disparity of wealth, within a socialist community, imply a worker is exploiting the labor of another worker?


Because not all labor is equal, not all people work as long or hard as other people ...

Its not complicated.


So when does disparity of wealth, in a socialist community, ruin things for other workers? Or, if disparity of wealth does NOT cause a problem in a socialist community, why state it is a problem for the capitalist one?

IT does'nt ruin things for other workers, it ruings things in a CAPITALIST society.

The problem in capitalism is scale and scope, which is caused by the structure of capitalism.

Your arguments here are full of falacies.


Unless your understanding of "exclusive control" means 100% (or close to) agreement by the workers on the issues.
Otherwise, that "exclusive control" is really nothing more than 50% +1 (or whatever arbitrary threshhold established) "control" with the struggle between differing groups seeking to gain that majority control.

Heres the thing, we have examples of this in the real world, AND THEY WORK.

Heres why you never addresss emrpirical evidence, becuase you can't use all your bullshit argument fallacies with emprical evidence.