Famous socialists in history:

[Ugge]

These people were all following various kinds of socialism...

Marx
Lenin
Moussolini
Stalin
Hitler
Mao
Pol Pot
(Che Guevara)

There are numerous others of course. I only included Guevara because of the name of this site. Allthough Che Guevara certainly has been made into an icon by many leftists, his influence has really been miniscule compared to the others on the list.

Also note that several influential branches of socialism is not represented on the list: The northern European social-democrats, and the pre-war anarchist movements spring to mind. The former went onto succes without producing any dictators, and the latter faded into oblivion.

Flame away...

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:05 PM

Moussolini
Stalin
Hitler



You have to be kidding me

[Ortega]

Marx - Yes... I'll agree with you on that

Lenin - Yes

Moussolini - Moussolini was an admitted fascist! How can you even call him a Socialist??!?

Stalin - A Stalinist, too authoritarian to be considered a Socialist

Hitler - a NAZI. NOT a Socialist in any way, shape, or form.

Mao - Also a Stalinist

Pol Pot - A Fascist claming to be a Socialist - the worst type. Anyone who starves his people, and executes 1/3 of them ( :( ) could never be considered a Socialist.

Che Guevara - An admitted Socialist, a little closer to Stalinism than Marx or Lenin, but I'd still call him a Socialist. The reason he is such an icon is that he, unlike the other people on this list, gave his life to the cause of a free, Socialist society.

[Sam Adams]

nazi=national SOCIALISM

[Ortega]

It doesn't matter what Hitler called himself!! He was not a Socialist, and I will stand by that.

[Hal]

how about Lennon - the Beatle?


That Imagine song sounds kinda socialist....

[Ortega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:16 PM
how about Lennon - the Beatle?


That Imagine song sounds kinda socialist....
What?!?

[Sam Adams]

Hitler was a socialist.

[Hampton]

Hmmmm...

[Guest1]

it's completely and utterly Anarcho-Communist. But that has nothing to do with this.

Anyways, whatever they call the party doesn't matter, the congo called itself the democratic republic of congo, but it's neith democratic nor a republic.

[Ugge]

JC >> I'm certainly not kidding. Please join the discussion if you disagree :)

Ortega >>

Marx
Well known Hegelian socialist. Had much disdain for the contemporary english utopianists.


Lenin
Seems we agree on this one.


Moussolini
We'll that ones easy. Moussolini WAS a socialist. Quite literally he was a radical socialist in the syndacalist tradeunions in southern Italy. Moreover he was so, when he formed the Fasci Combatante in 1919. Note that not all socialists were anti-national like the Marxists were.


Stalin
Stalin was never a great ideologue. But the the ideology he endorsed was definately that of Leninism.


Hitler
As for Hitler let's quote himself on the matter:


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 all determined to destroy this system under all conditions

Hitler - May 1, 1927


Mao
To be honest I know little of the non-European autocrats of the 20th century. But it is clear that if Mao was a Stalinist at some point in his career, then he seized to be so after the break up between China and USSR.

[lostsoul]

just because someone says their a socialist does not mean they are, you have to see it through their actions.

Moussolini and Hilter both killed thousands of communists. How can they be socalist then? If you belive they are, then you'r way too gullable.

Stalin and Pol pot were communists i agree, but they seemed to be motivated by remaining in POWER and HATE, two things that in my eyes does not make them TRUE communists. (although Stalin i'm not sure about since he was a product of his times, not sure about that..and don't feel like arguring if he was good or not..for the 10000's time).

[Ian]

"Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail" -Benito Mussolini

Those are surely the words of a socialist! :rolleyes: :lol:

[Guest1]

Pol pot was not a communist, that's for sure, neither were hitler or moussolini socialists. stalin, it is debatable. I'm an Anarcho-Communist, so I don't consider him even a socialist, but others will disagree.

Pol pot slaughtered the educated and literate, because he wanted equality. That's not communism.

[Sam Adams]

Hitler nationalized his economy and put everything under nazi control.

how is that not socialism?

[Nobody]

Hitler
As for Hitler let's quote himself on the matter:

QUOTE
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 all determined to destroy this system under all conditions


Hitler - May 1, 1927

Socialism was huge in German in 1927. Hilter was prepared to say anything to gain a little support. Politications today do the same thing. Bush got that large farm subsity pasted, a very leftist thing to do, does that make Bush a Socialist?

[Anarchist Freedom]

ok im gunna shoot myself in the foot with this one to explain to the fucktards that have clutterd the damn boards.



there is a line we must draw my friends ok i have read alot about hitler and mussolini. let me say this mussolini used to be socialist but then he realized he was more right-wing so he switched to that oh soo lovable system we call facism.


hitler ha if you can call him a socialist then im a fuckin chicken.
yes true he called himself socialist but he used a mask and this swords has 2 sides to it you see. he used socialism because he knew it would spark peoples interest and he knew at the time that people were generally racist people soo he put them together bam national socialism!


national socialism isnt socialism as it doesnt even agree with socialism's core foundations of beleifs. such as equality , i guess if murdering jews,gays, mentally handicapped,any person that wasnt white or caucasian, then fuck it has to be socialism right WRONG FUCKTARDS!. its called nazism.


and pol pot and stalin were stalin were very very authoritain.

maybe if you people thought before opening your big capatilists mouths and being mindless nationalists and maybe thought to break this shit down and look at the shit the U$ does to the rest of the world then i guess you would understand our veiws.



also one more thing im just wondering by you coming here what are you trying to prove????? that were not as good as you? or because your not comfortable with the idea of people stepping out of line??? or maybe is it you think youll bring us down?? hell maybe youll even get us to change!


good fuckin luck my friends ( you dont get the grace to be called comrades)

you arent going to change us and were here for the fight now bring it *****.


CGLM!

:che:

[Bolshevika]

Ugge

You seem to be very informed for a class enemy (we are used to receiving more ignorant ones like Sam Adams and El_Profe), I believe you may good for debate.


Firstly Hitler's economic programme was more similar to the United States' than the USSR's. In fact many British and American corporations like Ford developed bases and invested in Germany during the 1930's. There was still unemployment in Germany, although there were some social programs and public education. Hitler had some Populistic ideas, but most of the factories and businesses in Germany were privately owned with some exceptions during the war.

Josef Stalin was a Leninist indeed, he wasn't "fueled by hate" like some of the more liberal communists portray. Well, unless you count hate against the exploiting as wrong.

Mao Tse Tung was certainly a person who followed in the footsteps of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Mao attempted to industrialize PRC in the same way Stalin did, by setting industrial goals in the sections of raw materials, food, etc with 5 year plans. Mao shared many of Stalin's agrarian ideas as well.

I suggest you inform yourself more on Khurschev, Mao began to become suspicious of Khruschev after his 'secret speech' denouncing Stalin and bringing pro-free market reforms. However he did not break with what you call "Stalinism", because he still supported "stalinist" countries such as Albania during the sino-soviet conflict. The reason he broke with Khruschev was because of Khruschevs lack of revolutionary spirit and revisionism.

So in the end:

Marx- One of the greatest philosophers of our history
Lenin- Excellent theorist, revolutionary and leader who loved the working people
Moussolini- Scumbag
Stalin- One of the greatest Marxist-Leninist-socialist leaders, humble in needs and was always thinking of the people
Hitler- The lowest form of life
Mao- another great man, humble as well, and put the people over everything
Pol Pot- Reactionary
(Che Guevara)- Bravest revolutionary who fought for international socialism and bolivarianism. He is a grand hero like Mao, Lenin, and Stalin

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 01:32 AM
just because someone says their a socialist does not mean they are, you have to see it through their actions.

Moussolini and Hilter both killed thousands of communists. How can they be socalist then? If you belive they are, then you'r way too gullable.

Stalin and Pol pot were communists i agree, but they seemed to be motivated by remaining in POWER and HATE, two things that in my eyes does not make them TRUE communists. (although Stalin i'm not sure about since he was a product of his times, not sure about that..and don't feel like arguring if he was good or not..for the 10000's time).
You mean the economy they had was not socialist?????

yes it was, their was private property to a certain point, but most came under state controlled when both mussolini and hitler came to power. that is closer to socialism than capitalism.

ALL THOSE that where metnioned ran a collective economy in which the state controlled most of the property.

HITLER CONSIDERED THE JEWS TO BE CAPITALIST, and since he hated jews he hated capitalism.

All these where totalitarian countries, their economies where socialist.

fascism and communist the 2 "different" sides of the same coin.

[Maynard]

Let's clear this up once and for all, Socialism is NOT about having state control over a economy. It is the transitional phase to communism where the proletariat has control over the means of production. Did this happen in NAZI Germany or under Mussolini's rule ? No. Well then they are not socialists, they are fascists. Mussolini may have used to be one earlier on but he most defiantly was not one when he was in power, people's thoughts change over time.

Your misconceptions on socialism are understandable, since it's peddled on to everyone in every medium but the fact remains, that Hitler and Mussolini were not "Socialists" at all. All evidence points to the contrary, economically they were "State Capitalists" and there social views aren’t in line with any leftist I know of.

The other one, yes, perhaps you could call them socialists. That doesn't mean necessarily they represent socialism as a whole. We could take some "bad" people who were capitalists and claim that capitalism is bad because of this fact.


Talking of quotes, here's some from Mr Hitler:

""In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."

""In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere."

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction."

Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews."



How very "socialist" of him. You can choose to deny this, if you want but the fact is, that you would be incorrect in believing this.

[Guest1]

you are ignorant.

socialism advocates collective ownership, not state ownership. especially wehn the state means coporations, as is the case with fascism, where the state was intertwined with the corporations so that each controlled and supported the other.

[Sam Adams]

"switched to that oh soo lovable system we call facism."


You realize that communism and fascism are basically the same thing. Both involve state controll of everything, lack of freedom, no rights, etc.

[Sam Adams]

"socialism advocates collective ownership, not state ownership."

the state is the collective, kid.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by "Mussolini"] Fascism is the complete opposite of ... Marxian Socialism+ [/b--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Mussolini"] Fascism is the complete opposite of ... Marxian Socialism @ [/b) the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production....

Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

..."The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature&#39;s plans." "If classical liberalism spells individualism," Mussolini continued, "Fascism spells government."

--Benito Mussolini


Originally posted by "Hitler"@

[b]Mankind always falls for a specious trick of that sort ... Marxism is a very powerful force. But how shall we assess Christianity, that false leadership has Judaised to the extent that it will no longer fight the Anti-Christ Jew? Believe me, it is incomparably stronger&#33;


"Hitler"

"At this juncture it is difficult to say which, from the ideological point of view, would prove to be the more injurious to us-Jew-ridden Americanism or Bolshevism. It is possible that under the pressure of events, the Russians will rid themselves completely of Jewish Marxism, only to re-incarnate pan-slavism in its most fierce and ferocious form. As for the Americans, if they do not swiftly succeed in casting off the yoke of the New York Jewry (which has the same intelligence as a monkey that saws through the branch on which it is perching), well - it won&#39;t be long before they go under, before even having reached the age of maturity ... it is questionable whether it will long remain a predominantly white continent

[Jesus Christ]

this thread is so pathetic

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 9 2004, 02:31 AM
you are ignorant.

socialism advocates collective ownership, not state ownership. especially wehn the state means coporations, as is the case with fascism, where the state was intertwined with the corporations so that each controlled and supported the other.
Well then their is no socialist country. Cuase in all of those countries you call socialist the state controlls everything.

AND i never said Hitler and mussolini where socialist. Their economic policies where heavily influenced by socialsim. Even though they where fascist, their fascist state became a Totalitarian state, like happened with stalin and with china.

[Ugge]

Maynard >>

Your definition of socialsim as a transition state to communism, will not be shared by all those socialists who are not communists. And during the 20th that&#39;s a great deal.

I&#39;ts obviosly true that both the fascists and the national-socialists were very anti-marxist and anti-bolshevik. So were many other socialists of its time. Amongst others the anarchists and the social-democrats. In fact the latter part was sufficiently anti-communist so that the Komintern hindered that the communists cooperated with them. This grave miscalculation effectively brought Hitler to power.

So the fact that both Hitler and Moussolini were very anti-communist does not make them less socialist. But they were never Marxists, I grant you that.

It wasn&#39;t all socialists who were anti-nationalists either. This became clear when _ALL_ the social-democratic parties in _ALL_ the industrialised european nations voted for war-credits in WWI. A fact which was not missed by young ambitious socialist Moussolini.

Thus Moussolini added to his political beliefs the radical nationalism he is known for. And Hitler added to that the rabid anti-semitism, which is a thing of his own invention.

It is true that neither Hitler nor Stalin represents socialism as a whole. But who does?? They&#39;re are product of the same time, but different conditions.


Bolshevika >>

I don&#39;t know whether Stalin was driven by hatred or not. I think that paranoia is a better bet. Incidentally Peter Struve described Lenin as man driven by hatred.


Nobody >>

As opposed to Hitler, Bush has never endorsed socialism himself. You could argue, of course, that farm subsidies are a socialist policy.



It is very late here. I will return another day. Perhaps tomorrow.

[Guest1]

Fascism is a form of totalitarianism, so it didn&#39;t "turn into" it, it was it. As for Socialism, that&#39;s what we&#39;ve been trying to say, there is no, and has never been any Socialist state. Mostly it was leaders who mayb have had some vague leftist leanings, and used the term socialist to galvanize left-wing support. Or in some cases, even people who were completely opposed to the left and Socialism, using the term Socialist as false advertising. Very effective false advertising. Look at New Labour, that calls itself Socialist. Look at Hitler. Though some Socialists may disagree with me, I even consider Stalin to be one of these people with less than pure intentions who hijacked the term "Socialism".

Also, you may not have called Hitler and Mussolini Socialists, but you said their economies were Socialist. I simply said this is untrue.

Just because industry is nationalized, that&#39;s meaningless. You have to look at how they were nationalized. They mostly kept their old bosses, the capitalist class was very much unaffected by the nationalization. Except of course, for the very few enemies of hitler amongst the Capitalist class, who were taken in. Mostly, all it did was outlaw unionization and give corporations a state police and army apparatus to enforce those laws with.

Socialism, on the other hand, doesn&#39;t speak of nationalization so much as liberation of industy. The state wouldn&#39;t take control of industry, it would be given to the workers. Each worker, controlling his workplace along with all his fellow workers through direct democracy. Not a state apparatus that claims to fight for this, but instead turns into just another huge corporation with an army to keep the workers down. As stalinist USSR became.

The collective, is not the state, the collective is all of us, the state is the priviliged few.

[Maynard]

You realize that communism and fascism are basically the same thing. Both involve state controll of everything, lack of freedom, no rights, etc.

Yes, that&#39;s what Marx wrote about, didn&#39;t you know ? That&#39;s what I&#39;m advocating I want to enslave you along with the rest of mankind, what is the point of being here when you don&#39;t want to listen ?
Socialism is not about state ownership, well the version Marxists propose. Fascism is fascism, Marxist socialism has nothing to do with that.


the state is the collective, kid.
Say what ? The collective would mean everyone, not a group claiming to represent everyone.


Well then their is no socialist country. Cuase in all of those countries you call socialist the state controlls everything.


That can be argued and it is by many, they are not "true" forms of socialism, no doubt but they had some aspects of it.


Their economic policies where heavily influenced by socialsim

It has nothing at all to do with Communism or it&#39;s transitional phase Socialism however, can you admit ? So, Hitler and Mussolini had nothing representing our views, now do they ?


Your definition of socialsim as a transition state to communism, will not be shared by all those socialists who are not communists. And during the 20th that&#39;s a great deal.


That&#39;s a good point. I commend you for at least trying to have a civilized debate rather than pot shots at the "other side" , which is common just as much on the left or right. It seemed in my mind however, that you were claiming they were representing Marxist Socialism, which I naturally took offence to. It made it seem you were trying to make it seem our views actually represented what he done, when that is not the case. This is mainly a Communist board, so our definition of Socialism would be more in line of that which Marx described. Most Capitalists take the definition of state controlling everything and applying it to Marxist socialism, which is not that at all.


Moussolini and Hitler were opportunists though, they would say what was popular at the time to get themselves in the position of power. fascist Germany and Italy, also did not have complete control over the economy , Private enterprises still flourished, so I still think the term State Capitalist would apply.


It is true that neither Hitler nor Stalin represents socialism as a whole. But who does?? They&#39;re are product of the same time, but different conditions
I don&#39;t think we should be looking at historical figures to represent us, our views are there to represent themselves. It&#39;s also not uncommon for Communists to believe Socialism is unnecessary as well.

Hitler however, has nothing at all to do with our views, communism or socialism related to communism, that much can be agreed upon , I hope.

[toastedmonkey]

It must be remembered that socialism and communism are two different things, the words are not interchangable.
This topic is about socialists and socialism not communism.

Futher more, it must also be remembered that Mao and Stalin were different from socialists.
If they were socialists they would be known as socialist leaders, instead they have their own ideologies, Stalinism and Maoism.
Therefore they are not socialists, although they may share few or many beliefs, they are infact Stalinists and Maoists respectivley.
There beliefs differ so much or have significant diffrences to socialism, that they can no longer be called socialists, hence them having thier own ideology.

A good example is Che Guevara, although a few may claim to be &#39;Guevaraists&#39;, there is not really an ideology, he did not alter socialism or communism, so he is refered to as a communist, not a guevaraist.

[YKTMX]

Moussolini and Hilter both killed thousands of communists. How can they be socalist then?

So did Mao and Stalin.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Stalin - A Stalinist, too authoritarian to be considered a Socialist


Good grief...what a silly thing to say.

[Saint-Just]

This is simplistic and stupid. The individuals listed as socialists had different relationships with socialism. On this site there are many groups with different ideologies. This presents to you the differing ideas within socialism. These individuals alll had different ideas as to what socialism meant and indeed if it was a desirable theory at all. As such there is no single individual that can reflect the views of all socialists and certainly not this list of various personalities.

An example of the conflicts that exist would be, Stalin&#39;s USSR fought Hitler&#39;s Germany. Pol Pot&#39;s Cambodia fought the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and so on.

I&#39;ts obviosly true that both the fascists and the national-socialists were very anti-marxist and anti-bolshevik.

True, but you neglecty to mention that fascism is fundamentally a right-wing movement.

You realize that communism and fascism are basically the same thing. Both involve state controll of everything, lack of freedom, no rights, etc.

Just as easily I could say that neo-conservatism and fascism and &#39;basically the same thing&#39;. Both subscribe to the idea that human nature is fundamentally flawed, humans achieve best through competition, a natural heirachy and so on.

[Guest1]

Mao, are you saying German National-Socialism is a left-wing movement?

[Saint-Just]

No, I am saying that Hitler had an element of socialism within his policies. However, if you notice the last point made in my post, I suggest that it is easy to classify neo-conservatism as &#39;basically the same as fascism&#39;. The reason I am able to do this is because fascism is fundamentally a right-wing movement, although of course it is different to neo-conservatism.

However, Hitler also had large elements of capitalism in his economic policies. Private property, private generation of wealth, competition and so on.