stalin

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Stalin, head of the USSR decided to put forward his idea of 1 nation socialism. Ring any bells- germany post ww1 pre ww2- hitler. Does 1 nation socialism not mean national socialism, that is Natzism? So does this make Stalin a Natzi, to some extent?

[Rollo]

.....What the hell are you smoking?

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

I read an article on this web site about why the USSr failed a few days ago. It was good and this was a section of it i am mearly checking peoples reaction to this to see if it is true(to some extent)are u a Stalin supporter or sympathiser?

[Rollo]

No, I don't like stalin but you didn't make too much sense in your post. When did stalin put forward nazism into the USSR?

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

This is the wiki link to a page on it.
But what i'm saying is that socialism in one country means a similar thing to national socialism (which is natzism). That one country is superior to another, or one revoulution in stalins case

[kaaos_af]

National Socialism was a mass movement of radicalised middle class elements rallied against the working class, using racism and other such divide-and-conquer tactics. I don't see how this was anything like Stalin's USSR.

I'd say Stalin's socialism in one country was more similar to National Bolshevism.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

It is not nescesarily Natzism but strange thing to do? He was strange.

[Comrade_Scott]

nothing is wrong with starting Socialism in one country.. i think it is very importantthat way it can act like a becon to other nations.... howeverthe exporting of socialism is also needed so the one country is not isolated and then goes from socialism to a deformed workers' state like the USSR but thats just my humble view

[Tatarin]

Stalin, head of the USSR decided to put forward his idea of 1 nation socialism.

Yes, well, Lenin thought that the revolution in Russia would soon spread to the rest of the world, specially with the help of Germany, which also was near a revolution around the end of the first world war. When he died, and later, revolution never happened in the rest of the world, Stalin decided that socialism didn't have to come through global revolution, but that revolutions could happen in each country, either through civil war or help from the outside (conflicts like Korea and Vietnam for example.


Ring any bells- germany post ww1 pre ww2- hitler. Does 1 nation socialism not mean national socialism, that is Natzism? So does this make Stalin a Natzi, to some extent?

No, Stalin was not a nazi because he did not do an ethnic cleansing of, for example, all non-Russians. Ethnic superiority is a key point of nazism, and if there is none, then you basically have fascism. Then, the USSR was many nations, not just Russia (Union of Socialist Soviet Republics :) ).


I read an article on this web site about why the USSr failed a few days ago.

Just a sidenote, but you shouldn't trust everything you hear in a capitalist media (if that is where you read it). They are more biased than you think.


But what i'm saying is that socialism in one country means a similar thing to national socialism (which is natzism).

No - socialism in a country is not the same as national socialism. Nazism is nationalism - and nationalists believe in their country, they don't care about the outside world, only their nation. A country is not nationalist if it trades with other countries, or allow immigration, for example.

Then, socialism also means that people cooperate, work together and own the means of production together - which communism also means (among other things). Then would Germany under Hitler be national communism?


That one country is superior to another, or one revoulution in stalins case

Nazism is primarily the practice of ethnic superiority. And how can a revolution be supperior than another one?


It is not nescesarily Natzism but strange thing to do? He was strange.

You'll just have to read some history on both nazism and communism to really understand why socialism in one country is not the same as nazism. :)

[Janus]

Moved.

[kaaos_af]

The Stalinists were responsible for a few ugly moments of ethnic hatred, though- for example- the deportation of Chechens, the Volga Germans, the Czechoslovak German community etc.

[Prairie Fire]

Wow.

As a longtime Stalin supporter, I expected a never ending parade of individuals to agree with the persyn who started this thread, and denounce The USSR under Stalin as akin to the third reich, which is the line usually put forward against him.

And yet, not a single persyn, Whatever their persynal feelings about Stalin, has agreed with the individual who started this thread.

I've never seen anything like this. I guess when the charges against Stalin are too ridiculous, even the usual suspects will start to ask questions.

As for the whole idea of "socialism in one country" being similar to "National Socialism", this is a similarity in terms, nothing more. I assure you, there was
absolutely nothing socialist about the character of National Socialism; This is the reason that the German upper class supported Hitler in the first place, for his resistance to the Communist elements who threatned to do in Germany what had been done in the Soviet Union. The third Reich was no where close to being a classless society, hence National Socialism is not Socialism.

[kaaos_af]

:rolleyes: the usual suspects.

If you don't know history you're doomed to repeat it. If you don't combat the signs of emerging fascism the momenet you see them, then fascism could take root. If you don;t know how to look for these signs, you're fucked. So it's important to know history on issues such as the Turd Reich and Stalin.

[Louis Pio]

As for the whole idea of "socialism in one country" being similar to "National Socialism", this is a similarity in terms, nothing more.
No of course it's not nazi, in no way. It is however just a imitation of the menshevic policies just as the rest of stalins politics were. Nothing in common with Lenin. Unless u like to take mushrooms, but then u belive anything ur told...

[kaaos_af]

I'm unfamiliar with Menshevist ideals- don't suppose you could elaborate on how Stalin's ideals were menshevist?

[Vargha Poralli]

kaaos_af
I'm unfamiliar with Menshevist ideals- don't suppose you could elaborate on how Stalin's ideals were menshevist?


i think he probably means the two stage theory of revolution i.e the bourgeois revolution must take place b4 the probable proletarian one. i dunno who is the originator of this theory but the February revolution was generally viewed by mensheviks,right SR's and bolsheviks like Stalin,Kamnev,Kalinin at that time.

Trotsky's Permanent revolution opposite theory to that.

[Intelligitimate]

I suggest actually reading what Stalin has to say about it:


Originally posted by Stalin

THE POSSIBILITY OF BUILDING
SOCIALISM IN OUR COUNTRY

Reply to Comrade Pokoyev



Comrade Pokoyev,

I am late in replying, for which I apologise to you and your comrades.

Unfortunately, you have not understood our disagreements at the Fourteenth Congress. The point was not at all that the opposition asserted that we had not yet arrived at socialism, while the congress held that we had already arrived at socialism. That is not true. You will not find a single member in our Party who would say that we have already achieved socialism.

That was not at all the subject of the dispute at the congress. The subject of the dispute was this. The congress held that the working class, in alliance with the labouring peasantry, can deal the finishing blow to the capitalists of our country and build a socialist society, even if there is no victorious revolution in the West to come to its aid. The opposition, on the contrary, held that we cannot deal the finishing blow to our capitalists and build a socialist society until the workers are victorious in the West. Well, as the victory of the revolution in the West is rather late in coming, nothing remains for us to do, apparently, but to loaf around. The congress held, and said so in its resolution on the

page 102

report of the Central Committee,[46] that these views of the opposition implied disbelief in victory over our capitalists.

That was the point at issue, dear comrades.

This, of course, does not mean that we do not need the help of the West-European workers. Suppose that. the West-European workers did not sympathise with us and did not render us moral support. Suppose that the West-European workers did not prevent their capitalists from launching an attack upon our Republic. What would be the outcome? The outcome would be that the capitalists would march against us and radically disrupt our constructive work, if not destroy us altogether. If the capitalists are not attempting this, it is because they are afraid that if they were to attack our Republic, the workers would strike at them from the rear. That is what we mean when we say that the West-European workers are supporting our revolution.

But from the support of the workers of the West to the victory of the revolution in the West is a long, long way. Without the support of the workers of the West we could scarcely have held out against the enemies surrounding us. If this support should later develop into a victorious revolution in the West, well and good. Then the victory of socialism in our country will be final. But what if this support does not develop into a victory of the revolution in the West? If there is no such victory in the West, can we build a socialist society and complete the building of it? The congress answered that we can. Otherwise, there would have been no point in our taking power in October 1917. If we had not counted on giving the finishing blow to

page 103

our capitalists, everyone will say that we had no business to take power in October 1917. The opposition, however, affirms that we cannot finish off our capitalists by our own efforts.

That is the difference between us.

There was also talk at the congress of the final victory of socialism. What does that mean? It means a full guarantee against the intervention of foreign capitalists and the restoration of the old order in our country as the result of an armed struggle by those capitalists against our country. Can we, by our own efforts ensure this guarantee, that is, render armed intervention on the part of international capital impossible? No, we cannot. That is something to be done jointly by ourselves and the proletarians of the entire West. International capital can be finally curbed only by the efforts of the working class of all countries, or at least of the major European countries. For that the victory of the revolution in several European countries is indispensable -- without it the final victory of socialism is impossible.

What follows then in conclusion?

It follows that we are capable of completely building a socialist society by our own efforts and without the victory of the revolution in the West, but that, by itself alone, our country cannot guarantee itself against encroachments by international capital -- for that the victory of the revolution in several Western countries is needed. The possibility of completely building socialism in our country is one thing, the possibility of guaranteeing our country against encroachments by international capital is another.

page 104

In my opinion, your mistake and that of your comrades is that you have not yet found your way in this matter and have confused these two questions.

With comradely greetings,

J. Stalin

P. S. You should get hold of the Bolshevik [47] (of Moscow), No. 3, and read my article in it. It would make matters easier for you.

J. Stalin

February 10, 1926


http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/PBS26.html

[Comrade Kurtz]

Stalin's "socialism" was a lot like the National Socialists in ideology, minus the racial discriminations. However, it's important to remember that none of the National Socialists had any interest in practicing any form of socialism. They were more concerned with eliminating the Jews.

[Prairie Fire]

Comrade Kurtz: Explain your position. I think that most of the comrades on this thread, wether they be anarchist, revisionist,trotskyist or Marxist Leninist, have
all agreed that National Socialism has absolutely nothing in common with the policies of the USSR under Stalin. You yourself say that the Nazis had no interest in practicing socialism, and had ethnic hatred. So, exactly HOW was national socialism similar in any way,shape or form to the Soviet Union under Stalin?
Sounds to me like you are another Donkey Raping revisionist, with an axe to grind against Stalin, and therefore draw bullshit comparissions between two nations that, ideologically, had absolutely nothing in common.

Perhaps I was correct in my first post after all.



g.ram:

I think Intellegitimate says it all. Seriously, read up on Stalin; you'd be surprised.

[bezdomni]

"Socialism in one country" and national socialism are two very different things.

[Vargha Poralli]

think Intellegitimate says it all. Seriously, read up on Stalin; you'd be surprised.

in reality the Communist Party of India from where i got to know about socialism/communism in general WORSHIPS Stalin. while i was there i thought lenin and Stalin where the only leaders during the Russian revolution and CIA had a hand in the downfall of USSR. i never knew people like Trotsky, Zinonev,Bukharin actually existed cuz my party barely mentions any body other than Lenin or Stalin.

This was the case until 2 -3 yrs back when i bought a computer and an internet connection and after visited pages like marx.org,marxist.com and revolutionary left .com

so i have nothing to read newly about how good Stalin was than i already know!!!

[Vargha Poralli]

So what is your affiliation now? Trotskyist?

IMHO a staunch religious person cannot become an atheist overnight.i have been practically worshiping Stalin for almost 10 yrs and moved away from MLM thought for few months tried a variety bankrupt capitalist ideologies apologisms etc.

for now i am a neutral person without any "ism" following learning what international left says what are all possible actions could be taken by me to change the society i live in.


This is why Marxism-Leninism is the revolutionary theory of the east.

In reality ML and MLM thought have been dominating the Asian left political spectrum for almost a century !! But their accomplishment is (0).for example in India CPI was formed in the immediate aftermath of the Russian revolution . still even after 80+ years of activity it cant even run in a election without aligning with with any one caste based bourgeoisie parties and its militant outfits does nothing more than extorting poor farmers. one biggest accomplishment of it is the fact that there are more than a dozen split groups each with its own agenda to carry out alienated from both millions of urban workers and half a billion rural peasantry.

P.S : Totally off the topic. very very sorry for that. if this activity is considered trolling please warn me

[Comrade Kurtz]

I'm all for explaining my positions and I don't mind you calling me out. But can we be respectful here, comrade? My tone is not meant to sound condescending so forgive me if it coems off this way but I would appreciate you not personally wattacking me without giving me a chance to explain my positions.

Let's look at the 25 Points of National Socialism; the German Nazi party's "manifesto". I have replaced the term "German", "Germany", and the like with the appropriate USSRian equivalent...


1. We demand the union of all Soviets, on the basis of the right of the self-determination of peoples, to form a Great Soviet Union.

Yes.


2. We demand equality of rights for the Soviet people in its dealings with other nation, and abolition of the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

Hard to adapt this point to fit the USSR without gutting it but Stalin didn't want limitations imposed by foreign bodies on his rule.


3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the nourishment of our people and for settling our surplus population.

Yes; in fact, Stalin accomplished this much as the Nazi's did: brutal imperialism. Nourishment? Perhaps he felt he was nourishing the state.


4. None but members of the nation may be citizens of the State. None but those of Soviet blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation.

This falls into my category of ethnic discrimination that doesn't jive with Stalin.


5. Anyone who is not a citizen of the State may live in the USSR only as a guest and must be regarded as being subject to the Alien Laws.

Sounds a lot like the favoritism given to party members, as well as the fate of "non-members" and "reactionaries" who were sent to the Gulags...


6. The right of voting on the leadership and laws of the State is to be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand, therefore, that all official positions, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, the provinces, or the small communities, shall be held by citizens of the State alone. We oppose the corrupt parliamentary custom of filling posts merely with a view to party considerations, and without reference to character or ability.

Again, party members were the only ones allowed to make decisions. Although, this is akin to any totalitarian government.


7. We demand that the State shall make it its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of the citizens of the State. If it is not possible to nourish the entire population of the State, foreign national (non-citizens of the State) must be excluded from the Reich.

And Stalin accomplished this about as well as Hitler.


8. All further non-Soviet immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Soviets who entered the USSR subsequently to August 2, 1914, shall be required forthwith to depart from the Reich.

Invalid due to the date. Still, it fits with the purges.

9. All citizens of the State shall possess equal rights and duties.

Again, not followed through by the Nazis. Not followed through by Stalin. However, I believe both promised this on their rise to power.


10. It must be the first duty of every citizen of the State to perform mental or physical work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the community and must be for the general good.

This is exactly what the USSR demanded. Essentially this is a slavery clause for workers; at least this is how it was executed in Nazi Germany. Surprisingly, the same was true of most workers in the USSR (virtual slaves).


We Demand Therefore:

11. Abolition of incomes unearned by work. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST.

Sounds like a capitalist principle... Even so though, this was accomplished by both. In many cases, even if you did earn your income it was still taken from you. Many people in the USSR lived in abject poverty because of what Stalin demanded.


12. In view of the enormous sacrifice of life and property demanded of a nation by every war, personal enrichment through war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand, therefore, the total confiscation of all war profits.

:unsure: Yeah.


13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have (hitherto) been amalgamated (into trusts).

Not true of Nazi Germany. True of the Soviet Union, although this promotes a state capitalist mentality.


14. We demand that there shall be profit sharing in the great industries.

Not true in either.


15. We demand a generous development of provision for old age.

I'm not too sure on this point.


16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, immediate communalization of the large department stores and their lease at a low rate to small traders, and that the most careful consideration shall be shown to all small traders in purveying to the State, the provinces, or smaller communities.

:shrug: You decide. One coudl argue the USSR, since it did develop distinct classes, fit this point quite nicely.


17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the confiscation without compensation of land for communal purposes, the abolition of interest on land mortgages, and prohibition of all speculation in land. [On April 13, 1928, Adolf Hitler made the following elucidation to the program: "Because of the mendacious interpretations on the part of our opponents of Point 17 of the program of the NSDAP, the following explanation is necessary.: Since the NSDAP is fundamentally based on the principle of private property, it is obvious that the expression "confiscation without compensation" refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary, land illegally acquired, or not administered in accordance with the national welfare. It is therefore directed in the first instance against the Jewish companies which speculate in land.]

Definitely true of both, minus the added Jewish clause in Nazi Germany.


18. We demand ruthless war upon all those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Sordid criminals against the nation, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

Purges? Gulags?


19. We demand that the Roman law, which serves the materialistic world order, shall be replaced by a Soviet common law.

Doesn't fit anywhere.


20. With the aim of opening to every capable and industrious German the possibility of higher education and consequent advancement to leading positions, the State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education. The curriculum of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. Directly the mind begins to develop the schools must aim at teaching the pupil to understand the idea of the State (State sociology). We demand the education of specially gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

True of both.


21. The State must apply itself to raising the standard of health in the nation by protecting mothers and infants, prohibiting child labor, and increasing bodily efficiency by legally obligatory gymnastics and sports, and by extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of the young.

I honestly don't know.


22. We demand the abolition of mercenary troops and the formation of a national army.

True of both.


23. We demand legal warfare against conscious political lies and their dissemination in the press. In order to facilitate the creation of a Soviet national press we demand that: (a) all editors, and their co-workers, of newspapers employing the Russian language must be members of the nation; (b) special permission from the State shall be necessary before non-Soviet newspapers may appear (these need not necessarily be printed in the Russian language); ( c ) non-Soviets shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing Soviet newspapers, and the penalty for contravention of the shall be suppression of any such newspaper, and immediate deportation of the non-Soviet involved It must be forbidden to publish newspapers which are damaging to the national welfare. We demand the legal prosecution of all tendencies in art and literature which exert a destructive influence on our national life and the closing of institutions which militate against the above-mentioned requirements.

Definitely true. Stalin completely controlled the press in the USSR.


24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the moral and ethical feelings of the Soviet race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent recovery from within only on the principle: THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST

Doesn't jive. Ethnic discrimination point.


25. That all the foregoing requirements may be realized we demand the creation of a strong, central national authority; unconditional authority of the central legislative body over the entire Reich and its organizations in general; and the formation of diets and vocational chambers for the purpose of executing the general laws promulgated by the Reich in the various States of the Confederation. The leaders of the Party swear to proceed regardless of consequences - if necessary at the sacrifice of their lives - toward the fulfillment of the foregoing Points.

Yes to both.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Oh christ man, please at least look up the definition of the word imperialism before you start throwing it around.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 09:14 am
Stalin, head of the USSR decided to put forward his idea of 1 nation socialism. Ring any bells- germany post ww1 pre ww2- hitler. Does 1 nation socialism not mean national socialism, that is Natzism? So does this make Stalin a Natzi, to some extent?
No; now why don't you read up on national socialism? ;)

[Prairie Fire]

Allright, lets look at your criticism:


1. We demand the union of all Soviets, on the basis of the right of the self-determination of peoples, to form a Great Soviet Union.

All nations want self detrmination.


2. We demand equality of rights for the Soviet people in its dealings with other nation, and abolition of the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
Hard to adapt this point to fit the USSR without gutting it but Stalin didn't want limitations imposed by foreign bodies on his rule.

Who does? Once again, this trait is not specific to the USSR under Stalin.


3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the nourishment of our people and for settling our surplus population. Yes; in fact, Stalin accomplished this much as the Nazi's did: brutal imperialism. Nourishment? Perhaps he felt he was nourishing the state.

Ah, trying to equate the bolshevik revolution with "Lebensraum".B.S. Taking Land from a class is very different than taking land from a soveriegn nation.
And all of the countries that the red army entered during the Second World war, they pulled out of... At least, as long as Stalin was at the helm.


None but members of the nation may be citizens of the State. None but those of Soviet blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation.
This falls into my category of ethnic discrimination that doesn't jive with Stalin

Exactly.


. Anyone who is not a citizen of the State may live in the USSR only as a guest and must be regarded as being subject to the Alien Laws.
Sounds a lot like the favoritism given to party members, as well as the fate of "non-members" and "reactionaries" who were sent to the Gulags...

Who said that there was favoritism for party members? Can this be proven.
As fo rthe allegations of "reactionaries " being sen tto gulags, this is irrelevant to the quote you sited. this Nazi quote says that foreigners can not become citizens. this was not the case in Stalins USSR.



6. The right of voting on the leadership and laws of the State is to be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand, therefore, that all official positions, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, the provinces, or the small communities, shall be held by citizens of the State alone. We oppose the corrupt parliamentary custom of filling posts merely with a view to party considerations, and without reference to character or ability. Again, party members were the only ones allowed to make decisions. Although, this is akin to any totalitarian government.

You do not draw the distinction that any person in the USSR could join the communist party. Besides, how is that different than the system of any other country? In the US, the Senate passes laws, and the average American is marginalized fro the democratic process.


7. We demand that the State shall make it its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of the citizens of the State. If it is not possible to nourish the entire population of the State, foreign national (non-citizens of the State) must be excluded from the Reich. And Stalin accomplished this about as well as Hitler.

This is a socialist trait. Stalin did it long before Hitler. The difference being, Stalin promoted industry to rapidly modernize the USSR; Hitler promoted industry to rapidly militarize the third Riech.


further non-Soviet immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Soviets who entered the USSR subsequently to August 2, 1914, shall be required forthwith to depart from the Reich.
Invalid due to the date. Still, it fits with the purges.

What is the connection between the purges and forced immigration by the state?
These are two seperate events, with seperate motivations.
You drawing connections when there are none.



9. All citizens of the State shall possess equal rights and duties.Again, not followed through by the Nazis. Not followed through by Stalin. However, I believe both promised this on their rise to power.

You're persynal opinion, of course. The thir d Reich couldn't deliver on their promises because Fascism is still a form of Capitlaism; In the third Reich, the exact same class contradictions were in existence. Plus, there were also a bunch of miscellaneous contradictions introduced by the Nazi party becaus eof ethnic discrimination, etc. The USSR didn't have these things... at least, not when Stalin was at the helm.


10. It must be the first duty of every citizen of the State to perform mental or physical work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the community and must be for the general good.
This is exactly what the USSR demanded. Essentially this is a slavery clause for workers; at least this is how it was executed in Nazi Germany. Surprisingly, the same was true of most workers in the USSR (virtual slaves).

This is Not Stalins policy; read up on the Manifesto of the communist Party. It was Marx and Engles who developed this line, And frankly most Communists support it. Every persyn has an equal obligation to work; what is the problem with this?
I would hardly equate having to work for a living with slavery.


We Demand Therefore:
11. Abolition of incomes unearned by work. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST. Sounds like a capitalist principle... Even so though, this was accomplished by both. In many cases, even if you did earn your income it was still taken from you. Many people in the USSR lived in abject poverty because of what Stalin demanded.

I do not believe that the Third Reich abolished interest. It just goes against the wishes of the classe sthat the thrid Reich represented. Stalin probably did.
If you'll notice, this line is about abolition of welfare and social services. While this was the way of things in the third Reich, it is not how things happened in the USSR.
The USSR was a state built on social programes.


12. In view of the enormous sacrifice of life and property demanded of a nation by every war, personal enrichment through war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand, therefore, the total confiscation of all war profits. Yeah.

Not a bad idea. Why should anyone profit from slaughter? Still, the Nazi's never practiced this. There where many war proffiteers in the Thrid Reich, and investors internationally that profited off of the Nazi war machine, such as Prescott Bush,
George W's grand daddy.


13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have (hitherto) been amalgamated (into trusts). Not true of Nazi Germany. True of the Soviet Union, although this promotes a state capitalist mentality.

As long as there is a state, it is not wrong to assume that the state should produce for the common good. You can not phase from Private Ownership to collective ownership immediatley.



14. We demand that there shall be profit sharing in the great industries.
Not true in either.

There are many ways of profit sharing. In the west we want money, because money is how we obtain the things we need to live. If the state provides you with the means to live, why do you need a salary? By producing for the state, all workers are producing for themselves, as they themselves are the beneficiaries of their own labour.


15. We demand a generous development of provision for old age. I'm not too sure on this point.

Certainly not true in the third Reich; they had an official policy of euthanasia.


16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, immediate communalization of the large department stores and their lease at a low rate to small traders, and that the most careful consideration shall be shown to all small traders in purveying to the State, the provinces, or smaller communities.:shrug: You decide. One coudl argue the USSR, since it did develop distinct classes, fit this point quite nicely.

Yes,but when did the USSR develope distinct classes? We are speaking of the Stalin era.


17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the confiscation without compensation of land for communal purposes, the abolition of interest on land mortgages, and prohibition of all speculation in land. [On April 13, 1928, Adolf Hitler made the following elucidation to the program: "Because of the mendacious interpretations on the part of our opponents of Point 17 of the program of the NSDAP, the following explanation is necessary.: Since the NSDAP is fundamentally based on the principle of private property, it is obvious that the expression "confiscation without compensation" refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary, land illegally acquired, or not administered in accordance with the national welfare. It is therefore directed in the first instance against the Jewish companies which speculate in land.] Definitely true of both, minus the added Jewish clause in Nazi Germany.

You confuse confiscating land from a class with confiscating land form a national minority or soveriegn foreign nation. Onw of which is in the interests of socialism.


18. We demand ruthless war upon all those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Sordid criminals against the nation, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.
Purges? Gulags?

Not the same. In the third Reich, people were executed based on ethnicity; In the USSR, people were executed based on deeds.


19. We demand that the Roman law, which serves the materialistic world order, shall be replaced by a Soviet common law. Doesn't fit anywhere.
This is where your arguement falls apart, as you insert "Soviet" or "USSR" into sentences of polices that the USSR often didn't have.


21. The State must apply itself to raising the standard of health in the nation by protecting mothers and infants, prohibiting child labor, and increasing bodily efficiency by legally obligatory gymnastics and sports, and by extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of the young.
I honestly don't know.

First of all, again, the concept of abolition of Child Labour was introduced by Marx and Engles. Also, the motivations are different; The third Reich promoted extensive physical fitness training, not for the good of the people, but for their own ideal or aryan racial purity.


23. We demand legal warfare against conscious political lies and their dissemination in the press. In order to facilitate the creation of a Soviet national press we demand that: (a) all editors, and their co-workers, of newspapers employing the Russian language must be members of the nation; (b) special permission from the State shall be necessary before non-Soviet newspapers may appear (these need not necessarily be printed in the Russian language); ( c ) non-Soviets shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing Soviet newspapers, and the penalty for contravention of the shall be suppression of any such newspaper, and immediate deportation of the non-Soviet involved It must be forbidden to publish newspapers which are damaging to the national welfare. We demand the legal prosecution of all tendencies in art and literature which exert a destructive influence on our national life and the closing of institutions which militate against the above-mentioned requirements.
Definitely true. Stalin completely controlled the press in the USSR.

In both cases, the media was seized in favour of a class. In the USSR, it was siezed in favour of the proletariat; In the thrid Reich, it was siezed in favour of the bourgeosie. Anyways, personally I would rather a state controls the media than an individual.


24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the moral and ethical feelings of the Soviet race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent recovery from within only on the principle: THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST
Doesn't jive. Ethnic discrimination point.

Typical Nazi perversion of socialist rhetoric. At least you realize that Stalin was totally opposed to this.


QUOTE
25. That all the foregoing requirements may be realized we demand the creation of a strong, central national authority; unconditional authority of the central legislative body over the entire Reich and its organizations in general; and the formation of diets and vocational chambers for the purpose of executing the general laws promulgated by the Reich in the various States of the Confederation. The leaders of the Party swear to proceed regardless of consequences - if necessary at the sacrifice of their lives - toward the fulfillment of the foregoing Points.

Yes to both.

Once again, big difference. The USSR was Democratic Centralist, and the Third Reich was still Capitalist. This means that in the USSR, policy is formed from the bottom up, rather than from the top down, as in the Third Reich and all capitlaist nations. Read up, and you will see that Stalin got shot down a lot by the politburo.

Have we reached a better understanding now?