Thoughts On National Socialism (Pro-semitic of course)

[AJLaw]

I have been thinking about national socialism have been wondering how successful one country can be adopting such an economic system, especially if each national socialist country were to work hand in hand for their own economic and social benefits. Of course, national socialism is nazism but is it possible for there to be a pro-semitic, pro-"every other country, ethnicity, gender, race" economic system that is successful?

[Bilan]

"National Socialism" - irrespective of the Nazi ties - is more like what Stalin advocated with his socialism in one country.
It's wrong, on every level. Socialism is international.

[Tower of Bebel]

Many workers thought it was their socialism. I always use the example of healthcare: you could get checked for cancer without having to pay, and it was very effective. They used propaganda saying that workers needed to be healthy. Also, the financial crisis appeared to be solved (yet in reality the crisis was transformed from a conflict between capitalists into a struggle between capitalist states!). No more had the German worker to take a basket full of money when he wanted to buy some bread. That ethnic minorities were attacked by the state was not always regarded a problem. Not because Germans are inherently anti-semitic, but because you can't have capitalism without racism: it is a characteristic of capitalism.

But this was all based on transforming the crisis into a struggle between various capitalist states. And the German state, trying to survive on autarchy, needed more markets and industries to sustain itself. This was the material basis for the theory of "Lebensraum": more territory for Germanic peoples to live on. So this semi-keynesian, oppressive an racist type of "socialism" (capitalism) had to fail because it couldn't solve the crisis of capitalism. It needed a destructive war to survive.

[BobKKKindle$]

Do you mean a socialism confined to the borders of one country? If this is what you mean, then no this could never be realized, because socialism can only be attained on a world scale as no single country has enough resources within its own borders to support a socialist economy, and every country is now part of an integrated global economy due to the ties of dependence which link countries together despite their efforts to retain economic dependence. This means that any revolution, regardless of where it takes place will only be able to survive and lead to the successful attainment of a socialist society if it spreads and overthrows capitalism in other countries. This is especially true when we consider that the revolution is most likely to begin in a country suffering from a lack of economic development because the workers in these countries are not under the influence of a labour aristocracy (which is a major obstacle to revolutionary change in the developed world) and are often subject to conditions of intense poverty which have the potential to push these workers in a revolutionary direction.

[AJLaw]

Yeah thats what i was getting at, but i see what you're saying. It was just a thought that I had. But wouldn't the idea of socialistically reuniting the 3rd world countries be as far-fetched as communism being possible and working despite human nature? Not saying that reuniting the countries is against human nature but it seems as if it would be just as difficult or just as impossible as communism being a possibility.

[dmcauliffe09]

There's no such thing as "pro-Semitic" National Socialism. National Socialism is Nazism. The whole social basis of Nazism is based on a false sense of the superiority of the "Aryan race." Economically, the Nazis helped Germany out a great deal, but the fact is that Nazism is really fascism and totalitarianism, the very ideologoies that we as Socialists try to fight against. I'll talk to you more about it later because I'm about to see you for LUNCH!

[ComradeOm]

"National Socialism" - irrespective of the Nazi ties - is more like what Stalin advocated with his socialism in one countryI assume that this is simply a throw-away slur and that you are not seriously contending that there are any real similarities between Stalin and Hitler's economic programmes?


Economically, the Nazis helped Germany out a great dealEh, how? The Nazi's 'helped' Germany by a) coming to power towards the end of the Depression and b) embarking on an unsustainable armaments programme that later drove the economy into the ground. Hitler's 'economic miracle' is nothing more than a myth

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That's the misperception, that's Stalin's and Hitler's economic programmes were similar. However, in actual fact what is true was that Stalin was a true "Nazi" (going simply by the label), and Hitler the hypocrite wasn't.

To me, Hitler comes across as a more extreme (nation, race, etc.) and interventionist form of national-corporatist.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Socialism is local. Try it in your dorm if you live in one, if you live with other people in an apartment then try it there. Cant work by itself nationally or internationally.

I'd say the biggest it could go would be a neighborhood. To hell with Stalin: SOCIALISM IN ONE NEIGHBORHOOD:D

[Charles Xavier]

Do you mean a socialism confined to the borders of one country? If this is what you mean, then no this could never be realized, because socialism can only be attained on a world scale as no single country has enough resources within its own borders to support a socialist economy, and every country is now part of an integrated global economy due to the ties of dependence which link countries together despite their efforts to retain economic dependence. This means that any revolution, regardless of where it takes place will only be able to survive and lead to the successful attainment of a socialist society if it spreads and overthrows capitalism in other countries. This is especially true when we consider that the revolution is most likely to begin in a country suffering from a lack of economic development because the workers in these countries are not under the influence of a labour aristocracy (which is a major obstacle to revolutionary change in the developed world) and are often subject to conditions of intense poverty which have the potential to push these workers in a revolutionary direction.

Soviet Union did, Cuba did. Wow sorry your argument has been defeated by facts.

"National Socialism" - irrespective of the Nazi ties - is more like what Stalin advocated with his socialism in one country.
It's wrong, on every level. Socialism is international.


Where did Stalin ever say that Socialism isn't international. That workers of all lands shouldn't unite? Where did the Soviet Union not support revolutionary movements?


What are you advocating war against all peoples? Do you not forget the Slogan of the Bolsheviks of Peace, Land and Bread? Nowhere did Lenin or Stalin did anything but support the international revolutionary movements. They frigging formed the Comintern, they helped communist parties across the world with great ideological divisions. They did their utmost to defend socialism and socialists across the world. What the hell did the CPSU do to destroy workers movements or work against International struggle? If you have such documents please present them. You are just spewing rhetoric with no backing to reality.

You crazies on the Ultra-Left complain when the soviet union didn't intervene in countries and help the socialists and at the same time criticize them when they did intervene in countries and help the socialists. What the hell did you Ultra-Lefts want? Magic? The Class struggle is a war between two classes its not a picnic, there is no magical wand the Soviet Union could wave to find socialist allies across the world. Explain to me how it is logistically possible that the Soviet Union could have done otherwise than what played out in historical reality. Sure there was mistakes but the soviet union as the first builders of the socialist state would make mistakes.

You ultra-left crazies, complain that socialism was not implemented fast enough, and when it is implemented, you will then give some metaphysical unreasoned argument that it occurred too fast. Face it ultra-leftists, the class struggle will never play into your reality because its not cut and dried. You criticize everything always, but never are constructive in this criticism, we never learn anything from your criticisms. Can you please clarify what Socialism-In-One-Country actually is?

What else is the alternative, what step would be taken, are you advocating that Capitalism is all the same everywhere and it just takes one guy who is smart that will change the world?

Doesn't this message writen by Lenin speak any truth?

"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world" - Vladimir Lenin, ON THE SLOGAN FOR A UNITED
STATES OF EUROPE

[Die Neue Zeit]

You may wish to read this counter-critique by Mike Macnair of the CPGB's Weekly Worker:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/737/stalinistillusions.html


Nonetheless, behind the screen of lies there is a heart and centre of the political problem and it is one still relevant today after the fall of the USSR, etc. This is the so-called ‘law of uneven development’. Trotsky, in fact, accepted this ‘law’ when it was thrown at him in the 1920s, and in The permanent revolution (1931) adapted it into the ‘law of uneven and combined development’.

The blunt fact is: even if it was Lenin, rather than his successors, who developed the idea of ‘building socialism in a single country’ on the basis of the ‘law of uneven development’, he was wrong: as is shown by the later history of the 20th century. And Trotsky’s adaptation of it was also wrong.

The ‘law of uneven development’ is, in fact, not a theoretical law at all. It is an abstract-empirical generalisation, like the bourgeois economists’ ‘law of supply and demand’. Like the ‘law of supply and demand’, it does not look below surface appearances, and as a result has only limited predictive power.

[Led Zeppelin]

"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world" - Vladimir Lenin, ON THE SLOGAN FOR A UNITED
STATES OF EUROPE

Lame:

“Russia is a peasant country, one of the most backward countries of Europe. Socialism cannot be immediately triumphant there but the peasant character of the country with the huge tracts of land in the hands of the feudal aristocracy and landowners, can, on the basis of the experience of 1905, give a tremendous sweep to the bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia and make our revolution a prelude to the world socialist revolution, a step towards it ... The Russian proletariat cannot by its own forces victoriously complete the socialist revolution. But it can give the Russian revolution dimensions such as will create the most favorable conditions for it, such as will in a certain sense begin it. It can facilitate matters for the entrance into a decisive battle on the part of its main and most reliable ally, the European and American socialist proletariat.” Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n22)

VLADIMIR LENIN, TWO YEARS AFTER THE QUOTE YOU POSTED

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I've heard two good explanations of Fascism and National Socialism.

Capitalism is an attempt at capitalism without the capitalism.

The other view is generally attributable to reactionaries. Rather than viewing contradiction inherent to society like communists, Nazis view the contradictions as external to society.

[Charles Xavier]

Lame:

“Russia is a peasant country, one of the most backward countries of Europe. Socialism cannot be immediately triumphant there but the peasant character of the country with the huge tracts of land in the hands of the feudal aristocracy and landowners, can, on the basis of the experience of 1905, give a tremendous sweep to the bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia and make our revolution a prelude to the world socialist revolution, a step towards it ... The Russian proletariat cannot by its own forces victoriously complete the socialist revolution. But it can give the Russian revolution dimensions such as will create the most favorable conditions for it, such as will in a certain sense begin it. It can facilitate matters for the entrance into a decisive battle on the part of its main and most reliable ally, the European and American socialist proletariat.” Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n22)

VLADIMIR LENIN, TWO YEARS AFTER THE QUOTE YOU POSTED

The link you posted has a few problems, one Lenin wasn't around in 1928, when Trotsky wrote that and two the link doesn't work.

I don't even see how this is contradicting what I am saying.

[Charles Xavier]

I've heard two good explanations of Fascism and National Socialism.

Capitalism is an attempt at capitalism without the capitalism.

The other view is generally attributable to reactionaries. Rather than viewing contradiction inherent to society like communists, Nazis view the contradictions as external to society.
That is a fallacy, the Nazis in general, allow for the rule of capital to destroy world worker movements, the biggest attack of course is on minorities and colonies, but workers within the Fascism countries had the full weight of the Capitalist State put apon them to crush the workers movement. Capital had bloodlust to drive down wages and all democratic victories of the working class and it choose the nazi party to present its interests in Germany.

[Led Zeppelin]

The link you posted has a few problems, one Lenin wasn't around in 1928, when Trotsky wrote that and two the link doesn't work.

It was supposed to link to the footnote source of the quote, I'll do it for you: 22. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#f22) Works, Vol.XI, part 2, pp.407f.


I don't even see how this is contradicting what I am saying.

It directly contradicts the quote you posted, which isn't strange because you took it out of historical context. Read the first link to see how that is so.

[Charles Xavier]

It was supposed to link to the footnote source of the quote, I'll do it for you: 22. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#f22) Works, Vol.XI, part 2, pp.407f.



It directly contradicts the quote you posted, which isn't strange because you took it out of historical context. Read the first link to see how that is so.
Comrade, what I am saying it doesn't contradict itself... is because while socialism is possible, it cannot survive on its own, the revolutionary movements across the world will fuel socialism in the countries which are not. Anyways, we have seen that Socialism at first did survive in two countries alone(Mongolia and the Soviet Union), and several years later other countries had the advanced class of workers join the socialist movements. And within the Adv Capitalist countries strong worker movements existed. This factor prevented the united imperialist powers from launching an all-out Imperialist War against the Soviet Union, despite their attempts to sabotage.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

That is a fallacy, the Nazis in general, allow for the rule of capital to destroy world worker movements, the biggest attack of course is on minorities and colonies, but workers within the Fascism countries had the full weight of the Capitalist State put apon them to crush the workers movement. Capital had bloodlust to drive down wages and all democratic victories of the working class and it choose the nazi party to present its interests in Germany.

I'm sorry, I meant to say "fascism is an attempt at capitalism with out capitalism"

The point of course, is you can't have capitalism without capitalism. Instead it just externalizes itself and become a seriously fucked up and brutal form of imperialism. I don't think we disagree.

[Charles Xavier]

I'm sorry, I meant to say "fascism is an attempt at capitalism with out capitalism"

The point of course, is you can't have capitalism without capitalism. Instead it just externalizes itself and become a seriously fucked up and brutal form of imperialism. I don't think we disagree.

Fascism is the bloody terrorist dictatorship of Capitalism against the worker movements.

[Melbourne Lefty]

is more like what Stalin advocated with his socialism in one country.
It's wrong, on every level. Socialism is international.

damn right.

Hitler and Stalin had more in common than is often admitted IMHO.

I know many people on this site disagree, but seriously, there have been a hell of a lot better tries at socialism than what he created.

[Charles Xavier]

damn right.

Hitler and Stalin had more in common than is often admitted IMHO.

I know many people on this site disagree, but seriously, there have been a hell of a lot better tries at socialism than what he created.

Stalin didn't create socialism, he wasn't some sorcerer that had magical powers and made everyone follow his lead.

The Soviet People, of their many nationalities, developed socialism within the soviet union, if they were truly against Stalin, they had the opportunity to vote for representatives that would have taken Stalin out of power, but they didn't. The soviet people in fact contrary to that, died by the millions defending socialism within the Soviet Union. It wasn't just soldiers, regular peasant and workers rose up against the Nazi invaders, fighting them however possible. Your problem is not with Stalin, its with socialism and the Soviet people.

[Vendetta]

Socialism is local. Try it in your dorm if you live in one, if you live with other people in an apartment then try it there. Cant work by itself nationally or internationally.

I'd say the biggest it could go would be a neighborhood. To hell with Stalin: SOCIALISM IN ONE NEIGHBORHOOD:D

Why don't you see it getting any bigger, division-wise?

[Sprinkles]

The Soviet People, of their many nationalities, developed socialism within the soviet union, if they were truly against Stalin, they had the opportunity to vote for representatives that would have taken Stalin out of power, but they didn't.


This is nonsense really and isn't even consistent when viewed through your own ideology.
For example; if the working class had this kind of influence then why didn't they vote out the later "revisionist" leadership?



The soviet people in fact contrary to that, died by the millions defending socialism within the Soviet Union. It wasn't just soldiers, regular peasant and workers rose up against the Nazi invaders, fighting them however possible. Your problem is not with Stalin, its with socialism and the Soviet people.


Nonsense. They didn't have much choice considering fascist occupation turned out to be fairly brutal and everyone was mobilized in the defense of the Soviet state whether they wanted to or not. Even then the state needed to impose harsh penalties to accomplish this goal, which is for example why the death penalty had been expanded under Order No. 227 for any form of disobedience under fire. Which meant that the NKVD's barrier troops shot any soldier who hesitated to advance into the meatgrinder of enemy fire, while the commanders who retreated without orders were trialed by a NKVD kangaroo court.

So you're overstating the personal enthusiasm and spontaneous support of "the Soviet people" a little bit here.

[Charles Xavier]

This is nonsense really and isn't even consistent when viewed through your own ideology.
For example; if the working class had this kind of influence then why didn't they vote out the later "revisionist" leadership?



Nonsense. They didn't have much choice considering fascist occupation turned out to be fairly brutal and everyone was mobilized in the defense of the Soviet state whether they wanted to or not. Even then the state needed to impose harsh penalties to accomplish this goal, which is for example why the death penalty had been expanded under Order No. 227 for any form of disobedience under fire. Which meant that the NKVD's barrier troops shot any soldier who hesitated to advance into the meatgrinder of enemy fire, while the commanders who retreated without orders were trialed by a NKVD kangaroo court.

So you're overstating the personal enthusiasm and spontaneous support of "the Soviet people" a little bit here.

The problem with the party happened after the wartime, the party took the form of wartime organization during the second world war. As a result, democratic norms were suspended. The problem this trend was continued after the war, allowing revisionists to take key positions in power.

And I do not doubt, the war was very brutal, but such is war, its no tea party. Many mistakes were made, but the soviet people did fight without directions from the army, they formed resistance organizations.