Yes, next question
Were the Nazi’s (the National SOCIALISTS) Socialist? I mean, the called themselves The National Socialist German Workers’ Party, which has a few socialist buzzwords in it (including socialist).
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 6th, 2015 at 9:27 pm
Socialist enough that the (transnational-socialist) Stalinist slur for the national-socialist was ‘fascist’.
March 7th, 2015 at 9:44 am
Fascists, Socialist and Communist are all authoritarian leftist governments by an elite ruling class. They all loathe, despise and fear Liberty.
March 7th, 2015 at 4:31 pm
Meh. That word has pretty much lost all its meaning. The Soviets claimed to have socialism as the prelude to utopian communism — pfui, they were a totalitarian collectivist police state just like the Nazis. I personally think most of Europe these days, with its cradle to grave nanny-statism, is socialist, but in a western liberal way that we cannot equate with the brutality of Stalin or Hitler. Even CPUSA claims to endorse gay rights and freedom of religion. I’m telling you, guys, there’s just no purity of ideology left anymore. 😉
March 7th, 2015 at 7:15 pm
The only difference between the socialism of the “liberal” persuasion and between the socialism of the national or Marxist persuasion is how long they are willing to wait before applying coercion. It all ends in the same place though.
March 7th, 2015 at 10:50 pm
one of the great accomplishments by authoritarians of the right since 2008 has been to completely obfuscate the historical meaning of fascism, communism, and socialism.
anyone who thinks fascism = socialism or a left wing movement needs an education from a wwII veteran with a leather belt. its goddamn ignorant.
March 8th, 2015 at 12:52 am
tincankilla,
I believe you are mistaking the fellow travelers who infested academia starting in the 1930s for obfuscating the historical meanings. Mostly to hide the true nature of socialism from its variants in fascism and communism. One question I’ve been unable to get the “professors” to answer is how many millions have to be slaughtered before they decide they need a new variant to keep going? 10 million, 35 million?
But as you prefer historical meanings, here is a very good one from 1886:
George Orwell, writing in the 1930s in support of the advancement of Socialism, had this comparision:
March 8th, 2015 at 12:52 am
Tincankilla, try explaining why, not simply shouting down educated and correct people.
Who are you even talking about. List just 5 examples, and show how apparently eveeryone just accepted it.
March 8th, 2015 at 11:33 pm
tincankilla can speak for himself, but I understand his point. Tens of millions of people killed is a small but significant difference between Nazi “socialism” and present day Swedish “socialism”.
March 9th, 2015 at 3:46 pm
All you have to do is compare quotes regarding economics from various Nazis and various Soviets. They are basically indistinguishable.
Who said “In the course of history periods of capitalism and socialism alternate with one another; capitalism is the unnatural, socialism the natural economic system.”? (not the complete quote). +1 internets to whomever gets it without googling.
They didn’t call it socialism for no reason.
March 9th, 2015 at 4:30 pm
Swedes self-coerce. They don’t call it the Stockholm Syndrome for nothing. There are forms of coercion short of killing, though if you don’t submit it can go there.
March 10th, 2015 at 3:42 pm
since i’m getting pushback, let me explain:
Fascism is not anti-capitalist. if anything it is super-capitalist, in that it prizes the exceptional high achievement of the striving “superman” in its ideology. But it also wants to harness capitalism for its uses: national economic development usually benefiting a specific ethno-national category (aryans, etc) and national military power. It presents a solution to the problem of inequality and distribution under capitalism by focusing on national economic development. Yes, it’s redistributive, but while defining and exacerbating social hierarchies internally and externally. The Nazis, for example, essentially colonized European countries and extracted wealth and labor for the benefit of Germans. The fascist state partners with and enriches the owners of capital (factories, etc) to channel their efforts towards the national interest defined within the ideology. In sum, fascism = authoritarian, capitalist, ethno-nationalist.
Communism is specifically anti-capitalist, ie, confiscating property and prosecuting the bourgeois. It’s also authoritarian and specifically anti-nationalist, anti-sexist, anti-racist (although that’s all mostly BS).
Socialism is less defined as an ideology, but broadly concerned with inequality in economics and politics as an obstacle towards creating the “perfect society”. Socialism is highly compatible with democracy, as many European countries demonstrate. It places fetters on capitalism, but still allows it to operate successfully. For example, post-war Germany or New Deal United States. If you’re cashing a medicare or social security check, you’re a socialist.
So to my point: to say that “Obama is a socialist” and “Nazis were socialists” therefore “Obama is a fascist” is goddamn ignorant.
If you’d like to read more, i found this. knock yourself out: http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/courses/fall2010/888tismaneanu.pdf