Topic: Nazis were socialists - Change my mind (Read 1460 times)

As far as i know socialism is kinda financial system. Being a socialists does not make anybody a good person. Their financial ideology can support distrubition of the financial items in loyal way. But it does not mean that they are not racist or murderers.

I don't agree that racism is a critical component of fascism. If you remove both the race and class elements from both, what you are left with is totalitarianism. That is the important part that ENABLES the racism and classism.

Facism is an extremely statist ideology as well.
Giving the goverment or supreme leader more authority over the individual and his free will is the complete opposite of capitalism.
Facism and socialism are very close ideologies.
The major difference is that the enemy in socialism is found in class instead of race.

Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934. Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character

The sig spam bots seem to be in force in this thread.

Socialites are to socialists as Israelites are to Israelists.     

Literally nothing you just said makes any sense whatsoever.

I do not think it has to follow any Google definition because it implies that the Nazis were not socialists they did these things to remove prejudice from society The Nazis used to say against those who were anti-social.

Really cant comment about the ideologies of Nazis but one thing for sure I can mention here is the speech by Hitler during his rein .For example, in a 1927 speech he said , “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation … and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” Now decide for yourself.

They have one of the freest (most capitalistic) markets in the world according to the economic freedom index.


Social policies only increase inequality because they teach people not to work and therefore they stay poor instead of finding a job and picking up their lives.

I guess you could make arguments for both pro and contra socialistic policies.

For example nordic nations (with the exception of their immigration policies) are probaly one of the best nations to live in on the global scale and they are imho extremely socialistic, while still part of the richest industry nations.

On the other extreme Venezuela nuff said.

You operate under the assumption that these social programs do not contribute to inequality and assign all blame to capitalism. I don't find it a coincidence that there is a correlation with all of these social programs in the USA being expanded and economic instability and hardship growing.

Because they were never and are not full capitalist economies.

Just look at the inequality from today with all the socialist policies we have (social security, welfare etc).

In a full capitalist system the gap between poor and wealthy would likely ballon by several magnitudes and likely succumb to some feudalistic system where the top is gonna decide everything while majority of citiziens are poor and slavelike.

(On a global scale this is actually what happens - industry nations decide what happens and earn the most money while 3rd world nations are used as garbage dumps and doing low value work that make them barely survive).

I just dont see human nature changing in the short term so that we can have utopia with a full capitalist economy.

In theory. In practice since it needs coercion to be established, those with the monopoly on power are going to keep the power.


Even more reason to say socialism is bad.


What does statist facism have to do with free-market capitalism? o.o
I think the founding US did fine without facism as much as Hong Kong does today

I find socialists and communists rest solely upon semantics and shifting definitions, which is why I am not even going to bother engaging you. I don't have any interest in watching you do semantic back flips and inverting the meanings of words over and over again to try to make a square peg fit in a communist hole.

That's fine, I'll count for you: zero.

Yes, I can agree with that.

I still disagree. Are you arguing that the concepts of money or of private ownership of the means of production pre-date primitive hunter-gatherer societies?

Perhaps our disagreement is just semantics?  

I lost count of how many times you contradicted yourself about halfway through, I am not going to even dignify this with a response.



First of all I don't agree with your definition of Socialism, just to make that clear, but for the sake of argument lets look past that and address the core of my premise. I didn't say zero "socialism" is ideal, I said socialism and communism requires capitalism to exist, and capitalism does not require communism or socialism to exist. This is true. Socialism and communism require initial input from capitalism, then inevitably degrades to the point where it becomes something else completely. Pure capitalism could exist under its own structure, but it would not necessarily be ideal.

Communism is a stateless system. It was tried few times in the beginning of 20th century, and failed. People of the current civilization aren't ready to live in a stateless society. Any attempt to establish it will be doomed to fail because people are corrupt by their nature. And, of course, it's incompatible with modern capitalism because you can't enforce fiat money without the government.


All the so-called "communist" states are socialist republics. Neither of them was communist in any way, and never claimed to be. It's just an oversimplification which is a part of propaganda narrative. USSR was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example. Only dumb people are thinking that it was some kind of "communist" thing or whatever.

Like the USSR, People's Republic of China is a socialist republic. The only difference is that USSR was a federation of semi-autonomous subjects with their own constitutions and state bodies, including the law enforcement agencies. Each republic had its own parliament, government with full set of ministries, police and even its own KGB. Local legislation of USSR republics was quite volatile as well. Just for example, RSFSR had no legal framework for private enterprises, it had only allowed the cooperative and collective enterprises. Georgian SSR, on the contrary, issued the legal framework which was allowing the private property on means of production. Same is correct for some other republics, like Azerbaijan SSR or Tajik SSR, small private enterprises were quite common there. China is a much simpler thing, it's a unitary republic which is governed by one constitution. There are no republics or whatever, everything is being ruled by legislation and orders issued in Bejing.


TECSHARE
Socialism is nothing but a set of government policies which are subsidized by capitalism. A managed version of capitalism, I'd say.
So there is nothing strange in observing the growth of capitalism in socialist PRC. Socialists always need some money to fund their fantasies, nothing has changed.

However, this

is absolutely incorrect assumption as well. I mean that capitalists are no less delusional than socialists or communists.

Any attempt to implement 100% capitalist regime would lead you to either fascism or the public unrest which will result with violent overthrow of such government. There is also a high risk to be executed, so I wouldn't agree to rule such regime myself. If you don't want to have fascism in your capitalist society, then your little capitalism pet will require some socialism to prevent the public from killing your government officials. Simple truth as it is.

It's interesting that Vladimir Lenin, a founder of the russian communist party, has defined his new regime as "state-controlled capitalism". Yep, he never tried to pretend that it was socialist, communist or whatever.

Socialism arguably, yes, as it involves a lot of state management and state intervention in an otherwise free economy. Socialism is a form of managed capitalism.
Communism no, how does that need capitalism? How can it exist within capitalism? It's a completely different system. Please don't try to cite China!

"Capitalism does not require socialism"? I'd disagree with this, too. Socialism is a spectrum (the same spectrum as capitalism, just the opposite direction of travel). Capitalist countries, even the UK and the US, tend to have a degree of socialism - National Health Service for example in the UK. Arguably any capitalist country that allows insurance policies has an element of socialism, as insurance is the pooling of risk where money flows from the fortunate to the unfortunate. Has a purely capitalist country ever existed? I mean proper 100% laissez-faire? If you can find one that has existed, then has it persisted as 100% capitalist without incorporating elements of socialism?

Yabut. Socialites often go to different nations to watch plays or listen to fine concert music.