Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

Nazi anti-semitism is in itself anti-capitalist, as their claim was that Jews were using capitalism to oppress Germans.

[The Impeacher]

Magorion wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Magorion wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Capitalism generates plenty of revenue to survive. Social Democracy does not. It ruins business as it destroys the free market.

That is total BS! Here:

http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/eu-nordic-beat-us-competitiveness-challenge/article-158217

Sorry, I have to take the word of a Nobel Prize winning economist who lived in Germany at the time social democracy failed there, FR Hayek, over that.

Could you show me where he wrote about it?

Here's the funny thing.

What he doesn't realize is that it was none other than Hayek's writing that ended Democratic Socialism in favor of social democracy, ie the third way.

He promotes the book that actually argues in part for what he claims to despise, because he's never read it.

Quote: Hayek argued that countries such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had already gone down the "road to serfdom", and that various democratic nations are being led down the same road. In The Road to Serfdom he wrote: "The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule."

However, as Hayek says "It is important not to confuse opposition against this kind of planning with a dogmatic laissez-faire attitude".[1]The Road to Serfdom mentions the provision or regulation of sign posts, roads, pollution and noise from factory, and the harmful side-effects of deforestation, for example, as issues that cannot be left purely to the unregulated market price mechanism.[2]

yay, social markets and regulation!


btw, its condensed version is available online:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom

[links at bottom]

[The Impeacher]

BobbyO wrote: Magorion wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Additionally, in a socialist economy there is no private investment. Ergo no corporations.

Exactly! And in Nazi Germany, big corporations could invest pretty much to an unlimited degree, as long as they weren't Jewish or associated with Jews.

The socialist parties of Scandinavia do not oppose investment. ergo, there are corporations.

Perhaps the National Socilaists were "advanced" socialists, a point argued by Hayek.

and Scandanavia is the ideal "social model" for a social democracy, its not full-on democratic socialism!

Sometimes also called the "social marketplace".

[cap'n queasy]

The Impeacher wrote: Magorion wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Magorion wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Capitalism generates plenty of revenue to survive. Social Democracy does not. It ruins business as it destroys the free market.

That is total BS! Here:

http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/eu-nordic-beat-us-competitiveness-challenge/article-158217

Sorry, I have to take the word of a Nobel Prize winning economist who lived in Germany at the time social democracy failed there, FR Hayek, over that.

Could you show me where he wrote about it?

Here's the funny thing.

What he doesn't realize is that it was none other than Hayek's writing that ended Democratic Socialism in favor of social democracy, ie the third way.

He promotes the book that actually argues in part for what he claims to despise, because he's never read it.

Quote: Hayek argued that countries such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had already gone down the "road to serfdom", and that various democratic nations are being led down the same road. In The Road to Serfdom he wrote: "The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule."

However, as Hayek says "It is important not to confuse opposition against this kind of planning with a dogmatic laissez-faire attitude".[1]The Road to Serfdom mentions the provision or regulation of sign posts, roads, pollution and noise from factory, and the harmful side-effects of deforestation, for example, as issues that cannot be left purely to the unregulated market price mechanism.[2]

yay, social markets and regulation!


btw, its condensed version is available online:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom

[links at bottom]

That is clearly a misrepresentation. Putting up street signs is not market regulation. Hayek was no anarchist, but he did advocate unregulated markets.

Quote: "Democratic socialism" versus "social democracy"
Social democracy is often distinguished from democratic socialism on the basis that most social democrats would be content with a society that combined elements of capitalism and socialism, while democratic socialists still have the objective of establishing, by democratic means, a wholly socialist society with a socialist economic system. Some observers claim, however, that democratic socialists are in fact simply left-wing social democrats; and, conversely, many social democrats openly acknowledge their Marxist inheritance and debate politics in terms that many more orthodox Marxists would recognise.

Some "democratic socialist" parties and individuals are arguably more accurately classed as social democratic, and vice versa, the misleading terms being used for historical reasons.

Many social democratic parties have sought to distance themselves from their democratic socialist counterparts, particularly with the rise of the Third Way movement. Some democratic socialists remain associated with social democratic parties, however, in an effort to render them more avowedly socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

There is, in essence, little or no differrence between the two.

And one of the foundational premises of Hayek's dissertations is that government regulation, in itself, distorts market signals and ruins free markets.

Quote: Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises (1881-1972) and Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) eloquently advocated free markets devoid of state intervention. Though they differed in the degree of their opposition to interventionism, both Mises and Hayek developed extensive economic arguments demonstrating why free markets succeed and regulated economies fail. Mises and Hayek understood the free market’s necessity for promoting social cooperation, rational calculation, transmission of knowledge, and a market order far more complex and successful than any deliberate creation of a central planner. Their ideas also imply the free market’s morality in promoting the values of life, liberty, and property.


Read the rest here:
http://rationalargumentator.com/MisesHayek.html

[DevilMan]

Nazis were NOT socialists, there was no socialist workers party... It was called the German National Socialist Workers Party. I have some home work for you... Find a real Nazi, you know shaved head and that deal. Now walk up to him and call a socialist, watch as he knocks your teeth out. Socialism implies a path to communism, and Nazis hate communism. I don't know why I know a lot about Nazis... I just do... I don't even know the exact difference between national socialism and just regular socialism but I'd love to find out. Nazis were not socialists Nazis were Nazis and still are.

[MplsBison]

What the hell is the difference between socialism and fascism?

As far as I can tell they're both authoritarian government/command economy societies.

[melchizedek22]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Sure it is. Hitler came to power through big corporations,

Hitler came to power by way of a socialists workers party fighting in the the streets.

He ruled everything in Germany with a iron fist for the "good of the German worker".

They were fighting in the streets with commies the real socialist,Hitler was
a fascist it was his way or the highway

[thefranzkafkafront]

DevilMan wrote: Nazis were NOT socialists, there was no socialist workers party... It was called the German National Socialist Workers Party. I have some home work for you... Find a real Nazi, you know shaved head and that deal. Now walk up to him and call a socialist, watch as he knocks your teeth out. Socialism implies a path to communism, and Nazis hate communism. I don't know why I know a lot about Nazis... I just do... I don't even know the exact difference between national socialism and just regular socialism but I'd love to find out. Nazis were not socialists Nazis were Nazis and still are.

No marxism implies that socialism is the path to communism.

[thefranzkafkafront]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Becasue they had socialist policies and developed out of a socialist party.

Not socialists but similar.

You have to rember right and left are bulls**t terms.

They were totalitarian state socialists with certain extreme social conversertaive and racial leanings, not garden varietey authoritarian socialists or social democrats.

They did none the less emerge out of socialism.

Again becuase no one listened the first time.

[Raskolnikov]

there is a difference between fascism and socialism. but you might have to read Marx to understand it. i understand that most of you are americans, and that'll make things difficult for you (because your ideas come straight out of the cold war era). but here are a few definitions to start with:

a socialist state is one slowly decentralizing. it's a return to the slow moving but stable and socially rewarding 'cottage' industry. it's the bottom-up transformation of society where the lower classes take control of their lives from the powers that be. socialists are otherwise known as 'return to the land hippies', and are not dangerous or authoritarian.

a communist state is one without a concept of private property. communists idealistically believe that socialism will gradually set up a culture of pure equality, where power rests with each individual equally (i.e. no politburo). this world of pure equality of power and resources is communism.

a fascist state adopts totalitarianism in order to guard the welfare of the majority. it centralizes the economy, military, and assumes all executive power with the aim of eliminating society's problems (i.e. those pesky communists, and that crippling depression). a centralized economy is extremely efficient, as both germany and russia proved after the first world war. a centralized military allows for the purging of all threats to the state's control. this style of government has its shortcomings though. it's extremely xenophobic, and sometimes madmen come to power.

a totalitarian state is totally centralized; everything in it answers to the government. it's nothing new, having existed since the dawn of human civilization.

[The Impeacher]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: DevilMan wrote: Nazis were NOT socialists, there was no socialist workers party... It was called the German National Socialist Workers Party. I have some home work for you... Find a real Nazi, you know shaved head and that deal. Now walk up to him and call a socialist, watch as he knocks your teeth out. Socialism implies a path to communism, and Nazis hate communism. I don't know why I know a lot about Nazis... I just do... I don't even know the exact difference between national socialism and just regular socialism but I'd love to find out. Nazis were not socialists Nazis were Nazis and still are.

No marxism implies that socialism is the path to communism.

No, marxism implies the pure capitalism and democracy is the path to socialism.

Marxist-Lenninsm implies that communism is the path to socialism, and thus we get the CP. Thus, the CP become the vanguard of the proletariat, bringing about the condition of "true socialism" by skipping or artifically inducing the processes of decay Marx predicted.

The application of Marixist ideology to communism has more to do with Trotsky and Marxist-Lenninsm and the use of dialiectics upon society [a society which is argued to be structured, ie modes of production etc].

Marx advocated action in his manifesto, legitimate democratic action, but he did not invent the CP.

Marx thought the progression could occur through labor groups naturally once they were informed, and so "workers unite" is not necessarily a call for a societal wide, violent revolution.

[The Impeacher]

Raskolnikov wrote: there is a difference between fascism and socialism. but you might have to read Marx to understand it. i understand that most of you are americans, and that'll make things difficult for you (because your ideas come straight out of the cold war era). but here are a few definitions to start with:

a socialist state is one slowly decentralizing. it's a return to the slow moving but stable and socialy rewarding 'cottage' industry. it's the bottom-up transformation of society where the lower classes take control of their lives from the powers that be. socialists are otherwise known as 'return to the land hippies', and are not dangerous or authoritarian.

Bottom up, democratic or grassroots socialism in a nutshell, yes.

Raskolnikov wrote: a communist state is one without a concept of private property. communists idealistically believe that socialism will gradually set up a culture of pure equality, where power rests with each individual equally (i.e. no politburo). this world of pure equality of power and resources is communism.

Thus using the CP to bring about socialism through direct action, yes.

Raskolnikov wrote: a fascist state adopts totalitarianism in order to guard the welfare of the majority. it centralizes the economy, military, and assumes all executive power with the aim of eliminating society's problems (i.e. those pesky communists, and that crippling depression). a centralized economy is extremely efficient, as both germany and russia proved after the first world war. a centralized military allows for the purging of all threats to the state's control. this style of government has its shortcomings though. it's extremely xenophobic, and sometimes madmen come to power.

a totalitarian state is totally centralized; everything in it answers to the government. it's nothing new, having existed since the dawn of human civilization.

Man, I could have used you when talking about fascism before. EXACTLY.

AS the CP grew more and more totalitarian in it methods as the vanguard of the proletariat, Communism ironically failed because it become too planned and thus foreign to human nature itself. It became, in essence, unnatural and spent more time chasing its own problems rather than "solving" the problems of capitalism.

[bob.appleyard]

The Nazis were very big on breaking up union meetings violently, and when the Munich Putsch failed, and the strategy of getting elected was adopted, they allied with the established right-wing parties in the Reichstag, against the social democrats and the communists. It was an uneasy alliance, as has been demonstrated above, because the "needs of the nation" were placed before all else -- including the old right-wing hobby horses of faith, family, business, and so on. However, it was the belief by these establishment figures, including the old WWI Field Marshal President Hindenberg, that Hitler could be controlled that got him the job of Chancellor.

The ends of the Nazis were national/racial rebirth, the destruction of liberalism, communism, homosexuality, vagrancy and ethnic minorities (including gypsies and jews), and the establishment of the Third Reich (the First Reich being the [Holy Roman] Empire and the Second Reich being the German Empire, set up by Prussia in 1871). In order to do this, they established a planned economy and expanded the welfare state -- for "real" Germans only, mind.

Different ends, similar means.

There is one distinct difference between state socialism and Nazism, in that private property was given some limited protection. One of the fundamental principles of marxism is the abolition of private property, which Marxism-Leninism stuck to. Thus, while the industries of the USSR were fully collectivised, private businesses continued to operate under Nazi Germany, albeit under stringent regulation.

It should be borne in mind that the development of Nazism runs independently to that of Fascism, and there is some debate as to whether the two are really part of the same ideology, as the form of corporatism set up by Mussolini was substantially different, even though there were distinct similarities (union bashing, violent authoritarianism, dreams of national rebirth and empire building, to name a few prominent examples).

[The Impeacher]

DevilMan wrote: Nazis were NOT socialists, there was no socialist workers party... It was called the German National Socialist Workers Party. I have some home work for you... Find a real Nazi, you know shaved head and that deal. Now walk up to him and call a socialist, watch as he knocks your teeth out. Socialism implies a path to communism, and Nazis hate communism. I don't know why I know a lot about Nazis... I just do... I don't even know the exact difference between national socialism and just regular socialism but I'd love to find out. Nazis were not socialists Nazis were Nazis and still are.

bingo

Quote: The Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD – Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands) is the oldest political party of Germany and also one of the oldest and largest in the world, celebrating its 140th anniversary in 2003. With more than 600,000 members it is the largest party in Germany. Rooted in the workers' movement, it formerly was more explicitly socialist (and is still a member party of the Socialist International); more recently, under Gerhard Schröder's lead, it has adopted a few tenets of neoliberalism while remaining committed to social democracy. Members of the party who are younger than 35 are organized in the Jusos.

[...]

Nazi period (1933 - 1945)

Being the only party in the Imperial Diet to have voted against the Enabling Act (with the Communist Party prevented from voting), the SPD was banned in the Summer of 1933 by the new Nazi government. Many of its members were jailed or sent to Nazi concentration camps. An exile organization was established first in Prague. Others left the areas where they had been politically active and moved to other towns where they were not known. Friedrich Kellner, an organizer for the SPD in Mainz from 1920 to 1932, moved to Laubach, Oberhessen, where he then spent the war years risking his life to write the Friedrich Kellner Diary. This diary was exhibited in the George Bush Presidential Library in 2005 to commemorate the 60th anniversary of VE Day.

During 1936 and 1939 some SPD members fought in Spain for the Republic against Franco and the German Condor Legion.

After the annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938 the exile party resettled in Paris and after the defeat of France in 1940 in London. Only a few days after the outbreak of the World War II in September of 1939 the exiled SPD in Paris declared its support for the Allies and for the military removal from power of the Nazi government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany

the social democrats were the Nazi's only true opposition in Germany. May have argued that their structural problems would be inept in the path of the Nazi's centralized message.

Some people claim this is happening in America with our Democrats versus the GOP. That, however, is an extreme exaggeration as both main parties really have a lot in common to begin with.

[cap'n queasy]

Raskolnikov wrote: there is a difference between fascism and socialism. but you might have to read Marx to understand it. i understand that most of you are americans, and that'll make things difficult for you (because your ideas come straight out of the cold war era). but here are a few definitions to start with:

a socialist state is one slowly decentralizing. it's a return to the slow moving but stable and socially rewarding 'cottage' industry. it's the bottom-up transformation of society where the lower classes take control of their lives from the powers that be. socialists are otherwise known as 'return to the land hippies', and are not dangerous or authoritarian.

a communist state is one without a concept of private property. communists idealistically believe that socialism will gradually set up a culture of pure equality, where power rests with each individual equally (i.e. no politburo). this world of pure equality of power and resources is communism.

a fascist state adopts totalitarianism in order to guard the welfare of the majority. it centralizes the economy, military, and assumes all executive power with the aim of eliminating society's problems (i.e. those pesky communists, and that crippling depression). a centralized economy is extremely efficient, as both germany and russia proved after the first world war. a centralized military allows for the purging of all threats to the state's control. this style of government has its shortcomings though. it's extremely xenophobic, and sometimes madmen come to power.

a totalitarian state is totally centralized; everything in it answers to the government. it's nothing new, having existed since the dawn of human civilization.

The thing is, those are social and economic fantasies, decentralization is not a defining characteristic of socialism it is a contrivance to attract people to the ideology. And when these fantasies inevitably don't work it takes an ever increasing amount of force to keep the ideology in power as the masses tire of the countries problems. They demand ever increasing strength from their leaders. This requires centralization. Eventually the system breaks down or it destroys itself.

This is what happened with Germany's transformation from social democracy to national socialism post WW1.

The Nazis did not abandon socialist ideals, they did what they has to do to make them work for Germany and express the collective will.

This concept is why Hayek named his book "The Road to Serfdom".

How are you going to make people live without the concept of private property without force? Application of force requires centralization. They are going to continue to behave, economically and socially, like they always have, unless you force them to do otherwise. No one is going to voluntarily give up their private property. The idea a communist society will evolve naturally is sheer fantasy. These types of things are merely sugar coating to sell an idea. Look at the history of earlier examples like the USSR, China, and Cambodia. Cambodia is especially applicable because what they were trying to do was "return to the land", install a collelective, pastoral,and agrarian society. And it was bloody as hell.

Decentralization will only be successful in a free market society under a condition of individual liberty.

[The Impeacher]

cap'n queasy wrote: Raskolnikov wrote: [...]

The thing is, those are social and economic fantasies, decentralization is not a defining characteristic of socialism it is a contrivance to attract people to the ideology.

So, decentralization is a contrivance to attract adherents to social and economic fantasies?

cap'n queasy wrote: Decentralization will only be successful in a free market society under a condition of individual liberty.

Yes, it would seem so. :lol:


Capitalism is not about equality, and decentralization cannot exist with capitalistic acquisition, you are the one who doesn't understand your own inherent contradiction.



But then, I userstand both arguments are inherently false utopian ideals, and I prefer the third way, which is what I like call mixed markets with government regulation created social markets... I just wish the USA would get a little more "social" and a little less top-heavy economically.

In other words, I want to see the wealth and power a little more decentralized, cap'n. ;)

[cap'n queasy]

Forced "equality" and shackling business to pay for what should be individual personal responsibility is not liberty.

And neither one can be achieved with out a central authority enforcing the condition. Just monitoring every business in America would require a massive bureaucracy, not to mention the cost of enforcing the regulations. You would have to have a government official coming in and looking over your shoulder, and controlling YOUR business. This requires centralization.

Capitalism, on the other hand is a condition of market freedom, where collective investments operate freely. The less government involvement in this the better. There is a big difference between voluntary co-operation and forced collectivization between government and private industry. Providing a good or service to the government does not require centralization, just a purchase order

And capitalistic acquisition is not connected to governmental organizational methodology in any way. The less influence on one from ther the better.

The reason US society has so much mingling of government and business is because it has advanced down the road to socialism a pretty fair way, since the 1930's. The very same problems leftists always complain about in America are caused by the very same type of collectivization of the US that they advocate.

The mingling of government and the means of production is what is screwing America up.

[MplsBison]

The Impeacher wrote:

In other words, I want to see the wealth and power a little more decentralized, cap'n. ;)

And such a thing can only be accomplished via force (IE, the government).

IE, someone at the top will always have the wealth and the power.


It's human nature.

Deal.

[BobbyO]

But then, I userstand both arguments are inherently false utopian ideals, and I prefer the third way, which is what I like call mixed markets with government regulation created social markets... I just wish the USA would get a little more "social" and a little less top-heavy economically.

In other words, I want to see the wealth and power a little more decentralized, cap'n. ;)[/quote]

The National Socialists argued that the Jews, being such small minority of the population and not even Germans to begin with, had far too much power and wealth, and said it should be "decentralised" into the willing hands, of course, of true Germans.

[BobbyO]

Quote: the social democrats were the Nazi's only true opposition in Germany. May have argued that their structural problems would be inept in the path of the Nazi's centralized message .

The Social Democrats and the National Socialists were frequently on the same side of the debate during the 20s. The SPD folded up their tents quite easily and quickly after 1933. The reason is simple- they could scarcely argue against the National Socialist program without impeaching their own. The debate in the Reichtag after Hitler's election amply demonstrated this. The SPD were not a "true" opposition to the National Socialists. They paved the way for the nazis. They dug the graves. The nazis filled them.