Political Crossfire Forums

[BobbyO]

The Impeacher wrote: 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".

Yes, privately run industry with heavy economic controls. This describes National Socialism. Heavy investment in "social spending." Again, describes the National Socialist regime.

The National Socialists were the advanced socialists. They were talking about the "third way" long before it became fashionable elsewhere.

[The Impeacher]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: 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.

Congratulations, you just figured out why our Founding Father's gave government the power to tax.

It's human nature.

Deal.

[Raskolnikov]

Quote: 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.

firstly, i don't care if socialism is a fantasy, i'm only defining it. horses with horns on their heads are unicorns whether they exist or not.

also, i strongly doubt that all socialists are in on some kind of conspiracy to bait people into their ideology by calling it decentralizing when it's really centralizing. socialists see themselves as anti-fascist and anti-totalitarian, and their views reflect that.

Quote: 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.

i'm always suspicious of slippery slope arguments.

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

i don't think that's what happened in Germany at all. as you know, the world was suffering from an economic depression at the time, and Germany especially because of the Treaty of Versailles. neither workers nor their bosses benefit from a depression. the former is out of work, and the latter doesn't profit. Hitler's government worked so well because it satisfied both workers and big business. it stimulated growth by reawakening Germany's war machine and enslaving and seizing the assets of a portion of its population. this, of course, required a centralized government, military, and command economy. big business was content because it could again make money, and the workers were content because they could again feed their families.

Quote: 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.

what socialist ideals? the nazis were anything but socialist. they were totalitarian -- socialists are egalitarian.

Quote: They are going to continue to behave, economically and socially, like they always have, unless you force them to do otherwise.

socialists don't believe in behavioural determinism. they think that society conditions us, and that the way we behave reflects this conditioning. so, if i have a concept of private property, it's because society planted that concept in my head. i don't agree with this view entirely, but i at least understand it.

Quote: 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.

a socialist would call these states fascist, which they are.

[The Impeacher]

cap'n queasy wrote: 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.

You confuse a minimal state for a minarchy, and considering this is a Constitutional Republic you are the one going against the grain.

Consider my response above to "tman" as also one to you.

"The road to Socialism" my ass. You can take your slippery slope and go live in a shack in the mountains.

[Raskolnikov]

the Impeacher wrote: 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.

that's an interesting take on history. can you expand on it a little for me?

[MplsBison]

The Impeacher wrote:

Congratulations, you just figured out why our Founding Father's gave government the power to tax.

Such a thing can not be given.

Those with the power take what they want from those without it.


As it's always been and always will be (which was the point of the previous post).

[MplsBison]

Raskolnikov wrote: Quote: 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.

firstly, i don't care if socialism is a fantasy, i'm only defining it. horses with horns on their heads are unicorns whether they exist or not.

also, i strongly doubt that all socialists are in on some kind of conspiracy to bait people into their ideology by calling it decentralizing when it's really centralizing. socialists see themselves as anti-fascist and anti-totalitarian, and their views reflect that.

Quote: 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.

i'm always suspicious of slippery slope arguments.

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

i don't think that's what happened in Germany at all. as you know, the world was suffering from an economic depression at the time, and Germany especially because of the Treaty of Versailles. neither workers nor their bosses benefit from a depression. the former is out of work, and the latter doesn't profit. Hitler's government worked so well because it satisfied both workers and big business. it stimulated growth by reawakening Germany's war machine and enslaving and seizing the assets of a portion of its population. this, of course, required a centralized government, military, and command economy. big business was content because it could again make money, and the workers were content because they could again feed their families.

Quote: 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.

what socialist ideals? the nazis were anything but socialist. they were totalitarian -- socialists are egalitarian.

Quote: They are going to continue to behave, economically and socially, like they always have, unless you force them to do otherwise.

socialists don't believe in behavioural determinism. they think that society conditions us, and that the way we behave reflects this conditioning. so, if i have a concept of private property, it's because society planted that concept in my head. i don't agree with this view entirely, but i at least understand it.

Quote: 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.

a socialist would call these states fascist, which they are.


Interesting.

According to you everything that I've always defined as socialism is actually fascism. IE, more government control is fascism.


Ok, then.

What the hell is the difference between socialism and communism?

Private property?

[Raskolnikov]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: What the hell is the difference between socialism and communism?

here you go:

Raskolnikov wrote: 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.

communism is, according to communists, the end result of socialism.

[MplsBison]

Ok, got it.

In that case, assuming the US government was simply turned off tomorrow, why couldn't a free market and a communist society coexist?

[Magorion]

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.

Perhaps, but no socialist party - as far as I know - has the whole power in any of the three Scandinavian countries. In Sweden, you have a centrist-right party, in Denmark, believe you have a moderate left-wing party, and in Norway there's a centre-left coalition.

The Nazis were fascists, and fascists are right-wing. The Nazis did not oppose capitalism, the Nazis were in favour of slave labour, the Nazis were preoccupied with the gender divide, and the Hitlerjugend were expected to act like "real men" and fish, fight, hunt, and any feminine activity (dancing, sewing) was considered wrong for any male. Women were only useful for giving birth to children and being caregivers, like in dogmatically religious societies or in otherwise very strictly conservative, old-fashioned systems. Socialism was about breaking away from the old, like the monarchy (Hitler and the Nazis loved regal symbols, socialists detested that), imperialism (Hitler wanted a 1,000 year long Reich, the socialists detested imperialism), lack of workers rights (the Nazis favoured slavery, the socialists wanted workers to have MORE rights), the role of men and women (Nazis saw men as fighters and providers, women as caregivers, the socialists believed women could work alongside men and be intellectuals), capitalism (Nazis made no attempts at ousting the German aristocracy or to change institutions based on their aristocratic "flavour", like lavish theatres, and allowed and encouraged commerce, the socialists sought to tear down reminders of the aristocracy or to change it).

[Magorion]

BobbyO wrote: Magorion wrote: 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".


No, he came to power because the corporations supported him. In power, Hitler weakened the unions and introduced foreign slave labour, not exactly for "the good of the German worker".

Slave labor was also seen in the USSR. The reason was the same- a socialist economy is a sclerotic economy, and cannot produce what is needed. As a result, workers need to be found elsewhere. And since capitalism is abhorred, the options available a few.

The Nazis didn't abhor capitalism...

[Magorion]

cap'n queasy wrote: Nazi anti-semitism is in itself anti-capitalist, as their claim was that Jews were using capitalism to oppress Germans.

He used that in his propaganda, yes, but then he turned around and let Coca Cola, IBM, Esso, EG Farben, Thyssen, Krupp, GE, GM and Ford do business in Germany.

[Magorion]

The Impeacher wrote: 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".

Exactly, and many don't understand this.

[Magorion]

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.

Yes, and the arch enemy of the NSDAP was not their fellow right-wing parties, but the German Social Democratic Party aka SDP!

[Magorion]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: What the hell is the difference between socialism and fascism?

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

Strictly speaking, fascism is a Roman way of governance, and socialism (in its purest form) is a stare where the workers are in control, not the so called elite. However, fascism in the modern way as promoted by Mussolini, Franco etc., is indeed an authoritarian state, much like in V For Vendetta, with extremist right-wing ideologies and a tight link between the government and the people it rules. The people are subject to all kinds of scrutiny through secret police, propaganda, wire tappings, hidden cameras (in a 2006 setting),
interrogations, intimidation and a widespread use of police and military in general. Fascism is highly militaristic, authoritarian, corporatist, Social Darwinist, nationalist, anti-anarchist, anti-communist and anti-liberal.

[Magorion]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: 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.

It's total BS to claim that they were socialists on the basis of being statists. The fascists were very statist, and they were a far cry from socialism! Even the current Bush admin. is statist light, as it has increased the size of the government! Would you call the Bush admin. socialist?

[Magorion]

bob.appleyard wrote: 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).

Outstanding analysis!

[Magorion]

BobbyO wrote: 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.

More total BS. The NSDAP were persecuting anyone left of them, including SDP and KDP (German Communist Party).

[BobbyO]

Quote: Perhaps, but no socialist party - as far as I know - has the whole power in any of the three Scandinavian countries. In Sweden, you have a centrist-right party, in Denmark, believe you have a moderate left-wing party, and in Norway there's a centre-left coalition.

Is it a failure of the above socialist parties that they have not (yet?) banned Coca-Cola or Toyota Motor Company from their shores? Or can a socialist community allow privately owned industry to exist (ie the third way?)

Quote: The Nazis were fascists, and fascists are right-wing.

Au contraire. The Fascists of Italy were swept into power because the workers abandoned the communists. Even in the contemporary times, the "neo fascist" parties of which much handwringing occurs over, tend to have the base of their support in areas where other socialist parties have their base as well.

Quote: The Nazis did not oppose capitalism,

Tghe nazis were quite clear in their objection to it. But they saw little sense in turning out the people who knew how to run the industry. But the jobs of Farben et. al was to produce for the state, not for their personal enrichment.

Quote: the Nazis were in favour of slave labour,

Because the German economy was a socialist economy, which made it extremely difficult for production to occur.

Quote: Socialism was about breaking away from the old, like the monarchy (Hitler and the Nazis loved regal symbols, socialists detested that),

In 1931 chancellor Bruning attempted to restore the monarchy. The National Socialists, voting alongside the Communists and Social Democrats (not for ther first time!) voted it down. The nazis despised the old ways; they seized the lands of bankrupt dukes and barons and subdivided them for vacation cottages for the workers. Hell, the nazis eliminated the german states, and created a single German republic (yes, Germany remained a republic undder the nazis).

Quote: imperialism (Hitler wanted a 1,000 year long Reich, the socialists detested imperialism),

It is difficult to conceive that the Communists or Social Democrats were against a long lasting socialist/communist society.

Quote: lack of workers rights (the Nazis favoured slavery, the socialists wanted workers to have MORE rights),

German workers in nazi Germany could not be terminated, have their wages reduced, be reassigned, without state approval (it was rarely given, which caused no end to the problems which the owners of factories faced).

Quote: capitalism (Nazis made no attempts at ousting the German aristocracy or to change institutions based on their aristocratic "flavour", like lavish theatres, and allowed and encouraged commerce,

Again, are the contemporary socialist parties unsocialist because they believe in commerce? Or perhaps socialism has evolved since 1933?

The German aristocracy was purged, and for all intents and purposes wiped out by the nazis, by 1945. And the German aristocracy was already "ousted" by the Social Democrats in 1919. The National Socilaists continued that "ousting."

[BobbyO]

Magorion wrote: BobbyO wrote: 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.

More total BS. The NSDAP were persecuting anyone left of them, including SDP and KDP (German Communist Party).

No, its quite true (at least as far as where parties stood). RISE ASND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH by Wm Shirer is a good source for the history of Germany in the 20s. I am sure there is a Norwegian translation.