Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

Ho please, If you're going with, "can only be called socialism situation like the one described in Marx's book, but better" there is no socialism. I've had a convinced communist explaining me how USSR and China were "state capitalism" and thus not communism, but that is just a weird way to name things.
Of course it's not the same ideology that had those who resisted the Nazi in the name of communism, but then what? USA is not liberal because the economy is crappy although they expected it to get better?

[Tsarwash]

Actually, the so called USSR has taken a lot of these traits, particularly the bit about their culture/race being superior to those of everyone else.

Surely most cultures tend to think this.

[RedKing]

Actually, the so called USSR has taken a lot of these traits, particularly the bit about their culture/race being superior to those of everyone else.

Surely most cultures tend to think this.

'Cept Canada. Seriously--a Canadian nationalist's rallying cry is, "Canada! It's not too bad, eh?"

[Leafsnail]

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the UK who thinks it's superior to everywhere else.

[DJ]

I bet Nikov know this much about socialist nature of Nazism because he is a closet Nazi.

[mainiac]

In all of the reading I've done about the National Socialists, I've simply not found evidence they were in any way antithetical of socialism. Communists proper may have declared "workes of the world unite"

Okay, Communists =/= Socialists in the same way that Capitalism =/= Anarchism.  I know that it's really easy to use guilty by false association, but at least freaking try here.

Now let's take a moment to review the core goals of socialism around the 1930's and 1940's, based on the political platforms of the major socialist movements at the time, the French popular Front, the German SDP, the British Labor Party and the Spanish People's Front.  These were actual member parties of the socialist international.  These groups called themselves socialist.  These groups had the support of the labor unions.  When people talked about socialism, these were who they talked about.  What did they want?
1) Care for the poor
2) Workers own the means or production, or some suitable substitute
3) Workers right to organize
4) A just legal and political system
5) International solidarity

Let's see how the Nazi's stack up:
1) No, they diverted all the wealth of the nation into war
2) No, besides the war thing, crony capitalism flourished
3) No, they sent paramilitary thugs to kill union organizers at least until they opened up the concentration camps
4) No, just, no
5) No, enslaving the socialists of both your country and your neighbors country in the same concentration camp does not count

So let's review broadly:
1) The Nazi's fought against everything the socialists stood for
2) The Nazi's publicly denounced the socialists as parasites
3) The Nazi's fought the socialists with paramilitaries
4) The socialists were the only ones who stood up to the Nazi's
5) WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Yeah, the first four points might point against the Nazi's being socialists, but the fifth point is a really good argument.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Okay, Communists =/= Socialists in the same way that Capitalism =/= Anarchism.

Anarchism == Communism, ultimately. As in, "anarchism" is the second stage of communism, wherein the corrupt oppressors have been removed from power, and agriculture and industry are in the hands of the workers, while the responsibility for preventing crime and providing infrastructure falls on the populace, who should all help each other and provide for those left unable to provide for themselves by tragic accident. Of course, it doesn't really work that way, at least outside of small groups (in the low hundreds) of people, and certainly not without giving up all the benefits of a modern society, since people tend to stratify themselves within social groups, listening to people who are charismatic leaders, regardless of whether those people have any named power. Which then goes on to create warlordism, if there's no higher power stopping that from coming about.

[Mysteriousbluepuppet]

Mainiac, you clearly did miss the part of your history class when they used colonist to get access to valuable ressources and millitary. Troubles started after they started losing the empire, they were now pretty much down from 3rd trade power back then to something like 6 right now.  With China flooding the world with cheap anything, France just kept doing high priced work with high wagered workers. Works fine when you got a good industry, but when you get a few million immigrants more than jobs avalaible shit is going fan-ward pretty fast

[Phmcw]

OK, but then USSR isn't socialist either.
1) did too
2)The party has power over everything. The workers not so much.
3)Try, just try.
4)Herrrrr, no.
5)LONG LIVE THE MOTHERLAND.

1)USSR fought against everything socialism stand for.
2)ok, they claimed loud and hard that they were the only true socialist in the world.
3)they repressed worker's movement with untold cruelty.
4)they were very good allied of the Nazi for a while.
5) WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[Mysteriousbluepuppet]

OK, but then USSR isn't socialist either.
1) did too
2)The party has power over everything. The workers not so much.
3)Try, just try.
4)Herrrrr, no.
5)LONG LIVE THE MOTHERLAND.

1)USSR fought against everything socialism stand for.
2)ok, they claimed loud and hard that they were the only true socialist in the world.
3)they repressed worker's movement with untold cruelty.
4)they were very good allied of the Nazi for a while.
5) WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Actually, if you really believe that the USSR was a socialist country my opinion of the world will be terribly terribly damaged

[mainiac]

Okay, Communists =/= Socialists in the same way that Capitalism =/= Anarchism.

Anarchism == Communism, ultimately.

Look, it's possible for something to be "true" in politics without it being "correct".  Commies and Anarchists hold nearly diametrically opposing views in how things should be conducted.

[Phmcw]

I don't think that way of naming things is optimal. Even it's a bad chair, rusty, old, uncomfortable, menacing with steel spike, if it's designed as a chair it's a chair. National socialism is a perversion of socialism, just like USSR's authoritarian communism is a perversion of communism. Still it make sense to call them byproduct of socialism and communism.

[Dwarf]

How did National Socialism even stem from socialism?
It has nothing to do with it. The 'Socialism' was thrown in to get the workers, nothing more.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Okay, Communists =/= Socialists in the same way that Capitalism =/= Anarchism.

Anarchism == Communism, ultimately.

Look, it's possible for something to be "true" in politics without it being "correct".  Commies and Anarchists hold nearly diametrically opposing views in how things should be conducted.

You're confusing "anarchism" and either libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism. And perhaps the odd nihilist who calls themself an anarchist out of ignorance of the distinction.

[mainiac]

You're confusing "anarchism" and either libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism. And perhaps the odd nihilist who calls themself an anarchist out of ignorance of the distinction.

Certainly anarchists have more in common with the communists then the libertarians do, but they still have a lot of difference.  Even anarcho-syndicalists have big differences with the communists on idea's like a centralized economy.