Hitler and socialism

Please stop saying Hitler hated socialism and/or was a capitalist

I don't know if you're all just idiots or if it's clever leftard propaganda, but

Nazism = National Socialism

Discuss.

Nationalism is traditionally rightwing, and we all know Hitler hated communism, and since the opposite of communism which also happens to be a traditionally rightwing thing is capitalism, therefore Hitler was capitalist.

Fascism is a form of free-market capitalism because it's less empathetic than communism.

Imperialism is peace, freedom is security, and nationalism is strength.

You're an idiot because you're so easy to rebut.

>>1
What is there to discuss, unless there is some huge conspiracy to warp history and make it seem as though the nazis were socialist when in fact they were not, the facts prove that they are very strongly related.

Both marxism and fascism and their related ideologies stem from Hegel and his ideas about how to fool people into bending over and receiving a thick long hard blam of tyranny.

>>2
Durr, no. National Socialism is mix of fascism, socialism and capitalistic. It's left-wing ideology. It's essentially fascist and capitalistic, but state works for "good" of selected national group in case of Nazis real aryans and political aryans(most of population).

Also note that Nazis deeply hated both capitalism and communism. They were fine with socialism as long as their race and moral beliefs were preserved. One fine example is they'd love to have free-schooling and wellfare for every Aryan worker, but would hate to have wellfare for jews or handicapped. That's what socialism in Nazism was about.

>>4
>>5
If that is so, Henry Ford was a leftist.

"As German bombs fell on London and Nazi tanks rolled over U.S. troops, Sosthenes Behn, president and founder of the U.S. based ITT corporation. met with his German representative to discuss improving German communication systems. ITT was designing and building Nazi phone and radio systems as well as supplying crucial parts for German bombs. Our government knew all about this, for under presidential order, U.S. companies were licensed to trade with the Nazis. The choice of who would be licensed was odd, though: while Secretary of State Breckinridge Long gave the Ford Motor Company permission to make Nazi tanks, he simultaneously blocked aid to German-Jewish refugees because the U.S. wasn't supposed to be trading with the enemy.
Other U.S. companies trading with the Third Reich were General Motors, DuPont, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Davis Oil Co., and the Chase National Bank. President Roosevelt did not stop them fearing a scandal might lead to another stock market crash or lower U.S. morale. Besides, the same companies that traded with Hitler were supplying the U.S., and some corporate leaders threatened to withdraw their support if Roosevelt exposed them. Henry Ford was a good friend of Hitler's. His book The Internatonal Jew had inspired Hitler's Mein Kampf. The Fuehrer kept Ford's picture in his office, and Ford was one of only four foreigners to receive Germany's highest civilian award. As for Sosthenes Behn, at the end of the war, he received the highest civilian award for service to his country - the United States of America."
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/EurMEast.html

ATTENTION OP:  Hitler died half a century ago.  Find something new to talk about.

>>1

YES, NAMES ARE PERFECTLY REASONABLE JUDGES OF THE ACTUAL GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMIC SYSTEM

I laugh every time the far right tries to denie the obvious facts that hilter was right wing.   just because his movement had the word socialism in it doesn't mean he's left wing.  If Conservative likes to call him self a liberal does that mean he's liberal.

>>9
He was a right wing socialist. Everything must be controlled by the state etc.. It's the very definition of socialism. Tyrants loev socialism.

your partly right. Hitler incorporated some parts of socialism into his goverment.  he also incorporated some right wing ideas as well

are we talking the traditional right wing (economic sense) or modern right wing (moral, values etc.) ? can it be clarify tiem now plz.

>>12
I was referring to right wing in the proto-holistic fashion sense.

Doesn't it say it self that Hitler could not have been a socialist since socialism is about equality and respect between different kinds of people?

The modern right wing is fairly socialist, i hate to sound like some moonbat but honestly the american right wing has alot in common with the nazi's. This is not ment to include any oldschool goldwater type conservatives but i think most of them have jumped ship since Bush senior.

moonbat is not as bad as being a wingnut so your safe

>>15
nah, you're not a moonbat, you're spot on. it's just that other people think when you say "the republican party is similar to the nazi party in some respects right now, in that they are right wing but socialist" people think you just said "omgz bush is nazi lolz" because they can't digest two bits of information without simplifying it into something that doesn't tax their brains so much.

>>17
just me again.

you know what i reckon the problem is? socialism and capitalism and fascism and all that shit- it means different things to different people.

socialism, it can mean retarded government handouts or it can mean principled and rational benevolence.

capitalism, it can mean a system of fair trade or it can mean corporate rule.

fascism also shares that kind of split perception in some respects.

we should probably stop trying to define isms altogether and focus exclusively on the policies themselves.

>>14
Durr, no. Socialism is about social services provided by government and socializing economy to be controlled by state. In Socialism key factor is that state tries to work for "good" of people. Nazis were exactly what acronym "Nazi" stands for, National Socialists. They worked for "good" of Germanic people and believed that state-serving Germanic people had rights to social handouts by Goverment. What you're thinking is communism or classical liberalism(and modern libertarianism).

>>19
Fail, Nazi is not acronym, its just an abbreviation of NATIonal, since in german, thats pronouced NAZIonal. Get it?

>>19
I disagree, I wouldn't say there is a "key factor" in socialism, but if there were one I'd say it was the idea of everyone being equal. That would be the entire foundation of the whole ideology.

>>21
That’s the foundation of many types of economic systems. For instance, libertarians believe everyone should be treated equal, does that make them socialist? Socialism is government control to promote economic equality; Germans did this but only with the white race. Hitler was able to circumvent the problem you’re getting at by the use of utilitarianism, the philosophy of a raging socialist.

>>20
na = national
zi = socialist

>>23
"The term Nazi is derived from the first two syllables, as pronounced in German, of the official name of the German Nazi Party, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. The Nazis did not originally refer to themselves as "Nazis," and instead used the official term, Nationalsozialisten ("National Socialists"). In German, Nazi mirrors the term Sozi, a common and slightly derogatory term for the Social Democratic Party of Germany (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands), the Nazis' main opponents before obtaining power."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi

>>24
NAtionalsoZIalistische

>>22
>Socialism is government control to promote economic equality; Germans did this but only with the white race.

Economic equality between a specific group of people is not socialism.

>>26
It is when you consider the ones not included to be sub-human; thats where the utilitarianism comes in.

I don't consuder them sub-human. Do you?

>>28

he's talking about nazi germany, not his own opinions.

>>26
then what is it?

>>25
So what your source, fool?
Ive posted mine.

>>29
So Hitler considered them sub-human, the same guy who thought he'd secure the future for the "pure race" and for some reason also hated Jews even though he couldn't find any racial differences, but he decided to kill them anyway?

>>2
"and we all know Hitler hated communism, and since the opposite of communism which also happens to be a traditionally rightwing thing is capitalism, therefore Hitler was capitalist."

The fact that Hitler despised communism does not make him a capitalist.  Hitler was far from a capitalist.  Actually, the government in Nazi Germany took a very active role in both the economy, and the lives of private citizens, and would be better described as socialist than capitalist.

"Fascism is a form of free-market capitalism because it's less empathetic than communism."

Free-market capitalism, unlike fascism, does not involve massive or stringent socioeconomic controls over private citizens and their private lives. 

It is a system in which the opposite is true:  that stringent socioeconomic controls are not present at all, thus making free-market capitalism nearly diametrically opposite fascism.

>>22
Thinking everyone should be treated equal and thinking everyone should be equal are two very different ideas, and tend to come from two very different ideologies.

Hitler was extremely anti-communist, that's not historical propaganda, it's fact.

>>15
"The modern right wing is fairly socialist, i hate to sound like some moonbat but honestly the american right wing has alot in common with the nazi's. This is not ment to include any oldschool goldwater type conservatives but i think most of them have jumped ship since Bush senior."

'Goldwater-conservative' and 'libertarian' are practically interchangeable from my standpoint.  I see there being a lot of confusion over terms.

When I talk with people in my area, we tend to use the term 'conservative' as though it meant a smaller and less intrusive government that wanted to more or less leave the people alone (essentially libertarianism). 

This is in pretty stark contrast to the CURRENT stand of the republican party, under which we have had an explosion-like increase in government power over both the economy, and over the lives of private citizens. 

I wouldn't even use the term 'right-wing' or 'conservative' to describe George Bush, considering he has doubled the size of the Federal Government under his tenure. 

In fact, I would be more inclined to use the term 'socialist' or 'fascist' to describe George Bush.  Either would work.  Yeah, Bush isn't advocating nationalization of industry, but he is indeed extending a lot of government influence into the economy and private lives of citizens, and centralizing government power, all very fascist traits indeed.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=fascism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=socialism

Hitler threw  left wing supporters both main stream and none mainstream into the camps. 
their is very little unbais info that can disprove Hitlers's Right wing idiology

I heard too

>>35
Anti-communist doesn’t mean anti-left; fascism is in essence very similar to communism. It’s damaging to think of the left and (modern) right as anything different, they are at a fundamental level the same.

Liberalism/Socialism has been the prevailing political idea fueling almost all governments for the last 100 years. Any dichotomy created between the modern left and modern right is based on nothing more then image; in other words modern politics is a sales pitch. In political philosophy it’s much easier to find similarities between JFK and GWB then it is GWB vs. lets say Paul Rudd, or Goldwater since he's been mentioned already. Thus its far more accurate to divide politics into left and right based on the contrast of the latter rather then that of the former.

Hitler was not a socialist. To claim that he was is ridiculous, given that he threw all the socialists in jail. He was a nationalist whose party claimed to be 'socialist' by their own special definition, which had few if any of the traits by which we recognise socialsim.

>>9 "He was a right wing socialist. Everything must be controlled by the state etc.. It's the very definition of socialism. Tyrants loev socialism."

Lousi the IV said "l'etat, c'est moi", which means 'I am the state'. That does not make Louis IV a socialist- he was a fucking king, for crying out loud. Socialisn means that 'property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control'- i.e. not under the control of a single man, like, oh, say, Hitler.

Sorry, I meant louis XIV, not IV. Roman numerals are lame, god bless those murederous Arabs for their numbers.

>>40
"Hitler was not a socialist. To claim that he was is ridiculous, given that he threw all the socialists in jail."

Nazi=National Socialist.  Yes, Hitler was a socialist.  He believed in very stringent socioeconomic government controls and government involvement in the economy, which, fyi, is practically socialism by definition.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=socialism

It is also practically fascism by definition. 
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=fascism

Funny how socialism and fascism are so alike.  Fascism supports stringent socioeconomic (this means control over both the economy, and an individual's private life) controls, as well as the centralization of authority and power.

Socialism, on the other hand, supports stringent government regulation and involvement in the economy, but does not state in the definition that this regulation will extend into a person's personal life, despite the fact that this ideology essentially necessitates the subjugation of individual liberties and rights for the sake of its' promotion.

To put it simply, from my viewpoint, socialism and fascism are both two cheeks of the same ass, and it doesn't surprise me that some of the biggest assholes in history liked one or the other, or some twisted combination of the two.

"He was a nationalist whose party claimed to be 'socialist' by their own special definition, which had few if any of the traits by which we recognise socialsim."

False.  Hitler actually advocated a great degree of government involvement in the economy.. even more government involvement than the current democratic party does in the United States.  The democratic party itself is arguably socialist, or at least has socialist tendencies.

"Lousi the IV said "l'etat, c'est moi", which means 'I am the state'. That does not make Louis IV a socialist- he was a fucking king, for crying out loud. Socialisn means that 'property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control'- i.e. not under the control of a single man, like, oh, say, Hitler."

Again, the definition of socialism: 

'Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.'

Socialism does not require a government by and for the people.  Socialism requires either a centralized government.  It does NOT require that this government is run either directly or indirectly by the people.  Read the definition.  Socialism, regardless of what the root-word is, does not necessitate that the people control the government.  Hitler's government is indeed a classic example of socialism.  It is also a classic example of fascism.

Look, the Labour party in Britain claim to be socialists. There is a high degree of government involvement in the economy. That doesn't change the fact that the British economy is ultimately a free-market capitalist economy, nor does it change the fact that said party has introduced private industry into many areas which were once sole bastion of the state.

Having bits of socialism tacked on does not make you socialist. Just because you're not an ultra-capitalist does not automatically mena you are a socialist. If you think the Democratic party is socialist, then you're off your rocker. They're not even close to left-wing.


Furthermore, you are failing to read the very definitions you are quoting. Observe:

From above definition of socialism: "in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government"

That means that production is owned by the government. Was this the case in NAZI Germany? No, it wasn't, because private companies were allowed to flourish, were actively courted by the state and were the bedrock of the economy. These companies were never nationalised, so the "means of producing and distributing goods" was not owned "collectively or by a centralized government". It may have been regulated, but that is the case in every modern state. Furthermore, that regulation resulted from the totalitarian nature of Hitlers Germany, not any socialist economic tendencies.

"To put it simply, from my viewpoint, socialism and fascism are both two cheeks of the same ass, and it doesn't surprise me that some of the biggest assholes in history liked one or the other, or some twisted combination of the two."

Communism /= Socialism. Don't confuse the two; it looks silly.

"Communism /= Socialism. Don't confuse the two; it looks silly."

I didn't confuse the two.

>>43
"Having bits of socialism tacked on does not make you socialist. Just because you're not an ultra-capitalist does not automatically mena you are a socialist. If you think the Democratic party is socialist, then you're off your rocker. They're not even close to left-wing."

Dems not even close to left-wing you say? LOL.  The democrats want to nationalize the health care industry.  Socialized medicine.. Wikipedia describes the party as being 'center-left'.  If the dems are to the left of center, that makes them more socialist than capitalist, right? Center-left, I would be inclined to describe as socialist, especially considering their apparent intent to socialize health care in the USA, raise price controls on labor, and in general increase the governments control over the economy.

Now, consider that Federal, State, and Local taxes consume 47% of the national income.  How much further to the left do we need to go to become 'Socialist'? How much government management of the economy does it take for you to say a country is 'socialist'? I'm not saying the USA is socialist, but Hitler was significantly farther to the left (in terms of economics, but not social issues), than the democrats.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/GreatLibertarianOffer.htm

"From above definition of socialism: "in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government"

To continue to fuel this discussion, here is another definition of socialism I'm going to offer (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism):
"An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists."

As stated, there are many variants of socialism.  Socialism and fascism both require stringent socioeconomic controls.  Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy.  An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are *CONTROLLED*  (regulated) substantially by the government.

Ok, so now we have a more general idea of what socialism is.  Socialism, generally, is significant government controls/intervention into the economy... speaking very generally.  It has many forms.  Intense state ownership, regulation, or 'control' of industry.  Socialism is not *just* state ownership of industry - there is more to it than that. 

"Communism /= Socialism. Don't confuse the two; it looks silly."

I didn't confuse the two.  I don't think I even mentioned communism. 

Hitler used planned economy, so does communism but the differences are that Hitler used it to found his war while communism use it to control expenses.

>>46
Wrong. They were both militarily aggressive despotisms, just that Germany was more developped. Had the communists rose to power instead of the socialists, world war 2 would have happenned anyway.

>>47
I don't think you get me there.
Planned economy is a cornerstone in communism. Hitler used planned economy but that doesn't make him a socialist.

>>45
"Dems not even close to left-wing you say? LOL.  The democrats want to nationalize the health care industry.  Socialized medicine.. Wikipedia describes the party as being 'center-left'.  If the dems are to the left of center, that makes them more socialist than capitalist, right? Center-left, I would be inclined to describe as socialist, especially considering their apparent intent to socialize health care in the USA, raise price controls on labor, and in general increase the governments control over the economy."

The democrats were in power for well over 8 years in the 90s, and socialism simply wasn't on the agenda. They are left wing relative to the Republicans, yes, but if you compare them to any of the left-wing parties in Europe (and I mean even the moderate ones) they look completely right wing. The Democrats may look left-wing in the highly conservative climate of U.S. politics, but as a standard they are not, or at least have appeared as such in government.

Furthermore, 'centre' does not mean capitalist. It means exactly what it says- something which lies between the extremes of the right/left model (which is itself outdated anyway). Centre-left does not mean socialist, by any stretch of the imagination. To say so is ridiculous. By your logic, Britain was a socialist state in the 1980s, when the British right-wing conservative party were in power under Reagons best friend Thatcher.

"I didn't confuse the two."

Well, you referred to socialism as having produced some of the greatest assholes in history. Now, unless these are socialists who you know personally who happen to be epic assholes, I don't see how thats true. Communism produced many brutal dictators etc, but as socialism is primarily an economic rather than political theory, there have been very few brutal socialist governments- none, in fact that I can think of. Socialism does not necessitate government oppression, unlike communism.

"As stated, there are many variants of socialism.  Socialism and fascism both require stringent socioeconomic controls.  Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy.  An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are *CONTROLLED*  (regulated) substantially by the government."

Regulation is not the same as control. There is a subtle but very important difference. For example, the U.S. government regulates U.S. companies (every government on earth does to some degree)- it does not control them however.

More importantly, simply controlling the economy does not make you socialist. What you do with the economy is also crucial.

The stringent economic controls you talk about resulted (crucially) for different reasons and to acheive different ends than those usually associated with socialism. Hitlers state first and foremost rejected democracy and was totalitarian- as such, it was necessary that it had massive control over all aspects of life. That does not make it socialist, as socialisms aim was/is to provide an economic system which benefits the lower-classes (even if that rarely worked in practice); government control was thus used to this end.

This NOT the case in Nazi germany, where government control had entirely different aims and as such simply CANNOT be described as socialism. Hitlers economic policies were based around producuing a strong army which could then be used to create a roman-style emperial economy- that control resulted from his racial-political ideology, which had nothing to do with economics, never mind socialism.

Every king of Europe once had total control of the economy by virtue of their being absolute rulers. It didn't make them socialists because their policies were not socialist in nature. Hitler was not a socialist; he was simply a despot, and despots can control the economy if they bloody well like. It doesn't make them socialists.

>>48
So when we are discussing how the state organises the economy the state is socialist, but when we are discussing what the state uses the economy for it is not socialist? This cannot occur since it is a contradiction.

Anyway the facts provided already prove that socialism utilises a planned economy in both situations.

Socialism paves the way for tyanny by placing it's ideology above justice and liberty. In the case of the nazis it was racial purity, which is another twisted form of equality.

>>50
That is not what I said.
What I said was planned economy and socialism is not the same thing. Planned economy is just a element of communism and
using 1 element from socialistic ideas does not make Hitler or Germany socialistic.

It's like the americans and the bible, they read and live the things they want to and ignore the things that doesn't fit them.

>>51
So what does socialism do then? How does it stop people from owning the means of production? Collective ownership? So how are all these people represented? By the state? So it's a planned economy? Right? The planned economy IS a fundamental element of socialism. The only differences between it and communism is that in communism the state owns people aswell as their property.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
+
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
=
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

>>52
There, you said it yourself: "he planned economy IS a fundamental element of socialism."

It's a part, not a fundamental part but atleast not the ideology itself.

This whole thread is illogical. Hilter having socialist leanings doesn't make conservatism inherantly good or socialsim inherantly bad. Nice try, guys. Get back to us once you graduate college and enter the real world.

If Hitler was a socialist then Hitler and Stalin would have teamed up and destroyed the America and Britain and taken over the entire world.

If Hitler was a socialist then the whole of Western Europe and the whole world would currently resemble North Korea.

>>50
I presume part of what you were saying is a response to my post, so I'll answer the bit that seems relevent.

"So when we are discussing how the state organises the economy the state is socialist, but when we are discussing what the state uses the economy for it is not socialist? This cannot occur since it is a contradiction."

No I'm simply pointing out that controling all aspects of the state (including the economy) is something that every despotic regime does- there's a wrod for that, and it's totalitarianism. Just being a totalitarian state does not make you a socialist.

Socialism is about controlling the economy in a certain way to meet a certain end- in general, to improve the conditions of the working classes and distribute wealth evenly. Thats what makes it socialism- those specifics.

In a totalitarian state the economy is controlled to meet whatever end that particular state wishes. But that does not make any state that does it socialist. Communist Russia was a totalitarian state that used its powers to create a socialist economy. Hitlers Germany was a totalitarian state that did not.

Part of socialism is government control of the economy, but that does not make every government that controls its economy socialist. Hitler may have heavily regulated the economy,  ubt shared none of the aims or concerns which socialism is designed around; indeed he was a long way off. All the French kings controlled their economies, but did so on such a fashion that was the complete antithesis of socialism.

Controlling the economy does not make you socialist- thats a stupid thing to say. I'm not defending socialism, as I don't think it works in most situations (though as can be seen in China it can form a valuable stepping stone to a free-market economy), but Hitler simply wasn't a socialist.

>>55
nice logic, i guess its safe for me to assume anyone with socialist leanings supports communism.

>>57
Actually I know lots of socialist anarchists and social leaning liberals who fucking hate communism.

>>58
Lies, you have no friends or acquaintances outside your immediate family.

Right wing americans are so full of shit.

>>58
Has no sarcasm detector

>>53
So their ideology was socialist, their economic policy was socialist and they even fucking called themselves socialist, but they just happenned to believe everyone should work for the collective, just happenned to have a planned economy and just happenned to call themselves the national socialist worker's party.

Fair enough, we'll leave the argument there. Whether the public believes that it is all a coincidence (they called themselves socialists for fuck's sake) or not is up to them.

Anit-smetic = right wing    unequal = right wing

need I say more

>>63
economic right wing != "values" right wing


need i say more.

i am 56 and i still fail to see answer

>>49
"The democrats were in power for well over 8 years in the 90s, and socialism simply wasn't on the agenda."

Clinton wasn't a socialist dem.  Not all dems are the same.

"They are left wing relative to the Republicans, yes, but if you compare them to any of the left-wing parties in Europe (and I mean even the moderate ones) they look completely right wing."

That's because europe is full of crazy pinko fuckers.  Wikipedia describes them as 'center-left'.  Dems are far from right wing.  Many within the party are no doubt at the very least borderline socialist.

"The Democrats may look left-wing in the highly conservative climate of U.S. politics, but as a standard they are not, or at least have appeared as such in government."

LOL.  More like:  'The democrats may look right-wing in the highly left-wing climate of european politics, but as a standard, they are not, or at least have appeared as much in government.'

Fixed.

"Furthermore, 'centre' does not mean capitalist. It means exactly what it says- something which lies between the extremes of the right/left model (which is itself outdated anyway)."

A centrist would be a mix of capitalism and socialism - what is generally referred to as a mixed economy.  If you travel further to the left than this, you are better described as socialist than capitalist in my book.  Likewise, if you travel to the right of this center, you are better described as 'capitalist' or pseudo-capitalist.

"Centre-left does not mean socialist, by any stretch of the imagination."

That's partly bullshit.  The democrats are, generally, center-left.  Some democrats might be more conservative than others, but the party as a whole leans more to the left than to the right.  The democrats are not more right wing than left wing.  The democratic party does lean to the left of the center, and is thus better described as socialist than capitalist, in a lot of cases.  The democratic party has generally adopted many of the former positions of the Socialist Party in the USA, incidentally, believe it or not.  Considering this, and that wikipedia describes them as 'center-left', I'd say it is easy to say they are better described as socialist than capitalist overall, and that many of the more progressive democrats are indeed essentially socialists.

"Well, you referred to socialism as having produced some of the greatest assholes in history. Now, unless these are socialists who you know personally who happen to be epic assholes, I don't see how thats true. Communism produced many brutal dictators etc, but as socialism is primarily an economic rather than political theory, there have been very few brutal socialist governments- none, in fact that I can think of. Socialism does not necessitate government oppression, unlike communism."

Pure horse shit.  Socialism, just like communism, ends up getting rammed down the people's throat at gunpoint.  Socialism, unlike capitalism, depends upon an authoritarian method of controlling the people and forcing them to comply with the government's economic schemes and plans. 

Here's one of history's most widely known and brutal socialists: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein

Socialism, whether you like it or not, is almost ALWAYS an authoritarian ideology.  In a capitalist system, you are FREE to decide to go live on a commune voluntarilly.  In a socialist system, you cannot go live in capitalist la-la land.  In a socialist system, if you don't go along with the economic and social schemes/plots of the government, you will be dealt with in a typical authoritarian manner.  In a capitalist system, you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as you don't violate the rights of others.

"Regulation is not the same as control. There is a subtle but very important difference. For example, the U.S. government regulates U.S. companies (every government on earth does to some degree)- it does not control them however."

Regulation is half-assed control.  It is indeed a socialist idea.  The more regulatory measures that are in place, the more socialistic the system.  The more 'hands off' or laissez-faire, the more capitalist.

"More importantly, simply controlling the economy does not make you socialist. What you do with the economy is also crucial."

Bullshit.  The definition does not specify that you need to do anything with the economy.  It simply states that the government plays a large role in the economy, period. 

"The stringent economic controls you talk about resulted (crucially) for different reasons and to acheive different ends than those usually associated with socialism. Hitlers state first and foremost rejected democracy and was totalitarian- as such, it was necessary that it had massive control over all aspects of life."

Hitler was a democratically elected leader, elected by the people.

"That does not make it socialist, as socialisms aim was/is to provide an economic system which benefits the lower-classes (even if that rarely worked in practice); government control was thus used to this end."

That might be the aim of some naive, ignorant, and in general misinformed idealistic socialists.  That is not the aim of all who fit the category 'socialist.'

"This NOT the case in Nazi germany, where government control had entirely different aims and as such simply CANNOT be described as socialism."

All you are saying is that because Nazi Germany's intentions were different from the intentions of other socialists, it doesn't make nazi germany socialist.  The definition of socialism doesn't say a thing about intentions, sorry.

'socialism

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.'

" Hitler was not a socialist; he was simply a despot, and despots can control the economy if they bloody well like. It doesn't make them socialists."

Hitler was a democratically elected leader.  He was elected by the people in what was arguably a legitimate election.  He was indeed further to the political left than the democrats, according to numerous sources, and according to simple fucking logic and dictionary definitions.  Now, you are just being stubborn.  Hitler was a socialist.  His brand of socialism may be slightly different in 'nature' than what you think of as socialism, but that does not change the fact that it is 'socialist' by definition.

>>55
"If Hitler was a socialist then Hitler and Stalin would have teamed up and destroyed the America and Britain and taken over the entire world."

Right, because all socialists just love each other.  There isn't any such thing as warmongering bloodthirsty socialists who want to spread their own brand of socialism throughout the world by force.

>>60
"Right wing americans are so full of shit."

Left-wing americans are even more full of shit.

>>68
no u


Also, if socialism = fascism then capitalism = anarchy.

>>66
Pop of Europe=730 million
Pop of USA=300 million
Do you mean that the minority should define concepts to the majority? Because here in europe, the majority has the defenition right, meaning that we are not crazy pinkos, its rather your political climate that is extreme.
Capitalism is the always authorian, it has never been achieved by peaceful means. Think those farmers of old wanted to be landless factoryworkers? What would happen to a factory if the cops would not protect the boss? It would be taken over by the workers in a matter of minutes, have happened over and over agian. The policemans gun is what is keeping the insurgence at bay, and this may remind you of another system which you seem to have a interest in. Also, imperialism is something that has always followed from capitalism. And imperialism is violent and authorian by nature. Did the chinese want to import opium from the brittish in the 19th century? No, they were forced at gunpoint.
Hitler was not elected to chancellor. Maybe you should reread this article about a great hero of capitalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler
One way of determining how socialist a person or a party is is by looking at his or theirs allies. Socialists often want to regulate the economy and expropriate private business, and they want to improve the workingconditions for labor. So socialists are backed by unions and hated by business owners (or capitalists as we call over here). Hitler destroyed the unions in germany, and he was backed by big business, among them Henry Ford. So either some capitalsits are socialists (?) or Hitler was not a socialist.

>>69
"Also, if socialism = fascism then capitalism = anarchy."

I'm not saying socialism is always fascism.  Fascism is indeed almost always socialism, on the other hand, since one of the characteristics of fascism is 'stringent socioeconomic controls'.  Look at the definition of fascism.  Fascism involves 'stringent socioeconomic controls'.  This is opposite capitalism, and indeed lies in the realm of socialism and socialistic policies.  Fascism is not right wing, it is left-wing.

Libertarianism lies on the opposite side of the political spectrum from fascism.  Libertarianism, by my definition, is lax or nonexistant socioeconomic controls, in stark contrast to fascism, which is stringent socioeconomic government controls.  The opposite of fascism is libertarianism. 

>>69 is right.

Pure socialism is pure fascism. Pure capitalism is pure anarchism.

>>71
No, the opposite of fascism is Anarchism, which by its nature is socialistic. Libertarian views are flawed in the sense that they believe that they can uphold capitalism without the state, but the only way the have anarchy is through the dissolusion the right to property, or rather, all property is owned by the collective and is under strict direct democratic control (all that affects you,  you should be entitled to affect). Libertarianistic anarchy is just feodalism at best and warlordlike despotism at worst.

>>73

Wow. That was so retarded it doesn't merit rebuttal.

You can have democracy without government? You can have collective but not private ownership? The contradicitions here are hilarious and not even hidden.

>>74
Well of course you can have democracy without government and laws.  Among your friends and family, do you decide by direct vote or by coercion?
Collective ownership. We in my city own the parks together. We are all responsible for their maintanence and we uphold this by paying taxes. Of course there will always be stuff you own by yourself, like your clothes and your toothbrush, but that is selfevident and i thought a academic as yourself would have picked that up.

>>75
Among my friends and family, I do whatever I want, if they want to do something else, fine, but we don't take votes. We discuss until we come to agreement.

How can an imaginary thing own something? Collectives are fictive, individuals are real.

And I've talked to your type before. The other guy used the word "possession" to differentiate. And interestingly, they used the toothbrush as an example as well. Ever trolled the FSP forums?

hitler changed the name of the party when he became leader to make it appeal to the dissilusioned german workers during the depression. there were no socialist aspects to the nazi party, it was spin/PR to improve marketability.
btw 9, totalitarianism is found in all political ideologies. Pure Marist theory (ie extream socialism) dictates that there would be no state whatso ever, that the workers would govern themselves. it is Maxism-Leninism and stalinism (if there is such a thing, it was just a totalitarian contiuism of Marxist-Leninism) that brings aobut the ideas of state control.

hitler and stalin were both totalitarian, but they were in no ways ideolgically similar.

Anarchism can be both collective and idividualistic, ie anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism are two broad anarchit groupings. seriously people read some books before answering questions on political ideology.

anarchism isnt the opposit of anything it is the extream of everything. (except liberalism who see the state as fundamental to ensuring freedom, although in some cases a necessary evil as in more classical liberal forms)

>>76
You discuss until you reach an agreement. And if complete agreement could be reached you would vote. You know what i mean stop maing yourself stupider than you are.

"How can an imaginary thing own something? Collectives are fictive, individuals are real."
Yeah, who ever heard about a company ever owning anything, or even being real? Or wait, you count that as an individual?

*if complete agreement could NOT be reached

Hitler was a right winger.  Though it can be said that his policies took some ideas from socialism.

>>81
Especially if you think some of the corporations as parts of the government.

Yeah, now it makes sense.

>>66
That's because europe is full of crazy pinko fuckers.  Wikipedia describes them as 'center-left'.  Dems are far from right wing.  Many within the party are no doubt at the very least borderline socialist.

‘Crazy pinko fuckers’ such as, presumably, Hitler. And no, ‘many’ democrats are not socialist. You simply believe this because of your misguided and frankly ignorant perception of what socialism is. I’m not a socialist; socialism is an economic model which in my opinion doesn’t work. That doesn’t mean that I’m not going to take you apart for your bull-headed ignorance.

”LOL.  More like:  'The democrats may look right-wing in the highly left-wing climate of european politics, but as a standard, they are not, or at least have appeared as much in government.'

Fixed.”

Hmmm, lets see. Add up all the true democracies in the world, and count the number which are as right-wing as the United States. The United states has NEVER EVER elected a left-wing leader. As in ever ever. The United States has NEVER EVER elected a left wing government. As in never ever. The United States is one of the most capitalistic nations on earth, and one where even being secular is frowned upon. But no, it’s not a right-wing political climate at all, is it?


”A centrist would be a mix of capitalism and socialism - what is generally referred to as a mixed economy.  If you travel further to the left than this, you are better described as socialist than capitalist in my book.  Likewise, if you travel to the right of this center, you are better described as 'capitalist' or pseudo-capitalist.

"Centre-left does not mean socialist, by any stretch of the imagination."

That's partly bullshit.  The democrats are, generally, center-left.  Some democrats might be more conservative than others, but the party as a whole leans more to the left than to the right.  The democrats are not more right wing than left wing.  The democratic party does lean to the left of the center, and is thus better described as socialist than capitalist, in a lot of cases.  The democratic party has generally adopted many of the former positions of the Socialist Party in the USA, incidentally, believe it or not.  Considering this, and that wikipedia describes them as 'center-left', I'd say it is easy to say they are better described as socialist than capitalist overall, and that many of the more progressive democrats are indeed essentially socialists.”

Complete bullshit. I’ll explain why.

First of all, making one step to the left IS NOT SOCIALIST. If you have a free market economy with limited government controls, but happen to have national health care and education, you’re not socialist.

Secondly, you’re foolish idea that left means socialism is mirrored in your belief that right means capitalism. Left and right are political terms, not economic terms. Socialism and capitalism however are exclusively economic terms. Yes, left-wing parties tend to have socialist leanings, and right wing parties tend to have capitalist leanings, but the terms are not mutually exclusive. You yourself are claiming that Hitler, who was right-wing, was socialist, and that the Democrats, who support a capitalist economy, are left-wing. Yet at the same time you want us to believe that once you are in any way to the left, you’re automatically socialist, and vice versa? You’re managing to make two incorrect statements that actually contradict each other. Wow, well done sir.


”Pure horse shit.  Socialism, just like communism, ends up getting rammed down the people's throat at gunpoint.  Socialism, unlike capitalism, depends upon an authoritarian method of controlling the people and forcing them to comply with the government's economic schemes and plans. 

Here's one of history's most widely known and brutal socialists: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein

Socialism, whether you like it or not, is almost ALWAYS an authoritarian ideology.  In a capitalist system, you are FREE to decide to go live on a commune voluntarilly.  In a socialist system, you cannot go live in capitalist la-la land.  In a socialist system, if you don't go along with the economic and social schemes/plots of the government, you will be dealt with in a typical authoritarian manner.  In a capitalist system, you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as you don't violate the rights of others.”

Wow, that’s great, except there are plenty of capitalist dictators too. Three of those people were communists, and one was a Baathist. All 4 were as such believers in totalitarianism from the beginning; socialism was merely their economic policy. Since Mao China has become capitalist, but it remains a one-party state. I only have to point at numerous European economies over the last 50 years which have at one point or another been inherently socialist, and yet entirely democratic. My point still stands- I cannot think of a single dictator who was a dictator because he was socialist- it’s an economic idea.

”Regulation is half-assed control.  It is indeed a socialist idea.  The more regulatory measures that are in place, the more socialistic the system.  The more 'hands off' or laissez-faire, the more capitalist.”

No it’s not. Regulation can mean anything. Applying the law of the land (for instance the constitution) to business is regulation. Having standards which a business must meet is regulation. It’s not socialism to prosecute the major figures at Enron, for example, but it is regulation. The more ‘laissez-faire’ an economy is, the more capitalist it is, that is true. But that simply means that the state should not try to control/influence market conditions. In practice, no state is completely removed from the economy. What’s more, getting involved does not instantly make you socialist. Pure capitalism does not exist; there are varying degrees. Furthermore, not being capitalist does not mean being socialist. There is more to it than how free the market is; whether (and how much) business can be privately owned is important as well. For instance, Jewish people could not own business in Nazi Germany, and so instantly that means that the market was not free. However, private companies were still the basis of the economy, and market forces operated within the country.


”Bullshit.  The definition does not specify that you need to do anything with the economy.  It simply states that the government plays a large role in the economy, period. “

Look, if you seriously think that a three-line definition is the be-all and end-all of a political theory, then you need to GTFO. Don’t be such a fool. It makes you look like an absolute joke when you state that anything beyond a summary you got from Wikipedia is not relevant. Good lord.


”Hitler was a democratically elected leader, elected by the people.”

No he wasn’t. He had just 33% of the vote and simply appointed by Von Hindenburg (the president who did it due to political intrigues, his fear of the communists and the misguided belief that he could be controlled). He then banned the main opposition party, outlawed press and arrested its leader (after the Reichstag fire), and only then secured a democratic majority. History FTW. Get your facts straight.


”That might be the aim of some naive, ignorant, and in general misinformed idealistic socialists.  That is not the aim of all who fit the category 'socialist.'”

What? God, that’s such crap. There is a reason that the socialist concept is designed with the sole intention of benefiting the lower classes and poor at the expense of the wealthy- it’s part of the reason it doesn’t work. That is what it’s meant to do, and what its followers believe it will do, so shut up.


 “All you are saying is that because Nazi Germany's intentions were different from the intentions of other socialists, it doesn't make nazi germany socialist.  The definition of socialism doesn't say a thing about intentions, sorry.

'socialism

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.'”

You know what I said about simplistic definitions and how they expose your general ignorance? Yeah, more of that.


“Hitler was a democratically elected leader.  He was elected by the people in what was arguably a legitimate election.  He was indeed further to the political left than the democrats, according to numerous sources, and according to simple fucking logic and dictionary definitions.  Now, you are just being stubborn.  Hitler was a socialist.  His brand of socialism may be slightly different in 'nature' than what you think of as socialism, but that does not change the fact that it is 'socialist' by definition.”

Arguably a legitimate election? He banned the largest opposition party for crying out loud, and before he had implemented ANY of his economic ideas had become dictator. He also spoke openly about destroying democracy at the earliest opportunity, long before the 1933 election, and so was clearly a despot, so he actually believed in despotism.

The communist party in China claims to believe in socialism. By your flawed reasoning, it’s just a ‘brand’ of socialism- one than believes in a free-market economy and private enterprise, and which is capitalist by all accounts.

If all you can do is flaunt dictionary definitions like they’re gospel and produce simplistic babble which misses the point, and intend to pursue political debate in the future, then prepared to get laughed at.

Or possibly elected president, if the Republicans run out of decent candidates or your dad happened to have the job previously.

THere is no such thing as the left-right scale. It is jargon and a very poor approximation of a person's political opinion. Unless of course that person strives to be as left or right as possible and doesn't care about anything else, in which case they probably suffer from a psychological illness and their judgement is in question.

>>83
"That's because europe is full of crazy pinko fuckers.  Wikipedia describes them as 'center-left'.  Dems are far from right wing.  Many within the party are no doubt at the very least borderline socialist.

"‘Crazy pinko fuckers’ such as, presumably, Hitler."

Yes, exactly.  Hitler was a socialist.  (Crazy pinko fucker.)

"And no, ‘many’ democrats are not socialist."

Yes they are.  They advocate all manner of socialist programs, and in general more government control of the economy, and in some cases individuals and their private lives as well.

"You simply believe this because of your misguided and frankly ignorant perception of what socialism is."

If you are to the left of center, and advocate socializing a few industries, you are at the very least somewhat describable as 'socialist'. 

”LOL.  More like:  'The democrats may look right-wing in the highly left-wing climate of european politics, but as a standard, they are not, or at least have appeared as much in government.'

Fixed.”

"Hmmm, lets see. Add up all the true democracies in the world, and count the number which are as right-wing as the United States. The United states has NEVER EVER elected a left-wing leader. As in ever ever. The United States has NEVER EVER elected a left wing government. As in never ever. The United States is one of the most capitalistic nations on earth, and one where even being secular is frowned upon. But no, it’s not a right-wing political climate at all, is it?"

What a load of bullshit.  Yes, there are a lot of religious nuts here, but there are also plenty of crazy pinko bitches of various kinds too, and believe it or not, they have won elections in the past.  Your claim that the United States has never elected a left wing government EVER is completely ridiculous.  What would it take for you to think that americans have elected leftists? Do you think that the government isn't 'leftist' unless the democrats have filled all positions in government, or at least control the senate, the congress, and the presidency?

”A centrist would be a mix of capitalism and socialism - what is generally referred to as a mixed economy.  If you travel further to the left than this, you are better described as socialist than capitalist in my book.  Likewise, if you travel to the right of this center, you are better described as 'capitalist' or pseudo-capitalist.

"Centre-left does not mean socialist, by any stretch of the imagination."

That's partly bullshit.  The democrats are, generally, center-left.  Some democrats might be more conservative than others, but the party as a whole leans more to the left than to the right.  The democrats are not more right wing than left wing.  The democratic party does lean to the left of the center, and is thus better described as socialist than capitalist, in a lot of cases.  The democratic party has generally adopted many of the former positions of the Socialist Party in the USA, incidentally, believe it or not.  Considering this, and that wikipedia describes them as 'center-left', I'd say it is easy to say they are better described as socialist than capitalist overall, and that many of the more progressive democrats are indeed essentially socialists.”

"Complete bullshit. I’ll explain why.

First of all, making one step to the left IS NOT SOCIALIST. If you have a free market economy with limited government controls, but happen to have national health care and education, you’re not socialist."

You are blurring a very big distinction.  We have public education because certain political figures of the past thought it was necessary for the preservation of other liberties.  National health care doesn't have jack shit to do with preserving liberty, it has to do with violating it.  The fact that you throw the two together like that is laughable.

Secondly, we are not taking just 'one' step to the left, we have taken MANY steps to the left.  Social security, socialized medicine (if the dems get their way), all manner of regulations for various industries (especially firearms dealers), welfare & other various social safety nets, the list just goes on and on.  The government is playing a massive role in the economy, and spends a huge portion of the national income, once you factor in local and state taxes along with the federal ones. 

"Secondly, you’re foolish idea that left means socialism is mirrored in your belief that right means capitalism. Left and right are political terms, not economic terms."

'Left' and 'right' are indeed political terms - with implications for the economic systems that tend to go along with the terms.     

"You yourself are claiming that Hitler, who was right-wing, was socialist, and that the Democrats, who support a capitalist economy, are left-wing."

Hitler was not right wing, not in the economic sense of the term, anyway.  'Right-wing', in the word's economic sense, tends to refer to those who think that the government should play less of a role in the economy.  Hitler did not think the government should play less of a role in the economy.  In Hitler's brand of socialism, the government played a very significant role in the economy indeed - the government and the corporations were practically in bed together.

"Wow, that’s great, except there are plenty of capitalist dictators too."

Did I ever say there weren't? Anyway, I think you would be rather hard pressed to find ANY 'capitalist dictators' who were anywhere near as violent, ruthless, brutal, or oppressive as many of the socialists/fascists I listed above. 

"Three of those people were communists, and one was a Baathist. All 4 were as such believers in totalitarianism from the beginning; socialism was merely their economic policy."

Yes.  Socialism was their economic policy.  Thus, they were socialists. 

"My point still stands- I cannot think of a single dictator who was a dictator because he was socialist- it’s an economic idea."

An economic idea that requires authoritarianism to be implimented. 

"No it’s not. Regulation can mean anything. Applying the law of the land (for instance the constitution) to business is regulation."

Yes, but the question is 'how much' regulation? If you have relatively lower amounts of regulation, taxation, and control of the economic sphere of things in general, you are more capitalist than centrist or socialist.

"Having standards which a business must meet is regulation. It’s not socialism to prosecute the major figures at Enron, for example, but it is regulation. The more ‘laissez-faire’ an economy is, the more capitalist it is, that is true. But that simply means that the state should not try to control/influence market conditions. In practice, no state is completely removed from the economy. What’s more, getting involved does not instantly make you socialist."

I'm not trying to say government involvement to any extent makes you socialist.  If that was true, wouldn't every government in history be socialist? I am not saying that.  What I am saying is that you need to have some sense of proportion.  If the government is 'center-left' it is clearly more socialist than capitalist, for example.  So for you to say that the democrats, a party describable as 'center-left' are 'right-wing', is completely absurd.

"Furthermore, not being capitalist does not mean being socialist."

Right.  It means you are either centrist, leftist, or socialist, depending on how far you think one must go to the left in order to be called a 'socialist'.

"Look, if you seriously think that a three-line definition is the be-all and end-all of a political theory, then you need to GTFO. Don’t be such a fool. It makes you look like an absolute joke when you state that anything beyond a summary you got from Wikipedia is not relevant. Good lord."

Don't you be a fool either.  Do you think all socialists are benevolent well meaning folks who just want to drop food out of the sky for all the poor people? Don't be such a fool.  There are plenty of socialist assholes.  Socialism does NOT specify what is to be done with the economy once the government controls it.  I was right.

"No he wasn’t. He had just 33% of the vote"

Yet still won the election. 

”That might be the aim of some naive, ignorant, and in general misinformed idealistic socialists.  That is not the aim of all who fit the category 'socialist.'”

"That is what it’s meant to do, and what its followers believe it will do, so shut up."

Not necessarilly.  The simple fact that many socialists think a certain way, does not mean that if you don't think as such that you aren't a 'socialist'.  You are trying to blur the feelings a bunch of people have with their political ideas.  The two are not necessarilly intertwined, and socialism doesn't, as you seem to think, require the former.

"You know what I said about simplistic definitions and how they expose your general ignorance? Yeah, more of that."

LOL.  I don't see any substantiation or proof yet, just mindless emotional drivel from someone who doesn't want to lose the argument.  Plz, don't respond until you have some actual facts to back yourself up with.

"Arguably a legitimate election? He banned the largest opposition party for crying out loud, and before he had implemented ANY of his economic ideas had become dictator."

Yes, he banned the largest opposition party - after being elected & attaining the power to do so via the election.

"He also spoke openly about destroying democracy at the earliest opportunity, long before the 1933 election, and so was clearly a despot, so he actually believed in despotism."

A democratically elected despot, sure.  The fact that someone believes in despotism does not mean that they can't run for office and become elected democratically.

"If all you can do is flaunt dictionary definitions like they’re gospel and produce simplistic babble which misses the point, and intend to pursue political debate in the future, then prepared to get laughed at."

And conversely, if all you can do is say that a want to help the poor is a requirement to be socialist without any substantiation whatsoever, be prepared to get laughed at.

“Yes they are.  They advocate all manner of socialist programs, and in general more government control of the economy, and in some cases individuals and their private lives as well.”

No they don’t. Of course, we have no idea what you believe constitutes socialism, but clearly it’s something which is discordant with more widely held beliefs about what is/isn’t socialism.

 
”If you are to the left of center, and advocate socializing a few industries, you are at the very least somewhat describable as 'socialist'. “

No you’re not. You are precisely that: left of centre. You cannot support a free-market economy based for the most part on the capitalist model and be socialist. If you have some social programs, then you simply have social programs. It doesn’t make you socialist. Allow me to be very clear: it simply doesn’t.


”What a load of bullshit.  Yes, there are a lot of religious nuts here, but there are also plenty of crazy pinko bitches of various kinds too, and believe it or not, they have won elections in the past.  Your claim that the United States has never elected a left wing government EVER is completely ridiculous.  What would it take for you to think that americans have elected leftists? Do you think that the government isn't 'leftist' unless the democrats have filled all positions in government, or at least control the senate, the congress, and the presidency?”

No, but a government which supported and then implemented notably left-wing policies would be something. The fact is, there has never been one.



”You are blurring a very big distinction.  We have public education because certain political figures of the past thought it was necessary for the preservation of other liberties.  National health care doesn't have jack shit to do with preserving liberty, it has to do with violating it.  The fact that you throw the two together like that is laughable.”

I never said it had anything to do with liberty, but the fact is that you can regulate education without having to have state-education. State education exists because it guarantees what is considered a basic right to citizens. Some governments view healthcare the same way. For example, in the UK there is both private and national healthcare, but the Labour government is now trying to introduce private companies into the education sector in the hope that it will form the basis of a new model. Labour is supposed to be a left-wing party, but now supports and encourages private education, whilst at the same time resolutely defending and modernising a much criticises national healthcare service. It’s an ideal example of how the simplistic view you subscribe to simply don’t hold true in the real world.



”Secondly, we are not taking just 'one' step to the left, we have taken MANY steps to the left.  Social security, socialized medicine (if the dems get their way), all manner of regulations for various industries (especially firearms dealers), welfare & other various social safety nets, the list just goes on and on.  The government is playing a massive role in the economy, and spends a huge portion of the national income, once you factor in local and state taxes along with the federal ones.”

Um, just so you know, if anything the U.S. economy is becoming more capitalist, as the move away from FDRs ‘New Deal’ towards neoliberalism over the last 25 years shows. What you are saying simply isn’t true.


”Hitler was not right wing, not in the economic sense of the term, anyway.  'Right-wing', in the word's economic sense, tends to refer to those who think that the government should play less of a role in the economy.  Hitler did not think the government should play less of a role in the economy.  In Hitler's brand of socialism, the government played a very significant role in the economy indeed - the government and the corporations were practically in bed together.”

And does that make him socialist? As I said before, no, because socialism is not a 3 line theory. Once you stop using a simplistic definition to make your point, you will understand this.


Did I ever say there weren't? Anyway, I think you would be rather hard pressed to find ANY 'capitalist dictators' who were anywhere near as violent, ruthless, brutal, or oppressive as many of the socialists/fascists I listed above. 

Well, there are several notable capitalist dictators, none admittedly as notorious as Stalin. But then again, slavery in Africa was the result of capitalist avarice at its most potent, as was most subsequent colonial activity. You don’t need to be a dictator to be a bastard.

”Yes.  Socialism was their economic policy.  Thus, they were socialists.”

Yes, but they were dictators because they were communist. There are lots of socialists all over the world (including, according to you, the Democrats) who support democracy. Hence, socialism /= dictatorship.


”An economic idea that requires authoritarianism to be implimented.”

You know, I did say something which you conveniently left out of that post:

‘I only have to point at numerous European economies over the last 50 years which have at one point or another been inherently socialist, and yet entirely democratic.’

That would be me, destroying your ‘point’.


”Yes, but the question is 'how much' regulation? If you have relatively lower amounts of regulation, taxation, and control of the economic sphere of things in general, you are more capitalist than centrist or socialist.”

Indeed, and if you support private enterprise and competition, then you would be more capitalist than socialist.


”I'm not trying to say government involvement to any extent makes you socialist.  If that was true, wouldn't every government in history be socialist? I am not saying that.  What I am saying is that you need to have some sense of proportion.  If the government is 'center-left' it is clearly more socialist than capitalist, for example.  So for you to say that the democrats, a party describable as 'center-left' are 'right-wing', is completely absurd.”

MY point was that YOU need to have some sense of proportion. If Hitler supported private enterprise and free-market conditions and did not seek to improve the lives of workers at the expense of private enterprise, then he was not socialist. He borrowed ideas from socialism, but used them to completely different ends, which is why a simplistic definition of any theory is foolish.


Right.  It means you are either centrist, leftist, or socialist, depending on how far you think one must go to the left in order to be called a 'socialist'.

You see, this is the problem. You’re defining your whole world by a left/right model which was dead by 1918. It didn’t apply in Hitlers time an it certainly doesn’t now.


”Don't you be a fool either.  Do you think all socialists are benevolent well meaning folks who just want to drop food out of the sky for all the poor people? Don't be such a fool.  There are plenty of socialist assholes.  Socialism does NOT specify what is to be done with the economy once the government controls it.  I was right.”

I have already said that I do not believe socialism works, and hence that I do not support socialism. I can only think of one country where it did (Sweden), and even there it was in a limited sense. Some sort of cross between elements of socialism in a fundamentally capitalist economy seems the best way forward, though no-one has ever really struck a perfect balance (and its doubtful anyone ever will- politics are never perfect).

Furthermore, if you even went to wikipedia you’d realise that their ‘definition’/summary of socialism itself describes it as a “broad array” of theories, recognising the huge complexity in defining such an opaque term. What’s more, I can tell you that any respectable description of socialism (i.e. any worth quoting in a discussion) would make some reference to its belief that property and distribution of wealth should be subject to public control- i.e. no private enterprise with the state owning the means of production.


”Yet still won the election. “

He didn’t ‘win’ the election. He didn’t have a majority. Von Hindenburg (the president) simply formed a government using his executive power because parliament lacked a decisive coalition. No single party won the election, and even beyond that, no-one could form a majority coalition.


”Not necessarilly.  The simple fact that many socialists think a certain way, does not mean that if you don't think as such that you aren't a 'socialist'.  You are trying to blur the feelings a bunch of people have with their political ideas.  The two are not necessarilly intertwined, and socialism doesn't, as you seem to think, require the former.”

Fair enough; I don’t claim that all socialist believe the same thing, but I think it’s fair to say that most socialists follow socialism because they BELIEVE it means a better deal for the ordinary man. It’s not simply a notion held by “some naive, ignorant, and in general misinformed idealistic socialists”, as you claim.



”LOL.  I don't see any substantiation or proof yet, just mindless emotional drivel from someone who doesn't want to lose the argument.  Plz, don't respond until you have some actual facts to back yourself up with.”

What, like pointing out that even books that criticise socialism don’t base it on a dictionary definition? Or that in fact you will never EVER find an academically respectable study on socialism or indeed ANY OTHER POLITICAL OR ECONOMIC THEORY which bases all its conclusions on a dictionary definition?

Do you mean ‘facts’ like those that show you were talking through your arse about the manner in which Hitler gained power? Stuff like that? Or the way in which every one of your arguments is based on a left/right model which is so outdated its not funny, and only taught in political science in a historical sense?


”Yes, he banned the largest opposition party - after being elected & attaining the power to do so via the election.”

You said:

‘Hitler was a democratically elected leader.  He was elected by the people in what was arguably a legitimate election.’

Hitler was not elected in to government. He was appointed by the executive power of the president, as his party did not have a majority and was unable to form one. To be a ‘democratically elected leader’ is to gain power in a democratic fashion, which he did not. The democratic system had failed, and as such the president used his executive power to override it.


”A democratically elected despot, sure.  The fact that someone believes in despotism does not mean that they can't run for office and become elected democratically.”

See above.


”And conversely, if all you can do is say that a want to help the poor is a requirement to be socialist without any substantiation whatsoever, be prepared to get laughed at.”

I didn’t say it was a requirement; it’s just a characteristic. You see, unlike you I’m not trying to define socialism in some narrow ‘tick the boxes’ fashion; nor would I with regard to any political/economic theory. Given that the worlds leading political scientists cannot agree on short definitions for just about any of the major political theories is an indication that debating with one you pulled out of a dictionary is, as I said, foolish.

Wow. Economically speaking he was more of a centrist, not a socialist. He was a despot, obviously, but he didn't want to control the people by controlling the economy, he controlled them by, you know, killing the opposition and eliminating civil liberties and brainwashing the hitler youth to make it seem like their nationalist goals were heroic and noble. Democrats are more economically conservative than Hitler.

"killing the opposition and eliminating civil liberties and brainwashing the youth to make it seem like their national socialist goals were heroic and noble"
Socialism.

>>88
Oh you are clever, actually changing my words. No, that has nothing to do with Socialism. And just because "Socialist" is the second half of Nazi doesn't mean that he was Socialist. Are the current Republicans in office actual Republicans? No, in fact I have heard that many a time on this very board, whenever someone calls Republicans retards there are 20 responses of "gtfo faggot libral the Bush administration and the congressmen are NEOCONS NOT REPUBLICANS DON'T EVER CALL THEM REPUBLICANS GRRRRR INTERNET TOUGH GUY"

Hilter was not a socialist for 2 important reasons.

1. He say socialists as a threat and jailed them

2. He Was racist and racism is not part of the in Socialist idiology.

you right about that.  
Hilter took a lot of diffrent ideas from diffrent political idiologies

Heil Finklestein!
Heil Katz!
Heil Moskowitz!
Heil Szenes!
Heil Weiss!
Heil Juden alles!
Sieg Heil!

sozis uber alles

>>90
Both points have nothing to do with him be socialist.

I believe he was technically socialist, but his brand of socialism is far different and possible far more radical then anything we know socialism to be today.

If we can consider Hitler a socialist (which is correct in my opinion) we can also consider most governments (good or bad) to be socialist and it opens up new positive examples for socialism to counteract the new negative ones. This argument no matter its outcome changes nothing.

>>94
 unfortuntly you are cherrypicking facts and ignoring facts that are inconvenent. 

Fact remain that hitler saw left wingers as threats and jailed them.

You forget that socialism has no place for racism.  racism is a radical right wing trait. 

make no mistake I do respect your opinion, however you need to do some more reasearch.

H

socialist myth busted.

>>95
Racism can exist in a socialist government if you make one assumption; that the people you are persecuting are sub-human and don’t deserve socialism's equality. Do you think people like Hitler actually view Jews/other races as people? What would you say if I told you that my cat deserves the same equal opportunity that everyone else is getting? You would of course laugh at such a thought. This is how fascist’s view people of other races, they do not give them the status of man and therefore do not give them the benefits. They instead give them the status of my cat.

Saw left wingers as threats? Yes he sure did, but it was based on his racism not on politics. Left wingers tend to be anti-racist but im trying to tell you that’s no the determining trait of what makes a person left or right. Regardless of what people think of America’s politicians, most if not all are anti-racist, does this mean we are all left wingers?

>>97


I demand healthcare for this guy's cat!

>>98
Racist.

>>99

You can't deny medical treatment just because the cat's racist.

>>84

True.

Especially Hitler wanted to mobilize all the people politically. In this case, I think it is too socialist.

Hitler was all about DER VOLK and stuff.

Nazism = National socialism
Communism = International socialism

>>100
You are racist.

>>86
"“Yes they are.  They advocate all manner of socialist programs, and in general more government control of the economy, and in some cases individuals and their private lives as well.”

"No they don’t."

Yes, actually they do.  If you are going to refute my statement, how about you offer something a little more significant than:  'nuh uh!!!1'  ?

"Of course, we have no idea what you believe constitutes socialism,"

I have already told you what I believe constitutes socialism.  I gave you several definitions from acceptable sources.

"but clearly it’s something which is discordant with more widely held beliefs about what is/isn’t socialism."

What is the widely held view is really beside the point.  It was the widely held view that the earth was flat a while ago, this does not make it true.  I have acceptable sourcing stating that my view is the correct view of what socialism is.  Thus, it is fine for me to refer to those who fit the bill as 'socialists.'

"No you’re not. You are precisely that: left of centre. You cannot support a free-market economy based for the most part on the capitalist model and be socialist.  If you have some social programs, then you simply have social programs. It doesn’t make you socialist. Allow me to be very clear: it simply doesn’t."

I'm not saying having social programs makes one socialist.  It is all about proportion.  How much of every dollar does the government spend? How much control does the government exert over the economy through regulatory and or other measures?  You need a sense of proportion, and you need to take these things into account before you make a decision. 

"No, but a government which supported and then implemented notably left-wing policies would be something. The fact is, there has never been one."

Yes there has.  FDR implimented many noteable leftist policies.  Many of the policies he implimented had respective mirrors in the Soviet Union.  What about social security? What about welfare? Your assertion that no leftist government has ever been in power or promoted/implimented ideas that could be considered 'leftist' is really absurd.  We have many social programs right now, and the governments who put them into play were indeed leftist governments, or at least acted as though leftist.

"Labour is supposed to be a left-wing party, but now supports and encourages private education, whilst at the same time resolutely defending and modernising a much criticises national healthcare service. It’s an ideal example of how the simplistic view you subscribe to simply don’t hold true in the real world."

What the fuck? So because some groups are of mixed political views, I am wrong? I don't fucking think so, sorry.  There is a word to describe those people:  centrists. 

"Um, just so you know, if anything the U.S. economy is becoming more capitalist, as the move away from FDRs ‘New Deal’ towards neoliberalism over the last 25 years shows. What you are saying simply isn’t true."

Oh? I guess you conveniently ignored the fact that 47% of the national income is consumed by taxes.  What percent of the national income would it take for you to say we were no longer capitalist?  What percentage would it take for you to say we are socialist?
(http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/GreatLibertarianOffer.htm)

"And does that make him socialist? As I said before, no, because socialism is not a 3 line theory. Once you stop using a simplistic definition to make your point, you will understand this."

I am going to continue to use the actual definition of the word, rather than whatever vague unpronounced definitions of what socialism really is that you seem to hold. 

"Well, there are several notable capitalist dictators, none admittedly as notorious as Stalin. But then again, slavery in Africa was the result of capitalist avarice at its most potent, as was most subsequent colonial activity. You don’t need to be a dictator to be a bastard."

Of course.  I am not saying you DO need to be a dictator to be a bastard.  You should also take note of the fact that, once the libertarian ideas of the american founders reached Africa, they helped the movement to dump slavery there. 

"Yes, but they were dictators because they were communist. There are lots of socialists all over the world (including, according to you, the Democrats) who support democracy. Hence, socialism /= dictatorship."

I didn't say it did equate to dictatorship. 


"You know, I did say something which you conveniently left out of that post:

‘I only have to point at numerous European economies over the last 50 years which have at one point or another been inherently socialist, and yet entirely democratic.’

That would be me, destroying your ‘point’."

Democratic does not mean non-authoritarian.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=authoritarian)


"MY point was that YOU need to have some sense of proportion."

Really? So was mine. 

"If Hitler supported private enterprise and free-market conditions and did not seek to improve the lives of workers at the expense of private enterprise, then he was not socialist."

The desire to improve the lives of workers or lack thereof does not disqualify Hitler from being considered a socialist.

"He borrowed ideas from socialism, but used them to completely different ends, which is why a simplistic definition of any theory is foolish."

The ends to which he used them to are irrelevant.  The definition does not necessitate that the socialist economic policies he impliments be used to forward some particular ideal.  The definition is the definition, and that is all there is to it. 

"You see, this is the problem. You’re defining your whole world by a left/right model which was dead by 1918. It didn’t apply in Hitlers time an it certainly doesn’t now."

No I'm not.  I use the left-right scale purely in terms of economics, and really not much else.  The fact is Hitler was definitely not a right-winger in economic sense of the word that I subscribe to.  Don't try to push Hitler into the economic 'right-wing' camp, he doesn't belong here. 

You can call the economic 'right' economic libertarianism, or fiscal conservatism, or whatever else.  It really doesn't matter to me.  I just happened to be using the term 'right-wing' to describe this set of views.   If you'd rather I used the term economic libertarianism or economic liberalism, that'd be fine with me as well.

"He didn’t ‘win’ the election. He didn’t have a majority."

He had a higher percentage than the other candidates.

"Fair enough; I don’t claim that all socialist believe the same thing, but I think it’s fair to say that most socialists follow socialism because they BELIEVE it means a better deal for the ordinary man. It’s not simply a notion held by “some naive, ignorant, and in general misinformed idealistic socialists”, as you claim."

Fine.  But nor is it a *requirement* to be a 'socialist' as you asserted.

"Or the way in which every one of your arguments is based on a left/right model which is so outdated its not funny, and only taught in political science in a historical sense?"

As I said before, I consider the right/left scale to apply only to economics.  If you'd rather I replaced 'right' with 'economic libertarianism', or 'fiscal conservatism', that'd be fine with me.  It was merely my choice of wording, nothing more.  When I say 'right', I am referring to the 'economic right'.  To stop the confusion, I'll refer to it as economic libertarianism in the future.  I am not, as you say, attached to right/left.

I JUST WANT TO LLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Socialism works splendidly in theory, it just leaves a bad taste in the mouth of those that expect natural selection to take place in modern society. With new advances in gene manipulation and human augmentation I think that socialism could work very well for Western Nations in the future.

Because socialism takes the vote away from the retard, and in a society with widespread human augmentation, there are no retards because human beings are capital and bred for a purpose.

Hitler's awesomeness amazes me to this day.

>>106
Sounds good, in theory.

>>106

Nothing's perfect in the world of political administration. Left wing or right wing... it is all shit at the end.