The Nazi Party

Originally posted by Mythfury
The Nazi party, or the National SOCIALIST Workers Party is called communistic.Socialism and Communism aren't the same things...or are they? O.o
Anyone care to shed a little light on this topic?

The Nazis were not socialist, they were a far right fascist party modeled after the fascism of Mussolini.

You have to understand the history of that time. The people were mostly communists and socialists, they were the systems of the people. Hitler used the term Socialism for the same reason the USSR called itself communist, or America calls itself free, to FOOL the people. To make them think the party had their interests in mind.

The Nazis were fighting the anarchist socialistic in Spain before WWII started.

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production, the very thing the Nazis were fighting to deny the Spanish.

'National socialism' is an oxymoron, nationalism being 'government owned', and socialism being 'worker owned'.
The Nazis were nationalistic, highly militarized, and were social Darwinists, all aspects of fascism.

reply to post by cassandranova


Going alongside your socialistic examples I guess you could add the fact they built good strong bomb shelters for their people unlike Great Britain who let the working class take the hit literally.

reply to post by ANOK


But even Mussolini began as a proper socialist with Avanti. I think socialists like to talk about workers owning the means of production, but I can't think of one example where that ever happened in a communist, fascist, or other supposedly socialist state. There was always a government apparatchik involved.

Ironically, if your definition of socialism is workers owning industry, the capitalist west with stock ownership actually comes closest.

I think socialism has left the original Marxian construct you're using, and I'd use it more broadly to describe the social welfare state. And almost every well functioning government, and most democratic ones, employs at least some elements of socialist thought in their current structure.

reply to post by cassandranova


The reason that is, is really due to Leninist thought which obviously came popular after the Russian Revolution. He believed in a vanguard party to lead the workers to what would be a communist country. Sadly there really has never been a true communist/socialist state.

I'd agree though, the modern welfare state is what most people see as socialism today not the controlling the means of production.

Originally posted by cassandranova
reply to post by ANOK

 

But even Mussolini began as a proper socialist with Avanti....

There is no example of that happening because there has never been a socialist economy anywhere, except Spain for 2 years before WWII when they were fighting the Nazis. History should tell you where the truth lies.

The idea of the need to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism was widespread in the 1930s...

www.socialismtoday.org...

Whether Mussolini used to be a socialist I can't argue, not really my concern, it says nothing about socialism. Anyone in a position of power who claims to be socialist is probably confused or lying. Socialism is detrimental to power and control by individuals, or groups.

Ironically, if your definition of socialism is workers owning industry, the capitalist west with stock ownership actually comes closest.

Nope because stock owners are not the factory workers, they are in essence private owners who do not contribute to the labour. Socialism is the workers owning the place they work at, control of their own labour.

I think socialism has left the original Marxian construct you're using, and I'd use it more broadly to describe the social welfare state. And almost every well functioning government, and most democratic ones, employs at least some elements of socialist thought in their current structure.

I am not using Marxism. Marxism is STATE socialism, I support Libertarian Socialism, which is Anarchism, which is stateless socialism...

Anarchism is stateless socialism, Mikhail Bakunin

So, libertarian socialism rejects the idea of state ownership and control of the economy, along with the state as such. Through workers’ self-management it proposes to bring an end to authority, exploitation, and hierachy in production. This in itself will increase, not reduce, liberty. Those who argue otherwise rarely claim that political democracy results in less freedom than political dictatorship (although a few “libertarian” capitalist supporters of the “natural law” dogma effectively do so — see section F.7).

www.gonzotimes.com...

reply to post by NowanKenubi


Oh, Im giving you a star. I live in the states and I am disgusted by it. I want to move to a place like that. Libya actually had free medicine, free food, free housing. Free is a loose term. Not like its -given- to you, but it's more given to you because you need it to survive. The problem is money in my eyes. Our materialism has created our current day Greed. But what I am trying to say is how can we call a socialistic group, communistic? I agree, we need to mix and match our governments. The pro's and con's will be looked at, because communism was the idea of a perfect society, which would be socialistic, i may be answering my own question too, but what about capitalism? it was supposed to be about choice, but there's too much choice. We shouldnt need to hear "OMG. My phone sucks!" When they have an iPhone, and you still have a flip phone in 2011. There's too much.

reply to post by unknown known


I live in Québec, Canada, LOL...

In America... Just up the US East Coast. We give them much electricity because we produce way more than we need.

EDIT: I got to admit though that our nationalism has turned more to federalism, lately.

reply to post by NowanKenubi


Canada = my dream country. If Ron Paul doesn't get elected, i'm moving up there. Hahaha

Originally posted by Tea4One

I'd agree though, the modern welfare state is what most people see as socialism today not the controlling the means of production.

And that is the thinking that needs to be changed before anything will ever get better.

If people learned the true history of the labour struggle, and understood the terms used, in their true meaning when they were used, then their world view would change for the better.

reply to post by ANOK


Like I said, I don't mean to seem naive, it was just a question on my mind. But I like the things you said.

reply to post by ANOK


True, it is a major problem. Semantics change and some for the worst. Educating one person at a time slowly helps though.

reply to post by Mythfury


You'll be welcome!

As I said, I think that the real difference between socialism and communism is that you can get rich in socialism.

From my point of view, socialism is the crossing of capitalism and communism.

And while it is true some people will get the benefits without working or having to pay their share due to poverty, the idea is to provide equity to everyone.

( Sorry if I was long... daughter just got here from school! )

Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by ANOK

 

Like I said, I don't mean to seem naive, it was just a question on my mind. But I like the things you said.

No problem it's a complicated subject all around. So much of it has been twisted by people with agendas.

It seems all terms have multiple definitions depending on who you talk to. The right, in America especially, really re-wrote politics in the 50's to suit their agenda.

Traditionally left wing was anti-authority, with anarchism being the extreme. Right wing was pro-authority, with fascism being its extreme. The establishment was right wing, the capitalist class. The middle class was also right wing, as they were the supervisors etc., who supported the capitalist class in its exploitation of the working class, those who only had their labour as capital.

Libertarian was another term for Anarchism, first used by French Anarchist Joseph Déjacque in, 'La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social' published in 1858. It was associated by the American right in the 1950's.

reply to post by ANOK


People think of Anarchy in a bad way. As you stated above, Right wing was Pro dividing people, when anarchism is the opposite. Anarchism COULD work, its also closely related to peace. Jon Lennon - Give Peace a Chance was the song that came to mind.

reply to post by Mythfury


Don't be so quick to jump ship. We have a majority Government with a mad man at the helm, Stephan Harper. I really don't care, I am young, I don't feel he is affecting my immediate future but is probably messing it up for me down the road. I know he isn't the best we can offer our great country.

We are a lot better off than our American counterparts. Ya'll in trouble. I think if you are in the major american cities, you should look elsewhere to live. Those are not places you want to raise a family. The average person (family unit) needs 90 square meters to live comfortable. I'm talking places like NY/PHILY/LA where everything is so congested. You see those people straight LOSE it for no reason because their living quarters are too tight, uncomfortable. Good luck.

Originally posted by Mythfury
It kinda like the USA saying we are a democracy, promoting peace.

USA is not a democracy, we are a Representative Republic.

Common error by the ignorant.

reply to post by Carseller4


Representative imperialistic republic...plutocracy. Im not sure how to combine all of those into a coherant adjective. XD

reply to post by Carseller4


I didn't say we were a democracy? We are FFAAARRR from it dude. I was makin an example saying how NAZI's were socialists with a communistic regime, is like us saying we are a democracy.

reply to post by ANOK


Hey, guys. I don't want to sound harsh but there is a high level of ignorance going on in this thread. Way too much for me to point out everything, but I feel compelled to correct this post by ANOK (Please, don't feel like I'm picking on you).

Spain wasn't fighting the Nazi's. Spain was fighting a civil war and Germany was supporting the fascist Franco.

Franco and the military participated in a coup d'état against the Popular Front government. The coup failed and devolved into the Spanish Civil War during which Franco emerged as the leader of the Nationalists against the Popular Front government. After winning the civil war with military aid from Italy and Germany—while the Soviet Union and various Internationalists aided the Republicans,he dissolved the Spanish Parliament. He then established a right-wing authoritarian regime that lasted until 1978, when a new constitution was drafted.

Francisco Franco

Socialism and Nazism both profess to create a better society by subordinating the individual to society. Socialism attempts to do this by using the state's power to allocate resources taken from the individuals (taxation) to address social problems (poverty, education, healthcare, etc.) Nazism held the same beliefs as far as the necessity of subordinating the individual to the social good. Hence, National Socialism. But their vision for the future was (and remains) dramatically different from that of Socialists. While Nazis envisioned a future of racial purity (genocide) and military supremacy, Socialists envision of future of tolerance, equality, and brotherhood. Regardless of what your political views are, you can't equate Nazism with Socialism, even if they have one common element.