Is it true that Nazism was a form of Socialism?

Discussion in 'History' started by Bowser, Dec 2, 2016.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,268
    Yes it is based on defining a group, asserting the need to belong to and defend the group and give the group primacy over the individual. As you say, these goals can elegantly be met by appealing to a fear of, and/or contempt for, those outside. I suppose in away it is a sort of supercharged tribalism.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,333
    No, I pointed out that it was not based on nationhood, and pretty much ignored national boundaries in its provenance - it was based on the idea of a superior kind of of "Volk", or people, scatter around the entire Mediterranean, tracing their lineage from the conquering tribal Romans of the Roman Empire. This notion of a superior Volk united by a common heritage myth is much closer to racial superiority than it is to nationhood, and hardly involved nationhood at all in any of the four examples.
    And of the four, Falangism is the most questionable in its characterization as "fascist" - with observers pointing to its unusual identification of its Volk on the basis of religion, related differences in common economic structure, etc. Those who argue for it being truly fascist point to the historically mythological and irrevocable nature of the religious identification of its Volk, just like a "race" (Irish, French, and German Catholics were excluded, as they did not share the heritage involved) and its firm basis in corporate capitalist economics, and its centralized authoritarian governance.

    In other words, it's definitely not socialist, and that argues for greater similarity with other fascist governments, more tendency to label it "fascism", rather than less.

    Fascism is not a form of socialism, in other words. The attempt to label it so is an American propaganda effort with the obvious benefit of deflecting the label "fascist" from the American fascist movement as it gains power.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,268
    Ah I see what you mean. But I still don't agree. It seems to me the imperialist designs of fascist Italy were based on cultural claims rather than racial ones.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher

    Messages:
    4,998
    Does this mean that the anti-trump movement, by the left, is using fascist techniques to rally the troops? The left has been trained to fear and doubt Trump to the point of irrationality. The movement is not rational,

    For example, Trump made an early distinction between illegal and legal immigrants. The left, on the other hand, tried to sell the notion Trump was against all immigrants, legal and illegal, vetted and not vetted, etc. The left used a fascist technique to multiply fear in their base. Trump put the dividing line between the good and the evil. The left lump good and evil as one thing, based on color or race, like a fascist would. Fearing evil people is not irrational. But fearing all immigrants would be irrational. The latter is what the left teaches its base, against its political enemy.

    Black Live matter and cop killings is Fascist. It does not make distinctions based on character on both sides, but lumps all to amplify the fear. If you have a criminal record that needs a binder, it is not racist for cops to keep an eye on you. If you are a rookie cop who has never fired your gun on the job, you are not one of the bad guys to be assassinated. The Fascist will not see it that way, since only belonging to a group is grounds for action.

    Many of the universities are taught by fascist leftist, who will not actively recruit conservative to make their university more intellectually diversified. It is not about ability but fear due to an association to a group.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2016
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,268
    I think what people most fear about Trump is that he is a serial liar, a bully, a sexist and someone quite willing to be associated with racism. You don't have to be on the Left to despise such a person - and to fear him when a powerful nation has ignored these vices and elected him to power.

    I voted conservative in the last 3 UK elections, but when I found that Theresa May was proposing to invite Trump on a state visit, I wrote to my member of parliament to protest - the first time I have done such a thing in my life.

    I think this is a time - in UK politics as well as US politics - where those of us who are now sneered at by people like Trump (or Farage or May) as members of an "elite", because of our education, our profession, our experience of living abroad, or our marriage to someone from overseas, need to stand up and be counted. We need to call out lies, bullying and ignorance for what they are, and we need to show the utmost disrespect, within the law, for people such as Trump - president or not. It may be that parallels with 1930s Europe are overdone, but the silence, at that period, of people who knew better, is something we had better not repeat.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2016
    joepistole likes this.
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,152
    And what "fascists techniques" would those be and please do be specific? And what about the right wing anti-trump movement?

    Why is the movement not rational? Again, please be specific.

    Well, that's not very honest, is it? Trump has made several statements regarding immigration and immigrants. His statements regarding immigration have been inconsistent and often contradictory. Trump has spoken out against both legal and illegal immigrants. He harangued Clinton for her support for the acceptance of refugees, i.e. legal immigrants. Trump has advocated a ban on all Muslims traveling to the United States legal or otherwise. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/

    Care to back up any of that gobbledygook with evidence and reason?

    Black lives do matter. All lives matter. But killing cops isn't fascist. It's illegal. There is a difference. The left doesn't endorse killing cops. President Obama and other "left wing" leaders have repeatedly spoken out against all violence. The irony here is that the few cop killings that have occurred have been perpetrated by right wingers.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ers-were-calculated-murder-des-moines-n677421

    "A YouTube video uploaded last month was purportedly taken by Greene (the alleged murder) after he was thrown out of a high school football game. Police confirmed he was ousted from the Oct. 14 event after waving a Confederate flag in front of black spectators, prompting others to complain." NBC

    Again do you have any evidence or reason to support your assertions? If you do, not is the time to show it. But you don't. You never do. Because your machinations are fictions based on nothing more than the fake news which is so popular with the American right wing and upon which the right wing has become so dependent.

    "Many universities" are not taught by fascists. You should ask yourself why right wingers like you hate institutions of higher learning? Why is it you are so against education? Why are you so against knowledge and freedom of speech, and thought? When the enemy becomes education and freedom of thought as it has become with the right wing you represent, that should be a clarion call for concern. When your movement is driven by and dependent upon fictions as it has become, that should be a clarion call for concern. Why did Mao declare war against intellectuals? Why is it Republicans are doing the same?[/QUOTE]
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,333
    I have no real quarrel with you there - one can make a similar point about the anti-Semitism and Aryan supremacy of the Nazis being essentially cultural, rather than racial. Again, the question of whether racial bigotry is a necessary component of a truly fascistic political movement, rather than merely a convenient lever, is up for debate in the US, and I don't have a dog in that one.

    I do have a dog in the efforts to label fascism a leftwing ideology, a branch of socialism, socialist, etc. That is a serious and crippling deception, in the US at least, and we should dig our heels in on that one. The current fascist politicians and Party in the US should not be allowed to duck that label at all, much less affix it to their opponents.
     
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,542
    In the pedantic definitions of communism and socialism (which today are only used by pedants), the major difference is that under communism, the state owns all of the means of production; whereas under socialism there are a variety of types of ownership, from people voluntarily creating collectives, to individual ownership of fragments of ownership as in a stock market. However, state ownership may also occur under socialism.
     
  12. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,781
    The definition of socialism that I found states: "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

    I see regulation being a good part of our system, though we don't outright own the means of production.

    The simple definition for communism is as follows: "a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

    My thought is that either way you turn, the two philosophies seem to rely on public control over productivity. Both rely on central (government) management over resources.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,333
    Do you intend to substitute "government" for "community"? In which case all government would be socialist (Then why do you need the word?). Or do you have examples of governments that do not regulate any of that stuff?

    Or does that definition have some obvious flaws?
    Would you regard your local volunteer fire department as an example of central government management?

    Try this: regulation is not "control". Community ownership or control is not the same as central government ownership or control. All governments regulate - socialist or not. And so forth.
     
  14. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,781
    In an ideal society the government should represent the community, agreed? I personally believe some regulation is a good thing, but it can also be inflated. It does add cost to production, which is why so many manufacturers have fled overseas. I do think we, us society, do flirt with socialism to a degree.

    I imagine it is managed by government rules. Certainly we can just jump on a passing fire truck and take part in fighting a fire. Yep, I imagine it is managed by higher authority.

    I think regulations are a flirtation with socialism. Yeah, most nations do. I'm not saying regulation are always a bad thing, but they are an example of the government inserting itself into the market.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,333
    Regulation is a function of all government. It has nothing to do with socialism in particular.

    The US doesn't even own its national central bank. Its latest attempt at health care policy involved mandating that everybody buy insurance on the private capitalistic corporate market. Its largest even nominally socialistic institution, discounting the military, is a retirement pension setup financed by specifically taxing wages, rather than income from capital, that only pays to people who have worked at a wage job or their dependents. Socialism is not exactly a looming threat around here.
    You don't have to "imagine" - walk over and ask. There is no central government running everyone's local fire department.
     
  16. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,781
    It's far from an ideal capitalist's wet dream. Would you agree?

    I think any attempt to compel others to act towards a greater good is socialism, more so when the government is enforcing the deed. Pure capitalism, though dangerous in its most raw form, is not what we have. But you're right, we are far from a socialist utopia. I'm of two minds on the matter: I believe capitalism is a good thing, but I also believe it needs oversight.

    I believe all our fire fighters are paid employees of the city or the county.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,333
    I don't know what an "ideal capitalist" is. The capitalists that associate with fascist governments have no quarrel with regulation, as their favored status exempts them and it afflicts their competition, labor sources, etc, - giving them great advantage. In general capitalists favor onerous regulation, but only of other people - favoring monopoly by them.
    Well that's simply wrong.

    On the one hand, Socialism is associated with a variety of governing ideologies, many of which say nothing about the "greater good", some of which (the more utopian or idealistic libertarian ones) involve very little in the way of compelling anyone to do anything.

    On the other, many ideologies feature compelling people towards a greater good, without being in the least socialistic. Theocracies and monarchies for example, often feature compelling "others" to act towards a greater good while being based in feudalism or mercantilism (or even capitalism) rather than socialism.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2016
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,152
    And what is a "capitalist wet dream" exactly...the good old days when bank runs, depressions and hyperinflation were commonplace? There are reasons why we are where we are today. There are reasons why we have the institutions we have today. We didn't wake up one day and put this all together. It has evolved over the course of centuries.

    Well, that's why we have dictionaries and word definitions. That's not how socialism is defined. Altruism isn't synonymous with socialism.

    You are correct in this, capitalism isn't without its drawbacks. That's why we have a mixed economy. That's why every advanced economy has a mixed economy. It works. It works best. It works better than communism and it works better than unchained capitalism.


    I believe all our fire fighters are paid employees of the city or the county.[/QUOTE]
     
  19. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,781
    To some extent that does work for the larger monopolies. Yet they will still venture towards the least amount of regulation when the opportunity is available. The least number of reg's always benefits the bottom line.

    I believe the whole point of socialism is to benefit the greater good of the community. It requires adherence to an artificial mandate.

    I wouldn't argue that point.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,333
    The least number of regulations on them benefits their bottom line. Regulations on others is an entirely different matter, and if they can they will influence the government to impose many such, to their benefit. Licensing requirements, for example, and other barriers to entry in a field, are much favored by the already established.
    Lots of different setups are intended to benefit "the community" that adopts them - capitalism, feudalism, etc. It's a common ambition of people setting up their governments and economies, regardless of the setup they choose.
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,894
    What unbiased information are you having trouble finding? Part of your problem, historically speaking, is your love for biased information. Like your uncited political definition of communism↑. When you're not looking for functional definitions, you're going to end up with a lot of biased definitions.

    See, that's the other problem with dishonesty; granting the presupposition that you actually know what you're talking about, that brings the grand total to one. For the rest of us, it's just the sight of an embittered person pretending he's stupid. And, frankly, that's kind of sad.

    So let's start with that, Bowser: Where did you get that political definition?

    Part of the problem, over the long run, will be breaking you of the habit of accepting definitions simply because you think they're what you want to hear. So perhaps your political definitions are a good place to start. Remember: The cause should serve people; we should not be slaves to our causes.
     
  22. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,781
    Google.

    Not a slave to any cause, thought I do lean in one direction or another when it appears relevant. As far as serving the people, that depends on the value of the proposition. In the larger picture, I do value capitalism and the success it has given us, yet I also value some socialists values that temper capitalism.

    As far as Nazis and Socialism, most information given concerns war, holocaust, and politics. I do know that they pulled themselves out of economic chaos. Whether that was due to socialism or some other economic policies, I'm not certain.

    As far as being "bitter," I feel it only when reading your posts, Tiassa.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2016
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,894
    Well, there's your problem right there. Overall, "Google" itself is unreliable as a source citation for this sort of thing.

    Well, how does that relate to the asserted dearth of "unbias info"?
     

Share This Page