[RonPaulalways]

It IS. The only one that's accurate.

There is no scientific/standard definition for socialism. NAZIs considered themselves socialists, and depending on what definition of socialism you're using, they were to a large degree.

[Phred]

No, you're conflating and misleading about what socialism is.

Socialism is;

1. Democratic control of the political system

2. Worker's councils running the economy

3. Total public ownership

YAY! Finally a Socialist comes out and tells us what Socialism is. Redcarpet, do us all a giant favor and post your definition in this eighteen page thread -

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=92947

- so we can finally be done with it. While you're at it, get the moderator to sticky your definition at the top of the forum.


Phred

[Sapper]

You're assuming your definition of socialism is the only one, it isn't, and you should be aware of that when interpreting others' statements. Obviously to the third Reich, their government was socialist, hence the use of the term in their party name.

Socialism is not merely state control or intervention in the economy. The welfare of the workers and betterment of the lower class is essential to socialism. Nazi Germany did not engage in this, as can be seen by its abolishment of trade unions, for instance.

YAY! Finally a Socialist comes out and tells us what Socialism is. Redcarpet, do us all a giant favor and post your definition in this eighteen page thread

I can't imagine why this would be hard.

[The Immortal Goon]

there are multiple forms of leftism. Whether it's socialism, such as Nazism in Germany, communism in North Korea or liberalism in the West, it's all leftism

The guy's an idiot. I didn't need to read anything else. If you don't know what Nazism is then I don't really have time for you.

You're assuming your definition of socialism is the only one, it isn't, and you should be aware of that when interpreting others' statements

Typical Libertarian, make up new definitions for words and then rant and rave about people not accepting your wacky concept that doesn't make any damn sense.

At least making up new words is more subtle than what a lot of the harder right does by insisting that facts - from the media, academia, logic, and science - are in a grand conspiracy to make them seem wrong.

[Phred]

I can't imagine why this would be hard.

I wouldn't have thought so, either. However, the thread I linked is in fact eighteen pages long and they're not done yet.




Phred

[NoRapture]

People shouldn't bother with shit like this. It devalues everyone.

[Noelnada]

People shouldn't bother with shit like this. It devalues everyone.

It's not worse than watching MTV for 5 minutes, honestly

[SpiderMonkey]

Yet another retard fails history by equating the Nazis to socialists.

It was just a name. It had no bearing on their decidedly un-socialist policies. They included both communists and trade unionists in their mass murders, and they purged the 'left' of their party, such as it was, very early on.

Of course, that would take a while to say. Lesser minds prefer the soundbite of 'Nazi=National Socialist OMG!!!111'

[RonPaulalways]

NAZIs were socialists, it was in their name. National SOCIALISTS!

They included both communists and trade unionists in their mass murders

Because they considered communism a Judeo-Bolshevik movement to undermine the German race.

"They killed socialists so obviously they can't be socialists OMG!" is not a compelling argument.

[redcarpet]

NAZIs were socialists

No they weren't neither in policies nor in their own personal view.

it was in their name

SO WHAT?

Australia is a 'Commonwealth' when it's still got a monarch as head of state. China is a 'People's Republic' The USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Right-wing nutjobs like you don't know what socialism is anymore than you don't know the difference between internationalism and imperialism.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Internationalism is imperialism, but you're right, the Nazis were not nearly close to socialist. They were corporatist, at best. They never transfered over the means of production to the workers and operated on a purely capitalist basis.

[redcarpet]

Internationalism is imperialism

Not to divert the discussion, but please explain to me how, in your view, they are the same thing? To me that's absurd.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Not to divert the discussion, but please explain to me how, in your view, they are the same thing? To me that's absurd.

In some kind of alternative reality, internationalism is not imperialism. As it stands right now, internationalism is used to enforce a Western status quo and to serve as initiation into imperialist cliques. NATO, WTO, UN, NAFTA, they all serve American interests rather than their designed purpose.

In my opinion, and I'm sure many would agree, international bodies are only used to serve the interests of the largest country.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
NAZIs were socialists


No they weren't neither in policies nor in their own personal view.

According to your definition they weren't, but according to their own definition they were. There is no authoritative/scientific definition for socialism. They called themselves national SOCIALISTS, so obviously they considered their brand of government a type of socialism.

[MB.]

Mr. Paulalways Hitler hated socialism and he had his SS thugs murder whatever few socialists were stupid enough to still be in the NSDAP in the infamous Night of the Long Knives.

Only an ignorant fool with a most fallacious knowledge of 20th century European history would make the ludicrously stupid claim that the Nazi party was a socialist party in anything but name after 1934.

[The Immortal Goon]

As it stands right now, internationalism is used to enforce a Western status quo and to serve as initiation into imperialist cliques. NATO, WTO, UN, NAFTA, they all serve American interests rather than their designed purpose.

In my opinion, and I'm sure many would agree, international bodies are only used to serve the interests of the largest country.

Yeah. Generally, however, in political circles that's "globalism" where the broader concept of "internationalism" tends to be more of the older view that Bolsheviks and others subscribed to. If that makes sense.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Yeah. Generally, however, in political circles that's "globalism" where the broader concept of "internationalism" tends to be more of the older view that Bolsheviks and others subscribed to. If that makes sense.

I don't think RedCarpet meant proletarian internationalism, but rather the economic and political internationalism supported by neoliberal politicians. I agree with you, proletarian internationalism is completely different and can be seen as more of an activist phenomenon than an overt political one.

[Sapper]

They called themselves national SOCIALISTS, so obviously they considered their brand of government a type of socialism.

Even if I granted that was true (it isn't), it would be irrelevant to what socialism is.

Here's a good check for you: How are workers and the lower classes treated in this society? Are they cogs in a machine, for whatever purpose, or are they an end in themselves? Do they have a voice in their workplace? Are wages increasing, generally? How much political freedom do they have to effect change?

If workers are not treated well and have no voice in the workplace, it is definitely not socialism.

There is no authoritative/scientific definition for socialism.

There are very basic principles, outlined above, that do not allow for Nazi Germany to be socialist. It is a brute fact that they do not meet these criteria, and it is a brute fact that the analysis of the definition of socialism gives said criteria.

Words aren't just bullshit you can throw around. Otherwise, I will feel compelled to equally annoy you by allusions to how libertarian those rascals in Washington are, and expounding the virtues of Chinese laissez faire.

[pugsville]

I think we can comfortably say that Mr Hitler was more than a little flexable with the truth. whatever nazi plaform was put before the electorate was hardily representive of what they intended to do. Almost by chance hitler become leader and a party with the word socialism in it. There were some who beleieved this within the party and maybe if hitler had not appeared or been disposed of early in the peace the Nazi party may have become a party with some sort of commitment to some sort of socialist policies. But that wasntg the case the party with the leadership principles, was controlled almost utterly by Hitler, whatever was in the principle didnt matter Hitler was going to do what he wanted.

Define socialism and list a couple of examples of Nazi policies that worked towards socialism. The Nazis had what 12 years, I think if they wanted some sort of socialism they we near total control of the state implemented something.

I would define socialism as " a society which is organizsed on the principle of economic equality" that all citazens benefit equally from the wealth (or poverty) of society.

Cant think of good definition of fascism, anyone got one?

[Sapper]

I think we can comfortably say that Mr Hitler was more than a little flexable with the truth. whatever nazi plaform was put before the electorate was hardily representive of what they intended to do. Almost by chance hitler become leader and a party with the word socialism in it.

For a noob, and despite the spelling errors, that's very well said. I'll just assume you're not a native speaker. Cheers!