[Meistro1]

I wrote that incorrectly - hitlerism is national socialism, stalinism is international socialism.

[jaakko]

Or maybe he believed in state ownership of the means of production

It doesn't make any difference. Read what Gletkin wrote.

The belief mentioned in your hypothesis doesn't exclude the possibility of believing that "anything short of an absolute free market equals socialism". This is libertarian ideology. It's also not so rare for libertarians to equate "state ownership of the means of production" with about any "state intervention".

[FallenRaptor]

That makes some more sense, but it's still wrong since Stalin was a nationalist believed in building "Socialism In One Country". Also, Nazi Germany & Soviet Russia were never socialist, unless you're one of those conservative nutjobs that believe anything involving government is socialism.

[pikachu]

Or maybe he believed in state ownership of the means of production.

I don't recall him believeing in that... Anyway according to what I know, state ownership does not imply socialism. Iran has plenty of state ownership - is Iran socialist? Many countries nationalize major industries during wartime to increase production - do they become socialist?

The DAP probably started out more like a third-way movement with genuine socialist tendencies, which died out by the time Hitler took over everything and became Chancellor.

Maybe he was a libertarian at one time and still believed that ANYTHING short of an absolute free market equaled "socialism".

And maybe because he wanted to appeal to the working class and present a challenge to the communists?

[jaakko]

I don't recall him believeing in that

He "believed" in "state intervention" (who doesn't besides the libertarians, well that's another matter). In libertarian ideology, "state intervention" basically equals "state ownership". You should really look at Gletkin's joke hypothesis as one of Hitler as a libertarian turned inside-out, which doesn't ridicule Hitler but the libertarians that try to paint him as a "socialist".

[Meistro1]

"Anyway according to what I know, state ownership does not imply socialism."

Well then what you know is wrong.

"Iran has plenty of state ownership - is Iran socialist?"

Yes, though not fully.

"Many countries nationalize major industries during wartime to increase production - do they become socialist?"

Yes, although all of them are already socialist to begin with, to some degree or another.

[jaakko]

Hitler was a libertarian socialist. True fact.

[Dr House]

Well then what you know is wrong.

Meistro, stop making an ass out of yourself. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, not state ownership. I don't agree with state control any more than you do, but it isn't socialist.

[Vera Politica]

Yep Meistro, your misunderstanding of socialism is quite frightening.
Capitalism is more conducive to state ownership than socialism is. Capitalism is inherently contradictive and the state will continuously act as a stabilizing mechanism. This is not socialist. It is simply state-centralized monopoly capitalism.

Socialism has an ECONOMIC overtone. That is, it is more an economic theory than a theory on the organization of government (although the first would surely imply some normative statement about the second).

I have no problem with your libertarian views, but you do become problematic when you equate government regulation with socialism. It dumbs down the entire debate and makes you look foolish

[Meistro1]

Meistro, stop making an ass out of yourself. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, not state ownership.

Well one could make the distinction between state socialism and libertarian socialism or anarcho-socialism, but I don't see any reasonable argument to claim that socialism means anything other than state ownership of the means of production. Socialist are always agitating for nationalizing industries... of course it's all semantics really.

[pikachu]

Socialist are always agitating for nationalizing industries... of course it's all semantics really.

"Anyway according to what I know, state ownership does not imply socialism."

Well then what you know is wrong.

"Iran has plenty of state ownership - is Iran socialist?"

Yes, though not fully.

"Many countries nationalize major industries during wartime to increase production - do they become socialist?"

Yes, although all of them are already socialist to begin with, to some degree or another.

Simple lesson in logic:
If all A support B, does it follow that all of those who support B must be A?

Replace A with "socialists" and B with "nationalization" if you wish.

Now add to this the fact that not all socialists support nationalization, there are plenty of weird ones that don't. In fact we once had a self-proclaimed Communist on this forum who was for private property.

If some A support B, does it follow that all of those who support B must be A?

Hitler was a libertarian socialist. True fact.

Hitler was neither a libertarian nor a socialists, but if you combine those two together, then yeah you can get Hitler. Alternatively you can get a fucked up conspirologist who rants about evil bankers and federal reserve. Which is close enough.

[Meistro1]

If some A support B, does it follow that all of those who support B must be A?

No.

Wikipedia says :

As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production,

So we're all right!

[Vera Politica]

I don't see any reasonable argument to claim that socialism means anything other than state ownership of the means of production

Imagine a capitalist country, where the state concentrates all means of production. It can still operate as a capitalist entity and in fact it does so. This is state-capitalism.

How is state-capitalism socialism?

You don't see any reasonable argument? There is no argument, it is simply definition. And any logic which starts with Wiki says cannot be taken seriously. YOU have to make the argument that socialism is what you think it is. If not, then this conversation is utterly useless.

[pikachu]

So we're all right!

Minus yourself.

[Dr House]

Personally I've no problems with the government owning companies, provided the following:

1) They cannot use regulations or legislation to give themselves an uneven advantage over private firms.

2) They cannot regulate or tax private firms.

3) They cannot use tax money to fund them or bail them out.

In other words, I have no trouble whatsoever with the Singapore model. It's even a good alternative to taxation for public funding.

[Meistro1]

lol Dr House the libertarian / communist!

[Dr House]

That's libertarian progressive to you, young man.

[Vera Politica]

Again, nothing Dr house spewed has ANYTHING to do with communism. Tell me Meistro, what socialist literature have you actually picked up besides its definition on wikipedia?

[Holt]

I don't see any reasonable argument to claim that socialism means anything other than state ownership of the means of production

If state capitalism were the same thing as socialism then the US, that "bastion of laissez-faire" with its rigid trade barriers and sky-high farming subsidies, would be the most socialist nation on earth.

[Dr House]

Last I checked, the average tariff rate in the US was 1.6%. What "rigid trade barriers" are you talking about?

Also, the US is far from a bastion of laissez-faire, as liberal as it is. Hong Kong, Singapore and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas are closer to the mark.