The word "socialism" is blatantly misused

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Seriously. I can't think of how many definitions there are.

Some people even use it to refer to any state that intervenes socially through unemployment payouts or whatever...

I mean, how is Germany a socialist country?

[Vaz]

Is it anarchistic? If so, then it's not socialist.

[Strelok]

I find that a good portion of American right-wingers see socialism in so many non-socialistic things.

Government spending? OH NOES AMERICA IS SOCIALIST NAO!1

[danzig]

Pretty much every word that defines a political idea or economic one is miused often by the opposition. I mean we dont REALLY believe Captialism is out to rape the world and simply profit no matter what the cost do we? It would be counterproductive to the longterm existences of capitalism.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

do we really think anything but capitalism with state intervention can work?

There has never been a functioning socialist nation, and there has only ever been one working anarchy in recored history (befoe recorded history there was probably a lot of anarchy)

[MathiasOfAthens]

The opposition tends to use the worst case scenario when using socialist or capitalist.

[Carach]

Seriously. I can't think of how many definitions there are.

Some people even use it to refer to any state that intervenes socially through unemployment payouts or whatever...

I mean, how is Germany a socialist country?

time to bust out some of the funny scaremonger videos

(and a bit of glenn beck, cos he is hilarious):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3J_QLtYqlk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3WNQ...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb1XuX4d3XU

(i like this fox one, because its lols):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQk91rlldKk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61rZ8...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzkXk...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eRxxZ-Ar0

........

enjoy people. hope watching them doesn't reduce your IQ too much.

my point is that, for the most part, the misinterpretation over socialism comes from the amazing amount of shite that FOX and co. throw out in the US (and i can see the counter coming; "FOX isn't the only thing in the US!!!" - it has more ratings than the rest of the major news groups combined. It IS a major influence, and it is not the only horrendously bias news/media group out there). It is almost exclusively Americans on this board that have the problem with any aspect of 'socialism'.

[Justice and Mercy]

Seriously. I can't think of how many definitions there are.

Some people even use it to refer to any state that intervenes socially through unemployment payouts or whatever...

I mean, how is Germany a socialist country?

I like Hitler's definition:

[Adolf Hitler on Nazism and socialism:] “Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism—not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper . . . .
“[T]he people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

[justicar5]

I like Hitler's definition:

[Adolf Hitler on Nazism and socialism:] “Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism—not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper . . . .
“[T]he people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

really? not when he said:

I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative

or :

"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and it owithout. We need law and order! Without ur nation cannot survive."


which are very Republican view points.


Or we could take George Orwells view of socialism:

For some years past I have managed to make the capitalist class pay me several pounds a week for writing books against capitalism. But I do not delude myself that this state of affairs is going to last forever ... the only régime which, in the long run, will dare to permit freedom of speech is a Socialist régime. If Fascism triumphs I am finished as a writer – that is to say, finished in my only effective capacity. That of itself would be a sufficient reason for joining a Socialist party

If I believed this were a world where only lesser evils are possible I'd have killed myself long ago.

it's how I feel about capitalism, it's the worse way of sorting out supply and demand: apart from all the others (to butcher a Churchill quote)

[Justice and Mercy]

I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative

Whew boy, that's funny.

Did you read the quote I posted? Like, at all? This is addressed quite clearly.

[justicar5]

Whew boy, that's funny.

Did you read the quote I posted? Like, at all? This is addressed quite clearly.

yes, by Hitlers capitalistic, nationalistic, conservative, right wing goverment. Who miss appropriayed the word socialism in the same way the DDR misapporiated democratic.

[Wolfgang von Zweibrücken]

yes, by Hitlers capitalistic, nationalistic, conservative, right wing goverment. Who miss appropriayed the word socialism in the same way the DDR misapporiated democratic.

Hitler said it quite clearly. He doesn't need to socialize the economy, because he socializes mankind. Why bother having the state own factories when the state owns the man who owns them?

[Justice and Mercy]

yes, by Hitlers capitalistic, nationalistic, conservative, right wing goverment.

lol

Hey, I can't help you if you're "fascinated at one more more superficialities".

A country isn't capitalist at all if the ethical reasoning behind capitalism isn't accepted. As long as it's not, the government can take and control private property at will. This is what Hitler meant. It matters not who "owns" the factories, if they're under the direct control of the State.

We can see the same in the US today, where the government has taken it upon itself to directly control businesses when "the public good" demands it.

[Strelok]

the nazi's were socialist

Their way of defining the idealogy and as "National Socialism" is much, much, muchy, macho, much different.

[justicar5]

the nazi's were socialist

no they weren't, they misapproiated the name, they where Facist e.g: corporatist and nationalist, which is not socialist in anyway (in fact socialism is internationalist). See the Night of the Long Knives when the last of the hierachy who had fallen for the socialist in the name where murdered to gain the support of the military and conservative business along with that of the church.

Hitler said it quite clearly. He doesn't need to socialize the economy, because he socializes mankind. Why bother having the state own factories when the state owns the man who owns them?

exaclty what the republican party and the fundemetalist christians are trying to accomplish with the help of FOX Propoganda you mean?

lol

Hey, I can't help you if you're "fascinated at one more more superficialities".

A country isn't capitalist at all if the ethical reasoning behind capitalism isn't accepted. As long as it's not, the government can take and control private property at will. This is what Hitler meant. It matters not who "owns" the factories, if they're under the direct control of the State.

We can see the same in the US today, where the government has taken it upon itself to directly control businesses when "the public good" demands it.

then apply that standar in the case of socialism (no one left behind, everyone no matter race colour or creed having a basic standard of living and health care, education etc) and you see that the Nazis and indeed the Facists of italy and spain could have in no way been socialist.

Communism is a different matter a utopian dream that I fully realise turns into a blood soaked nightmare.

[Mangalore]

Adolf Hitler redefined socialism as national socialism aka socialism as interpreted by the NSDAP in that quote. Which has little to do with the actual socialism and its ideas.

[Adolf Hitler on Nazism and socialism:] “Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism (his version of socialism)—not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please(obviously violates socialist idea). The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper . . . .
“[T]he people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

While the command state and authocratic regime have resemblance to stalinism it is important to note that he actually does not care about the redistribution of wealth or control to the community but that all individuals submit themselves to the totalitarian regime and the party. For that he leaves possessions etc. intact so it is easier to sway people to his cause. So his idea of socialism is that society commits itself as a hive mind like entity to the control of a single control if that makes any sense.

Case in point is that he had anyone having real socialist ideas murdered.

[Pickle_mole]

I like Hitler's definition:

[Adolf Hitler on Nazism and socialism:] “Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism—not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper . . . .
“[T]he people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

God thats terrifying, socialism is a weakness of will and the devaluation of personnal liberty. A death sentence to any people.

[Wolfgang von Zweibrücken]

I like Hitler's definition:

[Adolf Hitler on Nazism and socialism:] “Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism—not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper . . . .
“[T]he people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

That's some profound stuff, right there.

really? not when he said:

I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative

or :

"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and it owithout. We need law and order! Without ur nation cannot survive."


which are very Republican view points.

"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Capitalists are seeking to destroy our country. America is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without [it] [o]ur nation cannot survive."

And now it's a Gorbachev quote. Hitler's point was that Fascism and Communism are different brands of Socialism - and the main difference between the two was that Hitler was in charge of one, and Stalin in charge of the other.

[roy34543]

Socialization is really the very simple concept of the government taking ownership of something, and frankly it happens all the time.
Its peoples fault that they associate with something radical and extreme rather then the very simple and relatively non-threatening thing it often is. For example health care being controlled by the government? Well... yes that means that it was socialized by the government. Its just the opposite of privatization. Usually socialization is very small scale , its only on a large or extreme scale (such as nationalizing banks and buissnesses) that its time to get worried.

[Justice and Mercy]

Socialization is really the very simple concept of the government taking ownership of something, and frankly it happens all the time.

Correct.

The quote I just posted goes into a little more detail about just that.

Its peoples fault that they associate with something radical and extreme rather then the very simple and relatively non-threatening thing it often is.

Yes, legal robbery isn't threatening at all.