Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 234

Thread: Is there anything left of The Left?

  1. #21

    Default Re: Is there anything left of The Left?

    Seems like I've stirred up a wasps' nest with this topic. Good.
    I 'll agree with Heathen Hammer here.
    First off, the very definition of socialism is (deliberately) vague. "The means of production can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity" and "There are many varieties of socialism" (no ) "and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13]" (oh really), and here we get to the gist: "with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms".
    So, the definition of socialism is left deliberately vague (we have a phrase for such a thing in my language, its called being a "vote shepherd", ie trying to collect as many votes as possible, by promising everyone everything. The motto is "if you don't like our views, we have other views". So, do you wan the state to own the means of production? We're the people for you. Do you want the workers to do that? Well, vote for us. Are you a hardcore capitalist, but still want to call yourself a socialist because reasons? We have a place for you, too. Mates, our own socialist Party, Panhellenic Socialist Movement, or PASOK, did this with HUGE success in the 80's and 90's. Anti-NATO as , promising to oust NATO/US bases from the island of Crete in the early 80's and then not only keeping said bases, but also adding some more. Anti-capitalist as hell, yet always best friends with large media owners and industrialists. I've been there, I've seen that. Refusing to clearly define your political boundaries, is the oldest trick in the book here. And it seems that the rest of Europe once again learned from the Greeks Only this time it's not about science, arts etc, it's all about being crooks. Apart from socialism, there are other instances of that happening, but I would digress.
    If the overruling principle of socialism is related to the means of production, then "race" etc, has really nothing to do with being or not being a socialist. You can be a socialist and still be a racist, since being a racist is not related to being a member of a certain race. In fact, being a hardcore capitalist is actually the least racist ideology of all. Say you have the option to work with a white guy and you get an X amount of money from that association, or you work with a black guy and you get ten times that. You can't do both. Being a capitalist, you only care about who's going to bring in the biggest profit, so the choice is obviously the black guy.

  2. #22

    Default Re: Another white identitarian mass murder broadcast on the internet.

    If someone pours syrup over himself and starts saying he is against syrup, it wouldn't really change that he has syrup all over them. Same applies to modern socialist propaganda take about NSDAP somehow not being socialist. Saying that NSDAP was capitalist because Krupp owned his factories is literally same as saying Lenin was capitalist because he enacted NEP.

    You seem to be going through real struggle here.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Another white identitarian mass murder broadcast on the internet.

    I don't think Marx or Engels knew about Hitler even existing. But no, anything that is "against Capitalism" isn't automatically Socialist and Hitler repudiated Marx (you know, a Jew) on multiple occasions. Nazis weren't even for getting rid of Capitalism, they were for getting rid of Jews, who they claimed were responsible for "Capitalism" (and Communism, btw). As said before, the Krupp family still enjoyed their immense wealth and for-profit venture just fine in Nazi Germany.
    This is true but still doesn't exclude Nazi Economic Policies ( a good portion of them anyway) being similar to socialist policies. I mean we can argue semantics, but Hitlers party was named "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei" in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

    Of course there is differences given the local contexts and all, but there isn't always in every case? wasn't Socialist Cuba Different then China, then the Soviet union etc. there is always nuances.

    The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands, however ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
    I mean Volkswagen is probably the most iconic example of this relationship between Hitlers government and private companies. ( in this case Ferdinand Porsche.)

    Collectivist principles were indeed embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

    That said there is lots of nuances, and elements to this issue. And its not like there is only one brand of Socialist Policies. But it is undeniable that similarities exist, and they are not small ones.

    Regardless of Hitlers rhetoric his system was what it was. Of course you can say they were not Marxist socialists. But they were their own specific brand of socialists. Hell they even competed with the same electorate as the Communists.
    Here is something interesting from the time, a pamphlet by Gobbles.

    https://research.calvin.edu/german-p...ve/haken32.htm


    Btw full disclaimer i dont think socialism is a bad thing in it self, only that was used by various types of governments in various times, including the Nazis. Im a social democrat myself, which i believe to be a more complete and broader system. So there is that.
    Last edited by Knight of Heaven; October 27, 2019 at 03:24 PM.

  4. #24

    Default Re: Another white identitarian mass murder broadcast on the internet.

    To believe the Nazi's were socialist, one would also have to believe Saddam's Republican Guard were part of the Republican Party.

  5. #25

    Default Re: Another white identitarian mass murder broadcast on the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Governments?
    Haha, good one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    To believe the Nazi's were socialist, one would also have to believe Saddam's Republican Guard were part of the Republican Party.
    Why do you people always conflate "socialist" with "Marxist"? It's a major logical fallacy. BTW, there is no plural apostrophe +s in English.

  6. #26
    Cope's Avatar Have you no decency?
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,329

    Default Re: Another white identitarian mass murder broadcast on the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    BTW, there is no plural apostrophe +s in English.
    Grammar Nazism, how appropriate. While you're at it, perhaps you can remind The spartan not to capitalize capitalism.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Another white identitarian mass murder broadcast on the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    If someone pours syrup over himself and starts saying he is against syrup, it wouldn't really change that he has syrup all over them. Same applies to modern socialist propaganda take about NSDAP somehow not being socialist.
    Very interesting choice of imagery to use, but you can't actually produce anything academic as to the Nazi party being Marxist or socialist; just your weird partisan conjecture. Even for contemporaries at the time, they did not consider Nazi Germany to be a socialist entity:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    [Hitler] has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all "progressive" thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security, and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do. Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life. The same is probably true of Stalin’s militarised version of Socialism. All three of the great dictators have enhanced their power by imposing intolerable burdens on their peoples. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a grudging way, have said to people "I offer you a good time," Hitler has said to them "I offer you struggle, danger and death," and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.
    -George Orwell's review of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, New English Weekly (21 March 1940)


    You are just attempting partisan hackery inspired by Stephen Crowder. Go ahead, go find some economists (or hell, even historians) who considered Nazis "pro-socialist"; by which I am sure you mean "leftist".
    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Saying that NSDAP was capitalist because Krupp owned his factories is literally same as saying Lenin was capitalist because he enacted NEP.
    Do you have the right prescription of glasses on? I never said the Nazi party were in favor of capitalism. They certainly weren't, at least by our standards of free-market capitalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    You seem to be going through real struggle here.

    Whatever you say, champ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    This is true but still doesn't exclude Nazi Economic Policies ( a good portion of them anyway) being similar to socialist policies. I mean we can argue semantics, but Hitlers party was named "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei" in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
    Uhuh, and North Korea is controlled by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; they are taking some liberties with the first three words of their party name, though.


    Look, you don't have to guess at this stuff people have taken time to write about the economics of Nazi Germany. Take particular note of Privatization and business ties and Social policies; do those sound like Socialist priorities to you?

    I am also confused by your statement including "the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist". I have never heard historians refer to Nazi German as capitalist. The only way I have heard their economy described was, first, a Mixed Economy and then a War Economy. They were never free-market capitalists.

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    Haha, good one.
    Accurate too.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    While you're at it, perhaps you can remind The spartan not to capitalize capitalism.
    Hey, I am an economist, not a languager.
    Last edited by The spartan; October 27, 2019 at 05:18 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  8. #28
    Cope's Avatar Have you no decency?
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,329

    Default Re: Another white identitarian mass murder broadcast on the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post

    Hey, I am an economist, not a languager.
    Then you should be familiar with Hayek's work on Nazism (you did demand a contemporary analysis) which addresses the movement's clear connection with socialism.

  9. #29
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    8,957

    Default Re: Is there anything left of The Left?

    I'm not going to bother arguing. It does not take 'modern leftists' to distance Nazism from socialism. You can read this and make up your own mind if you haven't already, that is.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  10. #30
    Diamat's Avatar VELUTI SI DEUS DARETUR
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    My Mind
    Posts
    10,277

    Default Re: Is there anything left of The Left?

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    If you think the Soviet Union was an accurate representation of socialism then you are sorely mistaken. You are equivocating Marxist-Leninism with modern day socialism which is basically like comparing Medieval England to the modern day English Monarchy. Socialism is inherently about rejecting nationality and race and embracing the equality of the classes. The end goal of socialism and communism is the destruction of nationalism and replacing it with a global equality among the people. "The Soviets" are a piss poor representation of what the modern socialist or communist wants and at this point are basically just used as a straw man by people who can't differentiate between the USSR and any other possible implementation of socialism.
    Your definition of socialism is not the historically prevalent definition. If we still lived in Cold War days, you'd find a bunch of Marxist-Leninists on forums such as this one attacking your definition. The old Soviet interpretation cannot be simply ignored, especially given the fact that it once dominated half of the globe. Yes, there are many interpretations, but I do think it is fair to have a sincere discussion about the historically most dominant interpretations, the Soviet one being at the top of the list.

    Moreover, for Marx, the end goal of communism was not equality. The end goal was simply the destruction of classes, which itself was goal derived from historical necessity. Marxists in general would reject (and have historically rejected) the views of social democrats (i.e., today's Bernie Sanders supporters), including their views of socialism. To a Marxist, socialism is but a transitional stage on the way to communism, a stage mandating proletarian dictatorship. It is also a stage requiring the gradual elimination of differences in class, between intellectual and physical labor, and between city and countryside. As this process is completed, according to many Marxists, the state will whither away and the transition to full communism shall be complete. To a Marxist-Leninist, this transition is a rather violent one, in which proletarian dictatorship must prevent the return of the bourgeoisie and protect against ideological enemies. To a Marxist-Leninist, socialism involves the constantly increasing politico-ideological unity of the masses, in which the state and the masses form one mind, the kind of mind that would one day prevail in a communist society in which the state no longer existed (because the people are essentially the state and hence of one mind).

  11. #31

    Default Re: Another white identitarian mass murder broadcast on the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Then you should be familiar with Hayek's work on Nazism (you did demand a contemporary analysis) which addresses the movement's clear connection with socialism.
    Ugh, yes I am familiar with FA Hayek and the Road to Serfdom. My relationship with Hayek's works is complicated, but suffice it to say that he isn't talking about Socialism in the way we (or rather, HH) are. I can recommend commentary surrounding Road to Serfdom if you want, but we would certainly need to hammer out definitions as we wouldn't be using colloquial interpretations of "Socialism" anymore. I can say this about his take on it; he was right that Nazism was not a capitalist reaction to Socialism, as some on the Left at the time put forth. However, he kinda misses the point that Nazis didn't care much about economic principles at all; it was all in service to their social goals.
    Last edited by The spartan; October 27, 2019 at 06:23 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  12. #32
    Cope's Avatar Have you no decency?
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,329

    Default Re: Another white identitarian mass murder broadcast on the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Ugh, yes I am familiar with FA Hayek and the Road to Serfdom. My relationship with Hayek's works is complicated, but suffice it to say that he isn't talking about Socialism in the way we (or rather, HH) are. I can recommend commentary surrounding Road to Serfdom if you want, but we would certainly need to hammer out definitions as we wouldn't be using colloquial interpretations of "Socialism" anymore. I can say this about his take on it; he was right that Nazism was not a capitalist reaction to Socialism, as some on the Left at the time put forth. However, he kinda misses the point that Nazis didn't care much about economic principles at all; it was all in service to their social goals.
    I like how you try and draw a distinction between "economic principles" and "social goals" as if the former isn't a means to the latter. As I've tried to explain in previous threads, the war itself was a centrally planned, collectivist endeavour on behalf of the volk which sought a violent, wholescale redistribution of wealth, land and raw materials/resources from non-Germans to Germans. It was a clear expression of revolutionary socialism perceived through the lens of ethnonationalism - ie. national socialism.
    Last edited by Cope; October 27, 2019 at 08:25 PM.

  13. #33

    Default Re: Another white identitarian mass murder broadcast on the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Accurate too.
    If you're being very cynical, maybe. It's certainly not a republican or democratic thing to say, though.

  14. #34

    Default Re: Another white identitarian mass murder broadcast on the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    If you're being very cynical, maybe. It's certainly not a republican or democratic thing to say, though.
    One would hope the government is representative of the will of the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I like how you try and draw a distinction between "economic principles" and "social goals" as if the former isn't a means to the latter.
    Well yeah, if you look at like, Communist rhetoric, the economic principles are the social goals. That doesn't have to be the case, however, as Socialism itself doesn't really have anything to do with Nationalism or Ethnic priorities. What do you think the Nazis actually cared about: a glorious ethnic German empire, or giving the means of production to the people?

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    As I've tried to explain in previous threads, the war itself was a centrally planned, collectivist endeavour on behalf of the volk which sought a violent, wholescale redistribution of wealth, land and raw materials/resources from non-Germans to Germans. It was a clear expression of revolutionary socialism perceived through the lens of ethnonationalism - ie. national socialism.
    I don't think I have heard of any (large) wars that weren't centrally planned and collectivist; that's kind of integral to the process. Also, when I think of Socialist redistribution of wealth, I can't help but think of social classes being the focus of redistribution and not, you know, Ethnic groups. Nazis had absolutely no interest in redistributing between their own social classes and were usually disdainful of Social Welfare programs (sort of gets in the way of the whole "Social Darwinism" thing). So if you want to have that definition of Socialism just meaning "collectivist endeavor" (something like how Hitler defines it himself in that quote I gave earlier) then that could fit, but that is pretty dang broad definition and you have to throw out all the usual stuff about Socialism being about social class. More importantly, you would also have to throw out any association with Left-wing priorities of egalitarianism and flattening social hierarchies. But if you do that, it kind of defeats HH's whole point of tying Hitler to Left-wing ideologies.
    Last edited by The spartan; October 27, 2019 at 09:14 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  15. #35

    Default Re: Another white identitarian mass murder broadcast on the internet.

    Very interesting choice of imagery to use, but you can't actually produce anything academic as to the Nazi party being Marxist or socialist; just your weird partisan conjecture. Even for contemporaries at the time, they did not consider Nazi Germany to be a socialist entity:
    We have conventional definition of socialism, which matches NSDAP's economic policies.
    We have contemporary socialist regimes, such as early USSR, whose economic policies were almost identical to those of NSDAP.
    Last but not least, we even have examples of socialist regimes which also employed extreme nationalism as part of their ideology - yet nobody in their right mind would say that Ho Chi Min wasn't a real socialist.
    Essentially you are demanding proof form a source that would be inherently biased against being objective on the matter due to partisan reasons, which is blatantly in bad faith.

  16. #36

    Default Re: Another white identitarian mass murder broadcast on the internet.

    Look, you don't have to guess at this stuff people have taken time to write about the economics of Nazi Germany. Take particular note of Privatization and business ties and Social policies; do those sound like Socialist priorities to you?

    I am also confused by your statement including "the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist". I have never heard historians refer to Nazi German as capitalist. The only way I have heard their economy described was, first, a Mixed Economy and then a War Economy. They were never free-market capitalists.
    It still has a connection with socialism. Which you insist to ignore. Like you did ignore my post about the interrelationship between the state and business. With or without privatization.
    And
    A mixed economy? yes that is what i said. But would that make them social democrats economically? If so it is obvious they were were heavily influenced by socialist policies. I did say a part of their policies were socialist didn't i?? A part doesn't mean all last time i checked.


    And yes emphasis on social policies is a hallmark of socialist societies.

    Uhuh, and North Korea is controlled by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; they are taking some liberties with the first three words of their party name, though.
    You cant ignore how they chose to view themselves, but most importantly what kind of policies they chose to defend. See Gobbles pamphlet again.

  17. #37

    Default Re: Is there anything left of The Left?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    I'm not going to bother arguing. It does not take 'modern leftists' to distance Nazism from socialism. You can read this and make up your own mind if you haven't already, that is.
    "It doesn't take modern leftists"
    @
    * posts a link from Vox, a modern leftist source *
    Last edited by Heathen Hammer; October 27, 2019 at 10:17 PM.

  18. #38
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    12th Plane of Torment
    Posts
    11,573
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Is there anything left of The Left?

    Quote Originally Posted by Diamat View Post
    Your definition of socialism is not the historically prevalent definition. If we still lived in Cold War days, you'd find a bunch of Marxist-Leninists on forums such as this one attacking your definition. The old Soviet interpretation cannot be simply ignored, especially given the fact that it once dominated half of the globe. Yes, there are many interpretations, but I do think it is fair to have a sincere discussion about the historically most dominant interpretations, the Soviet one being at the top of the list.

    Moreover, for Marx, the end goal of communism was not equality. The end goal was simply the destruction of classes, which itself was goal derived from historical necessity. Marxists in general would reject (and have historically rejected) the views of social democrats (i.e., today's Bernie Sanders supporters), including their views of socialism. To a Marxist, socialism is but a transitional stage on the way to communism, a stage mandating proletarian dictatorship. It is also a stage requiring the gradual elimination of differences in class, between intellectual and physical labor, and between city and countryside. As this process is completed, according to many Marxists, the state will whither away and the transition to full communism shall be complete. To a Marxist-Leninist, this transition is a rather violent one, in which proletarian dictatorship must prevent the return of the bourgeoisie and protect against ideological enemies. To a Marxist-Leninist, socialism involves the constantly increasing politico-ideological unity of the masses, in which the state and the masses form one mind, the kind of mind that would one day prevail in a communist society in which the state no longer existed (because the people are essentially the state and hence of one mind).
    I don't really understand why you keep mentioning that Marxist-Leninists would disagree with me when I specifically mention that I disagree with Marxist-Leninism. When you talk about the "Historically prevalent definition" of socialism you (respectfully) show your misunderstanding of socialism and communism and the differences between the two. "Social Democrats" and "Democratic Socialists" are two different things, and you do both groups a disservice by falsely equivocating the two movements. The "Dictatorship of the proletariat" is not a literal dictatorship by the proletariat (as is suggested by the phraseology you used) but simply a term used by early communists and co-opted by later communists and socialists to describe a system of government wherein the workers rather than the capitalists where in charge. The "opposite" of a dictatorship of the proletariat is the "Dictatorship of the bourgeois" which is a system of government where capitalists, rather than the workers, were in charge. The term "dictatorship" is misleading and doesn't mean it's literal dictionary definition (according to the encyclopedia Britannica "a form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations") as no dictatorship by the people can, by definition, be a dictatorship of one man or small group. It's a play on words and a way to turn the ideological tables on the mainstream political system at the time (leadership being invested in one individual, typically a king).

    Leninists advocate for a one-party vanguard system of politics, which is inherently undemocratic. Marxist-Leninist advocates disagree with the rest of the Communist/Socialist community on this essential point. I would disagree with your point that "It is a stage requiring the gradual elimination of the differences in class, between intellectual and physical labor, between city and country side". Everything after the comma in that quote is essentially meaningless, as the differences between physical laborers and intellectuals is a false juxtaposition created by the capitalist mindset. I.E, you are defined by what you produce, and material goods will always be valued higher than abstract thought and theory (this is, obviously, not true; as all labor is equal). To further elaborate on my point, it is not a stage "requiring" the elimination of class (ignoring the implication here that classism is somehow good or beneficial to society) but rather the natural evolution towards a classless society. We live in a time where scarcity of resources is not an actual inhibitor to human existence. As a species, as a nation, as what ever sub-unit of humanity you decide to divide people into, we have and produce enough resources to take care of the entirety of the Human population. However, due to the Capitalist nature of society we define each other's (and even our own) self worth based off of the total value of the capital we are responsible for producing.

    I think that the "politico-ideological unity of the masses" is similar to entropy, in that eventually the complex systems will break down down into a common understanding of the unity and value of the human experience and life. As we develop more resources as a species, we open up more avenues for our progeny to break free from the cutthroat cycle that our ancestors have relied upon. Socialism and Communism are the next natural evolutionary step of a species that realizes that it's success relies on it's unity and not on it's differences.

    I, personally, would argue that Marxist-Leninism is antithetical to the original goals of Marxism, which is the abolition of class based society.

    Join us on the Thema Devia Discord Server: https://discord.gg/ASqJf5C
    If you would like a TWC Wiki page made for you click here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  19. #39

    Default Re: Another white identitarian mass murder broadcast on the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    We have conventional definition of socialism, which matches NSDAP's economic policies.
    so·cial·ism
    /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

    a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
    You think the conventional definition accurate describes the priorities and goals of the Nazi party?
    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    We have contemporary socialist regimes, such as early USSR, whose economic policies were almost identical to those of NSDAP.
    I don't think I have heard anyone other than you call the economic policies of the USSR and Nazi Germany "almost identical". I guess you could also call the New Economic Policy a Mixed economic system? But that is a super broad association (you have different types of Mixed economies all over the place in terms of policy) that wasn't contemporaneous with the Nazi party.
    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Last but not least, we even have examples of socialist regimes which also employed extreme nationalism as part of their ideology
    Wait, do you think that Nationalism is integral to Socialism?
    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    - yet nobody in their right mind would say that Ho Chi Min wasn't a real socialist.
    The Chinese probably wouldn't agree Ho Chi Minh was a socialist, but that is neither here nor there. Whether a nation has Nationalistic priorities doesn't have much to do with their thoughts on who should own the means of production.
    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Essentially you are demanding proof form a source that would be inherently biased against being objective on the matter due to partisan reasons, which is blatantly in bad faith.
    "Can't trust academic sources."

    Very classy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    It still has a connection with socialism. Which you insist to ignore. Like you did ignore my post about the interrelationship between the state and business. With or without privatization.
    Maybe you were the one to ignore my post? Because the article pretty much answers your points about the government controlling the factories. Quite simply; they didn't. Even during Wartime the Nazi means of acquiring new equipment went like this: the government would open up a contract for a new acquisition, let's say, for a new heavy tank design to beat the Russians with some qualifying specs (weight range, cannon capability, etc); the factory owners, in this case Henschel and Porsche, would accept the contract (or they could pass on it to focus on another contract) and begin their own design that would meet the qualifications and compete to win the contract from the government by presenting a superior design; this would result in both a Henschel and Porsche prototype that were evaluated by Army officials who would pick a design and grant the contract to that factory owner (Henschel) who not only made the design but also the mass production process to produce the tank with the government paying them for each unit produced. It is not unlike how arms contracts are done in practically any other Western country and would hardly be referred to as government ownership of means of production. Industrialists were not ordered to do specific designs as dictated by the State, they took contracts where they could get them so they could stay in business.

    Or, as the article clearly puts it:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    One of the reasons for the Nazi privatization policy was to cement the partnership between the government and business interests. Another reason was financial. As the Nazi government faced budget deficits due to its military spending, privatization was one of the methods it used to raise more funds. Between the fiscal years 1934-35 and 1937–38, privatization represented 1.4 percent of the German government's revenues. There was also an ideological motivation. Nazi ideology held entrepreneurship in high regard, and “private property was considered a precondition to developing the creativity of members of the German race in the best interest of the people. The Nazi leadership believed that “private property itself provided important incentives to achieve greater cost consciousness, efficiency gains, and technical progress.” Adolf Hitler used Social Darwinist arguments to support this stance, cautioning against “bureaucratic managing of the economy” that would preserve the weak and “represent a burden to the higher ability, industry and value.”

    That doesn't sound very Socialist to me. Or maybe you could explain how you have Socialism with a high priority on privatization?
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    A mixed economy? yes that is what i said. But would that make them social democrats economically? If so it is obvious they were were heavily influenced by socialist policies. I did say a part of their policies were socialist didn't i?? A part doesn't mean all last time i checked.
    No, a mixed economy is an incredibly broad distinction that just means some combination of planned and market economies. It could be utilized in varying degrees by any number of political ideologies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    And yes emphasis on social policies is a hallmark of socialist societies.
    I don't know of any political ideology that doesn't have any social policies, but when talking about Socialism, one tends to think of social welfare policies by the state (the public redistribution of resources) which the Nazis were very much against. This is also talked about in the sections of the article I mentioned.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    You cant ignore how they chose to view themselves, but most importantly what kind of policies they chose to defend. See Gobbles pamphlet again.
    I am sure the North Korean populace will be glad to hear they actually live in a Democracy.
    Last edited by The spartan; October 27, 2019 at 10:46 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  20. #40

    Default Re: Another white identitarian mass murder broadcast on the internet.

    You think the conventional definition accurate describes the priorities and goals of the Nazi party?
    Yes.
    I don't think I have heard anyone other than you call the economic policies of the USSR and Nazi Germany "almost identical". I guess you could also call the New Economic Policy a Mixed economic system? But that is a super broad association (you have different types of Mixed economies all over the place in terms of policy) that wasn't contemporaneous with the Nazi party.
    The only people who see major differences in economic policies of NSDAP and early USSR government would be modern leftists, to whom association with NSDAP is a PR issue.
    Wait, do you think that Nationalism is integral to Socialism?
    No, where did I say that? A socialist regime can be cosmopolitan, or it can be nationalistic.
    The Chinese probably wouldn't agree Ho Chi Minh was a socialist, but that is neither here nor there. Whether a nation has Nationalistic priorities doesn't have much to do with their thoughts on who should own the means of production.
    Has more to do with them being at geopolitical odds.
    "Can't trust academic sources."
    That's not what I said.

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •