Attention Forum Socialists

[nicky10013]

Yes, but in this case, they're not rioting over soccer. They're rioting over their government goodies being taken away from them.

Which people everywhere do.

Not really. Their fiscal problems are a result of growing government, and growing entitlements leading to growing deficits for decades and decades. And the bank failures are largely due to government interference and not capitalism so-called run rampant. Much of the problems failing banks are dealing with are overleveraging and more importantly bad assets. These assets were created by government policy, which is directly related to socialism, and a socialist type agenda.

Yeah, the bad government policy was the de-regulation of the mortgage markets.

[Shady]

Dude, quit here. You've got no idea what you're talking about.

Telling somebody to stop talking isn't an argument.

Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.

Nazis declared support for a form of socialism that is to provide for the nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation.

Link

Add to that list socialized healthcare too! Facts can be stubborn things.

[nicky10013]

Telling somebody to stop talking isn't an argument.

Add to that list socialized healthcare too! Facts can be stubborn things.

Why make a point when you'll just bold the word socialist in "national socialist" and claim victory. You know, because authoritarian politicians have never told a complete lie to gain power. However, that's a nuance I don't think you'd be able to pick up on.

[nicky10013]

Bahahaha I indulged as I have nothing better to do at the moment in the article shady quoted.

From the first line: "in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics"

Sigh. Trying to equate nazism with socialism is yet another lame brained attempt by the modern right to try and remove "right wing" and "totalitarianism" in the same sentences due to the sheer inability for them to accept that right wingers could be anti-democratic. Or, it could be the right wing attempting to pawn off their own anti-democratic insecurities on the left.

[Pliny]

Bahahaha I indulged as I have nothing better to do at the moment in the article shady quoted.

From the first line: "in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics"

Sigh. Trying to equate nazism with socialism is yet another lame brained attempt by the modern right to try and remove "right wing" and "totalitarianism" in the same sentences due to the sheer inability for them to accept that right wingers could be anti-democratic. Or, it could be the right wing attempting to pawn off their own anti-democratic insecurities on the left.

Where is it written that the right wing can't be socialists?

You have to define socialism first and then see if it fits.

According to the article Germany's domestic policies fit the term socialist.

Jack Weber looks at the political spectrum as a horseshoe and sees the extreme right and left as being very similar with some basic variations.

I would like to see the political spectrum on a linear perspective going from no government to total government. Of course, that would mean that the extreme left and right wing of the current spectrum would be very close to each other as they are just different forms of totalitarianism.

[Pliny]

Dear Canada, thank you for your yucky "socialist" policies that created government banking regulations that have helped save our economy from much of the ravages of this recent recession compared to other countries, and in turn kept the Canadian mutual funds in my portfolio doing quite nicely compared to my other funds.

Yes, our government knew better than to push every Canadian to own their own home whether they could afford it or not.

We were lucky the US market collapsed when it did as we were blissfully following them to the sub-prime market.

Another thing Harper did that picked up our economy was lower the GST by two percentage points.

Obviously, if your Canadian investment portfolio is healthy you weren't blindsided by the Conservative corporate Trust fund reversal.

[Pliny]

It's not that big a mystery, like I said actions speak louder than words.

And it's not governments or corporations that are the problem, they are simply things. It's how people use them that counts. It's how people act.

I'm no more willing to write off capitalism than I am communism, not until I've seen either system governed with complete transparency. As it stands now I'm willing to write off the failings of both systems simply on the basis of the corruption that's been their most common feature.

There is some truth in what you say. It's how poeple act. I will say though that if you concentrate power there is no shortage of people who will act to grab it's reins. Lord Acton describes it perfectly as, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". So you know how people will act if they have power. Basically they will try to keep it and further concentrate it while others will conspire to corruptly usurp it.

I think the US Constitution attempted to limit government by separating it's powers.

Really though the greatest power lies in control of an economy. Our governments are quite powerful in that they can buy us off with entitlements but that can only happen for a short time before they bankrupt the nation. Unfortunately, as is being demonstrated in Greece, entitlements are not easily given up, therefore change, either way, will only occur with violence.

[nicky10013]

Where is it written that the right wing can't be socialists?

You have to define socialism first and then see if it fits.

According to the article Germany's domestic policies fit the term socialist.

Jack Weber looks at the political spectrum as a horseshoe and sees the extreme right and left as being very similar with some basic variations.

I would like to see the political spectrum on a linear perspective going from no government to total government. Of course, that would mean that the extreme left and right wing of the current spectrum would be very close to each other as they are just different forms of totalitarianism.

I understand where people come from when discussing the possibility of a non-linear spectrum. However, it's essentially wrong. The reason is that the spectrum only covers ideology and not how said ideology is enforced. The reason why Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia looked so similar is because the repression used worked, not because they agreed on anything. Indeed, the ferocity of the war between Germany and Russia and the propaganda between the two states should be enough for most to conclude that the ideologies were nothing if not completely different.

Indeed, the history of Nazi "Social Projects" all depends on what the definition of socialism really is. I would say what the Nazis did isn't socialist at all. Most of the government's projects were actually contracted out to private companies. Messerschmit, Junkers, Mercedes etc. were all private companies that recieved huge contracts for producing war material. Then there are the lesser known contracts such as IG Farben which supplied thousands of tonnes of Zyklon B and Topf and Sons that provided ovens. All as a result of private enterprise. Things like Volkswagen and construction projects such as the autobahn are more the exception rather than the rule. Furthermore, we have to look at why those projects were being put in place. They weren't out of any good will to the people. The autobahn was built to facilitate troop transfers between fronts and volkswagen was used to build trucks and such for the war effort as well.

Added to the fact that the first group of political prisoners to be targeted by the nazis were communists and socialists, well, that's proof enough for me. If it isn't proof enough for others, well, I recommend they take some history and poli sci classes.

[Jack Weber]

I understand where people come from when discussing the possibility of a non-linear spectrum. However, it's essentially wrong. The reason is that the spectrum only covers ideology and not how said ideology is enforced. The reason why Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia looked so similar is because the repression used worked, not because they agreed on anything. Indeed, the ferocity of the war between Germany and Russia and the propaganda between the two states should be enough for most to conclude that the ideologies were nothing if not completely different.

Indeed, the history of Nazi "Social Projects" all depends on what the definition of socialism really is. I would say what the Nazis did isn't socialist at all. Most of the government's projects were actually contracted out to private companies. Messerschmit, Junkers, Mercedes etc. were all private companies that recieved huge contracts for producing war material. Then there are the lesser known contracts such as IG Farben which supplied thousands of tonnes of Zyklon B and Topf and Sons that provided ovens. All as a result of private enterprise. Things like Volkswagen and construction projects such as the autobahn are more the exception rather than the rule. Furthermore, we have to look at why those projects were being put in place. They weren't out of any good will to the people. The autobahn was built to facilitate troop transfers between fronts and volkswagen was used to build trucks and such for the war effort as well.

Added to the fact that the first group of political prisoners to be targeted by the nazis were communists and socialists, well, that's proof enough for me. If it isn't proof enough for others, well, I recommend they take some history and poli sci classes.

That's the thing about NAZIsm that amny that want to brand it as a version of socialism seem to forget.Adolph Hitler,and his minons,hated Communism,Socialism,AND,DEMOCRACY...The Riechstag fire was blamed on a Dutch Communist halfwit named Marius Vander Lubbe.This was to vilify Communists,and anyone on the left as unpatriotic subversives...

Also,to gain power,and the confidence of the Reichstag,Hitler cozied up to conservatives who were amenable(sp) to some of the NAZI ideas on coporatism and anti-union sentiment...

Edited May 2, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Pliny]

I understand where people come from when discussing the possibility of a non-linear spectrum. However, it's essentially wrong. The reason is that the spectrum only covers ideology and not how said ideology is enforced. The reason why Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia looked so similar is because the repression used worked, not because they agreed on anything. Indeed, the ferocity of the war between Germany and Russia and the propaganda between the two states should be enough for most to conclude that the ideologies were nothing if not completely different.

In totalitarianism there is room for only one socialist government.

I would think that the similarities to the ideologies would be the reason they were at such odds.

The biggest difference between them is that the right wing totalitarians were strongly nationalistic and believed in their sovereignty and supremacy while communism was an international movement.

To the man on the street it makes little difference whether they bow to Hitler or Stalin.

Indeed, the history of Nazi "Social Projects" all depends on what the definition of socialism really is. I would say what the Nazis did isn't socialist at all.

Centralizing power under a single authority is not a socialist form of government?

The use of Eugenics for engineering society was not socialist?

The glorification of the State in the Nation's schools was not socialist?

I will agree there was private enterprise in Germany and small businesses were generally left to their devices but socialism is a progression towards totalitarianism. It is not a static state.

Many people in the thirties idolized Hitler, such as our own Tommy Douglas, and capitalists like Prescott Bush who thought the government should run things. Tommy Douglas went to Germany but he was a left wing socialist so he had a falling out with Hitler.

Tommy held the philosophy we are all one, which is part of the left's ideology whereas right wing ideology can be racist and supremacist and will eventually be at odds economically with trading partners over it's demands.

Most of the government's projects were actually contracted out to private companies. Messerschmit, Junkers, Mercedes etc. were all private companies that recieved huge contracts for producing war material.

No doubt they were very happy to get these government contracts but I wonder what would have happened to them if they refused them.

Much of the management of large corporations were replaced or minimally augmented with government managers. I would say that was a little bit socialistic.

Then there are the lesser known contracts such as IG Farben which supplied thousands of tonnes of Zyklon B and Topf and Sons that provided ovens. All as a result of private enterprise. Things like Volkswagen and construction projects such as the autobahn are more the exception rather than the rule.

For the time being they were the exception. It later became the rule. Socialism is progressive until the totalitarian state is achieved.

Furthermore, we have to look at why those projects were being put in place. They weren't out of any good will to the people. The autobahn was built to facilitate troop transfers between fronts and volkswagen was used to build trucks and such for the war effort as well.

It certainly was out of good will to the people, the Aryans. They were proud of the Volkswagen - the People's car and proud of how the Third Reich had lifted the country out of the doldrums it had been in in the twenties after the First World War. The rest of the world was in the midst of the Great Depression and Germany was doing very well.

Added to the fact that the first group of political prisoners to be targeted by the nazis were communists and socialists, well, that's proof enough for me. If it isn't proof enough for others, well, I recommend they take some history and poli sci classes.

The communists were indeed the enemies of the National Socialists.

Two brands of socialism cannot and will not share power but will attempt to annihilate each other.

Stalin had to get rid of Trotsky.

History holds some good lessons but I would forget the poli-sci classes unless one wishes to remain confused on the subject.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

That's the thing about NAZIsm that amny that want to brand it as a version of socialism seem to forget.Adolph Hitler,and his minons,hated Communism,Socialism,AND,DEMOCRACY...The Riechstag fire was blamed on a Dutch Communist halfwit named Marius Vander Lubbe.This was to vilify Communists,and anyone on the left as unpatriotic subversives...

Obviously Jack, Hitler only liked his brand of "socialism". And you could join the The National Socialist party if you liked it too. And Communists liked democracy since they always got a hundred percent of the vote once they were in power.

The objective of socialism is the totalitarian state. Hitler constantly moved toward that.

Mussolini was a fascist and not much different than the Nazi's except for an absence of racism and racial supremacy.

Also,to gain power,and the confidence of the Reichstag,Hitler cozied up to conservatives who were amenable(sp) to some of the NAZI ideas on coporatism and anti-union sentiment...

Communism and socialism were very popular at the time so some elements of them existed in German society. But communism is about revolution and socialism about evolution in acheiving the total state.

FDR was able to introduce many socialist concepts to American politics. He instituted social security, had the same Five year plans as Stalin did, made it illegal for Americans to own gold.

So is America socialist? To a degree it is and it is progressing towards the total state as socialism intends. Europe, Canada, and other western nations all want the US to get in step with them as they are holding back "progress". Obama was their hope but they are getting impatient with his "pandering" to his popularity.

[KeyStone]

These are the products of your policies!

Greek bonds rated 'junk'

BBC

Spain downgraded as Europe debt crisis widens

AP

Europe debt crisis spreads to Portugal

AP

Britain confronts debt of Greek proportions

MSNBC

Enough is enough!!!! :angry:

Alright, I'm a self-professed socialist.

But, there are a few misconceptions that you may have.

Just because I like many of the things that socialism offers, does not mean that I agree with all policies that are socialist, nor does it mean that I need to defend and support all instances of socialism being applied.

In the case of Greece, as well as some of the other European countries, there are two main problems.

1)Many people are finding illegal ways to avoid paying taxes - through encouraging customers to pay cash etc. All this money from small business is not taxed, and therefore these businesses are not paying their fair share.

2) The public sector in Greece is offering ludicrous benefits, such that anyone who has worked for the public sector for twenty years can retire with a full pension for the rest of their lives. When someone can retire at age 38, after having worked twenty years, and get a full pension for the next fifty years, there is a problem.

There is a problem with government running businesses. The problem is not that they are lazy or incompetent. The problem is that most government jobs are unionized. This, in turn means that they often get paid far more than their skills would get in the private sector, and get far greater benefits. Essentially, this means that the cost of a public employee vs a private employee can often be double. This is what needs to change.

We are coming into a time when private jobs grant less benefits then ever, and salaries are not rising quickly. At the same time, government jobs continue to rise in pay unabated, while demands for additional benefits are brought up in each session of collective bargaining.

The divide between the public and private sectors is growing too substantially, to not be addressed. If there are not significant reforms, there will be greater and greater demand to privatize everything, which brings its own set of problems.

[nicky10013]

In totalitarianism there is room for only one socialist government.

I would think that the similarities to the ideologies would be the reason they were at such odds.

The biggest difference between them is that the right wing totalitarians were strongly nationalistic and believed in their sovereignty and supremacy while communism was an international movement.

To the man on the street it makes little difference whether they bow to Hitler or Stalin.

This line of thought presumes that there's a singularity in terms of totalitarian governance. Hitler and Stalin had absolutely nothing in common with the exception that they liked to randomly persecute people as they knew it would be a catalyst for fear which would keep them in power.

It also downplays the "one difference" as a small thing when it was huge.

Furthermore, no, you're right, it doesn't matter which they bow to as they don't have the choice as to which government they want. However, to portray the individual's lack of choice as a significant difference is a fallacy of the worst kind.

Centralizing power under a single authority is not a socialist form of government?

The use of Eugenics for engineering society was not socialist?

The glorification of the State in the Nation's schools was not socialist?

I will agree there was private enterprise in Germany and small businesses were generally left to their devices but socialism is a progression towards totalitarianism. It is not a static state.

Many people in the thirties idolized Hitler, such as our own Tommy Douglas, and capitalists like Prescott Bush who thought the government should run things. Tommy Douglas went to Germany but he was a left wing socialist so he had a falling out with Hitler.

Tommy held the philosophy we are all one, which is part of the left's ideology whereas right wing ideology can be racist and supremacist and will eventually be at odds economically with trading partners over it's demands.

Clearly you lack a clear understanding of what socialism is. Second, what the hell does Tommy Doughlas have to do with anything. With the last part you've only served to disprove your own point. I've said it before and I'll say it again, using propaganda, state schools and mass reprisals aren't points of ideology, they're merely tools.

Furthremore, you've clearly misunderstood yet another thing. Socialism is merely the progression towards full communism. Socialism itself was totalitarian. Furthermore, by most definitions, totalitarian socialism existed in the USSR only during Stalin's period. So, it gets even more complicated.

No doubt they were very happy to get these government contracts but I wonder what would have happened to them if they refused them.

Much of the management of large corporations were replaced or minimally augmented with government managers. I would say that was a little bit socialistic.

First of all, nothing would happen. The German government didn't really punish companies that didn't submit bids.

Secondly, uhhhh, no they weren't. The only people who were replaced were jewish managers. The companies were either bought out or chopped up by Aryan small business owners or massive conglomerates.

For the time being they were the exception. It later became the rule. Socialism is progressive until the totalitarian state is achieved.

It certainly was out of good will to the people, the Aryans. They were proud of the Volkswagen - the People's car and proud of how the Third Reich had lifted the country out of the doldrums it had been in in the twenties after the First World War. The rest of the world was in the midst of the Great Depression and Germany was doing very well.

The communists were indeed the enemies of the National Socialists.

Two brands of socialism cannot and will not share power but will attempt to annihilate each other.

Stalin had to get rid of Trotsky.

Stalin didn't have to get rid of Trotsky at all. He killed trotsky to gain power, not to implement his own form of socialism. If anything, Stalin and Trotsky belonged to a very dogmatic camp of socialism. They agreed on a lot. Trotsky became an opponent chiefly when he didn't become what Stalin was. The trotskyist purges weren't to get rid of the ideology, it was to eliminate opposition to his rule. Then, he used it until 1940 to purge the party of people he deemed, quite often in extremely paranoid states, enemies of the state.

History holds some good lessons but I would forget the poli-sci classes unless one wishes to remain confused on the subject.

Clearly I'm not the one who's confused.

Edited May 3, 2010 by nicky10013

[Sir Bandelot]

Hitler implemented several innovative socialist policies before the war, many of which are admired and still benefit us in so-called free societies today. These involved reform of the work force, including standardized 40 hour work weeks, guaranteed rest breaks during the day, guaranteed vacation, a minimum wage and unemployment insurance. Also included was national health care and dental care, standardized education and other aspects of social security.

This is one of the reasons why Hitler was loved by many of the German people, in the early days. They were not forced to obey a brutal dictator. That part came later, when the governments power became total.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure....just as bad as Toronto or Vancouver!

There is no such thing as "pure capitalism" at work anywhere in the USA.

Are you saying that Toronto's worst neighbourhoods have an equivalent in the USA ? What measures would we use to compare ? Homicide rates ? Drug use ? Income ? Infant mortality ?

[nicky10013]

Hitler implemented several innovative socialist policies before the war, many of which are admired and still benefit us in so-called free societies today. These involved reform of the work force, including standardized 40 hour work weeks, guaranteed rest breaks during the day, guaranteed vacation, a minimum wage and unemployment insurance. Also included was national health care and dental care, standardized education and other aspects of social security.

This is one of the reasons why Hitler was loved by many of the German people, in the early days. They were not forced to obey a brutal dictator. That part came later, when the governments power became total.

Implementing the 40 hour work week doesn't make you a socialist. Furthermore, the German people WERE forced to obey him. The SA had intimidation campaigns around elections. Hitler never recieved more than 30-35% of the vote. He was given the chancellorship, burned down the Reichstag and passed the enabling act which essentially made him dictator. This was finished by 1933. This was before he was "loved."

[Sir Bandelot]

Implementing the 40 hour work week doesn't make you a socialist.

It does when its part of a broader plan to enforce standards for workers in private workplaces, by centralized planning. Those standards include all the other things I mentioned, and more. Social insurance programs and benefits for workers, even reduced costs for taking vacations.

Furthermore, the German people WERE forced to obey him. The SA had intimidation campaigns around elections. Hitler never recieved more than 30-35% of the vote. He was given the chancellorship, burned down the Reichstag and passed the enabling act which essentially made him dictator. This was finished by 1933. This was before he was "loved."

Hitler was loved by the German people at the very beginning. Not all of them, not foreign born ciizens, liberals or Jews. His book Mein Kampf was more popular than the bible. Because of it he bacame the equvalent to a billionaire today. Winning 35% of the vote in that situation, with several political parties made it impossible to get a majority. That would be one reason why he took over and eliminated them, and shut down the democracy. Groups who opposed him were attacked, but the German people approved f what he was doing, because they were desperate and frustrated by the capitulating weimar republic. Hitler offered a way out of the problem they were in. And thereis ample evidence that his economic system was a huge success.

It's no secret that many in Germany (and indeed throughout the whole of Europe) blamed and hated the Jews for their economic problems. Those who did, welcomed the purges.

But the reichstag and all that, is not about Hitler's socialist policies, is it

Edited May 3, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

....Hitler was loved by the German people at the very beginning. Not all of them, not foreign born ciizens, liberals or Jews. His book Mein Kampf was more popular than the bible. Because of it he bacame the equvalent to a billionaire today....

Not from book sales he didn't, many copies were given away. Hitler would have been a multi-millionaire, not billionaire.

[Pliny]

This line of thought presumes that there's a singularity in terms of totalitarian governance. Hitler and Stalin had absolutely nothing in common with the exception that they liked to randomly persecute people as they knew it would be a catalyst for fear which would keep them in power.

There is singularity from the perspective of the citizen. The one thing Hitler and Stalin had in common was their lust for power. Clearly incompatible to each other. They may have run things differently but they did run things. Their sense of economics was different, property rights, etc., were, true enough, vastly different. Hitler was, on an evolutionary basis, bringing about his socialist totalitarianism while the revolution brought about Stalin's socialist totalitarianism.

Furthermore, no, you're right, it doesn't matter which they bow to as they don't have the choice as to which government they want. However, to portray the individual's lack of choice as a significant difference is a fallacy of the worst kind.

A central authority is a central authority. Total government is total government and it is about engineering society. A centrally planned society is a centrally planned society. The differences in ideology matter little.

Clearly you lack a clear understanding of what socialism is.

Here is what I mean by socialism - it is the progressive, evolutionary attainment of the totalitarian state. It is not an ideal in itself it is an evolutionary means to achieving the ideal of the total socialist state.

Second, what the hell does Tommy Douglas have to do with anything.

He was a socialist who admired Hitler's socialist reforms. As most socialists would until they found out that it was a bit exclusive.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, using propaganda, state schools and mass reprisals aren't points of ideology, they're merely tools.

Yes, they are socialist tools for progressively achieving the totalitarian state.

Furthremore, you've clearly misunderstood yet another thing. Socialism is merely the progression towards full communism.

Communism achieves the totalitarian state through revolution. Communism is not an evolutionary process. The reason Castro is a communist and not a right wing dictator is because he achieved the total state through revolution and his economic policies were Marxist. Socialism is a progression towards the total state, and there is no distinction between what type of total state.

Socialism itself was totalitarian. Furthermore, by most definitions, totalitarian socialism existed in the USSR only during Stalin's period. So, it gets even more complicated.

Totalitarianism is the goal of socialism. You have said yourself, it is a progression, on that I can agree. Then again, you say. "Socialism itself was totalitarian." Totalitarianism is the ideal - the total socialist state. How is it that socialism progresses towards communism? Yet socialism itself is totalitarian.

First of all, nothing would happen. The German government didn't really punish companies that didn't submit bids.

Secondly, uhhhh, no they weren't. The only people who were replaced were jewish managers. The companies were either bought out or chopped up by Aryan small business owners or massive conglomerates.

Not just Jewish managers, anyone that wasn't in lockstep with the movement either got out early on their own or were replaced.

Stalin didn't have to get rid of Trotsky at all. He killed trotsky to gain power, not to implement his own form of socialism. If anything, Stalin and Trotsky belonged to a very dogmatic camp of socialism. They agreed on a lot. Trotsky became an opponent chiefly when he didn't become what Stalin was. The trotskyist purges weren't to get rid of the ideology, it was to eliminate opposition to his rule. Then, he used it until 1940 to purge the party of people he deemed, quite often in extremely paranoid states, enemies of the state.

It is about power and it's corrupting influence. Of course, Stalin had to get rid of Trotsky. Just like Hitler had to get rid of the communists and other socialists. That kind of power is not shared and it is necessary to get rid of any competition, real or imagined. When power is that centralized there is always a struggle to gain it and to keep it.

Socialism progressively centralizes power. You don't know until the final push for power what kind of total socialist state you will be living under. Communism installs a totalitarian government. Marxist-Leninists don't agree with other communists or Stalinists or Maoists so even under communism you can only have a vague idea of how it will be run but you do know you will be sub-servant to the state. Has China now become more like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy?

Clearly I'm not the one who's confused.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Implementing the 40 hour work week doesn't make you a socialist.

Enforcing a 40 hour work week does. It is a central authority engineering society.

Furthermore, the German people WERE forced to obey him. The SA had intimidation campaigns around elections. Hitler never recieved more than 30-35% of the vote. He was given the chancellorship, burned down the Reichstag and passed the enabling act which essentially made him dictator. This was finished by 1933. This was before he was "loved."

Different types of socialism existed and then there were the communists. Only one type of socialism can ever prevail in one country. Germany already had to have progressed to a level of socialism that concentrated enough power to allow Hitler to do what he was able to do. That means there was some control over the economy and people were receiving social entitlements from the government. We know more now in hindsight about how the introduction of socialist concepts in government winds up centralizing power and that it ends in totalitarian tyranny. This why there is any aversion to socialism at all. I don't think the latest generation realizes it's creeping, progressive nature and we once again will be faced with tyranny. We need to decentralize power and that can only be done economically by recognizing the ownership of private property and the state recognizing the sanctity of person and property of honest citizens.

[Jack Weber]

There is singularity from the perspective of the citizen. The one thing Hitler and Stalin had in common was their lust for power. Clearly incompatible to each other. They may have run things differently but they did run things. Their sense of economics was different, property rights, etc., were, true enough, vastly different. Hitler was, on an evolutionary basis, bringing about his socialist totalitarianism while the revolution brought about Stalin's socialist totalitarianism.

A central authority is a central authority. Total government is total government and it is about engineering society. A centrally planned society is a centrally planned society. The differences in ideology matter little.

Here is what I mean by socialism - it is the progressive, evolutionary attainment of the totalitarian state. It is not an ideal in itself it is an evolutionary means to achieving the ideal of the total socialist state.

He was a socialist who admired Hitler's socialist reforms. As most socialists would until they found out that it was a bit exclusive.

Yes, they are socialist tools for progressively achieving the totalitarian state.

Communism achieves the totalitarian state through revolution. Communism is not an evolutionary process. The reason Castro is a communist and not a right wing dictator is because he achieved the total state through revolution and his economic policies were Marxist. Socialism is a progression towards the total state, and there is no distinction between what type of total state.

Totalitarianism is the goal of socialism. You have said yourself, it is a progression, on that I can agree. Then again, you say. "Socialism itself was totalitarian." Totalitarianism is the ideal - the total socialist state. How is it that socialism progresses towards communism? Yet socialism itself is totalitarian.

Not just Jewish managers, anyone that wasn't in lockstep with the movement either got out early on their own or were replaced.

It is about power and it's corrupting influence. Of course, Stalin had to get rid of Trotsky. Just like Hitler had to get rid of the communists and other socialists. That kind of power is not shared and it is necessary to get rid of any competition, real or imagined. When power is that centralized there is always a struggle to gain it and to keep it.

Socialism progressively centralizes power. You don't know until the final push for power what kind of total socialist state you will be living under. Communism installs a totalitarian government. Marxist-Leninists don't agree with other communists or Stalinists or Maoists so even under communism you can only have a vague idea of how it will be run but you do know you will be sub-servant to the state. Has China now become more like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy?

I remember reading somewhere that if you sat Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler were in a room together,and you removed the economic differences,they would probably both agree with each other.I can't agree with you tht Adolph Hiter was bringing about socialist change from a leftist perspective.That's simply not true.In fact,Hitler modelled his early forms of NAZIsm on Mussolini's Fascists,based on Corporatism and extreme Nationalism.Those are two of the defining tenets of Fascism.

If your arguement is that totalitarianism is all the same,you're about 90% correct.There are defining differences,however,and they cannot be dismissed because they are the heart of the extreme dislike between the two opposing ideologies.The roads to the two end games are very different.

To your point about Tommy Douglas...It is true that as a young man he did have some admiration for Hitler...So did alot of people who were hoodwinked by him.Douglas disavowed himself from those leaning fairly quickly.It should be noted that eugenics is NOT a NAZI cause.In fact,many prominent Americans like Teddy Roosevelt and Thomas Edison and Woodrowe Wilson all espoused views that favoured eugenics at on time or another.

As far as getting rid of people goes,it could be said that Earnst Rohm was Hitler's Leon Trotsky.Rohm was murdered during the Night of the Long Knives purges so the SA would be effectively neutered,and the army would back Hitler.

Your point about Castro is interesting,in that originally he was'nt Communist at all.In fact he asked for US assistance.It was'nt until Nixon basically gave him the bird that he went to the Soviets.Another thing,and I think this will illustrate the differences between Fascism and Communism even better....It is true that Castro is a leftist,Communist dictator.But his contemporary counterpart in Latin American at the time would probably be General Augusto Pinochet in Chile.Pinochet was also a brutal dictator,but no one would confuse him for being a Communist at all.Both are/were extreme authoritarians who wanted total state control.The difference being that Pinochet was also a Friedmanite who opened up the Chilean markets while Castro stayed with state control of the Cuban economy.It's that Corporatism that always seperates the right from the left.

Your point about China right now is also interesting.Personally,I no longer think China is a Communist country.It simply no longer fits the ideological bill!If a totalitarian/authoritarian country is embracing things like a quasi free market,private property ownership,private life insurance,a vibrant Bourgois middle class etc.,by definition it is not a state of the extreme left.In fact,I think China has flipped into a crypto-Fascist state fairly easily.If you allow for some form of Corporatism and private property ownership plus the heavy hand of a totalitarian government intruding into almost every aspect of every citizens lives,you've pretty much become a Fascist.Couple that with a creeping sense of Nationalism,that I've noticed beginning to come out from the Chinese government ,as it relates to its attitude internationally...well...Don't get kicked with the goose step...

[WIP]

Limited government is not what people will vote for, especially when over 50% of the people are dependent upon government for their paycheck.

I think I stopped buying this line about limited government when I noticed how many faux libertarians want smaller, less effective government so that corporations have more control over our lives.

[WIP]

Where is it written that the right wing can't be socialists?

Socialism means government or public ownership of business. What you're describing with the Nazis etc. isn't socialism, it's fascism, where the rulers of the one party state, the military, the church leaders, and the corporate CEO's all work together to maintain their tight control over a nation. The economic policy of Nazi Germany wasn't socialist, it was merely crony capitalism. The Nazis used slave labour for public works projects, such as the building of the Autobahn, and banned unions and strikes. That's not socialism any more than the DDR was democratic!

Edited May 3, 2010 by WIP

[Sir Bandelot]

Not from book sales he didn't, many copies were given away. Hitler would have been a multi-millionaire, not billionaire.

"Hitler had made about 1.2 m Reichsmarks from the income of his book in 1933, when the average annual income of a teacher was about 4,800 Mark."

[Sir Bandelot]

Mein Kampf earnings

Hitler had earned 1.2m Reichsmarks in 1933 from sales of his book Mein Kampf - "a huge income, when you consider teachers then had annual salaries of 4,800 marks".

By 1945 Hitler had made 7.6m Reichsmarks out of Mein Kampf, without paying any tax.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4105683.stm