Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Socialism = NAZI (Hitler was a socialist)

Posted on 06/22/2002 10:38:56 AM PDT by freeforall

Socialism = NAZI or...

Hitler was a socialist.

The nasty little secret they don't want you to know!

THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, by Leonard Peikoff...

A Veritas News Service Book Review - "A magnificent work... it should be required reading for all Americans. This book reveals socialisms nasty little secret." William Cooper

Excerpt from Chapter One.

The Nazis were not a tribe of prehistoric savages. Their crimes were the official, legal acts and policies of modern Germany -- an educated, industrialized, CIVILIZED Western European nation, a nation renowned throughout the world for the luster of its intellectual and cultural achievements. By reason of its long line of famous artists and thinkers, Germany has been called "the land of poets and philosophers."

But its education offered the country no protection against the Sergeant Molls in its ranks. The German university students were among the earliest groups to back Hitler. The intellectuals were among his regime's most ardent supporters. Professors with distinguished academic credentials, eager to pronounce their benediction on the Fuhrer's cause, put their scholarship to work full time; they turned out a library of admiring volumes, adorned with obscure allusions and learned references.

The Nazis did not gain power against the country's wishes. In this respect there was no gulf between the intellectuals and the people. The Nazi party was elected to office by the freely cast ballots of millions of German voters, including men on every social, economic, and educational level. In the national election of July 1932, the Nazis obtained 37% of the vote and a plurality of seats in the Reichstag. On January 30, 1933, in full accordance with the country's legal and constitutional principles, Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Five weeks later, in the last (and semi-free) election of the pre-totalitarian period, the Nazis obtained 17 million votes, 44% of the total.

The voters were aware of the Nazi ideology. Nazi literature, including statements of the Nazi plans for the future, papered the country during the last years of the Weimar Republic. "Mein Kampf" alone sold more than 200,000 copies between 1925 and 1932. The essence of the political system which Hitler intended to establish in Germany was clear.

In 1933, when Hitler did establish the system he had promised, he did not find it necessary to forbid foreign travel. Until World War II, those Germans who wished to flee the country could do so. The overwhelming majority did not. They were satisfied to remain.

The system which Hitler established -- the social reality which so many Germans were so eager to embrace or so willing to endure -- the politics which began in a theory and ended in Auschwitz -- was: the "total state". The term, from which the adjective "totalitarian" derives, was coined by Hitler's mentor, Mussolini.

The state must have absolute power over every man and over every sphere of human activity, the Nazis declared. "The authority of the Fuhrer is not limited by checks and controls, by special autonomous bodies or individual rights, but it is free and independent, all-inclusive and unlimited," said Ernst Huber, an official party spokesman, in 1933.

"The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principle of the nationalistic Reich," said Huber to a country which listened, and nodded. "There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state... The constitution of the nationalistic Reich is therefore not based upon a system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual."

If the term "statism" designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty, then Nazism in politics was a form of statism. In principle, it did not represent a new approach to government; it was a continuation of the political absolutism -- the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies -- which has characterized most of human history.

In degree, however, the total state does differ from its predecessors: it represents statism pressed to its limits, in theory and in practice, devouring the last remnants of the individual. Although previous dictators (and many today; e.g., in Latin America) often preached the unlimited power of the state, they were on the whole unable to enforce such power. As a rule, citizens of such countries had a kind of partial "freedom", not a freedom-on-principle, but at least a freedom-by-default.

Even the latter was effectively absent in Nazi Germany. The efficiency of the government in dominating its subjects, the all-encompassing character of its coercion, the complete mass regimentation on a scale involving millions of men -- and, one might add, the enormity of the slaughter, the planned, systematic mass slaughter, in peacetime, initiated by a government against its own citizens -- these are the insignia of twentieth-century totalitarianism (Nazi AND communist), which are without parallel in recorded history. In the totalitarian regimes, as the Germans found out after only a few months of Hitler's rule, every detail of life is prescribed, or proscribed. There is no longer any distinction between private matters and public matters. "There are to be no more private Germans," said Friedrich Sieburg, a Nazi writer; "each is to attain significance only by his service to the state, and to find complete self-fulfillment in his service." "The only person who is still a private individual in Germany," boasted Robert Ley, a member of the Nazi hierarchy, after several years of Nazi rule, "is somebody who is asleep."

In place of the despised "private individuals," the Germans heard daily or hourly about a different kind of entity, a supreme entity, whose will, it was said, is what determines the course and actions of the state: the nation, the whole, the GROUP. Over and over, the Germans heard the idea that underlies the advocacy of omnipotent government, the idea that totalitarians of every kind stress as the justification of their total states: COLLECTIVISM.

Collectivism is the theory that the group (the collective) has primacy over the individual. Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective -- society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc. -- is THE UNIT OF REALITY AND THE STANDARD OF VALUE. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it; on his own he has no political rights; he is to be sacrificed for the group whenever it -- or its representative, the state -- deems this desirable.

Fascism, said one of its leading spokesmen, Alfredo Rocco, stresses:

...the necessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals, on behalf of society... For Liberalism (i.e., individualism), the individual is the end and society the means; nor is it conceivable that the individual, considered in the dignity of an ultimate finality, be lowered to mere instrumentality. For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.

"The higher interests involved in the life of the whole," said Hitler in a 1933 speech, "must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual." Men, echoed the Nazis, have to "realize that the State is more important than the individual, that individuals must be willing and ready to sacrifice themselves for Nation and Fuhrer." The people, said the Nazis, "form a true organism," a "living unity", whose cells are individual persons. In reality, therefore -- appearances to the contrary notwithstanding -- there is no such thing as an "isolated individual" or an autonomous man.

Just as the individual is to be regarded merely as a fragment of the group, the Nazis said, so his possessions are to be regarded as a fragment of the group's wealth.

"Private property" as conceived under the liberalistic economy order was a reversal of the true concept of property [wrote Huber]. This "private property" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard for the general interests... German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.

Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a content-less deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property DEJURE. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership DE FACTO.

During the Hitler years -- in order to finance the party's programs, including the war expenditures -- every social group in Germany was mercilessly exploited and drained. White-collar salaries and the earnings of small businessmen were deliberately held down by government controls, freezes, taxes. Big business was bled by taxes and "special contributions" of every kind, and strangled by the bureaucracy. At the same time the income of the farmers was held down, and there was a desperate flight to the cities -- where the middle class, especially the small tradesmen, were soon in desperate straits, and where the workers were forced to labor at low wages for increasingly longer hours (up to 60 or more per week).

But the Nazis defended their policies, and the country did not rebel; it accepted the Nazi argument. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, SOCIALISM. In its Nazi usage this term is not restricted to a theory of economics; it is to be understood in a fundamental sense. "Socialism" for the Nazis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism -- in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics.

"To be a socialist", says Goebbels, "is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."

By this definition, the Nazis practiced what they preached. They practiced it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals.

Excerpted from Chapter 1 of THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, by Leonard Peikoff... most probably the most important book written in modern times. Buy it... read it... study it.

TOPICS: Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: america; calgov2002; fascist; germany; goebbels; hitler; leftist; nazi; nazism; nsdap; socialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 241-244 next last
To: BillinDenver
Stalin and Brezhnev did NOT allow the wealthy industrialists and landed gentry to keep their private wealth. On THIS score, Hitler is much closer to American free marketers than Communists or Socialists.

Hitler allowed the industrialists to keep their wealth, provided that they did his bidding. This was a state regulated economy where the penalty was death. It has nothing to do with a free market system. In virtually every way, it is similar to the soviet model. Per the article:
It is a difference without meaning in this context.
181 posted on 06/24/2002 2:50:35 PM PDT by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: BillinDenver
When I was young the traditional comparsion of isms was inculcated in me, probably through my public school.

This well-know comparison can be -- forgive the poor use of html -- graphed:

Nazi .....US . . ..Communism

I have since come to understand that a better comparision is

Anarchy . . .US . . . . . Totalitarian

Of course totalitarians includes Communists and Nazis.

You can play games with the shades of meanings of words, especially if they are redefined in an Orwellian fashion. The eugenics movement renamed itself Planned Parenthood when the Nazis made the first word unfashionable.

The Nazis and the Communists both put the state ahead of the individual. American Constitutionalism puts the individual first and declares the state to be a servant -- one which must be constantly watched.

I agree that free-marketers are very cool towards unions. But they are also cool towards corporate ogilopies and monopolies.And I agree 100 percent that there are a lot of capitalists who don't believe in the free market and are a-holes in general.

182 posted on 06/24/2002 3:38:12 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: My Identity
Great post
183 posted on 06/24/2002 3:38:38 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

Comment #184 Removed by Moderator

To: BillinDenver
The free-market and Nazis is a contradiction in terms. You can't compare them without seriously miscontruing one or both.

Near as I can tell, totalitarian means left-wing. The communists, socialists, collectivists, fascists, and nazis all treat dissent in the same fashion. If you have read the posts in this thread, you'll see Hitler was a socialist.
185 posted on 06/24/2002 4:19:21 PM PDT by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: BillinDenver
BillinDenver, you wrote in your #174:
And [Hitler's] solution was to ban all unions except the Nazi party's union, outlaw strikes, jail labor leaders and anyone who attempted to organize, etc. Sounds like a businessman's wet dream in America.

But a businessman's wet dreams don't define an economic system. The actions of those who are overseeing the system determine what sort of system it is. A businessman can dream all he wants about getting the government to unfairly gang up with him against his employees and his competitors, but in a capitalist system those dreams will remain unfulfilled. Capitalism is about the separation of business and the state, not their collusion. The fact that Hitler was willing to hop in bed with the big industrialists is proof that he wasn't a capitalist.

In your #178 you wrote:

However, Stalin and Brezhnev did NOT allow the wealthy industrialists and landed gentry to keep their private wealth. On THIS score, Hitler is much closer to American free marketers than Communists or Socialists.

True, I guess. But doesn't this really just serve to prove how flaky and far-out the the Soviet communists were? Hitler had a silly mustache but at least he allowed business owners to keep their businesses. And there is still a profound difference between Hitler and the American free marketers. In the US, business owners have a right to the wealth they create; in Nazi Germany their wealth could be taken from them if the Fuhrer willed it, since, according to Ernst Huber,

The authority of the Fuhrer is not limited by checks and controls, by special autonomous bodies or individual rights, but it is free and independent, all-inclusive and unlimited.

Capitalism requires a limited government.

You wrote:

And American free marketers haven't been very kind to organized labor historically either. Up until striking was made legal in the 30's, strikes were frequently suppressed with private police or National Guard units.

Well, being a free marketer -- and being consistent about it -- means believing in a free labor market, too. Workers are free to strike and employers are free to fire them for striking, but forcing your workers to get back to work is about as anti free market as it gets. In a capitalist system you can no more force people to work for you than you can force people to buy your product. So it seems to be a bit of a strawman to call these guys free marketers in regards to their dealings with labor, which they clearly were not, and then to compare them with Hitler (plus, by the time WWII rolled around, the US had pretty much seen the end of violent strike-breaking).

186 posted on 06/24/2002 4:50:04 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick

187 posted on 06/24/2002 5:22:36 PM PDT by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: My Identity; stryker
Thanks for a graet post.Stryker asked for profs who would agree with the proposition before us, well here we go.

Kenneth H. W. Hilborn {Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario, Kenneth Hilborn's primary field of specialization is 20th Century international relations with an emphasis on the impact of ideologies. During the Cold War, he wrote extensively on international issues for newspapers and anti-Communist periodicals. He reported from Australia, Berlin, Cyprus, Nationalist China (Taiwan and Quemoy), southern Africa and Southeast Asia (including South Vietnam). For several years, his book reviews appeared from coast to coast in Canadian newspapers of the Thomson chain.

Professor Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), was the outstanding representative of the so-called "Austrian School" of economics. He was world-renowned for his research, writing, and teaching, and long served as a member of the staff of The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).

Publication of The Theory of Money and Credit in 1912 won him early recognition as one of Europe's foremost economists. Among his many other books and articles, one of his most important contributions is his Socialism, first published in 1922. However, he is best known for his work published in the United States, notably Omnipotent Government (1944), Bureaucracy (1944), Planned Chaos (1947), Human Action (1949), Planning For Freedom (1952), The Anti-Capitalist Mentality (1956), Theory and History (1957), and Epistemological Problems of Economics (1960).

In 1926, Dr. Mises founded the Austrian Institute of Business Cycle Research. From then until the Anschluss of Austria by Germany in 1938, the Institute was one of the centers of economic and statistical research in Europe. For more than twenty years, Dr. Mises taught economics at the University of Vienna. From 1934 to 1940, he occupied the chair of International Economic Relations at the Graduate Institute of International Studies at Geneva, Switzerland. He lectured as a guest at various universities and institutions in Great Britain, the United States, Italy, the Netherlands, and Mexico.

Professor Walter Block {Professor Walter Block, formerly senior economist with the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, and recently-past professor of economics at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester Massachusetts, is now chair of the Department of Economics and Finance at the University of Central Arkansas in Conway Arkansas.

How many more do I need or is their a magic number to be valid?

188 posted on 06/24/2002 5:54:20 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
Interesting and related post:
Orwell, words, politics and the war for freedom

A small quote:
189 posted on 06/24/2002 6:10:13 PM PDT by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: My Identity
An intelligent reply. My problems with it are these. First, you are trying to impose a new definition of the left and the right on a social science that has always defined the left and the right based upon the liberal/conservative split that developed around the writings of John Locke and Edmund Burke. I agree with most everything you wrote when imposing this new paradigm, where the power of the state is measured to the left, and its' diminishing power is considered moving to the right. But that is not the historical model. No one knows what you are talking about without first making clear that you have changed paradigms from what is generally accepted to one that is used primarily by libertarians.

Second, the new paradigm that you use is not sufficient to distinguish between fascism and socialism. While both may result in omnipotent states, there are very real differences between the two that must be taken into account; differences that are best explained based on the classical left/right spectrum. In the case of fascism, there is in fact no nationalization of industry. It remains in private hands, and slave labor is provided by the state to the profit of individual owners of the means of production. Additionally, differences between the populace are accentuated: the state promotes racism and intolerance and promotes a supposedly superior, indiginous people to an elevated position over all others. These are not theoretical matters. They are actual acts that fascism has shown itself to do. Additionally, fascism raises the symbols of nationalism, usually adding new ones, but nevertheless symbols that revere the traditions of the fascist society, to the level of worship. Do not fool yourself that there was anything Christian about Hitler's Germany. One worshipped the State and the Fuhrer, and could be shot for worshipping "that Jewish bastard," quoting Hitler.

On the other hand, socialist societies have nationalized the land and industries of the countries in which socialists have come to power. They have vastly expanded the rights of women and minorities within those societies, and have entered upon programs of forced equality of the sexes, races, etc. I'm sure you saw FOX's coverage of the school's for women and the minority tribe's in Afghanistan set up under the socialist government that once existed there. Again, these are actions that really occur and are different from actions that occur under fascism.

Now here is where you do make a serious mistake and why this issue is so important. You state basically that the works of Marx and Lenin are synonomous. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is here that libertarians must be very aware of the distinctions between the left and right on the classical scale. Marx wrote that the western industrial democracies would evolve into socialism and then into communism. He also developed the idea that overproduction by those countries would lead to colonialism and periodic wars when the international markets would be redistributed between those industrialized countries. With his involvement in the First International, Marx tentatively wrote that it might be possible for a colony or third world country during a war for national liberation to skip the capitalist stage and move directly to forced socialism if a dedicated cadre of communist party members could be ready to seize power at the opportune moment.

Lenin, in his "What is to be Done," and "Imperialism, the Last Stage of Capitalism," took this idea and developed the actual technique and structure that such a party would have to use to seize and maintain power against the capitalist efforts to recolonize a country. Hence, it is Lenin that promoted the use of force by the state, other than democratic, to seize and maintain power by socialists, not Marx.

But this is very important to us as libertarians. If we examine closely current events in the United States, we find that Marx was absolutely correct, not the failed theorotician our masters would have us believe. What else is the new tolerance that we must all accept that states not only must we tolerate others differences and opinions but those differences and opinions are as valid and true as our own? What else is affirmative action and Title IX and abortion on demand except the evolution of the United States into a socialist society? What else is the redistribution of wealth through the graduated income tax and the welfare system than creeping socialism? What else is the erasure of our heritage and history in our public schools so that our children now know more about Pocohantas than George Washington and Thomas Paine? What else is the gradual abolition of our right to own and bear arms? And I could go on and on.

My point is that there is value in remembering the traditional left/right spectrum placing socialism with its nationalization of industry, redistribution of wealth, and destruction of the traditional institutions of a society on the left and fascism with its' nationalization of minority groups as a labor force, its' raising of a single race to privileged status, and its' not mere reverence, but worship of the traditional institutions and symbols of the society on the right. Through this paradigm we can measure how far we have moved from the center, where there is balance and safety.

I agree that in the end what matters is whether we are free. Therefore, a paradigm such as you use is very beneficial in measuring simply how far we are from totalitarianism, whether it be totalitarianism of the left or right. But we should also be very aware of which type of totalitarianism is the biggest threat at any given moment. The classical paradigm used in political science departments across this nation does that job well, and demonstrates that the danger comes now from the left.

My hat is off to you, My Identity, for an excellent argument. Stryker

190 posted on 06/24/2002 6:15:45 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: stryker
My hat is off to you, My Identity, for an excellent argument. Stryker

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and kind words.

I will need to respond with a few comments on your reply a bit later.
But for now...
Best Freegards,
191 posted on 06/24/2002 6:31:57 PM PDT by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: stryker
In the case of fascism, there is in fact no nationalization of industry. It remains in private hands, and slave labor is provided by the state to the profit of individual owners of the means of production.

Do you think Sweden is a socialist country? Have they nationalized their industry?

192 posted on 06/24/2002 7:18:10 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Sweden, like the US, is in transistion, certainly redistributing wealth with an incredibly burdomsome tax system, but capable of going right or left, depending upon what happens in the rest of the world. I notice that the far right on the traditional paradigm of left-communist/right-fascist as extremes is having more and more success in western Europe as refugees pour into the area. Again, the traditional paradigm will serve us well as a gauge to see which way Sweden will go. BTW, Sweden, as a subject unto itself, is not a country I feel very knowledgable in, other than what I read in the papers. Enlighten me.
193 posted on 06/24/2002 7:33:25 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: BillinDenver
And how many capitalists do you know want to be controlled by government? Hitler was no capitalist. He hated America and the conservative ideals she stood for. He hated free enterprise. He was the government and he wanted government to have complete control over business. Some people made money under Hitler for sure, as long as they did what he wanted them to. That isn't capitalism -- that's fascism.
194 posted on 06/24/2002 8:16:28 PM PDT by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: My Identity
BTW, I forgot to mention that a strict constitutionalist would be a liberal. See John Locke's writings. Compare Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau. These are the philosophical writings upon which the American Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were founded, and they stand in stark contradiction to the writings of Edmund Burke. Burke was therefore labelled conservative and Locke, liberal. Hence, what we today call a conservative is actually an historical liberal, and is considered such in political philosophy.
195 posted on 06/24/2002 8:17:30 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: stryker
Sweden, like the US, is in transistion,

Sweden is generally considered to be a "socialist democracy." The most dominent force in Swedish politics over the last century has been the Social Democratic Party. It advanced causes -- generally considered to be socialists -- such as nationalized health care, wage and price controls, wage and price controls, and a state-controlled agricultural policy.

The Nazis supported and expanded these things too, although many of these policies existed in Germany long before the Nazis came to power.

You could argue that the Nazis were not as dogmatically anti-free market as the Soviets. But they were still socialists.

196 posted on 06/24/2002 8:44:04 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: stryker
I forgot to mention that a strict constitutionalist would be a liberal.

I agree with you here :-)

Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

---From Merriam-Webster OnLine.

197 posted on 06/24/2002 8:47:38 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: freeforall
Interesting article at Enter Stage Right on language and labels in politics.
198 posted on 06/25/2002 11:57:00 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stryker
Thanks for a good post to MI.I would agree with you that some of us are " trying to impose a new definition of the left and the right on a social science".The reason for this is to advance the notion that a political spectrum should include classic Liberals and Libertarians.This would show the contrast to the statists.

Perhaps the historical model of the left/right is associated with the self interest of those who preserve it in the ivory towers.

The problem I think we might be having is not so much one of definitions as one of the classification of concepts.Perhaps we are using an incorrect genus.If the proper genus were used I think we would then be able to agree on the species that follow.

Perhaps the genus should not be Socialism.Perhaps Collectivism should be the genus and that Socialism,Communism,Facism and Nazism are the species.The other contrast would be Individualism as the genus with Libertarianism,Classic Liberalism etc as the species.

199 posted on 06/25/2002 5:32:43 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Whether socialism exists depends upon whether the means of production has been nationalized. Either fascists or socialists in ascension or descent can practice mere progressive tax rates, price controls, favoritism in the marketplace, etc. Fascists do not nationalize the means of production, although they often direct the private owners in how it will be used. Nevertheless, the owners get the profits and the power that goes with them. The only nationalization that occurs is the theft of property from minorities, which is given over to party members as their private property. Most everyone seems to be getting this point now, and distinguishing the two forms of statism, but you are beating a dead dog.
200 posted on 06/25/2002 9:43:03 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 241-244 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson