Posted on 06/22/2002 10:38:56 AM PDT by freeforall
Hitler wasn't a Socialist. However, he used some of the ideas of Socialism, like collectivism and statism, in order to advance his nationalistic schemes. Hitler's ambition was for the Aryan race to become all powerful and for other races, like the Jews, Slavs etc to be enslaved. That's why the NAZI party described itself as 'National Socialist'. It used a perverted form of Socialism, one that only benefited the Aryan Germans (the untermenschen were just the slave labour and fertiliser), for the benefit of German nationalism. Don't confuse the NAZI party's slippery use of the term Socialism, with real Socialism.
To summarise, Orthodox Socialism is egalitarian and anti-nationalist, unfortunately, it also requires collectivism and statism. Hitler accepted the last two, but rejected the first two, in favour of racism and nationalism. The USSR claimed to accept all four, but actually was also a racist cesspool. The USSR was not a proper Socialist country, nor is the PRC one. I doubt that there will ever be a proper Socialist society.
From ReaganIsRight | 2002-06-22 20:44:34 replied I never posted to you. If you have more than one logon name, both should be deleted. I don't advocate censorship, but I don't like stupid people. You have been DEFINED! P.S. You're screwing up my posts, and JR will get you, a-hole.Looks like profanity to me...
Did the Socialist Party order him to assassinate the politician?
Also very interesting is that the PvdA refuses to leave the offices they are required to leave. The LPF is entitled to that office space. But those democratic socialists won't leave, trying to fence off the LPF from being an effective party.
When does their term of office expire?
Did I mention they still are using the national tv to cause as much damage to the LPF as they possibly can?
And American politicans do not use public funded resources to attack their opponents.
Right...and I have a bridge I would like to sell you...
PS Knowingly spreading lies is slander, not free speech.
Political campaign rhetoric as slander. Oh, that is too much. You really don't know a lot about politics.
Misspelling stupid while trying to call someone stupid -- not to bright...
I like much of what I know about objectivism except for its dismissal of Traditional Religion. And I do find the article interesting. But Left and Right are directional statements applicable only to the one dimensional number line and no longer useful when discussing things that are more than one dimensional which political philosophies surely are!
The truth is that there are characteristics that link Nazism to the left and to the right, and the mixture can't quite be characterized as either. Part of the problem is also that since Hitler and Stalin, both the right and the left want to appear less amenable to state control and domination of industry and society than they were in the Europe of Hitler's day. Similarly, one would find racial and eugenic ideas much more popular across the Western political spectrum in 1932 than in 2002.
More interesting would be a discussion of Peikoff. Randian individualist by trade and conviction, yet he does manage to be very collectivist about things that concern him deeply, like the Middle East. Don't Randianism and other extreme forms of libertarianism tend to break down in this way when issues of real concern to people are addressed?
The argument that Nazism was inegalitarian, and therefore on the right, is also something that doesn't stand greater scrutiny. Among Germans, there was a feeling that they had never been so equal as they were under Hitler. There were similar feelings in France and Russia during the revolutions. Revolutionary leftism may make professions of universal equality, but the practice is passionate opposition to some external or internal enemy. This common cause creates subjective feelings of equality, which may or may not be true. In general, money and wealth are taken out of the calculation, but differences in power remain and may even increase. There are similarities in this regard between Nazism and revolutionary leftist regimes.
The distinction would be that the Nazism aimed at creating a permanent slave class, rather than exploiting a temporary one. Fair enough, I suppose, but this wasn't true of all those who supported Hitler, and looks more like a technical or theoretical difference than a real one.
I don't believe that Nazism can be simply and baldly described as left-wing socialism. The Nazis courted the traditionalist, nationalist and anti-communist right too much for such a label to apply. But the self-characterizations of leftists and socialists often don't hold water.
No, he is an example of a bad socialist.
The man was a racist psychopath.
True. He was also a socialist. You think they are mutually exclusive or something? Why?
Socialists can only be nice wonderful beautiful people, right?
Lenin and Trotsky didn't have his pathological hatred for Jews, or for the other ethnic groups he persecuted.
No, those two psychos had pathological hatred for groups of people based on slightly different criteria.
Hitler wasn't a Socialist. However, he used some of the ideas of Socialism, like collectivism and statism,
He "wasn't a socialist", he just acted like one. Got it.
I don't know why this is supposed to be an important distinction.
That's why the NAZI party described itself as 'National Socialist'. It used a perverted form of Socialism, one that only benefited the Aryan Germans
Agreed! Whereas, similarly, the Bolsheviks in USSR used their own (also perverted) form of socialism, one that only benefitted... well... them, really.
What's your point?
Don't confuse the NAZI party's slippery use of the term Socialism, with real Socialism.
What is "real Socialism"? Is that the same thing as the utopian imaginary socialism of the other guy arguing with me? Let me guess... if it's bad, it's not socialism. If a guy says he is socialist, advocates socialist things, has socialist supporters, and rises to power, we're allowed to call him a socialist. But the moment he does something bad he's no longer "really" a socialist. Do I have that about right?
To summarise, Orthodox Socialism is egalitarian and anti-nationalist
Very well. Then no nation has ever been "Orthodox Socialist", which makes it a pretty useless definition for our purposes. Like other arguers, you insist that Hitler "wasn't really a socialist", but apparently the only way you can get away with doing this is by defining "socialism" so narrowly that no human being in any government is or could even conceivably be socialist!
You're right: if socialism is defined so purely that no one's "really" a socialist, then neither was Hitler. But what exactly do you think you're proving? I mean, in a similar way, if you define the word "fruit" narrowly enough then apples aren't "really" fruits, either. But what does this have to do with reality, in particular, the necessary and useful exercise of drawing comparisons between two sets of ideas (in this case "Bolshevism" and "Nazism") and deciding whether they are more similar than different?
Is this anything other than a stubborn word game?
The USSR claimed to accept all four, but actually was also a racist cesspool. The USSR was not a proper Socialist country, nor is the PRC one. I doubt that there will ever be a proper Socialist society.
Right - you're admitting my above point that your entire argument rests on defining "socialist" so narrowly that it will never actually be found in the real world.
So you will understand my posts, and the original article, then, if you globally replace the word "socialist" by the phrase "like the USSR, China, and Cuba". Whatever kind of "ist" Hitler was, it not much different an "ism" than whatever kind of "ism" you will allow us to say that USSR, China, and Cuba is or was. If those countries were/are "foo-ist", then Hitler was also very close to being a foo-ist, and certainly not an anti-foo-ist and not on the "opposite side of the spectrum" from foo-ism at all, as the self-proclaimed foo-ists often like to claim.
You see, that was the actual point of the article, and of my posts, your (and others') annoyingly purist word games notwithstanding.
He "wasn't a socialist", he just acted like one. Got it.
The problem is that all totalitarian oligarchies use these methods to some degree. Totalitarinism and statism obviously go together, when a government has a war to prepare for then collectivism will surely follow. This allows the government to spend more on the military. Just because NAZI Germany used these methods too doesn't mean that their underlying politics was the same as the USSR's or China's.
Agreed! Whereas, similarly, the Bolsheviks in USSR used their own (also perverted) form of socialism, one that only benefitted... well... them, really.
That's precisely the point, Socialism is supposed to benefit the whole population, not just one group.
Is that the same thing as the utopian imaginary socialism of the other guy arguing with me?
No, actually I am a libertarian Republican! I don't like the way Socialism relies entirely on the government, its fundamentally flawed.
If a guy says he is socialist, advocates socialist things, has socialist supporters, and rises to power, we're allowed to call him a socialist...
Hitler also had powerful capitalist supporters like Henry Ford and he was supported by other large corporations. If he were really a Socialist would these people have backed him? They certainly didn't back the USSR.
Right - you're admitting my above point that your entire argument rests on defining "socialist" so narrowly that it will never actually be found in the real world.
The brand of Socialism I am describing was that which was sought in Britain since the end of WW II. George Orwell was its main advocate. He also wanted it to go hand in hand with a democratic political system.
Whatever kind of "ist" Hitler was, it not much different an "ism" than whatever kind of "ism" you will allow us to say that USSR, China, and Cuba is or was.
Yes, the thing they had in common was totalitarianism, not Socialism. Hitler certainly didn't have leftism in common with the others, as many Republicans want to believe.
I am not sure what you mean.To me Rand was only one writer among many.On the issue of real concern to people; I think the market does a better job than government and freedom is good for all.
"Nazism was, as the name implies, a synthesis of nationalism, socialism and racialism. It didn't fit the standard pigeonholes of that time or of ours. Nazism became associated with the right because of Hitler's fight against the Communists and the rightwing support it brought him. International Communism being "left" the tendency was to put national socialism on the "right." But it would be hard to conceive of Nazism had there been no Bolshevik revolution. "
Yes it was a synthesis but I think the ideas were fodder for power.I do not think they were really the opposite of the communists on the issue of nationalism since both sides agreed on competeing for world domination.The nationalism of the nazis was really the creation of a "new world order" under their thumb.The national socialism of Germany would be the world itself.
Thanks a logical argument their.
"The Nazis lay on the far right of the traditional political spectrum,"
Perhaps the traditional spectrum is misleading especially if they only include socialists.How pray tell did the nazis raise the traditional institutions of the dominant culture to a level of worship when you arrest and imprison the people running them.
"On the contrary, socialism lay at the far left of the traditional spectrum, where the traditional institutions of the dominant culture are intentionally weakened in an effort to strike against institutionalized racism and sexism"
I think you are talking policy differences not General principles.They both believe in the subordination of the individual to the state.Whether you call it the proletariat the nation the state the german people it is still collectivism.Perhaps some defintions are in order
Main Entry: Na·zism Pronunciation: 'nät-"si-z&m, 'nat- Variant(s): or Na·zi·ism /-sE-"i-z&m/ Function: noun Etymology: Nazi + -ism Date: 1934 : the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the National Socialist German Workers' party in the Third German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer.
Main Entry: fas·cism Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si- Function: noun Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces Date: 1921 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Main Entry: so·cial·ism Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m Function: noun Date: 1837 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Main Entry: col·lec·tiv·ism Pronunciation: k&-'lek-ti-"vi-z&m Function: noun Date: 1857 : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
They are competing gangs for control of the state with minor policy differences.If theses political ideas were opposites one be for and one against control.
It did, they were aksed to leave, but they just didn't.
They also illegaly appointed a lot of high ranking officials to limit the power of the LPF.
Although there are no cases where socialists parties refused to give in power, maybe you would like to look at what those nice socialists did in Prague to 'limit the opposition'.
And if I wanted to see just how nice and democratic those socialists are, I would join the DU.
"Hitler wasn't a Socialist. However, he used some of the ideas of Socialism, like collectivism and statism"
That is what a socialist is; collectivism and statism.The minor policy differences hardly makes them opposite.Coke and Pepsi are different brands but they are still colas.
"To summarise, Orthodox Socialism is egalitarian and anti-nationalist, unfortunately, it also requires collectivism and statism. Hitler accepted the last two, but rejected the first two, in favour of racism and nationalism. The USSR claimed to accept all four, but actually was also a racist cesspool. The USSR was not a proper Socialist country, nor is the PRC one. I doubt that there will ever be a proper Socialist society."
That is because the theory of socialism in all it's variants is wrong.If the theory doesn't work it is badly flawed.
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.