Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: stryker
Again you give me superficial differences.The principle of socialism or nazism is collective sacrifice to the goals of those in charge.The Nazis defined themselves as socialists.Goebbels said "To be a good socialist,is to submit the I to the thou:socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole"

Not so different than this by Ludwig Von Mises in 1922 the book "Socialism"

CHAPTER 9 The Position of the Individual Under Socialism 1 Selection of Personnel and Choice of Occupation The Socialist Community is a great authoritarian association in which orders are issued and obeyed. This is what is implied by the words "planned economy" and the "abolition of the anarchy of production." The inner structure of a socialist community is best understood if we compare it with the inner structure of an army. Many socialists indeed prefer to speak of the "army of labour." As in an army, so under Socialism, everything depends on the orders of the supreme authority. Everyone has a place to which he is appointed. Everyone has to remain in his place until he is moved to another. It follows that men become pawns of official action. They rise only when they are promoted. They sink only when they are degraded. It would be waste of time to describe such conditions. They are the common knowledge of every citizen of a bureaucratic state.

II.9.1 It is obvious that, in a state of this sort, all appointments should be based upon personal capacity. Each position should be held by the individual best fitted to hold it—always provided that he is not required for more important work elsewhere. Such is the fundamental principle of all systematically ordered authoritarian organizations—of the Chinese Mandarinate equally with modern bureaucracies.

II.9.2 In giving effect to this principle the first problem that arises is the appointment of the supreme authority. There are two ways to the solution of this problem, the oligarchical-monarchical and the democratic, but there can be only one solution—the charismatic solution. The supreme rulers (or ruler) are chosen in virtue of the grace with which they are endowed by divine dispensation. They have superhuman powers and capacities lifting them above the other mortals.

Obviously Von Mises saw what would be the results of Socialism.Whether it be so called Left or Right.Yes I agree their is a difference between classic Liberalism and Conservatism.Locke is perhaps IMHO the most important political philosipher.

"As an aside, I do not think the traditional left/right political spectrum has much use in the modern world since no country has ever passed from socialism into communism to see the state dissolve, but rather we have found that both ends of the political spectrum end in human enslavement. I therefore find myself a libertarian, struggling against the drug warriors on the right and the politically correct nanny state advocates on the other."

I also call myself a friend of liberty.

147 posted on 06/23/2002 5:32:54 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]


To: freeforall
You quote to me a critic of socialism to prove that the Nazi's were socialists! What kind of proof is this! You claim I am giving you superficial differences. Well, let me make it clear then. Socialism is a stage on the way to the abolition of the state--no government, period. That is the far left. Nazism is the organization of the state into a form that is to be worshipped for the purpose of raising one race of people above all others--that is the far right. On one hand there is no government, on the other the government assumes the role of God. That is the theoretical difference. The distinction comes from the writings of Edmund Burke.

Practically, the Nazi's did not nationalize a single industry. I have read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" three times. Please tell me what industries the Nazi's nationalized. Socialists nationalize industries. I can give you a host of examples of socialists nationalizing industries. These are practical examples. The only reason the world "socialist" is in the name National Socialist Party was because of the appeal that socialism had to the working man of the time. It was a mere ruse developed from El Duce's former socialist experiences and Hitler's takeover of a small, ineffective revisionist socialist party. Both men thoroughly rejected Marxism and saw the Soviet Union as the greatest threat to the world and both expected Britain and the United States to ally with them ultimately to fight the Soviets--true Socialists.

I will not be posting further on this subject as it is one that is well settled, in fact, not even seriously argued, by political philosophers. If you want to discuss the idea that a new spectrum is more pertinent to modern times, and why, I am all ears. I find America torn between more and more powerful fascists and more and more powerful socialists and I see little progress on the libertarian front. In fact, most Americans seem truly afraid of real freedom. I wish everyone had a gun and I would let everyone out of prison. The governments sole duty would be to protect my constitutional rights against governmental instrusion and to find and prosecute anyone who commits violence, theft or fraud against me.

152 posted on 06/23/2002 6:21:36 PM PDT by stryker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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