• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For crying out loud: Nazis were NOT socialists!

This modern American political obsession with the term "socialist" is silly. Since around the 1880s on, a transition began that took a number of decades, but the sum result is virtually every country on earth has adopted some socialist concepts into their government. Any serious discussion of "was this party socialist" cannot be had without a more rigorous framework for use of the word socialist. In the United States we have one party that uses the word socialist as a slur to refer to all political opposition (GOP), and another party with a small wing who embraces the term and a larger wing who vehemently denies being socialist. The amusing thing is--both major American parties are strongly committed to a number of socialist policies, some of which are not even debated any longer that is how entrenched they are.

In that context, the Nazi party absolutely had socialist policies and programs. In the historical context of the 1930s and 1940s, it was not part of the "Revolutionary socialism" movement that started in 1917 nor was it part of the Marxism-Leninism movement that was ongoing at that time. Some of its chief political opponents in the Weimar Republic were part of those movements. There is nothing in fascist or Nazi ideology that is intrinsically incompatible with some forms of socialism, though--and the Nazis used the term in their political party for a couple of reasons. One is that early on, they had some genuine political leftists in their movement who wanted to marry revolutionary socialism with some of the other ideas of Nazism. This faction was largely minimal by the time the Nazis started to actually win elections and take power, but they were around in the 1920s era when the party was a smaller fringe movement. Probably the primary reason the Nazis always maintained the use of the word socialism was more as an appeal to trade unions, which viewed socialism more positively and were a target for Nazi growth in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

The biggest difficulty in discussing such matters is Americans are largely reared on the propaganda around terms like fascism, socialism, Communism, that started during WWII with all the propaganda produced, and continued during the Cold War. With that baggage it becomes very difficult to actually discuss it in a mature political science context with most American commenters.
 
This modern American political obsession with the term "socialist" is silly. Since around the 1880s on, a transition began that took a number of decades, but the sum result is virtually every country on earth has adopted some socialist concepts into their government. Any serious discussion of "was this party socialist" cannot be had without a more rigorous framework for use of the word socialist. In the United States we have one party that uses the word socialist as a slur to refer to all political opposition (GOP), and another party with a small wing who embraces the term and a larger wing who vehemently denies being socialist. The amusing thing is--both major American parties are strongly committed to a number of socialist policies, some of which are not even debated any longer that is how entrenched they are.

In that context, the Nazi party absolutely had socialist policies and programs. In the historical context of the 1930s and 1940s, it was not part of the "Revolutionary socialism" movement that started in 1917 nor was it part of the Marxism-Leninism movement that was ongoing at that time. Some of its chief political opponents in the Weimar Republic were part of those movements. There is nothing in fascist or Nazi ideology that is intrinsically incompatible with some forms of socialism, though--and the Nazis used the term in their political party for a couple of reasons. One is that early on, they had some genuine political leftists in their movement who wanted to marry revolutionary socialism with some of the other ideas of Nazism. This faction was largely minimal by the time the Nazis started to actually win elections and take power, but they were around in the 1920s era when the party was a smaller fringe movement. Probably the primary reason the Nazis always maintained the use of the word socialism was more as an appeal to trade unions, which viewed socialism more positively and were a target for Nazi growth in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

The biggest difficulty in discussing such matters is Americans are largely reared on the propaganda around terms like fascism, socialism, Communism, that started during WWII with all the propaganda produced, and continued during the Cold War. With that baggage it becomes very difficult to actually discuss it in a mature political science context with most American commenters.
WOW, that is one of the more coherent and cogent comments I have read on this topic, so congrats for not doing like so many others have on this topic, like going off the rails and digging in their heels. Are you sure you are a conservative??? Just askin ;)
 
This modern American political obsession with the term "socialist" is silly. Since around the 1880s on, a transition began that took a number of decades, but the sum result is virtually every country on earth has adopted some socialist concepts into their government. Any serious discussion of "was this party socialist" cannot be had without a more rigorous framework for use of the word socialist. In the United States we have one party that uses the word socialist as a slur to refer to all political opposition (GOP), and another party with a small wing who embraces the term and a larger wing who vehemently denies being socialist. The amusing thing is--both major American parties are strongly committed to a number of socialist policies, some of which are not even debated any longer that is how entrenched they are.

In that context, the Nazi party absolutely had socialist policies and programs. In the historical context of the 1930s and 1940s, it was not part of the "Revolutionary socialism" movement that started in 1917 nor was it part of the Marxism-Leninism movement that was ongoing at that time. Some of its chief political opponents in the Weimar Republic were part of those movements. There is nothing in fascist or Nazi ideology that is intrinsically incompatible with some forms of socialism, though--and the Nazis used the term in their political party for a couple of reasons. One is that early on, they had some genuine political leftists in their movement who wanted to marry revolutionary socialism with some of the other ideas of Nazism. This faction was largely minimal by the time the Nazis started to actually win elections and take power, but they were around in the 1920s era when the party was a smaller fringe movement. Probably the primary reason the Nazis always maintained the use of the word socialism was more as an appeal to trade unions, which viewed socialism more positively and were a target for Nazi growth in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

The biggest difficulty in discussing such matters is Americans are largely reared on the propaganda around terms like fascism, socialism, Communism, that started during WWII with all the propaganda produced, and continued during the Cold War. With that baggage it becomes very difficult to actually discuss it in a mature political science context with most American commenters.
We can stop at your first paragraph. The American Republican party is not committed to any socialist policies. You are about to pull this communist track where they claim that the police and fire department are socialist are you?
 
We can stop at your first paragraph. The American Republican party is not committed to any socialist policies. You are about to pull this communist track where they claim that the police and fire department are socialist are you?
In the United States we have one party that uses the word socialist as a slur to refer to all political opposition (GOP) from that first paragraph.
I can understand you being upset when a fact slaps you in the face, but a fact is a fact, sometimes easier to just accept the reality.

laughing_and_pointing_emoticon_312207.jpg
 
In the United States we have one party that uses the word socialist as a slur to refer to all political opposition (GOP) from that first paragraph.
I can understand you being upset when a fact slaps you in the face, but a fact is a fact, sometimes easier to just accept the reality.

View attachment 67416214
Regardless of whether you think that’s true, the idea they advocate for “socialist policies” is certainly not
 
Regardless of whether you think that’s true, the idea they advocate for “socialist policies” is certainly not
What is more "socialist" than demanding women obey government edicts and submit to the will of government officials rather than being allowed to make their own choices????

wonder_40x40.gif
 
What is more "socialist" than demanding women obey government edicts and submit to the will of government officials rather than being allowed to make their own choices????

View attachment 67416216
Ummm that’s not inherently socialist at all.

But that aside, given the prisons in the US are overwhelmingly full of incarcerated men you better let the system know these men had their rights to make their own choices taken away and get them released
 
Ummm that’s not inherently socialist at all.

But that aside, given the prisons in the US are overwhelmingly full of incarcerated men you better let the system know these men had their rights to make their own choices taken away and get them released
Comparing men who committed crimes vs women who want to make their own choices over their body, what can I say? I will let others reading that comment to decide for themselves the lunacy of making that comparison :rolleyes:
 
Comparing men who committed crimes vs women who want to make their own choices over their body, what can I say? I will let others reading that comment to decide for themselves the lunacy of making that comparison :rolleyes:
Virtually every criminal act there is requires an element of you making a choice to do something with your body.

I know you view killing babies as a sacred human right, but that aside, this does not prove republicans have “socialist policies”
 
Virtually every criminal act there is requires an element of you making a choice to do something with your body.

I know you view killing babies as a sacred human right, but that aside, this does not prove republicans have “socialist policies”
As Ivan stated:
The biggest difficulty in discussing such matters is Americans are largely reared on the propaganda around terms like fascism, socialism, Communism, that started during WWII with all the propaganda produced, and continued during the Cold War. With that baggage it becomes very difficult to actually discuss it in a mature political science context with most American commenters.
As I responded:
WOW, that is one of the more coherent and cogent comments I have read on this topic, so congrats for not doing like so many others have on this topic, like going off the rails and digging in their heels.
Then there are YOUR contributions. Nuff said?
 
In historical fact the brownshirts were largely not conservatives. Many of them actually were socialists and their nominal leader was a notorious homosexual.
And in historical fact, their leader was murdered by Hitler, the brownshirts disbanded, and their ranks absorbed into the anti-socialist, NAZI fascist party.
 
Still screetching? I can see this going round and round in circles. Unlike you, I don't need to get the last lick in. So the floor is yours, make good use of it :rolleyes:

Thanks, you strange little man.
 
WOW, that is one of the more coherent and cogent comments I have read on this topic, so congrats for not doing like so many others have on this topic, like going off the rails and digging in their heels. Are you sure you are a conservative??? Just askin ;)
Note however--I never said I agreed with those positions, I am stating historical reality. I am a "true" conservative, and I don't mean that I'm trying to claim sole ownership of a word or whatever. I mean the term and idea of conservatism dates back to the political fallout of the French Revolution. American Republicans largely represent a liberal brand of ideology, simply a different one from Democrats, and both parties have many socialist policies. I am religious and against things like abortion, gay marriage, and a number of other policies that go against traditional Christian family values and almost always vote Republican as a "lesser of two evils" behavior, but you will find in a group of 100 Republicans maybe 5 real conservatives. Most Republicans are liberals who are animated by a distaste for Democrats and Democrats brand of leftism. They rarely have any understanding of conservative political philosophy.
We can stop at your first paragraph. The American Republican party is not committed to any socialist policies. You are about to pull this communist track where they claim that the police and fire department are socialist are you?
Okay, no. Funding of basic infrastructural services like fire protection and police are not socialist policies, in fact in different forms, funding for such things long predates the earliest seeds of modern socialism (which dates to the late 18th early 19th century.)

I could type a long list, but your claim is the Republican party is not committed to any socialist policies. To disprove that I need to point to one socialist policy the GOP supports. That is easy--and so I will go ahead and name five:

1. Earned Income Tax Credit - First proposed by Republican-darling economist Milton Friedman, then taken up by Nixon, it was passed under Republican Gerald Ford and has been vigorously supported by the Republican party ever since. The EITC gives what is called a refundable tax credit, meaning it is a fixed amount back to the taxpayer that is not related to how much the taxpayer paid in. EITC very commonly will be larger than the total amount of Federal income tax paid, this is almost always the case for EITC recipients who have children. This means it is socialism--receiving a gift from government that you have not paid for, means that the collective taxpayers have paid for it, it costs around $60bn a year. Like most of our tax/revenue system, the majority of it would obviously be paid for by the wealthy.

2. Children's Health Insurance Program - Passed in 1997, cosponsored by a Democrat and a Republican Senator, and reauthorized on a bipartisan basis ever since, is a socialist program at core--government pays for the healthcare costs of poor children, using taxes levied on the public and gives money to people who do not pay taxes or pay very little tax.

3. Medicare - Our largest socialist health program. While opinions vary, President Trump supported Medicare and the majority of all Republican elected politicians have consistently voted in favor of continuing Medicare since the 1960s.

4. Child Tax Credit - Just like the EITC this is a refundable tax credit, meaning you can get money out you did not pay in. It has always been supported by Republicans. Trump's 2017 legislation the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 continued and enhanced the Child Tax Credit. It was doubled under this act.

5. The Alaska Permanent Fund - A fund overseen by a government run corporation, that collects all the oil taxes in Alaska, and invests the money in a fund, that pays out annual payments to all Alaskans. This is almost "perfect" socialism, in that the government is collectively taking something and distributing it on a purely egalitarian basis. Alaska is one of the most Republican States, and this program has been supported strongly by the Alaskan GOP for over 50 years.
 
Note however--I never said I agreed with those positions, I am stating historical reality. I am a "true" conservative, and I don't mean that I'm trying to claim sole ownership of a word or whatever. I mean the term and idea of conservatism dates back to the political fallout of the French Revolution. American Republicans largely represent a liberal brand of ideology, simply a different one from Democrats, and both parties have many socialist policies. I am religious and against things like abortion, gay marriage, and a number of other policies that go against traditional Christian family values and almost always vote Republican as a "lesser of two evils" behavior, but you will find in a group of 100 Republicans maybe 5 real conservatives. Most Republicans are liberals who are animated by a distaste for Democrats and Democrats brand of leftism. They rarely have any understanding of conservative political philosophy.

Okay, no. Funding of basic infrastructural services like fire protection and police are not socialist policies, in fact in different forms, funding for such things long predates the earliest seeds of modern socialism (which dates to the late 18th early 19th century.)

I could type a long list, but your claim is the Republican party is not committed to any socialist policies. To disprove that I need to point to one socialist policy the GOP supports. That is easy--and so I will go ahead and name five:

1. Earned Income Tax Credit - First proposed by Republican-darling economist Milton Friedman, then taken up by Nixon, it was passed under Republican Gerald Ford and has been vigorously supported by the Republican party ever since. The EITC gives what is called a refundable tax credit, meaning it is a fixed amount back to the taxpayer that is not related to how much the taxpayer paid in. EITC very commonly will be larger than the total amount of Federal income tax paid, this is almost always the case for EITC recipients who have children. This means it is socialism--receiving a gift from government that you have not paid for, means that the collective taxpayers have paid for it, it costs around $60bn a year. Like most of our tax/revenue system, the majority of it would obviously be paid for by the wealthy.

2. Children's Health Insurance Program - Passed in 1997, cosponsored by a Democrat and a Republican Senator, and reauthorized on a bipartisan basis ever since, is a socialist program at core--government pays for the healthcare costs of poor children, using taxes levied on the public and gives money to people who do not pay taxes or pay very little tax.

3. Medicare - Our largest socialist health program. While opinions vary, President Trump supported Medicare and the majority of all Republican elected politicians have consistently voted in favor of continuing Medicare since the 1960s.

4. Child Tax Credit - Just like the EITC this is a refundable tax credit, meaning you can get money out you did not pay in. It has always been supported by Republicans. Trump's 2017 legislation the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 continued and enhanced the Child Tax Credit. It was doubled under this act.

5. The Alaska Permanent Fund - A fund overseen by a government run corporation, that collects all the oil taxes in Alaska, and invests the money in a fund, that pays out annual payments to all Alaskans. This is almost "perfect" socialism, in that the government is collectively taking something and distributing it on a purely egalitarian basis. Alaska is one of the most Republican States, and this program has been supported strongly by the Alaskan GOP for over 50 years.
None of these are socialist policies, they do not involve seizing means of production into public ownership to create an egalitarian society
 
You're talking to a deaf audience. People who believe they actually understnd socialism when they haven't read theory.
 
People who believe they actually understnd socialism when they haven't read theory.

Call me cynical, but somehow I doubt that you use the same rationale with people who offer critiques of Nazism.
 
None of these are socialist policies, they do not involve seizing means of production into public ownership to create an egalitarian society
A few problems with your claims here. By many measures, capital is a means of production, and tax redistribution in fact does exactly that, it redistributes capital. Especially the programs I mentioned which do so in an egalitarian way. Secondly, taxes on income (which income is a proxy for labor), that are used to redistribute wealth is another form of taking one of the core means of production (labor) and redistributing it. If you use the most narrow definition of means of production to include only land and labor, the fact we levy taxes used to redistribute on them would still qualify as socialism by almost any definition. If you believe the only true definition of socialism is the state outright seizing land, and putting people into forced labor--then socialism isn't a term you can use in reference to the Democrats or the Republicans. No mainstream political party in the entire Western world advocates that position--that is a narrow and revolutionary brand of socialism that is close to dead in the 21st century.

Your working understanding of socialism isn't in line with the definition used by economists or political scientists--going back 150 years. Your definition of Socialism is synonymous with a narrow form of Marxism-Leninism, which is just one of probably a dozen major socialist schools of economic thought. There are no major Marxist-Leninist political parties left in the entire world, and none that have political power. You're looking at Cuba, Venezuela, and partially Vietnam, China--I say partially because both countries have moved away from Marxism-Leninism in the last 40 years.

That being said, your response highlights how socialism has become core to the Republican party. Republicans don't like to be told the truth, that they are one type of liberal socialist in a country of liberal socialists, because they use those words as insults for their enemies. The Republicans are far more liberal than they are socialist, for what it's worth, which may upset you even more to hear, I don't know.
 
Call me cynical, but somehow I doubt that you use the same rationale with people who offer critiques of Nazism.
Would you use the same rationale with people who think conservatism and fascism is a revolving door?
 
Republican party is not committed to any socialist policies
Um, bud, I hate to break it to you, but socialist, in econ terms, means socializing costs, ie, we don't have dukes and lord forming armies, the country does via federal taxation.
The military is one of the oldest socialized organizations evah.
 
Would you use the same rationale with people who think conservatism and fascism is a revolving door?

I would spend the rest of my life being embarrassed if I ever told someone they couldnt talk about Conservatism because they hadn't read enough Burke or Hume.
 
I would spend the rest of my life being embarrassed if I ever told someone they couldnt talk about Conservatism because they hadn't read enough Burke or Hume.
Perhaps because they're obscure figures no one's heard of? Marxism isn't a mainstream ideology, and people could do with a bit of research beyond the Wikipedia page, based on the posts I've seen on this thread, and they certainly shouldn't pose as people who are knowledgeable on this topic.
 
The fact someone would say Burke and Hume are "obscure figures no one's heard of" is pretty shocking. Educated people have certainly heard of them as they are major Western philosophers. The fact that few people receive a proper education in the 21st century doesn't make these figures obscure, it means the majority of the public is not well informed.

Also the claim that Marxism "isn't a mainstream ideology", is also highly questionable. He is standard reading in economics, philosophy, history etc. Most people do not identify as Marxists, and a large number of people disagree with many of his conclusions, but Marx is widely read by anyone wanting a holistic education in those fields.
 
The fact someone would say Burke and Hume are "obscure figures no one's heard of" is pretty shocking. Educated people have certainly heard of them as they are major Western philosophers. The fact that few people receive a proper education in the 21st century doesn't make these figures obscure, it means the majority of the public is not well informed.

Also the claim that Marxism "isn't a mainstream ideology", is also highly questionable. He is standard reading in economics, philosophy, history etc. Most people do not identify as Marxists, and a large number of people disagree with many of his conclusions, but Marx is widely read by anyone wanting a holistic education in those fields.
Yeah i knew about hose two even before college. My own economic study was really broad from Smith to Ricardo, to Say, to Gresham, Malthus, etc. all the way to Mises, Hayek, keynes, Pareto, Sowell, Friedman, Veblen and Galbraith. They didnt have a class focused on marx though :p.
 
Perhaps because they're obscure figures no one's heard of? Marxism isn't a mainstream ideology, and people could do with a bit of research beyond the Wikipedia page, based on the posts I've seen on this thread, and they certainly shouldn't pose as people who are knowledgeable on this topic.

Wow....
 
Back
Top Bottom