NGNM85
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,571
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Boston, MA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Again; real Socialism is fundamentally democratic. This was the consensus among the Socialist thinkers, prior to the rise of the Soviet Union, who bitterly condemned the Bolsheviks on these grounds, and rightfully so. Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc., are, at best, perversions of Socialism.
I don't think it's fair to lump Leninism in with Stalinism and Maoism. Leninism still sucked, but you can't blame the fact that it sucked on its being a perversion of true communism. Lenin's brand of communism was basically pure Marxism, and not nearly as bloody as that of Stalin or Mao.
I am not a Marxist, I'm an Anarchist.
Communism wasn't idiotic enough for you?
And again, you are taking something from the economic section of socialism and pretending it has to do with how the society is organized on a social policy level. I have shown in that very same paragraph that when the form of government is autocratic, it moves the definition to communism and I have shown that to distinct from socialism and that the two terms are often confused.
Lastly, look at post 92, which you simply dismissed without giving a reason other than it didn't fit in your "view"
No, since Nazi Germany was fascist, not socialist or communist. :sun
In Nazi Germany the means of production was owned by private organizations, not the government. The government benefited by having taxes and there was lots of regulations. Nazi Germany could be called market socialism, but that is borderline. It is probably much closer to social democracy without democracy.
With your thinking however, Sovet was facist not socialist. BTW, Soviet was certinally not communist, because communism is a stateless society. Democracy is not a requirement for Socialism, if you want it to be then I suggest you change wikipedia. If you are right, they will let it stay.
I didn't ask you to provide evidence that nazism is a form of facism, it is. I wrote above why it was not a form of socialism. I also described what kind of economic system it was similar to, which is social democracy. However in terms of social values, it is quite different.Someone already added it to wikipedia:
"Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism[1]) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics."
Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:sun
I didn't ask you to provide evidence that nazism is a form of facism, it is.
I asked you to change the definition of socialism, because the definition of socialism does not require democracy or a non-oppressive government.
It is something wrong here, maybe should begin to condemn Socialism - Communism like Nazism, right?
Only when conservatism and religious conservatism is condemned even more.
Sounds like CENTRIST talk. :roll:
No.
Capitalism has killed just as many, if not more. Take for example children who have been killed from occupational hazards as a result of lack of regulations in work spaces or requirements for safe working conditions because it would raise the prices of goods and services.
So no, socialism and communism should not be condemned like nazism is.
I've had this debate before with a conservative pen pal.
It's like comparing Ted Bundy (communism) to Jeffrey Dahlmer (nazism) and trying to claim Bundy was more evil than Dahlmer simply because his kill ratio was higher.
Bundy may have killed more in numbers, but the methods he used were not as horrendous as Dahlmer, who mutilated and raped the corpses. But still, it's like beating a dead horse. They're both insanely despicable and inherently prone to incredibly horrible policy.
And for those of you who have forgotten, socialism is a mere transition period between capitalism and communsim. This is why the Soviet Union was called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. In Marx's original view, communism was the end result of this evolutionary cycle. It was the utopian stateless society. Socialism, on the other hand, was the implemented state-level overhaul that forcibly transitioned a capitalistic society into the cycle which would (ideally) evolve into a stateless utopia known as communism. Take a look at Lenin's political policies. Lenin promoted a mixed economy with both private business and public interventionism.
I've had this debate before with a conservative pen pal.
It's like comparing Ted Bundy (communism) to Jeffrey Dahlmer (nazism) and trying to claim Bundy was more evil than Dahlmer simply because his kill ratio was higher.
Bundy may have killed more in numbers, but the methods he used were not as horrendous as Dahlmer, who mutilated and raped the corpses. But still, it's like beating a dead horse. They're both insanely despicable and inherently prone to incredibly horrible policy.
And for those of you who have forgotten, socialism is a mere transition period between capitalism and communsim. This is why the Soviet Union was called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. In Marx's original view, communism was the end result of this evolutionary cycle. It was the utopian stateless society. Socialism, on the other hand, was the implemented state-level overhaul that forcibly transitioned a capitalistic society into the cycle which would (ideally) evolve into a stateless utopia known as communism. Take a look at Lenin's political policies. Lenin promoted a mixed economy with both private business and public interventionism.
To answer the original question, just for the record:
I believe Stalinist or Maoist brands of "socialism" deserve the same condemnation as Nazism. Leninists probably too.
"Socialism" in general does not. There are freedom-loving, democratic types of self-defined "socialists" too. Those socialists who embrace the constitutional order don't deserve condemnation, but respect as political competitors from conservatives, liberals or libertarians, and they deserve good counter-arguments instead of condemnation.
i know this gets the left going but the national socialist were still socialist just you had to be an Aryan for them to count you. If you read the Nazi platform and look at a host of laws they passed there is no doubt they were socialist
NGNM85 said:Not according to the leading Marxists; Pannekoek, Korsch, Luxemburg, even Trotsky, before he changed his position. There's this myth that it was all about the circumstances, that there was no other way, etc. This is just nonsense. Lenin was against workers' democracy from the very beginning. He revereses himself for State & Revolution, but that's just pandering, then, he goes right back to his default position.
Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, the purity of his Marxism is irrelevent, as I am not a Marxist, I'm an Anarchist.
ElijahGalt said:Take a look at Lenin's political policies. Lenin promoted a mixed economy with both private business and public interventionism.
megaprogman said:If we were going to go with Marx's view, then it would happen naturally and Lenin/Stalin forcing the matter was the wrong thing to do.
Marx said:— 16 —
Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?
It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.
But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.
Principles of Communism
German Guy said:I believe Stalinist or Maoist brands of "socialism" deserve the same condemnation as Nazism. Leninists probably too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?