• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Socialism and National Socialism

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
A compairson that repeatedly confuses me is the desire to draw a line between the idea of Socialism and the idea of National Socialism. This seems to be based around the similarity of the names, but even a cursory glance at both tells anyone right away that the similarities end at the name.

People eager to make this comparison often wave around the manifesto of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, this became the Nazi party. This is supposed proof that Socialism and National Socialism.

Program of the NSDAP - Wikisource
Certain points of this manifesto are taken as proof of the "leftist" nature of National Socialism. This propostion misses two clear facts; first being that many aspects of the manifesto are to be found on almost any ideological roll sheet for almost any political movement and second it misses the fact that the Nazi party and the National Socialist movement in general ignores virtually all of these points anyways.

Even the core concept of National Socialism, taking care of those in a certain class or race, flies in the face of the concept of Socialism itself. Socialism sees no difference between race or class and strives to create a world where there is no discrimination. National Socialism strives for the opposite.

How can anyone with any degree of intellectual honesty make a comparison of this kind?
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You're ascribing way too much touchy-feely crap to "socialism." There's nothing inherent about it which could give a crap about "discrimination," at least in any non-monetary sense, and there's no requirement that it be blind to race. There can be a perfectly socialist system which admits only one race, and in fact, Karl Marx himself was a racist prick.

Speaking of "intellectual honesty" . . .
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You're ascribing way too much touchy-feely crap to "socialism." There's nothing inherent about it which could give a crap about "discrimination," at least in any non-monetary sense, and there's no requirement that it be blind to race. There can be a perfectly socialist system which admits only one race, and in fact, Karl Marx himself was a racist prick.

Speaking of "intellectual honesty" . . .
Fascism is in direct opposition to socialism. Are you saying the Nazis were not fascists? The name National Socialist Workers Party is about as accurate as People's Democratic Republic of Korea. Cover identity to get the masses to accept control.
 

Henrin

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The difference is irrelevant to the nature of the beast. Take for example Germany before Hitler. It was a socialist state, through and through, however, in the end they elected a national socialist, that in fact, hated every bit of the socialism that was in the country he saw before him. These systems always end in some kind of disaster in total opposition of what socialism details, be it forms into something else, or the entire system collapses under its own weight. The difference between what it turns into is what people should be playing on. What they are playing on is another thing altogether I imagine.

The reality is you are creating way to much dependence, you are giving up way to much power up, all the while hoping one day everyone owns everything and pure equality is a reality. Its a silly thing that has never worked and from I can tell doesn't appear to have realistic potential to show different results from the results its shown.

Here is the challenge I give you know, what country that you admit is socialist isn't riddled with fascism? You can't name one, can you? Don't worry that is alright. In many ways, this is another interesting beast of the reality of it all.

However, none of this is the fault of socialism per-say. It is the fault of human nature that was given a chance by how socialism needs to allow the government power and by what it causes in the people in society in order for it be put in place.

I'm clearly against socialism from you can see here, but I think I understand it well enough. Of course, people will disagree with me on something, and that is alright.

I want to say National socialism doesn't need socialism first in society, but it helps a great deal. Just so I cover all bases..

I do want to say one more thing, to claim this kind of equality fits in line with rights and liberty to begin with is false. There is no possible way you can create a false sense of equality and create a society that is free. Its just not possible.
 
Last edited:

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A compairson that repeatedly confuses me is the desire to draw a line between the idea of Socialism and the idea of National Socialism. This seems to be based around the similarity of the names, but even a cursory glance at both tells anyone right away that the similarities end at the name.

People eager to make this comparison often wave around the manifesto of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, this became the Nazi party. This is supposed proof that Socialism and National Socialism.

Program of the NSDAP - Wikisource
Certain points of this manifesto are taken as proof of the "leftist" nature of National Socialism. This propostion misses two clear facts; first being that many aspects of the manifesto are to be found on almost any ideological roll sheet for almost any political movement and second it misses the fact that the Nazi party and the National Socialist movement in general ignores virtually all of these points anyways.

Even the core concept of National Socialism, taking care of those in a certain class or race, flies in the face of the concept of Socialism itself. Socialism sees no difference between race or class and strives to create a world where there is no discrimination. National Socialism strives for the opposite.

How can anyone with any degree of intellectual honesty make a comparison of this kind?
Well, it's got "socialism" in it's name, so how can it not be different?

Even though Hitler despised communists.
 

Henrin

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Even though Hitler despised communists.
Oh? Well ok, that is cool. No biggy. Thanks for the correction.:applaud

(This place needs a thumbs up smiley)
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Fascism is in direct opposition to socialism. Are you saying the Nazis were not fascists? The name National Socialist Workers Party is about as accurate as People's Democratic Republic of Korea. Cover identity to get the masses to accept control.
I'm pretty sure you'll find neither "fascism" nor "Nazis" anywhere in my post, so you're foaming up the wrong tree.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Well, it's got "socialism" in it's name, so how can it not be different?

Even though Hitler despised communists.
And the communists hated the socialists. It was a crazy, wacky political order, Germany in the '20s and '30s.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You're ascribing way too much touchy-feely crap to "socialism." There's nothing inherent about it which could give a crap about "discrimination," at least in any non-monetary sense, and there's no requirement that it be blind to race.
Socialism, at it's most basic level, seeks a society of equals brought about by unified effort. Racism and racist actions are not compatible with this mode of operation as you are inherently dividing the society based on something that is immutable. Wealth can be moved around, diseases can be cured, poverty can be reversed, ignorance can be educated, but you cant change the color of your skin and to try to have a society built on unified effort where you deliberately exclude a subsection of the population is not a feasible idea.

It's like saying "Let's build a house, but we wont use ANY right angles."

There can be a perfectly socialist system which admits only one race, and in fact, Karl Marx himself was a racist prick.

Speaking of "intellectual honesty" . . .
Marx's own personal views are totally irrelevant

The reality is you are creating way to much dependence, you are giving up way to much power up, all the while hoping one day everyone owns everything and pure equality is a reality. Its a silly thing that has never worked and from I can tell doesn't appear to have realistic potential to show different results from the results its shown.
The reality is you dont see how dependent you are on the person next to you. Individually, most of us are replaceable. Humanity can afford to lose a few of us without being significantly effected, it happens every day.

But when you put people together, amazing things happen. Things like language, commerce, invention, art, philosophy, etc etc. These things happen because of the interaction of many different individuals and thoughts.

Strip away all that, even if you bring us down to living in groups of a couple hundred, and you will lose virtually every aspect of the lifestyle and society you've grown accustomed to. I dont care what political or economic system you live under, you NEED the people around you. Socialism merely acknowledges this and encourages ways to make this work for us instead of just tricking us into ignoring it.

Here is the challenge I give you know, what country that you admit is socialist isn't riddled with fascism? You can't name one, can you? Don't worry that is alright. In many ways, this is another interesting beast of the reality of it all.
So because it hasn't worked yet, we should just give up? We've seen the benefit that individual Socialistic ideas can bring, why should we give up trying to put them together into one society?

However, none of this is the fault of socialism per-say. It is the fault of human nature that was given a chance by how socialism needs to allow the government power and by what it causes in the people in society in order for it be put in place.
Human nature is flexible. We can and have changed many of our attitudes since we threw our first stones.

I'm clearly against socialism from you can see here, but I think I understand it well enough. Of course, people will disagree with me on something, and that is alright.
I think you understand the popular view of Socialism, the Wikipedia version of Socialism.

I want to say National socialism doesn't need socialism first in society, but it helps a great deal. Just so I cover all bases..
Except almost nothing about National Socialism even resembles actual Socialism except the name, how can you say that Socialism helps the rise of National Socialism?

I do want to say one more thing, to claim this kind of equality fits in line with rights and liberty to begin with is false. There is no possible way you can create a false sense of equality and create a society that is free. Its just not possible.
We need not try to create a society of true equals, that would require Harrison Bergeron types of control that I assure you no Socialist is comfortable with. What we want to see is the playing field made more level than it is currently.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,576
Reaction score
27,832
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Fascism is in direct opposition to socialism. Are you saying the Nazis were not fascists? The name National Socialist Workers Party is about as accurate as People's Democratic Republic of Korea. Cover identity to get the masses to accept control.
Who cares, I like neither. Which one do you like best?
 

Henrin

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The reality is you dont see how dependent you are on the person next to you. Individually, most of us are replaceable. Humanity can afford to lose a few of us without being significantly effected, it happens every day.
I am not dependent on anyone that I do not choose to be in my life. These are free choices that I make, not choices that are made for me. No resource does one offer that I can't choice to not partake in be it in food,water, or be in shelter. I can go about these things in my own way and choice who will help me along the way. The only times that I am truly dependent is this world is when I am young, or by the government when they have decided to make me dependent on them. All other cases, it is I, that have made a choice. A socialist society calls for the dependence on each other to create a equal system. The system I'm talking about calls for people to choose the people they wish to help them along the way.

But when you put people together, amazing things happen. Things like language, commerce, invention, art, philosophy, etc etc. These things happen because of the interaction of many different individuals and thoughts.
Things are created in all sorts of societies and groups. It is not dependent on anything the government does or says though it might be affected by it.

Strip away all that, even if you bring us down to living in groups of a couple hundred, and you will lose virtually every aspect of the lifestyle and society you've grown accustomed to. I dont care what political or economic system you live under, you NEED the people around you. Socialism merely acknowledges this and encourages ways to make this work for us instead of just tricking us into ignoring it.
Do you think we ignore it now? We a put a value on the return a person puts in to society, and encourages them to raise their stock in the society. Socialism cuts that out of the equation, and gives no one any drive to do anything by saying all are equal. It might very well offer different wages, but those wages are most likely still very much controlled, so the encouragement is most likely very limited. Ofcourse, that might not be a factor at all, but than equality by their definition would be in question in that socialist society.

So because it hasn't worked yet, we should just give up? We've seen the benefit that individual Socialistic ideas can bring, why should we give up trying to put them together into one society?
There really isn't any real benefit that couldn't come in a more free means. Socialism naturally calls for the stripping of freedom and rights of the people. Of course, it depends on the polices you put in place, but its very much can kill both and calls for the killing of both in the purest of cases.

Human nature is flexible. We can and have changed many of our attitudes since we threw our first stones.
Nah, it really isn't all that much. Racism will never go away, sexism will never go away, none of it ever really will. The only way you can change human nature is by controlling human nature. Once you stop controlling it, you will find the changes you made were very small.

I think you understand the popular view of Socialism, the Wikipedia version of Socialism.
Nah, I have studied what the founders of socialism has said. I might of put it out like a Wikipedia copy though. :lol: I honestly haven't looked at it. :2razz:

Except almost nothing about National Socialism even resembles actual Socialism except the name, how can you say that Socialism helps the rise of National Socialism?
Socialism might not be similar to National Socialism but it puts in place the power structure needed for National Socialism to take hold. The only struggle would be to get in office, which could easily be done by feeding on the cries of equality.

Then ofcourse, there is the fact that it takes a certain kind of person to enact it and that person is very nuch going to be comfortable with doing different things to further their own personal interest. Socialism is and has always been a dangerous game people play with control. If you aren't paying attention to who you put in charge the entire thing will change.

We need not try to create a society of true equals, that would require Harrison Bergeron types of control that I assure you no Socialist is comfortable with. What we want to see is the playing field made more level than it is currently.
What socialists want and what they are asking for is two very different things. In order to maintain any sort of equality, control has to stay in place, and a controlling body has to make sure everything stays right in line. You don't need to ask for total equality to have started a hunger of control, that can't be helped, which has always been the number one problem with socialism.

An equal playing field can be reached in many ways. The best approach is an approach that doesn't try to control results or limit freedom/rights along the way. The reality is you aren't trying to create equal playing field, you are trying to create a flat playing field. Which are two totally different things.
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,891
Reaction score
32,551
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A compairson that repeatedly confuses me is the desire to draw a line between the idea of Socialism and the idea of National Socialism. This seems to be based around the similarity of the names, but even a cursory glance at both tells anyone right away that the similarities end at the name.

People eager to make this comparison often wave around the manifesto of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, this became the Nazi party. This is supposed proof that Socialism and National Socialism.

Program of the NSDAP - Wikisource
Certain points of this manifesto are taken as proof of the "leftist" nature of National Socialism. This propostion misses two clear facts; first being that many aspects of the manifesto are to be found on almost any ideological roll sheet for almost any political movement and second it misses the fact that the Nazi party and the National Socialist movement in general ignores virtually all of these points anyways.

Even the core concept of National Socialism, taking care of those in a certain class or race, flies in the face of the concept of Socialism itself. Socialism sees no difference between race or class and strives to create a world where there is no discrimination. National Socialism strives for the opposite.

How can anyone with any degree of intellectual honesty make a comparison of this kind?
1. the National Socialists absolutely pursued those economic agendas. i've heard it argued that They Really Didn't Mean It because Hitler then got rid of unions; and opposition to unions of course isn't socialist etc; the problem being that those famous right-wingers, Lenin and Mao, did the same.

2. National Socialism picked up the monicker of "national" for precisely the reason you highlight. it was a reaction within the socialist movement against the internationalists; which is why national socialists were generally fighting communists in the streets; the two competed for recruits of a like mind. the famous german national-socialist flag was colored red openly for the reason of appealing to those who had already been part of the larger socialist movement.


national socialism was a branch of socialism. it wasn't until WWII that we even began to see claims that it wasn't; Progressives in the US and Britain alike both admired Fascism up until roughly that point.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Socialism, at it's most basic level, seeks a society of equals brought about by unified effort.
There may be individual socialISTS who seek these things, but that doesn't mean socialISM requires it. It doesn't.

If you're going to compare/contrast philosophies, you have to compare them as they ARE, not as you wish they would be.


Marx's own personal views are totally irrelevant
Not really, considering he's the one who pretty much devised the whole thing. If it is as you say, he wouldn't have been a racist prick.
 

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Not really, considering he's the one who pretty much devised the whole thing. If it is as you say, he wouldn't have been a racist prick.
Marx can be a racist prick, it doesn't mean that marxist theory is racist. It's pretty simple.

If you're going to compare/contrast philosophies, you have to compare them as they ARE, not as you wish they would be.
Seems like you need to take your own advice. It's a good lesson for about half the country that doesn't know what socialism is.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
national socialism was a branch of socialism. it wasn't until WWII that we even began to see claims that it wasn't; Progressives in the US and Britain alike both admired Fascism up until roughly that point.
Indeed. And it's no coincidence that George Orwell called the party of Big Brother "Ingsoc," for English Socialism, specifically noting the similarity of Insoc's chief forerunners (Nazi Germany and the USSR).

H. G. Wells made quite the ass of himself running around describing a world united under "liberal fascism."
 

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
H. G. Wells made quite the ass of himself running around describing a world united under "liberal fascism."
American hegemony is otherwise? :roll:
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Marx can be a racist prick, it doesn't mean that marxist theory is racist. It's pretty simple.
I'm not arguing that it is. But he's arguing that by definition, it cannot be. Keep up. There's nothing inherent about socialism which prohibits racism.


Seems like you need to take your own advice. It's a good lesson for about half the country that doesn't know what socialism is.
Yes, and the half the country who routinely snorts that tend to be the ones who really have no clue, the ones who generally think things like police forces and the military are examples of "socialism," or that any government spending at all is "socialism."

Or they, as you, dismiss out of hand the idea that fascism and socialism spring from the same roots. Which, philosophically, they do.

Apparently, it's you who need to brush up on these things.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
American hegemony is otherwise? :roll:
There is no part of this statement which is not utterly asinine. And even making it shows the level of ignorance you have on the topic. You obviously have no idea what fascism is and you certainly have no idea what Wells meant when he said it. But by all means, embarrass yourself further.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I am not dependent on anyone that I do not choose to be in my life. These are free choices that I make, not choices that are made for me. No resource does one offer that I can't choice to not partake in be it in food,water, or be in shelter. I can go about these things in my own way and choice who will help me along the way. The only times that I am truly dependent is this world is when I am young, or by the government when they have decided to make me dependent on them. All other cases, it is I, that have made a choice. A socialist society calls for the dependence on each other to create a equal system. The system I'm talking about calls for people to choose the people they wish to help them along the way.
While you are free to make your own choices, the idea that you are not dependent on anyone is a ridiculous idea in the modern world. You couldn't maintain your lifestyle as it is for any length of time without the society you are in.

Things are created in all sorts of societies and groups. It is not dependent on anything the government does or says though it might be affected by it.
In a very broad general sense, yes. But my point is you cannot maintain your current lifestyle without some kind of help from others. Like it or not, you are dependent on your fellow man.

Do you think we ignore it now? We a put a value on the return a person puts in to society, and encourages them to raise their stock in the society. Socialism cuts that out of the equation, and gives no one any drive to do anything by saying all are equal. It might very well offer different wages, but those wages are most likely still very much controlled, so the encouragement is most likely very limited. Ofcourse, that might not be a factor at all, but than equality by their definition would be in question in that socialist society.
Yes! I think many people ignore it now. "Your health, your problem" springs to mind, calls to abolish things like the minimum wage, unions, etc etc.

Socialism is not strictly wage driven. It's about providing the necessary resources to everyone possible.

There really isn't any real benefit that couldn't come in a more free means. Socialism naturally calls for the stripping of freedom and rights of the people. Of course, it depends on the polices you put in place, but its very much can kill both and calls for the killing of both in the purest of cases.
Socialism calls for no such thing, one of the core precepts is the preservation of such rights.

Nah, it really isn't all that much. Racism will never go away, sexism will never go away, none of it ever really will. The only way you can change human nature is by controlling human nature. Once you stop controlling it, you will find the changes you made were very small.
Really? Fifty years ago, blacks could count on being treated like crap almost anywhere. Today we have a black president. And that's the span of fifty years, half a single human lifetime. Where will we be in another fifty or 100 years?

Nah, I have studied what the founders of socialism has said. I might of put it out like a Wikipedia copy though. :lol: I honestly haven't looked at it. :2razz:
That's part of the problem. The root material is important but you need to look at contemporary theories as well. Socialist thought has evolved beyond it's roots and taken on a more modern form.

Socialism might not be similar to National Socialism but it puts in place the power structure needed for National Socialism to take hold. The only struggle would be to get in office, which could easily be done by feeding on the cries of equality.
That's actually the OPPOSITE of what's true. National Socialism relies heavily on the power of business supported by the government and a private sector that does the bidding of the government. Socialism is the exact opposite, it seeks to LIMIT the power and control of the private sector.

What socialists want and what they are asking for is two very different things. In order to maintain any sort of equality, control has to stay in place, and a controlling body has to make sure everything stays right in line. You don't need to ask for total equality to have started a hunger of control, that can't be helped, which has always been the number one problem with socialism.
Equality can be achieved WITHOUT controlling people's lives. We've managed to take big steps in that direction with the GLBT crowd and with race issues without implementing mandatory "talk nice" laws.

An equal playing field can be reached in many ways. The best approach is an approach that doesn't try to control results or limit freedom/rights along the way. The reality is you aren't trying to create equal playing field, you are trying to create a flat playing field. Which are two totally different things.
I personally am not trying to create a flat playing field and I know of only a few radical Communists who want that. I and most other Socialists realize that a flat playing field is impossible by any means and dont strive for it.


1. the National Socialists absolutely pursued those economic agendas. i've heard it argued that They Really Didn't Mean It because Hitler then got rid of unions; and opposition to unions of course isn't socialist etc; the problem being that those famous right-wingers, Lenin and Mao, did the same.
Lenin and Mao were both Communist, not Socialist. And the Nazis didnt just get rid of unions, they KILLED actual Socialists and Communists.

2. National Socialism picked up the monicker of "national" for precisely the reason you highlight. it was a reaction within the socialist movement against the internationalists; which is why national socialists were generally fighting communists in the streets; the two competed for recruits of a like mind. the famous german national-socialist flag was colored red openly for the reason of appealing to those who had already been part of the larger socialist movement.
So you basically agree that it was Socialist in name only? Socialists are extremely rarely Nationalists of any kind, part of most Socialist ideologies is the rejection of ideas like Nationalism because they serve to divide people on an arbitrary basis.

national socialism was a branch of socialism. it wasn't until WWII that we even began to see claims that it wasn't; Progressives in the US and Britain alike both admired Fascism up until roughly that point.
It also wasnt until WWII that we saw an example of it in effect.


There may be individual socialISTS who seek these things, but that doesn't mean socialISM requires it. It doesn't.
One of the fundamental concepts of Socialism is unified effort. How can you possibly have that if you're trying to exclude an entire segment of society?

If you're going to compare/contrast philosophies, you have to compare them as they ARE, not as you wish they would be.
There is nothing in any Socialist ideology that I'm aware of that supports any sort of racist thought.

If your only justification is "Well, it doesn't EXPRESSLY say it!" then there's really nothing I can do for you because the precepts of Socialism dont expressly forbade a lot of things.

Not really, considering he's the one who pretty much devised the whole thing. If it is as you say, he wouldn't have been a racist prick.
Marx's personal views are now and have been totally irrelevant.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
20,388
Reaction score
11,954
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I dont care what political or economic system you live under, you NEED the people around you. Socialism merely acknowledges this and encourages ways to make this work for us instead of just tricking us into ignoring it.
What?

It's pretty obvious that socialism encourages national socialism, which encourages tyranny, oppression, and eventual collapse or restructuring. It's a power paradigm, not because socialism is evil or whatever. Power flows that way under those rules, it's like Ohm's law for national power flow.

Actually, in the past few hundred years, it was capitalism coupled with a great deal of personal freedoms that fueled the biggest booms in human productivity, prosperity, and freedoms, that has yet to stop. And these accepted community, and freed them sufficient to allow them to serve one another on their own terms, with few controls or middle men, and only tax as the overarching big brother that dips his hand in. What it did was RESTRICT you from getting into my personal business. It was explicitly RESTRICTING the flow of power from individual to community that fostered it.

It was the recognition that individuals sufficiently empowered innovated, created, served, and profited, like never before. Once the nobles and elite were no longer telling everyone what to do, amazing things happened. Going to socialism just replaces nobles with a collective, which inevitably becomes a power base, which quickly turns into the elite/nobles again, and you're back to "you're screwed and living in 1984 again".
 
Last edited:

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
One of the fundamental concepts of Socialism is unified effort. How can you possibly have that if you're trying to exclude an entire segment of society?
:shrug: You define "society" to include whom you wish and exclude those you don't want. It's not neurosurgery there, and it's something societies have been doing as long as there have been societies.


There is nothing in any Socialist ideology that I'm aware of that supports any sort of racist thought.
There's nothing about socialism which excludes it, either.


If your only justification is "Well, it doesn't EXPRESSLY say it!" then there's really nothing I can do for you because the precepts of Socialism dont expressly forbade a lot of things.
You're the one claiming it does. You're the one saying that racism can't exist within socialism.


Marx's personal views are now and have been totally irrelevant.
When one of the founders and the chief architect of a philosophy envisions his system to allow for racism, then yeah, it really does.


It also wasnt until WWII that we saw an example of it in effect.
Wow; you're really unfamiliar with the first half of the 20th century, aren't you?
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,891
Reaction score
32,551
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Lenin and Mao were both Communist, not Socialist.
:facepalm: you realize that's sort of like saying that the animal in front of you isn't a dog, it's a terrier? Communism is a subset of Socialism.

as is national socialism. they both grew out of the same general intellectual movement towards nationalized control over industry and reaction against enlightenment-era liberalism.

And the Nazis didnt just get rid of unions, they KILLED actual Socialists and Communists.
yup. you know who killed the most socialists and communists within their own country? ;) Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Bolshevicks killed Menschevicks by the score for the same reason that Nazis killed the internationalist-socialists; they were the competition.

So you basically agree that it was Socialist in name only?
not at all; their ideology was thoroughly left-wing.

Socialists are extremely rarely Nationalists of any kind, part of most Socialist ideologies is the rejection of ideas like Nationalism because they serve to divide people on an arbitrary basis.
you are defining "socialists" far too narrowly; methinks in the context of modern socialist parties in Western Europe rather than in the intellectual era of the 1930's.

It also wasnt until WWII that we saw an example of it in effect.
:fail: mussolini came to power in 1922.

One of the fundamental concepts of Socialism is unified effort. How can you possibly have that if you're trying to exclude an entire segment of society?
because that's how you unify society. you need an "other"; whether that be the burgeosie, trotskyites, communists, capitalists, jews, etc so on and so forth.

There is nothing in any Socialist ideology that I'm aware of that supports any sort of racist thought.
then i would suggest that you study who made up the Eugenics movement and get back to us once your knowledge is enhanced ;).
 
Last edited:

Henrin

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
While you are free to make your own choices, the idea that you are not dependent on anyone is a ridiculous idea in the modern world. You couldn't maintain your lifestyle as it is for any length of time without the society you are in.
Are you honestly comparing free choice dependence that I must be part in, to a forced compliance dependence?

In a very broad general sense, yes. But my point is you cannot maintain your current lifestyle without some kind of help from others. Like it or not, you are dependent on your fellow man.
Like I said, the two kind of dependences are not comparable. In any kind of society people will work together for a goal. The difference is free choice with lack of force. The entire reason society was created is to work together to make "yourself" have a better chance of survival and still be free.

Yes! I think many people ignore it now. "Your health, your problem" springs to mind, calls to abolish things like the minimum wage, unions, etc etc.
That isn't ignoring anything. That is staying true to the vision of the society we are in which has always been against force, which clearly minimum wage is, and clearly what unions represent.

Socialism is not strictly wage driven. It's about providing the necessary resources to everyone possible.
Its an example, my friend. Socialism does many things to reach equality.

Socialism calls for no such thing, one of the core precepts is the preservation of such rights.
Oh but it does. In order to create a system that every thing is owned by all you must forcedly take over business. In order to share resources you must steal the resources. Two very good examples of why what you say is false.

Really? Fifty years ago, blacks could count on being treated like crap almost anywhere. Today we have a black president. And that's the span of fifty years, half a single human lifetime. Where will we be in another fifty or 100 years?
Oh but that doesn't have to do with the policies put in place. The polices put in place in the end did more harm than good. The thing that changed the behavior was knowledge. What I was trying to point out was that no matter what you do, the underlining problem is a built in mechanism that can only be played with, but not replaced.


That's part of the problem. The root material is important but you need to look at contemporary theories as well. Socialist thought has evolved beyond it's roots and taken on a more modern form.
The papers in themselves don't teach all that much in all honesty. They teach what they thought of the subject, not how it has ever actually worked. I never put much backing on theories that have never actually came to the light of day. They're all appear to me to be theories made by delusional men.


That's actually the OPPOSITE of what's true. National Socialism relies heavily on the power of business supported by the government and a private sector that does the bidding of the government. Socialism is the exact opposite, it seeks to LIMIT the power and control of the private sector.
You appear to missing the point completely. Its not about the control of the private sector. The private sector has nothing to do with why socialism leads to national socialism. The problem is the government and human nature for why the change happens.

One of things you must always remember is just this. Socialist policies can only be enacted through means that a socialist would never approve of.

Equality can be achieved WITHOUT controlling people's lives. We've managed to take big steps in that direction with the GLBT crowd and with race issues without implementing mandatory "talk nice" laws.
Did we know? Name an example?

I personally am not trying to create a flat playing field and I know of only a few radical Communists who want that. I and most other Socialists realize that a flat playing field is impossible by any means and dont strive for it.
So where would you stop?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom