Welcome to North Korea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

"The dictorship of the proletariat" is the time where the workers control the state according to Marx and it's that time period between capitalism and communism that's called socialism.
This "dictorship of the proletariat" has a remarkable resemblance to direct democracy.

---

Cheers for the elementary explanation. And the link to autarky?

There's a reason why I'm focusing on the economic side of socialism. No, Hitler was not a pure socialist - there's a reason his movement is termed national-socialism. Nor was Stalin or Mao, for that matter. But to use a cliche, were they to sit around a table and talk about anything but politics they'd have more than a little in common when it came to economics, all with strong tendencies to socialist economic ideals - state control of business, creation of jobs to keep unemployment as low as possible, an extremely large proletariat, and an autarkic economy.

@ Fragony
http://mattbrundage.com/publications...-democracy.php

Quote:

---

Hitler was not a socialist in the strict sense of the word; this can be shown by his definition of 'socialist', which differs from the norm:

Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of his nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, Deutschland, Deutschland, über Alles, to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land, land and people -- that man is a Socialist. (Bullock 76)

Hitler's meaning of socialism, therefore did not refer to a specific economic system, but to "an instinct for national self-preservation" (Fischer 125) or nationalism. Concerning the Socialist aspects of the 25-Point program, Hitler made promises "because in 1920, the German working class and the lower middle classes were saturated in a radical anti-capitalism; such phrases were essential for any politician who wanted to attract their support" (Bullock 75).

---------

Hitler had an overall disregard for the masses and refused to accept trade unions or the working classes. Once Hitler was in power, he broke all promises he had made to the workers. Hitler and the Nazi Party did away with collective bargaining and the right to strike. He replaced trade unions with an organization called the 'Labor Front', but this organization was fundamentally a tool of the Nazi Party and did not operate in the workers' favor. According to the law that created the Labor Front, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able to perform the maximum of work" (Kangas 13).

---

THIS MAN IS NOT A SOCIALIST.

This page also goes through many other things:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

Hence national-socialism. Face it bubba Hitler was a leftie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Hence national-socialism. Face it bubba Hitler was a leftie.

---

I'm sorry. Are you mad?

National socialism and fascism is the exact opposite of socialism/marxism. If you want to bash socialism, that's fine, but why don't you make an argument based upon real flaws, there are certainly enough of them, instead of making up outlandish and ridiculous claims like these?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

National socialism and fascism is the exact opposite of socialism/marxism.

---

Ya sure. Excuse me I am in the middle of a staring contest with my neighbours cat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Ya sure. Excuse me I am in the middle of a staring contest with my neighbours cat

---

What is the very essence of socialism? No, it's not brainwashing or nationalization, it's class struggle, and with a bias for the working class.

What was the class situation in nazi germany and their fascist allies? If Hitler was a socialist, surely the nobility and bourgeois would be crushed, and the working class was in power? Were they?

The painter and the chicken farmer. The essence of socialism is state controlled economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Cheers for the elementary explanation. And the link to autarky?

---

Too much simular words there. :oops:
Thought you talked about governing styles and not economics. Haven't seen that term for closed economies before.

While I haven't studied enough on the subject, but shouldn't most Latin-american dictorships been free market though? At least the ones not boycotted by the US.

Still, the authorian top-down system is something that the very essence that socialism is supposed to be against (as the policies is then used to keep the people in control so that they won't disturb the ruling elite), even if some economic policies may be simular. Can't find any socialist reason on why autarky should be used in socialism though, if anything rather the opposite, considering the view of nations.

Might partially explain why the revolutionary socialist movements seems to have a strong tendency to fail pretty bad after the revolution and end up in dictorships though. :sweatdrop:

I'm to busy right now to respond to any posts in detail, but I think I'll share this with you:

http://bp0.blogger.com/_N6fTS20LDZE/...BHorseshoe.JPG

I've read about the horseshoe model before, but this is the first picture of it that I could find on the internet. The idea is that both the USSR and the Axis regimes where authoritarian-collectivist in nature; the only real difference being that the USSR paid lip service to the idea that individuals are equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The painter and the chicken farmer. The essence of socialism is state controlled economy.

---

No, the essence of socialism is why the economy is state controlled.

Quote:

---

the only real difference being that the USSR paid lip service to the idea that individuals are equal.

---

Come on the Nazis were very big on the equality thing , if your politics were right and your heritage was right then you were equally as good as all the rest of the master race .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

No, the essence of socialism is why the economy is state controlled.

---

No Luke.

You are mixing up idea and essence, idea is class struggle the reality is replacing one elite with another. Class struggle was there in a way in germany as well in a way, a lot of the upper class, bankers, industrialists, were these nosy fella's, and were they stripped from their property by the state and send to Poland to gurgle zyklon-b or were they stripped from their property by the state and send to Poland to gurgle zyklon-b. Party members could keep it. One could argue that Hitler got a little too enthousiastic in his class struggle but hey, in other socialist countries having glasses was enough to be considered unwanted.

I came to read about NK today and realized that actually meant 1930s Germany and Hitler's economic stance. Man, I was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichigo

I came to read about NK today and realized that actually meant 1930s Germany and Hitler's economic stance. Man, I was wrong.

---

Yeah, strange things tend to happen when someone tries to compare Segolene Royale to Adolf Hitler...

@Fragony: "Jew" isn't a class. Adolf Hitler had no problem with rich people, as long as they were german. That was a "race struggle", not a class struggle. Hitler was a nationalist and a racist, but he was no socialist.

Upper class is a class, and a lot of jews were rich. State needed money, jews had it. The rich jews were the first. Hitler most certainly was a racist. And a socialist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Upper class is a class, and a lot of jews were rich. State needed money, jews had it. The rich jews were the first..

---

Upper class is a class. Upper class jew is not a class, however. Hitler didn't eradicate the upper class, he eradicated the jews, upper classes or lower classes. Or do you have any evidence of Hitler eradicating the german upper class?

No he didn't eradicate the native german upper class because most of them were party members, and who ruled germany, the party :idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No he didn't eradicate the native german upper class because most of them were party members, and who ruled germany, the party :idea2:

---

Well did he at least confiscate their belongings and give it to the state then?

If not, what you're describing is fascism. Like we've been saying all along, though I'm not sure if you even attempt to be serious anymore. Have a state controlled economy does not equal socialism. Or are you suggesting that the monarchies of the middle ages were socialist? :dizzy:

Hitler was a nationalist and a racial theorist first and foremost. Deutschland Uber Alles and all that, and the aryan nonsense. His economic policies were really not his strongpoint, except perhaps his war economy. Btw, did you know that he was nominated for the peace prize in the late 30's? Do you know by whom and why? It was by the norwegian conservative(ie. market-liberal) party, and it was because of his economic policies. Would a market-liberal support a socialist economy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Well did he at least confiscate their belongings and give it to the state then?

---

They were the state. And I am dead serious, Hitler was a leftie. You can go on finding minor inconsistancies but it doesn't change the greater picture now does it. You consider Norway to be a socialist country even if it allows private property, if you want inconsistancies I suggest you start there.

Quote:

---

Hjalmar Schacht was replaced in September 1936 by Hitler's lieutenant Hermann Goering, with a mandate to make Germany self-sufficient to fight a war within four years.[10] Under Goering imports were slashed. Wages and prices were controlled--under penalty of being sent to the concentration camp. Dividends were restricted to six percent on book capital. And strategic goals to be reached at all costs (much like Soviet planning) were declared: the construction of synthetic rubber plants, more steel plants, automatic textile factories.[10]

While the strict state intervention into the economy, and the massive rearmament policy, led to full employment during the 1930s, real wages in Germany dropped by roughly 25% between 1933 and 1938. [11] Trade unions were abolished, as well as collective bargaining and the right to strike. [12] The right to quit also disappeared: Labour books were introduced in 1935, and required the consent of the previous employer in order to be hired for another job. [12]

Another part of the new German economy was massive rearmament, with the goal being to expand the 100,000-strong German Army into a force of millions. The Four-Year Plan was discussed in the controversial Hossbach Memorandum, which provides the "minutes" from one of Hitler's briefings.

Nevertheless, the war came and although the Four-Year Plan technically expired in 1940, Hermann Göring had built up a power base in the "Office of the Four-Year Plan" that effectively controlled all German economic and production matters by this point in time. In 1942 the growing burdens of the war and the death of Todt saw the economy move to a full war economy under Albert Speer.

---

From Wikipedia's entry on Nazi Germany:Economy

Hitler may have allowed political allies to maintain dejure ownership of some of their businesses, but the means of production were very much under state control- which is the definition of socialism.

How very suckingly polarising of you to destroy a perfectly fine established idea with such a relative thing such as facts Xiahou ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

From Wikipedia's entry on Nazi Germany:Economy

Hitler may have allowed political allies to maintain dejure ownership of some of their businesses, but the means of production were very much under state control- which is the definition of socialism.

---

You're aware that socialism and state control aren't interchangable right? Yes, socialism involves state control, but state control doesn't need to involve socialism.

The definition of socialism also requires that the state is controlled by the proletariat for example.

For starters, you can compare the nationalist/fascist view of what the state compared to the socialist view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

How very suckingly polarising of you to destroy a perfectly fine established idea with such a relative thing such as facts Xiahou ~;)

---

Well, by changing definitions you can prove anything... 1+1=3 is you define it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

You're aware that socialism and state control aren't interchangable right? Yes, socialism involves state control, but state control doesn't need to involve socialism.

---

In the strictest, most basic sense, that's exactly what socialism is.

You can talk about different methodologies, variants and so forth, but all socialism hinges on state control of the means of production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Well, by changing definitions you can prove anything... 1+1=3 is you define it that way.

---

Can be true for rabid capitalism as well don't worry, lefties got enron, I got hitler

Leonidas was a Nazi, apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

the means of production were very much under state control- which is the definition of socialism.

---

NO - absolutely not!

Socialism has the means of production under worker control.

Having the means of production under state control would be Leninism.

But seriously, if you call every state with a state controlled economy, that would make the european monarchies of the middle ages socialist states. Are you seriously suggesting that King Louis XIV was a socialist...?

Calling Hitler a socialist is just as ridiculous as calling Louis XIV, Henry IV, Charlemagne, etc, socialists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

In the strictest, most basic sense, that's exactly what socialism is.

You can talk about different methodologies, variants and so forth, but all socialism hinges on state control of the means of production.

---

That makes the non-socialist participation in WW2 quite low as during war economy the state controls the means of production. And as you appearently insist that what kind of state it is doesn't matter...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Can be true for rabid capitalism as well don't worry, lefties got enron, I got hitler

---

Point is that the scale contains more than capitalists and socialists. Why do you think the classical liberals (aka capitalists) are in the middle on the old left-right scale?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

NO - absolutely not!

---

YES - absolutily is!

Ah well it has been emotional, nothing to gain here

Frag out

Aww, please, now we're arguing over words and names...
If Hitler was such a socialist, I wonder why he didn't join their party, banned them, gassed them and started a war against them?
He certainly tried to make the world a better place for aryans but that's not socialism, that's racism. :dizzy2:
He also kept only a few people at the top and made them compete against eachother, that's not very socialist either.
Next you're going to tell me the deathcamps are a sign of socialism because they bring people together... :wall:

So he can't be a socialist because he was a racist? That's odd....

hmmm, I said Frag out. So let's do that in style socialist socialist nananananaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaana