Welcome to North Korea

[Geoffrey S]

I'd like to emphasize the above post, which succinctly shoots down two classic popular errors. There's a reason why socialism is distinct from marxism, and it's a common misconception that Lenin and his cohorts overthrew the tsar.

Edit: oh, the irony. Want to emphasize it, but hide it with a new page. Darn.

[seireikhaan]

The truth about communism is that it simply has never been executed. It really does have a nice, wonderful theory, but unfortunately, humans have tended to get in the way of that theory. There is NO such thing as a communist state. China may call itself communist. The USSR may have called itself communist. But they never were, are, or ever will be. They are extreme socialists, combined with heavy authoritarianism.

[HoreTore]

When we are talking about socialism there is big difference between social country and socialist country. Hore mentioned Norway - I don't know situation of this country well (I doubt Hore know Poland so I explain myself :D) but I'm sure that if you want establish new company in Norway, its possible. If you want start trade union its possible. Into socialist country 1st is almost impossible, 2nd is definitely impossible. Don't forget that into Europe socialist parties nowadays promote something that could be called liberalism even 30 years ago - like Labour Party and Tony Blair :)

You're talking about Leninism, KrooK. Norway isn't a leninist country, but it is definitely a socialist country.

1) socialism, as a concept and movement, existed before Marx wrote anything

2) the tzar abdicated under the pressure of the februari revolution, wich was carried out by liberals and various anti-monarchists as well. A provisional government was installed, but Lenin and his supporters decided that everything would be better if they ran the place. They carried out a coup d'etat wich was later dubbed "the october revolution".

3) the USSR only claimed to be socialist (it's in the name...), the communist party was named thus to reflect what they intended to achieve.

Yeah, there's a limit to how much I have time to write...

They are extreme socialists, combined with heavy authoritarianism.

Or you could say they were/are leninists, stalinists and maoists...

[Viking]

Socialism is a scary thing, North Korea is the inevitable conclusion of such policy's.

Bollocks, socialism doesn't equal an authoritarian government. You could have a free trade market with little state influence and still have an authoritarian government. A capitalistic NK? Yes, very possible.

Norway isn't a leninist country, but it is definitely a socialist country.

Norwegian politics are leant to the left, but calling them socialism is hardly accurate.

[HoreTore]

Norwegian politics are leant to the left, but calling them socialism is hardly accurate.

Bah. Huge welfare state, nationalized companies, state monopolies on several fields, very powerful unions, womens rights, a very limited church/religion, the list goes on.

In the 73 years since 1935(first lasting labour government), we've had 7 non-socialist governments, for a total of 20 years, with only 3 of those governments actually serving a full term. I'd say it's pretty damn safe to say that we are a socialist country, even if you count newlab-wannabe Stoltenberg as an actual human being. He has, after all, showed at least some signs of sanity recently...

[Xiahou]

Bollocks, socialism doesn't equal an authoritarian government. You could have a free trade market with little state influence and still have an authoritarian government. A capitalistic NK? Yes, very possible.

An authoritarian free market government? Doesn't strike me as very sustainable- the two are opposites. A free market requires free people. People have to be able to work and earn income for themselves and then be able to decide for themselves how best to spend their earnings. Authoritarianism conflicts with that because it is about telling people where to go and what to do (not unlike communism). Communism meshes so well with authoritarianism because of this- it's all about controlling people- telling the people where they can work, what they can earn, what they can consume, where they can travel, and so on.

[HoreTore]

An authoritarian free market government? Doesn't strike me as very sustainable- the two are opposites. A free market requires free people. People have to be able to work and earn income for themselves and then be able to decide for themselves how best to spend their earnings. Authoritarianism conflicts with that because it is about telling people where to go and what to do (not unlike communism). Communism meshes so well with authoritarianism because of this- it's all about controlling people- telling the people where they can work, what they can earn, what they can consume, where they can travel, and so on.

Pinochet? The zillion other US/western-backed dictators?

[Tribesman]

Communism meshes so well with authoritarianism because of this- it's all about controlling people- telling the people where they can work, what they can earn, what they can consume, where they can travel, and so on.

Wow Xiahou , I didn't relise that you were living in a communist country , that must be why you are so fond of the mythical free market .

A free market requires free people.

A free market requires no governments and no countries .

[Fragony]

Bollocks, socialism doesn't equal an authoritarian government. You could have a free trade market with little state influence and still have an authoritarian government. A capitalistic NK? Yes, very possible.

Authoritorian is necesarily oppressive but it's easy to become just that, call it soft tyranny. It will however always result in a huge intrusive government that sucks the life out of everything. I'll gladly sacrifice some, if not all social-security for a little bit of air. Soft tyrrany is the worst it a way, can't do anything about it because there is never the legitimacy to take up arms, and in the meantime it grows and grows and costs and costs.

[Viking]

Bah. Huge welfare state, nationalized companies, state monopolies on several fields, very powerful unions, womens rights, a very limited church/religion, the list goes on.

In the 73 years since 1935(first lasting labour government), we've had 7 non-socialist governments, for a total of 20 years, with only 3 of those governments actually serving a full term. I'd say it's pretty damn safe to say that we are a socialist country, even if you count newlab-wannabe Stoltenberg as an actual human being. He has, after all, showed at least some signs of sanity recently...

Ahem.

Yeah, I agree it is very leant to the left, but the only real socialist parties are The Socialistic Left and further out. DNA isn't fully socialistic.
Further more, do not forget that we do have private, albeit usually religiously themed, schools.

An authoritarian free market government? Doesn't strike me as very sustainable- the two are opposites. A free market requires free people. People have to be able to work and earn income for themselves and then be able to decide for themselves how best to spend their earnings. Authoritarianism conflicts with that because it is about telling people where to go and what to do (not unlike communism). Communism meshes so well with authoritarianism because of this- it's all about controlling people- telling the people where they can work, what they can earn, what they can consume, where they can travel, and so on.

A free market requires a free market, whether the government has strict opinions on what the people should think and watch on television does not conflict with a free market. The government doesn't bother to maintain it's own TV-stations, it just censors the commercial ones; as the US gov willl do too in extreme cases.

A free market requires no governments and no countries .

Indeed.

Soft tyrrany is the worst it a way, can't do anything about it because there is never the legitimacy to take up arms, and in the meantime it grows and grows and costs and costs.

Well if so, I'd suggest to do something else than to take up arms.

[seireikhaan]

An authoritarian free market government? Doesn't strike me as very sustainable- the two are opposites. A free market requires free people. People have to be able to work and earn income for themselves and then be able to decide for themselves how best to spend their earnings. Authoritarianism conflicts with that because it is about telling people where to go and what to do (not unlike communism). Communism meshes so well with authoritarianism because of this- it's all about controlling people- telling the people where they can work, what they can earn, what they can consume, where they can travel, and so on.

Heh. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Batista(Cuba, the one Castro overthrew). All were in generally to the right economically, to varying degrees, but all proved themselves to be quite dictatorial too.

All religions have an utopia, socialism is no different in that. Communism has been proven to be such a faillure that only an intellectual would try to ignore that, it's a vile ideoligy that has costed millions of people their lifes. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Kim Sung, how much proof does one need.

Allow me to channel my inner Tribesman here for a moment.

Hitler HATED Communism. He hated it almost as much as the US did in the Cold War. Its the whole reason he diverted over 1/3 of his troops on the Eastern front to take Leningrad, which was a strategically worthless city. Like I said earlier, Hitler was mild right economically, didn't stop him from being a monster.

[Geoffrey S]

Heh. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Batista(Cuba, the one Castro overthrew). All were in generally to the right economically, to varying degrees, but all proved themselves to be quite dictatorial too.


Allow me to channel my inner Tribesman here for a moment.

Hitler HATED Communism. He hated it almost as much as the US did in the Cold War. Its the whole reason he diverted over 1/3 of his troops on the Eastern front to take Leningrad, which was a strategically worthless city. Like I said earlier, Hitler was mild right economically, didn't stop him from being a monster.

Hitler was not to the right economically, much to the frustration of such early business and economic allies such as Schacht. Technically, none of those you mentioned could free-market economic right-wingers - autarky, their preferred system, pretty much precludes that sort of thing.

[seireikhaan]

Hitler was not to the right economically, much to the frustration of such early business and economic allies such as Schacht. Technically, none of those you mentioned could free-market economic right-wingers - autarky, their preferred system, pretty much precludes that sort of thing.

Being a dictator does NOT mean you can't be free market. All of those I mentioned previously were to some degree on the right economically, especially Pinochet. It just means you control in different manners, using other means. Certainly, Hitler did use some means of socialism- media, for example, but in general, he was more right than he was left. Free market does not necessarily equate to freedom as a whole.

[Fragony]

Allow me to channel my inner Tribesman here for a moment.

Your inner Tribesman needs some practise

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

[Geoffrey S]

Being a dictator does NOT mean you can't be free market. All of those I mentioned previously were to some degree on the right economically, especially Pinochet. It just means you control in different manners, using other means. Certainly, Hitler did use some means of socialism- media, for example, but in general, he was more right than he was left. Free market does not necessarily equate to freedom as a whole.

Being rather circular there, I'm afraid, and seemingly missing the point of socialist economic policies - and the extent to which those you mention were functionally dictators.

[HoreTore]

Ahem.

Yeah, I agree it is very leant to the left, but the only real socialist parties are The Socialistic Left and further out. DNA isn't fully socialistic.

What? Of course they are! Yes, they do currently have their privatization whores, like Stoltenberg, but that is only the last 10 years. Einar Gerhardsen etc, can't be called anything but socialists. Social democrats are a brand of socialism. And remember that DNA actually joined komintern for a short period

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

Everyone wants to pretend they're socialists ~,)

Anyway, Hitler and nationalsocialism was the third way, separate from both capitalism AND socialism, which both were, you know, created and controlled by them evil jews(marx).

[seireikhaan]

Your inner Tribesman needs some practise

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

Hmm, interesting... I was going off of what I've read about Hitler's determination to take Leningrad and rather assumed it was an anti-'communist' mentality sorta thing. But whatever, I'll concede Hitler. However, my point still stands that dictators and fascists are capable of being free market with my other examples.

[seireikhaan]

Being rather circular there, I'm afraid, and seemingly missing the point of socialist economic policies - and the extent to which those you mention were functionally dictators.

Well, since I'm apparently incapable of perceiving what the 'point' of socialist policies are, why don't you tell me then?

[Geoffrey S]

Well, since I'm apparently incapable of perceiving what the 'point' of socialist policies are, why don't you tell me then?

Edit: actually, I'll give a hint. It's not so much about the socialist policies, but more about how the policies of the people you mentioned relate to how truly the were dictators. People like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, can be considered dictators in the strongest sense of the word - and their policies have the strongest socialist tendencies. The others you name had decidedly less absolute power, whether through dependency on internal (business, army) or external (foreign support) factors - and, not coincidentally, the degree to which their policies can be considered socialist declines with their true power, to the point that some policies are indeed decidedly free market and the person in charge can't strictly be called a dictator, in that he is as much dictated to as he does himself. An illustration of this would be the changing economic policies in China and the USSR as the level of personal dictatorship decreased.

[CountArach]

Your inner Tribesman needs some practise

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative" - Adolf Hitler

"We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order." - Adolf Hitler

[Fragony]

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

Often, different members of a fascist party would make completely opposite statements about the economic policies they supported.[9] Once in power, fascists usually adopted whatever economic program they believed to be most suitable for political goals.

In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[

[Ironside]

Hitler was not to the right economically, much to the frustration of such early business and economic allies such as Schacht. Technically, none of those you mentioned could free-market economic right-wingers - autarky, their preferred system, pretty much precludes that sort of thing.

Shouldn't autarky pretty much preclude the "dictorship of the proletariat" aswell? As the closest thing is direct democracy.

[Geoffrey S]

Not quite certain what you mean, really.

[Ironside]

Not quite certain what you mean, really.

"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.

Fragony, you are aware that socialism and fascism have very different views on what the state is and what it reprensent? Simply saying that state control and socialism is the same is only a pretty fundamental flaw.

A free market requires no governments and no countries .

In theory yes, but a free market requires regulations to maintain it's freedom. And those has to come from somewhere.

[CountArach]

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

Often, different members of a fascist party would make completely opposite statements about the economic policies they supported.[9] Once in power, fascists usually adopted whatever economic program they believed to be most suitable for political goals.

In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[

What is your point? Service to the state means Nationalism. Nationalisation is a Socialist dogma, yes, but private property and initiative aren't.

[Fragony]

What is your point?

Obviously my point is that Hitler was a socialist.

[Ironside]

Obviously my point is that Hitler was a socialist.

And as Fragony seems to be unable to differ between nationalism and socialism so is Fragony.

Do you indentify yourself with a certain political grouping: nationalists

[CountArach]

Obviously my point is that Hitler was a socialist.

But how does that wiki quote help your case at all? If anything I thought it proved mine...

[Quirinus]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Lets start from lie



Typical half truth. Most of that pact was non-agresion pact and here I agree. Of course socialists into his history courses forget about secret protocol. According to it;
"Soviet Russia and Germany will attack Poland and divide it on 2 zones."
Maybe Russians got biggest casualties into ww2 (half because of killed civilians half because of Russian commander foolishness) but its THEIR OWN FAULT.
They supported Germans (selling them resources, allowing them to use their polygoons) while they were rebuilding their army - same time when Hitler proclamed nazi theory about arian race area into Europe. They help Germans destroy Poland - into 1939 they were breaking international law more than Germans. So if they were so stupid - its just their fault. For me dead Russians are punishment for Poles murdered by Russians or Germans with Russian support. You know Katyn (do not mix with Khatyn), I know GULAG (for me GULAGs at Kolyma were similar to Auschwitz) and Khazachstan steppes. To compare Russian and German behavior I can compare interesting fact - polish officer POWs were mostly murdered by Russians while most of polish POWs taken by Germans survived (Jews too). Thats why I think that Russians have no moral right to accuse Germans of killing their POWs - Russians started.

Attack on Poland and later on Finland was big social support into USSR. People of USSR did nothing to stop their rulers from massive killing Poles. So that when Germans/Balts started massive killing Russians - that was just a historical punishment IMO.

Um. You've missed my point. I'd like to use the same argument I used to refute your claim about Spain. How much of what happened was due to the fact that the Russians are communists, and how much due to the fact that the Russians were Russians?

Funny, really, that you should rage at my supposed half-truths when you make statements like:

And what is interesting - that fascist finished war into Spain, didn't took part into WW2 while socialists (from name like from name but communist generally used name socialists - Union of Soviet Socialist Republic) started war as allies of III Reich.

....which was what I was refuting in the first place.

[Fragony]

But how does that wiki quote help your case at all? If anything I thought it proved mine...