Capitalism & Socialism

[Elerond]

Nazis called themselves National Socialistic party/movement for reason. They run in election agenda that had many socialistic elements in it, like unemployment benefit, public jobs for unemployed, child care, free public schooling, etc.. They were also nationalistic party/movement as they agenda included also such things like jobs only for Germans, rising German's national pride, getting Olympics in German, lessening rights of non-German people, which include Jews, colored people, disabled people, sexual minorities, etc.. They also opposed full communism and communistic parties, which were national cancer according to their agenda.  Their socialistic agenda worked in depression suffering German and worked even better when Hitler's motorway projects and benefit programs prove to be very effective to rise German from depression and lowering unemployment rates. And when Nazis got power they started periodically implement their nationalistic agenda and undermine their opposition, so that they gained absolute majority in German's government which enabled them to kill democracy in German and chance it totalitarian state. And after that change they ceased to be socialistic or nationalistic party/movement and changed to work to benefit Hitler and his elite.

 

So in sort, Nazis had socialistic tendencies at least when they worked their way to power, but those tendencies got pushed back when they secured their authority over German, but they never wanted to abolish private industries or ownership and they saw capitalism as main way to do things and they actually opposed parties and movements that wanted to do so. For them socialism was way to fix problems in German, which made them popular in German, so popular in the fact that Germans relinquished voluntary of their democratic power and gave Nazis totalitarian rule over themselves.

 

Class struggle was never on Nazis' agenda, but instead their struggle as I already said was against non-Germans (which they had quite wide meaning), which makes them fascistic party/movement instead of socialistic or communistic, which of course don't mean that they didn't had socialistic tendencies, which they had as I already mentioned.

 

So what we learned from this was that political parties/movements/ideologies can't be painted with one brush, because it will give you in accurate and corrupt picture of the reality. 

[Namutree]

Nazis called themselves National Socialistic party/movement for reason. They run in election agenda that had many socialistic elements in it, like unemployment benefit, public jobs for unemployed, child care, free public schooling, etc.. They were also nationalistic party/movement as they agenda included also such things like jobs only for Germans, rising German's national pride, getting Olympics in German, lessening rights of non-German people, which include Jews, colored people, disabled people, sexual minorities, etc.. They also opposed full communism and communistic parties, which were national cancer according to their agenda.  Their socialistic agenda worked in depression suffering German and worked even better when Hitler's motorway projects and benefit programs prove to be very effective to rise German from depression and lowering unemployment rates. And when Nazis got power they started periodically implement their nationalistic agenda and undermine their opposition, so that they gained absolute majority in German's government which enabled them to kill democracy in German and chance it totalitarian state. And after that change they ceased to be socialistic or nationalistic party/movement and changed to work to benefit Hitler and his elite.

 

So in sort, Nazis had socialistic tendencies at least when they worked their way to power, but those tendencies got pushed back when they secured their authority over German, but they never wanted to abolish private industries or ownership and they saw capitalism as main way to do things and they actually opposed parties and movements that wanted to do so. For them socialism was way to fix problems in German, which made them popular in German, so popular in the fact that Germans relinquished voluntary of their democratic power and gave Nazis totalitarian rule over themselves.

 

Class struggle was never on Nazis' agenda, but instead their struggle as I already said was against non-Germans (which they had quite wide meaning), which makes them fascistic party/movement instead of socialistic or communistic, which of course don't mean that they didn't had socialistic tendencies, which they had as I already mentioned.

 

So what we learned from this was that political parties/movements/ideologies can't be painted with one brush, because it will give you in accurate and corrupt picture of the reality. 

I agree with 90% of this.

[Walsingham]

1) The nazis were socialists. The clue IS IN THE ****ING NAME

 

2) I refuse to argue the point of whether they were fascists until someone defines what fascism actually is. IN no more than one paragraph.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1) The nazis were socialists. The clue IS IN THE ****ING NAME

 

2) I refuse to argue the point of whether they were fascists until someone defines what fascism actually is. IN no more than one paragraph.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/fascism

 

Using 1, the Nazis fall under Fascist.

 

Won't argue about Socialism, as almost everyone seems to have a different idea or what it is.

[Walsingham]

 

1) The nazis were socialists. The clue IS IN THE ****ING NAME

 

2) I refuse to argue the point of whether they were fascists until someone defines what fascism actually is. IN no more than one paragraph.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/fascism

 

Using 1, the Nazis fall under Fascist.

 

Won't argue about Socialism, as almost everyone seems to have a different idea or what it is.

 

 

Fair play you linked a definition, but I'm not sure autocratic leadership entirely differentiates facsism from, say Stalinism

 

I'd suggest that an obsession with the individual within an autocratic regime, the sense of being a powerful person yet simultaneously being subordinated to the 'perfect' free individual - fuhrer, duce, jefe etc. - is part of it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

1) The nazis were socialists. The clue IS IN THE ****ING NAME

 

2) I refuse to argue the point of whether they were fascists until someone defines what fascism actually is. IN no more than one paragraph.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/fascism

 

Using 1, the Nazis fall under Fascist.

 

Won't argue about Socialism, as almost everyone seems to have a different idea or what it is.

Fair play you linked a definition, but I'm not sure autocratic leadership entirely differentiates facsism from, say Stalinism

 

I'd suggest that an obsession with the individual within an autocratic regime, the sense of being a powerful person yet simultaneously being subordinated to the 'perfect' free individual - fuhrer, duce, jefe etc. - is part of it.

I think the differential is that Fascism places emphasis on Nation and/or Race while Communism places emphasis largely on Class. Not too much different in execution, but it is worth pointing out difference in what fuels each ideology.

[Meshugger]

 

A lot of confusion in this thread could be averted if everyone read Shirer's book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

What does the book say; that the Nazi's are capitalists, socialists, or neither?

 

 

Read Elerond's post. The only thing that he missed was that Hitler admired the organization, imagery and parades that the socialists had and eventually copied a lot of their elements, but at the same time he had a deep seated hatred for their international solidarity of the proletariat. He saw that as the end of Germany as a nation and the germans, which is why they were one of the first against the wall.

[Namutree]

 

I think the differential is that Fascism places emphasis on Nation and/or Race while Communism places emphasis largely on Class. Not too much different in execution, but it is worth pointing out difference in what fuels each ideology.

 

I would totally agree that fascism and communism are different. 

[Namutree]

 

What does the book say; that the Nazi's are capitalists, socialists, or neither?

 

 

 

 

Read Elerond's post. The only thing that he missed was that Hitler admired the organization, imagery and parades that the socialists had and eventually copied a lot of their elements, but at the same time he had a deep seated hatred for their international solidarity of the proletariat. He saw that as the end of Germany as a nation and the germans, which is why they were one of the first against the wall.

 

Internationalism & class struggle are not traits inherent in socialism. Sounds like you are describing communism; which is something we all already know the Nazi's hated.

[Meshugger]

 

 

What does the book say; that the Nazi's are capitalists, socialists, or neither?

 

 

 

 

Read Elerond's post. The only thing that he missed was that Hitler admired the organization, imagery and parades that the socialists had and eventually copied a lot of their elements, but at the same time he had a deep seated hatred for their international solidarity of the proletariat. He saw that as the end of Germany as a nation and the germans, which is why they were one of the first against the wall.

 

Internationalism & class struggle are not traits inherent in socialism. Sounds like you are describing communism; which is something we all already know the Nazi's hated.

 

 

Then tell Shirer that his sources are wrong on what Hitler experienced in the streets of Vienna. 

[Namutree]

 

 

 

What does the book say; that the Nazi's are capitalists, socialists, or neither?

 

 

 

 

Read Elerond's post. The only thing that he missed was that Hitler admired the organization, imagery and parades that the socialists had and eventually copied a lot of their elements, but at the same time he had a deep seated hatred for their international solidarity of the proletariat. He saw that as the end of Germany as a nation and the germans, which is why they were one of the first against the wall.

 

Internationalism & class struggle are not traits inherent in socialism. Sounds like you are describing communism; which is something we all already know the Nazi's hated.

 

 

Then tell Shirer that his sources are wrong on what Hitler experienced in the streets of Vienna. 

 

? I never contested the events. Only that not all socialists believe in internationalism or class struggle.

[Zoraptor]

Read Shirer's book (indeed, it's on the bookshelf), not sure that that will surprise too many.

 

Zoraptor, please stop embarasing yourself. Socialistic wing in workers party? Come on. Take NSDAP program and how they ruled from election to begining of war. All legislation was socialistic. I known that socialists wants to shove their wrong doings away fron themselves just like Germans, saying there was no Germans in the war, it was Nazies (from outer space I only presume). But such statements do not change reality.

 

Lol, I know that capitalists like deflecting their wrong doings away from themselves and have to insist that nazis were socialists as a desperate crutch to hold off the inevitable tide of reality- still waiting for a defence of the capitalist utopia of drug pushing starvation ridden Raj India, btw- but what they call themselves is utterly irrelevant*. I also wouldn't describe myself as socialist (nor do I come out as one on the various political compass type tests, way too far on the libertarian scale), I just like accurate descriptions and picking holes in the arguments of True Believers.

 

Sheesh one nazi successor state was the German Democratic Republic, so by the same logic I've just 'proved' that democracy and Republics suck hard vacuum.

[Gorgon]

1) The nazis were socialists. The clue IS IN THE ****ING NAME

 

2) I refuse to argue the point of whether they were fascists until someone defines what fascism actually is. IN no more than one paragraph.

You don't think the mission statment of Nazism and Socialism matter, I mean they are ideologies as much as political systems. Lots of reasons to put in place programmes to deal with unimployment and economic stagnation. I suppose facism is socialism for those obsessing about the strong nation state and the cult of personality. Enough reason to have two different words to describe them. That is... one is not the other, unless you insist on deconstruction. The further one goes down that road the less things make sense. 

[Kroney]

This and Muslim thread are precisely why gentlemen do not discuss religion or politics at the dining table.

[Namutree]

 

If socialism was made to push people around I can say that capitalism was made so that the aristocracy wont loose all of their power by letting people live in inhuman conditions. So its your choose: you live by the rules of the "oppressive majority" or you live by the rules that a couple of people with lots of power and money dictate.

Again you are confusing capitalism with feudalism. In capitalism aristocracy don't mean crap. It doesn't matter who you are or where were you born you could be Kings son and end up in a dumpster and you could start in a dumpster and end up as a King. Capitalism promotes smarts and talent, it awards the best people, socialism awards laziness, dumbness and ineptness.

 

Capitalist freedom is an illusion. Do you think that people that steal or kill to eat had good parents? a good education? that they don't suffer as human beings? That they really choose the ****ty life they are on?

Anders Breivik - good parents, good public education, great social status - killed 69 people

Chris Garder - bad parents, second rate education, badly social status - was homeless but managed to rise a kid and become successful - never resorted to crime.

 

Yes, I really think that people choose who they are and how they live their life unless they are in extreme situations like war etc.

 

Socialism fails just because in time it becomes a dictatorship, with the people in power becoming corrupt. That is why I advocate for a real democracy, where everyone is responsible for himself.

So either you are for "everybody is responsible for himself" capitalist or you are "we need to help everybody to live their life" socialist. Make up your mind.

 

Am I going crazy? Because I don't recall writing any of these posts. 

[Walsingham]

 

1) The nazis were socialists. The clue IS IN THE ****ING NAME

 

2) I refuse to argue the point of whether they were fascists until someone defines what fascism actually is. IN no more than one paragraph.

You don't think the mission statment of Nazism and Socialism matter, I mean they are ideologies as much as political systems. Lots of reasons to put in place programmes to deal with unimployment and economic stagnation. I suppose facism is socialism for those obsessing about the strong nation state and the cult of personality. Enough reason to have two different words to describe them. That is... one is not the other, unless you insist on deconstruction. The further one goes down that road the less things make sense. 

 

 

Fair point. I can accept that to describe them requires both a philosophy and objective. Can you offer this to describe the gnazis?

[BruceVC]

This and Muslim thread are precisely why gentlemen do not discuss religion or politics at the dining table.

 

Personally I really enjoy these types of discussions.

 

Its a lot more interesting than threads discussing conspiracy theories within the gaming industry, don't you think?

[kgambit]

 

 

If socialism was made to push people around I can say that capitalism was made so that the aristocracy wont loose all of their power by letting people live in inhuman conditions. So its your choose: you live by the rules of the "oppressive majority" or you live by the rules that a couple of people with lots of power and money dictate.

Again you are confusing capitalism with feudalism. In capitalism aristocracy don't mean crap. It doesn't matter who you are or where were you born you could be Kings son and end up in a dumpster and you could start in a dumpster and end up as a King. Capitalism promotes smarts and talent, it awards the best people, socialism awards laziness, dumbness and ineptness.

 

Capitalist freedom is an illusion. Do you think that people that steal or kill to eat had good parents? a good education? that they don't suffer as human beings? That they really choose the ****ty life they are on?

Anders Breivik - good parents, good public education, great social status - killed 69 people

Chris Garder - bad parents, second rate education, badly social status - was homeless but managed to rise a kid and become successful - never resorted to crime.

 

Yes, I really think that people choose who they are and how they live their life unless they are in extreme situations like war etc.

 

Socialism fails just because in time it becomes a dictatorship, with the people in power becoming corrupt. That is why I advocate for a real democracy, where everyone is responsible for himself.

So either you are for "everybody is responsible for himself" capitalist or you are "we need to help everybody to live their life" socialist. Make up your mind.

 

Am I going crazy? Because I don't recall writing any of these posts. 

 

 

You're not crazy.  All of those quotes should have been attributed to Naurgalen.  Seems that Sharp-one doesn't know how to use the quote function.

Edited September 22, 2014 by kgambit

[Namutree]

 

 

 

You're not crazy.  All of those quotes should have been attributed to Naurgalen.  Seems that Sharp-one doesn't know how to use the quote function.

 

It isn't all that user friendly honestly.

[Kroney]

the gnazis?

Half man, half wildebeest, ALL EVIL.

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

 

You're not crazy.  All of those quotes should have been attributed to Naurgalen.  Seems that Sharp-one doesn't know how to use the quote function.

 

It isn't all that user friendly honestly.

 

Learn to BBcode

[teknoman2]

Nazis and Socialists ?

Nazi was the short version of the Nationalist Socialist Party. a political movement formed by Hittler that won the election in 1938 (i think) and became the government of Germany.

so yes, nazis were socialists and by using socialist policies the turned Germany from a bankrupt ruin with over 80% unemployment to a superpower. of course, since power corrupts, eventually they turned the government into a military dictatorship.

 

as for what fascist are... humans! i have the habbit of analysing human behaviour for fun, and i came to the conclusion that fascism is the human nature itself. no human is capable to accept what he cannot understand or is different from himself beyond a certain margin... at most he can tolerate it if not inconvenient. therefore humans have created a zone called normality and everyone tries to fit in. compared to the not so distant past, that zone is a bit bigger, but everyone outside the zone is a social outcast that is usually just ignored or scorned. so generally speaking everyone is a fascist just by being human, but what we call a fascist, would be the person who thinks that everything outside the zone has to be eliminated, and has a very strict definition of what fits in

Edited September 24, 2014 by teknoman2

[AGX-17]

BLOOP BLOOP BLOOP.

 

That's really all there is to say on the subject, reasonably.

 

 

Unreasonably, Marx and Engels were naive idealists who gave autocrats a nice new excuse for doing ****ty things, because giving out free grain like in ancient Rome wasn't cutting it in 19th century Europe. It's all demagoguery no matter how you slice it. Unless AIs or aliens conquer us and force social equality onto us with patrolling Terminators and systematic dominance of the economy, human society will always be hierarchical. In the pre-industrial world, wealth flowed to power; in the industrial/post-industrial world, power flows to wealth.

 

 

Communism as envisioned by Marx and Engels was basically anarchy but everyone is benign, selfless and benevolent. Which is stupid, for reasons we should all be aware of. On the other side of the coin we have the fallacious anti-social philosophies of people like Rand. Both extremes are wholly ignorant of human nature and often willfully ignorant of all scientific evidence.

[teknoman2]

BLOOP BLOOP BLOOP.

 

That's really all there is to say on the subject, reasonably.

 

 

Unreasonably, Marx and Engels were naive idealists who gave autocrats a nice new excuse for doing ****ty things, because giving out free grain like in ancient Rome wasn't cutting it in 19th century Europe. It's all demagoguery no matter how you slice it. Unless AIs or aliens conquer us and force social equality onto us with patrolling Terminators and systematic dominance of the economy, human society will always be hierarchical. In the pre-industrial world, wealth flowed to power; in the industrial/post-industrial world, power flows to wealth.

 

 

Communism as envisioned by Marx and Engels was basically anarchy but everyone is benign, selfless and benevolent. Which is stupid, for reasons we should all be aware of. On the other side of the coin we have the fallacious anti-social philosophies of people like Rand. Both extremes are wholly ignorant of human nature and often willfully ignorant of all scientific evidence.

tl;dr version

as long as humans are humans, nothing will change in the world. they will just repeat the same actions for the same reasons on a different scale each time

[Barothmuk]

Don't get so upset that I proved you wrong.

Lol, oh wow.

 

1) The nazis were socialists. The clue IS IN THE ****ING NAME

To quote myself from these boards:

 

RE: the Nazi economy.

 

Functionally the Nazi economy was capitalist; it worked in cooperation with leading industrialists with the state's primary role being a suppressor of any organised labour. Policy wise under Schacht they pursued radical Keynesian policies of high public spending with large deficits and under Göring they shifted to a (rather poor) war economy which was sustained by having the private sector controlled by price, wage and financial controls.