Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    I think he did exaggerate. Or rather he exaggerating the significance of the resistance. But the biggest reistance in and out of Germany still came from the left.
    I dunno... I'd say it was more the Protestant Churches. They successfully resisted the introduction of Nazism into Christianity in teh form of the Reichs Church. Where as the left was pretty much destroyed in 1933. Communists were rounded up and quickly sent to concentration camps, where as teh SPD ran away into exile where they failed to achieve anything at all - they just compiled reports about how pointless resistance was and how everyone in Germany loves the Nazis.
    I'd say even the conservatives in the Army did more to resist, despite their Oath of Alligeance to Hitler in 1934, as they actually planned a coup in the event of war breaking out over Czheckoslovakia.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    And how much of the population do you have? About 5%. Per head, you use the most energy than anyone anywhere? Just because the lifestyle this leads to is one of luxury, doesn't excuse it.
    It's not as simple as looking at per capita energy consumption. Our GDP is the highest in the world and, obviously, we are going to consume more energy than countries that don't produce anything. Also, you aren't factoring in transportation costs. One third of a country's energy consumption is for transportation and in a big country, like the US, it's going to equal a lot of CO2 emissions. If you calculate emissions per unit GDP and factor in the geographical area of the United States, the US is, by far, the world's most efficient nation on this planet.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Does it matter whether the nazis were socialist or not?

    If they were, it hardly makes socialism bad. Extremism on either end of the political spectrum is bad - it doesn't matter whether it's left/right - and these totalitarian govts all begin to look the same.

    I don't like socialism, though. It promotes mediocrity.

    Taking from some people to give to others doesn't, ultimately, raise the living standard of either. It just brings everyone down to a lower level. If there's less incentive to work harder, then people won't.

    Say there's a reasonably well-off middle class businessman. If he works longer hours, he could increase the size of his company, employ more people - but because that extra money he would earn would be taxed heavily, he doesn't think it's worth spending the extra time, so he doesn't bother. Enough of these businessmen with the same sentiment = bad for economy, and bad in turn for everyone.

    Likewise there is someone in the lower class who gets benefits. He could move to the city, get a job, but he can't be bothered either. The welfare is enough. So he continues to act as a leech. More money is taken off wage-earners to give to him.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I dunno... I'd say it was more the Protestant Churches. They successfully resisted the introduction of Nazism into Christianity in teh form of the Reichs Church. Where as the left was pretty much destroyed in 1933. Communists were rounded up and quickly sent to concentration camps, where as teh SPD ran away into exile where they failed to achieve anything at all - they just compiled reports about how pointless resistance was and how everyone in Germany loves the Nazis.
    I'd say even the conservatives in the Army did more to resist, despite their Oath of Alligeance to Hitler in 1934, as they actually planned a coup in the event of war breaking out over Czheckoslovakia.
    Good point. But the Church secession campaign did manage to get 100 000 people to leave the church. And of course the wildcat strikes mason and others identified weren't necessarily opposiion to the Nazi system per se.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As for putting dictators in Socialist and Capitalist columns...Hitler was probably somewhere in between. Stalin and Lenin - Socialist. Salazar and Franco were your protectionist capitalist types, so Capitalist for them. Rhee in South Korea again was a protectionist capitalist, so Capitalist for him. Pinochet, obviously capitalist. Mugabe and Castro, the Sandinistas, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, the rulers of Soviet Russia, the rulers of Soviet puppet states and a whole load of African countries are obviously Socialist. Mussolini surprisingly I would regard as Socialist, although probably the least socialist of the others. The dictators in central and eastern Europe between the wars tended to be protectionist capitalists, and the dictators in South America also had as strange mix of National Socialists and free marketeers. But overall I would regard most of these two sets of dictators as in the capitalist column. In the middle there are a number of regimes such as Nasser in Egypt and Khomeni in Iran (the Shah I would say was on the capitalist side, but his regime was authoritarian rather than a dictatorship). In the end both of these columns generally even out, with of course some room for ambiguity. But on the democracy side of things, I think that it is safe to say that most democracies are capitalist to varying degrees.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milady)
    Does it matter whether the nazis were socialist or not?

    If they were, it hardly makes socialism bad.
    I know, this particular attempt to smear Socialism surprises me. Nazi Germany's horrors were caused by its being aggressively imperialist and genocidal, not by its economy.

    But Germany during the 1930s must be regarded as an economic miracle. The TSR Republicans are telling us that Socialism was the basis of this miracle?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    I know, this particular attempt to smear Socialism surprises me. Nazi Germany's horrors were caused by its being aggressively imperialist and genocidal, not by its economy.
    But Germany during the 1930s must be regarded as an economic miracle. The TSR Republicans are telling us that Socialism was the basis of this miracle?
    What is it that made Nazi Germany's genocide and "aggressive imperialism" crimes? Was it because states shouldn't hurt states, or because states shouldn't hurt individuals? Socialism is an ideology that denies right to the individual in favour of the supposed rights of the many.

    With an economic basis, rather than an ideological one, it's easy to argue that if the Nazi state was not so powerful, there was no way it could have carried out those crimes. Post-war Britain was an "economic miracle" the way it rebuilt itself, but the prosperity only lasted as long as it took for the socialist dream to wear off. Perhaps that's why so many socialists need censorship and "reeducation" - so the dream will never die.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    What is it that made Nazi Germany's genocide and "aggressive imperialism" crimes? Was it because states shouldn't hurt states, or because states shouldn't hurt individuals? Socialism is an ideology that denies right to the individual in favour of the supposed rights of the many.
    Oh, no it isn't. That's a bunch of propaganda.

    Red communism was collectivist, but that isn't the only type of socialism or example of socialism in world history.


    With an economic basis, rather than an ideological one, it's easy to argue that if the Nazi state was not so powerful, there was no way it could have carried out those crimes. Post-war Britain was an "economic miracle" the way it rebuilt itself, but the prosperity only lasted as long as it took for the socialist dream to wear off. Perhaps that's why so many socialists need censorship and "reeducation" - so the dream will never die.
    I don't really understand what you're saying here. "Socialism" is not an ideology & could not have informed Nazi ethics or international policy. Socialism is an economic principle whereby workers are entitled to the profit they produce. Either it, or else some other principle, was responsible for the rehabilitation of the German economy, which rehabilitation was of course a necessary condition for Germany doing anything, good or bad. But the principles underlying the Nazi power-lust and racist mania are well known and were not economic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Oh, no it isn't. That's a bunch of propaganda.

    Red communism was collectivist, but that isn't the only type of socialism or example of socialism in world history.
    Perhaps you'd like to give me an example of some other forms of socialism which don't ultimately intend to prevent individuals from "exploiting" (paying) people to do work for them, or unfairly tax the product of that "exploitation" as punishment.
    I don't really understand what you're saying here. "Socialism" is not an ideology & could not have informed Nazi ethics or international policy.
    Of course it's an ideology; it's an ideology that literally means society should take care of the collective interest, not individual interest - hence the term "social". Nazism replaces the standard "workers of the world" with something along the lines of "Aryans of the world" to distinguish itself, Germanifying it to make it easier to relate to. Of course, the enemy that needs to be overcome is the same: the international financiers who control the institutions and parisitically feed off the workers.

    Either it, or else some other principle, was responsible for the rehabilitation of the German economy, which rehabilitation was of course a necessary condition for Germany doing anything, good or bad. But the principles underlying the Nazi power-lust and racist mania are well known and were not economic.
    I don't know much about the Nazi economic miracle, but wasn't the state gearing its industry up for war? The Soviet Union was pretty good at making lots of weapons, too; just as post-war socialist Britain was good at making homes for heroes (well, except they were ugly blocks of concrete). I suspect the Nazi "miracle" would gradually deteriorate just the same way as Stalin's did.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The right feels the need to put about lies about socialism and socialists because they are scared of it. The socialist ideology is much more taxing to adhere to than conservatism because the conservative principles are based on looking back to bygone eras for policies whereas socialism is very progressive and is about helping people.

    Just remember what Tony Benn said "It's the same each time with progress. First they ignore you, then they say you're mad, then dangerous, then there's a pause and then you can't find anyone who disagrees with you."

    Socialsim is the ideology which will make the world a more peaceful, equal and happier society for the many not the few.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    Perhaps you'd like to give me an example of some other forms of socialism which don't ultimately intend to prevent individuals from "exploiting" (paying) people to do work for them, or unfairly tax the product of that "exploitation" as punishment.
    What you originally said (& what I was disagreeing with) was "Socialism is an ideology that denies right to the individual in favour of the supposed rights of the many." I don't believe that "Socialism," as practiced in the "welfare states" of western Europe, has this effect. I don't exactly consider Sweden one of the world's worst offenders against individual rights. You seem to equate the wage-payer's power to write the rules of the employment game with human rights. That's servile, or at least it would be for me: the employing class's interests are not my interests.

    Of course it's an ideology; it's an ideology that literally means society should take care of the collective interest, not individual interest - hence the term "social". Nazism replaces the standard "workers of the world" with something along the lines of "Aryans of the world" to distinguish itself, Germanifying it to make it easier to relate to. Of course, the enemy that needs to be overcome is the same: the international financiers who control the institutions and parisitically feed off the workers.
    You mean the Jews were the only "international financiers" in Germany, and not only that, but all Jews were financiers (or were considered to be such by the Germans)? And this was the reason for the Holocaust---an extension of the socialist principle that financiers exploit workers? Listen: you've got to be out of your mind if you really believe that. Nazi Germany was knee-deep in the whole investment-financing system that characterizes the capitalist era, and never pretended this system was a Semitic intrusion.

    No, socialism is a system and not an ideology. Like any other system, it has various ideologies that can accompany it in various forms, and it has ethical justifications and so forth. The same is true of capitalism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    With such a universal truth, no wonder Tony Benn had so much success opposing European free trade and getting the miners their jobs back; no wonder he managed to defeat Margaret Thatcher and now pulls audiences of millions each time he speaks. :confused:

    The Ghandi estate should due for copyright infringement.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The right feels the need to put about lies about socialism and socialists because they are scared of it.
    Overall socialism is largely dead, most of those countries which have socialist elements are reforming. We don't attack it because we are scared, we attack it because it is evil.


    The socialist ideology is much more taxing to adhere to than conservatism because the conservative principles are based on looking back to bygone eras for policies whereas socialism is very progressive and is about helping people.
    Socialism is a backward looking ideology. It belongs in the days of the collective and the tribe - the hunter-gatherers of the primitive era.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Like him or not he is one of most charismatic figures in British politics, one of my friends who is very right wing repects what he says altho doesn't agree with it. And he gets loads of ppl watching him when he speaks.

    My mistake over quote, Benn obv idea from Gandhi tho Benn's quote is bit different: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Overall socialism is largely dead, most of those countries which have socialist elements are reforming. We don't attack it because we are scared, we attack it because it is evil.




    Socialism is a backward looking ideology. It belongs in the days of the collective and the tribe - the hunter-gatherers of the primitive era.
    That's preposterous. Socialism was embraced by leading English-speaking intellects at a cultural apex in the English-speaking world (the late 19th--early 20th century). In terms of civility, ethical standards, and breadth of knowledge, they simply put our epoch to shame.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I met him a year ago, and yes, I respect him too, because of his speaking skills.

    While I'm no expert on his life, I know he has proposed a lot of "progessive" things in the past; yet I think the only thing he managed to get through was the Lords Reform act, (which, to be fair, was more self-interest than about saving poor people). So that quote is a bit dead. Unless, of course, you consider that since socialism in the UK was mostly based on letting people keep their traditional 19th century jobs, I'd say he was quite reactionary; especially during the 80's when most of the country was sick to death with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah but its something to have guts to stand up for what you believe in when you know its not going to be that well received by British public - hes a true socialist unlike Galloway and thats why his picture will always hang on my wall!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    That's preposterous. Socialism was embraced by leading English-speaking intellects at a cultural apex in the English-speaking world (the late 19th--early 20th century). In terms of civility, ethical standards, and breadth of knowledge, they simply put our epoch to shame.
    The late 19th and early 20th century was a period of free trade and capitalism with that came the right of these 'intellectuals' to discuss and write about socialism. Furthermore the comments i made were based on Hayek's argument - are you saying he was not an intellectual. The reason why these alleged intellectuals followed socialism, specfically Marxism, is because it offers a whole explnation for history - it is a massive idea and of course intellectuals love massive ideas which seem to explain everything.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Lord Waddel, Khomeini's regime is capitalist. Look at Rafsanjani.

    And the Shah was both Capitalist and authoritarian, although I feel many Iranisn underestimate his committment to helping Iran and Iranians pogress.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah but its something to have guts to stand up for what you believe in when you know its not going to be that well received by British public - hes a true socialist unlike Galloway and thats why his picture will always hang on my wall!
    Please explain how Galloway isn't a true Socialist? And why Benn called him 'one of the finest socialists, internationalists, and democrats of his generation?'
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 7, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

3,502

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.