Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    The problem with his post is that he calls neocons "rightists" when their movement is full of trotskyites.
    No, you're just trapped in your own little bubble.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    The problem with his post is that he calls neocons "rightists" when their movement is full of trotskyites.
    Lololol
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you look at the neocons like Kristol and so on, you will find that all of them are ex-leftists with an admiration for Trotsky.

    Instead of a global socialist revolution, they want a global democratic revolution.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kneechuh)
    Some of the greatest thinkers of the late 20th century have been Marxists or Anarchists -- of leftist persuasions, that's for sure.

    Politicians can't be too radical. Ever head of the median voter theory? Look at New Labour & what Cameron's doing today -- It'd be hard to draw a distinction between today's Conservatives, and 97's New Labour. Politicians gravitate towards the centre because it's their job to win votes. Simple-as.

    Likewise, journalists write for newspapers; none of which are radical. I'd say they value money and their careers over their own personal beliefs, so they write what will keep them employed, and what will keep putting food on the table. If that means writing on the other side of the fence, then so be it.

    There's a reason why both of these careers are known for housing spineless, amoral people... :rolleyes:
    Is there? :curious:

    Plenty of journalists write for newspapers/magazines and are motivated by their own political idealology and a desire for social change, among other reasons . Likewise with politicians. Your statement is rather sweeping.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Nonsense, as any half decent historian or political theorist will tell you. Its right wing and libertarian nonsense to say "National Socialism" was socialist like communism, when in fact the socialism bit was a fig leaf to get German workers on side. The important bit was the 'National' bit, like other fascists they were right wing statist nationalists.

    Libertarians, especially in America like to pretend that the political spectrum is a simple line between big government lefties and small government right wingers. That is a libertarian's self serving definition of the right. Actually while there is a tendency for left leaning parties to want a bigger state, the size of the state isn't the issue of the left-right divide, its what you want to do with the state. A big government right winger, like Bush's neocons, want high spending on war and the military and on closing the border and the security services. In America where these ideas tend to come from, its ironic that many Democratic President's have spent far less public money than Republicans. It also plays on the fact that most Americans don't understand the differences between communism and socialism and take them as practically synonymous. A few right wing people argue that the NAZI's were socialists in Britain but I think they do so disingenuously and not because they really believe it.
    This

    I suspect many libertarians would be forced, by their own logic, to declare that Henry VIII was a socialist, on the grounds that by dissolving the monasteries and taking clerical land into crown control, he expanded the size and wealth of the state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    This

    I suspect many libertarians would be forced, by their own logic, to declare that Henry VIII was a socialist, on the grounds that by dissolving the monasteries and taking clerical land into crown control, he expanded the size and wealth of the state.
    I wouldn't call him a socialist, because that would be a bit of a barbarous anachronism, but I certainly wouldn't call him a libertarian or free marketeer either.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    I wouldn't call him a socialist, because that would be a bit of a barbarous anachronism, but I certainly wouldn't call him a libertarian or free marketeer either.
    No he's not, in the same way the Nazis weren't free marketeers.

    The problem is that political positions don't boil down into the the kind of neat dichotomies that many libertarians believe they do. You seem to believe that socialism is fundamentally about state ownership, I don't, I believe it is about collective ownership or use for the benefit of all concerned, without hierachy or social division. The second bit is crucial.

    Socialism is not the same as statism, and many libertarians and conservatives would do well to recognise this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Nonsense, as any half decent historian or political theorist will tell you. Its right wing and libertarian nonsense to say "National Socialism" was socialist like communism, when in fact the socialism bit was a fig leaf to get German workers on side. The important bit was the 'National' bit, like other fascists they were right wing statist nationalists.

    Libertarians, especially in America like to pretend that the political spectrum is a simple line between big government lefties and small government right wingers. That is a libertarian's self serving definition of the right. Actually while there is a tendency for left leaning parties to want a bigger state, the size of the state isn't the issue of the left-right divide, its what you want to do with the state. A big government right winger, like Bush's neocons, want high spending on war and the military and on closing the border and the security services. In America where these ideas tend to come from, its ironic that many Democratic President's have spent far less public money than Republicans. It also plays on the fact that most Americans don't understand the differences between communism and socialism and take them as practically synonymous. A few right wing people argue that the NAZI's were socialists in Britain but I think they do so disingenuously and not because they really believe it.
    This is a load of nonsense IMHO. Libertarians, especially in America, are possibly the most keen on disassociating themselves from the traditional left-right spectrum out of anyone. It's no coincidence that the Nolan chart, the famous picture of political positions represented on a 2-dimensional
    plane, was pioneered by a libertarian - it's precisely libertarians who think, in my opinion rightly, that there are superior alternatives to the old dichotomy between left and right. In other words, your claim that libertarians "like to pretend that the political spectrum is a simple line between big government lefties and small government right wingers" is manifestly false. Either you don't know what you're talking about, you haven't met very many libertarians, or you're being dishonest about it.

    At any rate, I certainly believe that the Nazis were socialist, in at least some every-day senses of the word. It's much easier to call your opponents disingenuous than it is to actually engage with their arguments, though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Socialism is not the same as statism, and many libertarians and conservatives would do well to recognise this.
    It's goals require statism. You can attack traditional institutions and morality like a lot of them want to without considerable power (i.e. the welfare state or worse).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    No he's not, in the same way the Nazis weren't free marketeers.

    The problem is that political positions don't boil down into the the kind of neat dichotomies that many libertarians believe they do. You seem to believe that socialism is fundamentally about state ownership, I don't, I believe it is about collective ownership or use for the benefit of all concerned, without hierachy or social division. The second bit is crucial.

    Socialism is not the same as statism, and many libertarians and conservatives would do well to recognise this.
    The second bit is crucial in ruling out any past, present or future society as ever being 'truly' socialist. I think rejecting any utopian definition of socialism which can never be attained, and which therefore means that propositions like 'socialism leads to good consequences' can never be falsified, is essential to thinking clearly about the issues.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    This is a load of nonsense IMHO. Libertarians, especially in America, are possibly the most keen on disassociating themselves from the traditional left-right spectrum out of anyone. It's no coincidence that the Nolan chart, the famous picture of political positions represented on a 2-dimensional
    plane, was pioneered by a libertarian - it's precisely libertarians who think, in my opinion rightly, that there are superior alternatives to the old dichotomy between left and right. In other words, your claim that libertarians "like to pretend that the political spectrum is a simple line between big government lefties and small government right wingers" is manifestly false. Either you don't know what you're talking about, you haven't met very many libertarians, or you're being dishonest about it.

    At any rate, I certainly believe that the Nazis were socialist, in at least some every-day senses of the word. It's much easier to call your opponents disingenuous than it is to actually engage with their arguments, though.
    I would disagree with you on this.

    The traditional left/right spectrum is better than all the other ones I have ever heard of because it allows for the overall character of a movement to be defined. The Nolan chart doesn't as i focuses on very superficial things.

    Fascism is certainly a rightist movement but Nazism is a lot harder to define.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    This is a load of nonsense IMHO. Libertarians, especially in America, are possibly the most keen on disassociating themselves from the traditional left-right spectrum out of anyone. It's no coincidence that the Nolan chart, the famous picture of political positions represented on a 2-dimensional
    plane, was pioneered by a libertarian - it's precisely libertarians who think, in my opinion rightly, that there are superior alternatives to the old dichotomy between left and right. In other words, your claim that libertarians "like to pretend that the political spectrum is a simple line between big government lefties and small government right wingers" is manifestly false. Either you don't know what you're talking about, you haven't met very many libertarians, or you're being dishonest about it.

    At any rate, I certainly believe that the Nazis were socialist, in at least some every-day senses of the word. It's much easier to call your opponents disingenuous than it is to actually engage with their arguments, though.
    Can I ask a very simple question? Have you ever read a work of history on Nazi Germany?

    It's all very well to write them off as "socialists" due to the name (which was mostly adopted for pragmatic reasons, and calling something "socialist" doesn't make it so, in the same way that calling North Korea the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" doesn't make it democratic). However, I don't believe anyone who has studied the period, who has looked at the structural differences between socialist countries and Nazi Germany, has seen the fact that support for the Nazis came most strongly from anti-socialist factions in Germany, and who has actually studied Nazi ideology in practice in Germany, can honestly conclude that they were socialist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Can I ask a very simple question? Have you ever read a work of history on Nazi Germany?

    It's all very well to write them off as "socialists" due to the name (which was mostly adopted for pragmatic reasons, and calling something "socialist" doesn't make it so, in the same way that calling North Korea the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" doesn't make it democratic). However, I don't believe anyone who has studied the period, who has looked at the structural differences between socialist countries and Nazi Germany, has seen the fact that support for the Nazis came most strongly from anti-socialist factions in Germany, and who has actually studied Nazi ideology in practice in Germany, can honestly conclude that they were socialist.
    Yes, I have read a work of history on Nazi Germany. In fact, as it happens, I've read several.

    I can't believe that it's possible that anyone can have this argument and be under the impression that the only reason some of us think that the Nazis were socialist is in their name. You do realize, right, that there's a lot more to it?

    As for the support coming solely from 'anti-socialist' factions, this is reasonably straightforwardly begging the question. Sure, support for the Nazis came from anti-Marxist elements of society. But if the Nazis were socialists, then by definition their supporters were not anti-socialist.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Yes, I have read a work of history on Nazi Germany. In fact, as it happens, I've read several.

    I can't believe that it's possible that anyone can have this argument and be under the impression that the only reason some of us think that the Nazis were socialist is in their name. You do realize, right, that there's a lot more to it?

    As for the support coming solely from 'anti-socialist' factions, this is reasonably straightforwardly begging the question. Sure, support for the Nazis came from anti-Marxist elements of society. But if the Nazis were socialists, then by definition their supporters were not anti-socialist.
    I'm going out now so I'm having to keep this briefer than I would have liked.

    As far as I see it, the main reason that many individuals argue that National Socialism was socialist is the name (at least, if by most people you think your average internet libertarian "OMG socialism" types) this was adopted for pragmatic reasons (they used to be the German Workers' Party) and Hitler repeatedly condemned socialism, argued that socialists had been responsible for Germany's downfall in WW1, and persecuted them more thoroughly than any other element of German society bar the Jews. Nazi ideology was inherently anti-socialist, based on large amounts of social Darwinism and condemnation of class politics. Unions were subordinated and union leaders persecuted. The socialist wing of the Nazi party was destroyed by the Night of the Long Knives, and Hitler was largely supported by anti-socialist conservatives in coming to power.

    Yes, they were statists, and yes they attempted statist economic strategies in part (they didn't abolish private industry in any meaningful way, they just guided it towards their needs, namely a military economy). Strikes for wage increases were banned, they weren't running the economy for the benefit of the people by any means, and the way they ran the economy allowed a small group of industrialists to get rich at the expense of the populace as a whole.

    I can't understand how anyone can call the Nazis socialists (without using your simplistic definition that all statism is socialism , which is absurd) and remain intellectually honest about it. What I find even more irritating is the fact that you then turn round and accuse me of not knowing anything about Nazism. I studied the period, I've read multiple books on the subject, the essay I submitted to Oxford was on Nazi society for crying out loud.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Littlepod)
    Socialism should be encouraged rather than opposed. I personally don't see anything wrong with social egalitarianism, collective decision making with all the people of a country and other socialist values. Tis a positive thing and socialism would most definitely be far better than capitalism.
    Nah.
    Capitalism is the pits, but it's still a lot more workable than socialism.
    That said, some socialist values are good to have. For example, the free market is pretty much useless when it comes to Healthcare and education, and Government run systems are a much better alternative for society in general, because a free market, to put it simply, ignores the values of positive externalities generated by those systems.

    *awaits onslaught of OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG NO WAYYYYYYYYYY*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chidona)
    Nah.
    Capitalism is the pits, but it's still a lot more workable than socialism.
    I am pretty sure the feudal lords in the late middle ages said that about the concept of capitalism in comparison to feudalism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    If you watch the video you would se that it (among other things) showed that the Nazis loved Lenin and that they got the idea of the holocaust from Karl Marx.
    lol absolutely core to Nazism was anti-bolshvism. One of the main aims of nazism was the attract the masses away from communism. The Nazis brutally supressed communist and leftist elements once they got to power - including their own SA (which had a large working class membership). Hitler soon started to cosy up to big business aswell.
    Please learn more about both left-wing ideology and Nazism before you start making stupid claims.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini. During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a ``Third Way'' between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.

    Hitler followed the same game plan. He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was ``socialist'' and that its enemies were the ``bourgeoisie'' and the ``plutocrats'' (the rich). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions (such as the Communists). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.

    Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, ``On the Jewish Question,'' Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx's theory to work in the death camps.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    I'm going out now so I'm having to keep this briefer than I would have liked.

    As far as I see it, the main reason that many individuals argue that National Socialism was socialist is the name (at least, if by most people you think your average internet libertarian "OMG socialism" types) this was adopted for pragmatic reasons (they used to be the German Workers' Party) and Hitler repeatedly condemned socialism, argued that socialists had been responsible for Germany's downfall in WW1, and persecuted them more thoroughly than any other element of German society bar the Jews. Nazi ideology was inherently anti-socialist, based on large amounts of social Darwinism and condemnation of class politics. Unions were subordinated and union leaders persecuted. The socialist wing of the Nazi party was destroyed by the Night of the Long Knives, and Hitler was largely supported by anti-socialist conservatives in coming to power.

    Yes, they were statists, and yes they attempted statist economic strategies in part (they didn't abolish private industry in any meaningful way, they just guided it towards their needs, namely a military economy). Strikes for wage increases were banned, they weren't running the economy for the benefit of the people by any means, and the way they ran the economy allowed a small group of industrialists to get rich at the expense of the populace as a whole.

    I can't understand how anyone can call the Nazis socialists (without using your simplistic definition that all statism is socialism , which is absurd) and remain intellectually honest about it. What I find even more irritating is the fact that you then turn round and accuse me of not knowing anything about Nazism. I studied the period, I've read multiple books on the subject, the essay I submitted to Oxford was on Nazi society for crying out loud.
    Well, look. For a start, I never accused you of not knowing anything about Nazism; I'm in no doubt that you know plenty about it. All I did was take exception to the idea that the main argument on my side was the fact that the Nazis had 'socialist' in their name - if you don't understand that there is significantly more to our case, there's no wonder the discussion is going off the rails.

    Now obviously a lot here turns on the working definition of socialism. Personally I think that there's a very legitimate sense of the word in which it refers to common or state ownership of the means of production. Now, of course, if you build in to your definition some element of egalitarianism, then of course the Nazis were clearly not socialist. But again, I'm not convinced that a more revealing way of looking at the matter is by distinguishing between, for lack of better terms, national socialists and egalitarian socialists. And if this distinction is made, then it's straightforwardly question begging for you to say that the Nazis were 'anti-socialist' when, in reality, they were merely anti egalitarian-socialist. As for the social Darwinism and condemnation of class politics, I think that this is actually stronger evidence for the existence of similarities than anything else. If you think of socialism as an ideology of group struggle, where for the egalitarian socialists the units of struggle are economic classes (the favoured group being the proletariat) and for the national socialists the units of struggle are races (the favoured group being the national race, the Volk, etc), then much becomes clear.

    I think this article is very interesting, even if not entirely right, and at the very least I think it shows that there's more to our case than the name.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini. During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a ``Third Way'' between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.

    Hitler followed the same game plan. He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was ``socialist'' and that its enemies were the ``bourgeoisie'' and the ``plutocrats'' (the rich). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions (such as the Communists). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.

    Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, ``On the Jewish Question,'' Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx's theory to work in the death camps.
    Mussolini was expelled from the the socialist party and to be expelled from the socilalist party by default means his viewa were incompatible with the party so this would make him far from a hard-line communist.

    Getting back to the point.

    Anti-socialism/communism was much more distinguished within the nazi party and other fascist regimes than anti-capitalism.The core objective of fascism was to seduce the working class(especially the urban poor) away from socialism, which in fascist eyes preached the traitorous, idea of international working class solidarity(in comparision to the emphasis of nationhood and the 'aryan race') and upheld the misguided values of cooperation and equality(In contrary to the Nazi believe of a fixed hierarchical society in which the fuhrer was some sort of demi-god). Also the Nazis wanted loyalty to race to be stronger than those of social class.

    Your last paragraph is a fallacy just because just because 'Q'(Nazis) is anti-capitalism 'W' that does not make Q(Nazis) to be C(socialist). In addition you are getting into mekky water to say that the Nazis were inherently anti-capitalist.

    So to say or to suggest that fascist and nazis are really socialist or are close cousins is fraudulent.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,169

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.