McCain's lost it!

[Genx87]

No. Socialism is about the workers owning the means of production. Hitler was a big propenent of centralized power and power going from the top down; not a big fan of democracy, which would most likely play a big role in a socialist system.

How much do the workers really own in any socialist system? The production is owned by the public but run by the govt. Which is usually run by the party. Take a look at the USSR. That was also a socialist economy and was run by the Communist Party, not the people.

 

[Genx87]

Only in your revisionist history mind. If he was the socialist you claim, he wouldn't have crushed worker's rights, institute what amounts to a police state, strong nationalism, death camps for actual socialists and communists, etc....

Where do you get this vision a socialist state is anything but what you just described? Are you under the impression what we have in Europe is socialism? Talk about revisionist history. The ultimate socialist state was the USSR. You telling me they didnt have re-education camps? They didnt slaughter their own people? They didnt crush workers and people's rights? They didnt have a police state? And no nationalism????

Hitler like most fascists started off as a socialist. But was pragmatic enough to understand if you want an economy to function private industry would be required. Also, his situation was a bit more complicated as he was working within a democratic system to gain power. Unlike other communists\socialists who used revolution. He bartered with private industry for support.

Mussolini also started off as a socialist. This is why fascism and socialism are damn close on everything except on how to run an economy. Socialists want public owned industry, facists want a mixed economy with huge govt oversight and intervention where they please. But the police state, the one party state, the crushing power of govt are within both ideologies.

 

[Brainonska511]

Not specifically means of production, but money. Socialism is when the government controls the money. For example, I can say Canada's universal health care is socialist because the government controls how it's funded. It doesn't matter that 99.999% of clinics are privately owned. They are government funded through taxation, therefore it is socialist. Roads are socialist too, even though roads are made by private companies.

Are certain functions of the government "socialist" just because they perform it instead of the market? Adam Smith writes in the Wealth of Nations, that some functions must be performed by the government because the market is ineffective when it comes to those functions. They might be "socialist" in the sense that it is benefiting all and the cost is absorbed by the tax payer, but that's not the only part of political system of socialism.

The claim being made here is that Hitler was a socialist - that's total baloney. In socialism, the power comes from the bottom up - the working class. Through the gaining control of where they can earn their living, they can control the rest of government. Democracy is a natural ally of socialism.

Hitler may have had policies that benefited Germany, but he was an authoritarian dictator. By that definition, he couldn't be socialist, because the workers had no power. Sure, some of the industries were nationalized, but they weren't nationalized for the benefit of society and the worker, they were nationalized so that Germany could prepare for war and steamroll its neighbors. True socialists and communists were sent off to concentration camps under Hitler.

And just because it was labeled National Socialism, doesn't make it so. It started off as a more right- than most socialist party, but when Hitler took over, it talked out of both sides of the mouth. To workers, he would destroy industry and to the middle class and well-to-do, he would protect private property.

How much do the workers really own in any socialist system? The production is owned by the public but run by the govt. Which is usually run by the party. Take a look at the USSR. That was also a socialist economy and was run by the Communist Party, not the people.

The workers might only own a small portion, but they would have power through voting. Just because something is run by the government doesn't mean that it is socialist. Nazi Germany had a few nationalized industries, but that doesn't make it socialist. The power of the government was centered in a few individuals. It was an authoritarian government. Same with the USSR - not really communist; the Soviet elites were the ones running the country and in control of industry, not the people.

Where do you get this vision a socialist state is anything but what you just described? Are you under the impression what we have in Europe is socialism? Talk about revisionist history. The ultimate socialist state was the USSR. You telling me they didnt have re-education camps? They didnt slaughter their own people? They didnt crush workers and people's rights? They didnt have a police state? And no nationalism????

Hitler like most fascists started off as a socialist. But was pragmatic enough to understand if you want an economy to function private industry would be required. Also, his situation was a bit more complicated as he was working within a democratic system to gain power. Unlike other communists\socialists who used revolution. He bartered with private industry for support.

Mussolini also started off as a socialist. This is why fascism and socialism are damn close on everything except on how to run an economy. Socialists want public owned industry, facists want a mixed economy with huge govt oversight and intervention where they please. But the police state, the one party state, the crushing power of govt are within both ideologies.

The USSR was not a socialist state. It was an authoritarian state. Socialism and the police state do not go hand in hand. Police states and dictatorial control go hand in hand with the fascist, authoritarian state.

 

[Genx87]

dp

 

[xj0hnx]

Only in your revisionist history mind. If he was the socialist you claim, he wouldn't have crushed worker's rights, institute what amounts to a police state, strong nationalism, death camps for actual socialists and communists, etc....

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

"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
(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
​

[/FONT]

Look up the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, and the German Workers Party. One of Hitlers main goals was to move social welfare from the church to the state. Here's a few of the tenets of their party ...

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

http://www.hitler.org/writings/programme/

Who said this?

[/FONT]"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence".


I get why modern socialist want to distance themselves from the antisemitic lunatic, but you can't run from the fact that the very foundations of ideas that the Nazi Party was based on closely mirror today's democrat, and socialist.

 

[Genx87]

The workers might only own a small portion, but they would have power through voting. Just because something is run by the government doesn't mean that it is socialist. Nazi Germany had a few nationalized industries, but that doesn't make it socialist. The power of the government was centered in a few individuals. It was an authoritarian government. Same with the USSR - not really communist; the Soviet elites were the ones running the country and in control of industry, not the people.

They own it in name only. It is run and controlled by party bosses. Voting for a single party isnt really voting for change now is it?

The USSR was not a socialist state. It was an authoritarian state. Socialism and the police state do not go hand in hand. Police states and dictatorial control go hand in hand with the fascist, authoritarian state.

How many socialist states do you know where it wasnt a totalitarian system?

 

[her209]

Thread hijack complete.

 

[xj0hnx]

Thread hijack complete.

LOL, yea it did go a wee bit off topic huh?

 

[piasabird]

Well in cases of immigrants who became citizens, if they were affiliated with an anti-government group, then their application for citizenship was a fraud and their citizenship could be revocated and they could be deported. There was a case a while back where an Irishman who was an IRA Member was deported. So there is plenty of Legal precedent for such a ruling.