What is the worst government
Communism is the worst
I would agree. Collectivism ignores the individual in favor of groups. It encourages discrimination and getting rid of viewpoints based on group identity.
I don't remember the exact expression in English (I read about it in French), but apparently one of Marx's mantras at the first internationale was along the lines of "recognize diversity to unify the struggle." That doesn't seem like ignoring individuals, but quite the opposite. It sounds like recognizing that individuals all have different needs, but to coalesce these different individual interests in such a way that everyone benefits from the future system.
The second and third internationales didn't respect this mantra as well, but Leninism doesn't have a monopoly on collectivist thought.
Fascism is not socialist. Fascism is a response to leftism. It came to power when faced with the threat of leftist revolution.
All fascists states have had capitalist relations. Not one had socialist relations.
Fascism comes from the left. Although it is more associated with the right the it was invented by a leftist
Nazism is socialism and facism
Nazis had capitalist relations, so I don't know how it could be socialist.
www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html this explains Hitler's socialism
Funny how your cheap piece of "journalism" never talked about what Hitler actually did. "In private Hitler was a closet Marxist" great, if you say so. But he didn't do a single Marxist thing. www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf Like mass privatization... that's certainly not Marxist.
By that logic, Lenin wasn’t a Marxist
It's called national socialism. Also it states national socialism is based on Marxism in the article
Privatization was a facade they were forced to give it to hitler
But Lenin's policy actually reflected Marxism? I'm far from a Leninist, but the Soviet Union was a socialist country.
Privatization was widespread. If Hitler was a socialist, or if it was just for his personal property, why wouldn't he maintain it as public property? Or what about the Night of Long Knives when he assassinated all the left wing of his party?
Socialist usually kill dissenting viewpoints. Lenin did not completely abolish private property. Hitler did not abolish private property officially but it had the same effect.
Repressing dissent is not part of the definition of socialism.
Lenin did not abolish private property, but they nationalized all the industries, whereas Hitler privatized many of them.
Didn't say it was said it was common
Every state censors dissidents. That has nothing to do with the discussion of whether Hitler was a socialist.
I agree but you brought it up. Not all states censor dissidents.
I mentioned that Hitler killed the left wing. Because he's right wing. He's not socialist. The first people in the camps were communists.
While he did repress communism, that doesn’t mean he is automatically on the opposite side of the spectrum. Many American liberals are against communism as well. This doesn’t make them opposite, it just puts two specific ideologies at odds.
Hitler's writings and public speeches were virulently anti-Bolshevik, anti-communist, anti-Marxist, etc. He threw any sympathizers of communism or socialism into camps. The Nazis undertook a massive privatization project. *At the very least,* he was not a socialist. Realistically, he was probably anti-communist, because he said and did anti-communist things. No matter how much the right wants to say Hitler's actually leftist, he wasn't, and no one with a mind can actually believe he was.
I am not on the right and think the parallels between hitler and and socialism are very similar. If you replace Jews with rich people it is very similar. And Jews were the rich people in Germany
Hitler can’t really be described by right or left, as it oversimplifies the belief. He was a part of the national socialist party, meaning that he had both fascist and socialist beliefs. He certainly had some socialist tendencies as he rejected the concept of laissez-faire and promoted state-led economic development. To classify his ideas as far right or far left is to deny some basic facts of his ideology. It is always more complicated than a one-dimensional spectrum.
Disagree drW. Fascism is not a response to leftism. Some fascism is the left, like Nazi’s
Hitler wasn't far right in his economics due to state planning, but he was definitely right of center due to his maintenance and reinforcement of capitalist relations of production. When considering his social policies, which were far, far right, I have no qualms with labeling Hitler as far right.
The terms right and left are complicated. The political spectrum isn't perfect but according to it he would be right leaning. That does not help determine whether Nazi Germany or the Soviets were worse.
It doesn't answer the question about which is better. But it's a question of historical accuracy. You said that Hitler was a socialist. That's patently false.
To say that nazism isn’t a socialist ideology is patently false.
But there's no socialist content.
Would you not agree that Hitler’s economic policies were at the very least slightly characteristic of socialist governments?
I have pointed to the socialist content. The government gave "private property". It is effectively the same as not giving property the only difference was the ownership was perceived to be there.
No, mass privatization is the opposite of socialism.
State planning and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Socialism and privatization are, because the definition of socialism is having public ownership of the means of production.
You did not address my point.
Private property is private property. Even in countries like the US private property is still (technically) subjugated to the state. Just because you perceive his privatization as cronyism doesn't mean it isn't real privatization. That's a no true Scotsman fallacy.
You brought up a fallacy that would refute your argument that nazism isn't socialism. The U.S. and Nazi Germany are not comparable in private property. The government owned everything produced in Nazi Germany.
That's patently false, again.
How is it false
Because what was produced was owned by private owners, and profits went to the private owners.
What are your requirements for socialism.
Usually dictionaries have shitty definitions of political ideologies because they aren't defined by or based on historical experience. That definition was more or less sufficient. Collective ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services.
Definitions are not based upon history, they are based upon how we as a society project certain meanings onto a certain set of letters.
Since the Nazi government controlled much of the national economic output, and since the government was considered to be owned by the people, the government may be considered to be socialist. If you disagree with the fact that the government controlled business in Germany, look to my last few comments. If you disagree that the government was owned by the people, then please differentiate between their government and the Soviet government in that regard.
The definition proves you wrong
I sincerely don't understand how you can think that history doesn't define words, but that's a different discussion.
The Nazi government *controlled* economic output, in the sense that in any country, private business is subject to varying amounts of constraints. The government did not own industry, and the profits didn't go to the state (and to the people), but to private owners, because property was owned privately.
The Soviet government, unlike the Nazi government, actually represented the interests of the masses. It was democratically elected (although in my opinion had insufficient mass participation), and responded to the needs and demands of the people. The government struggled against inequality and poverty, illiteracy, backwardness, etc. They certainly made tons of mistakes, but the good wildly outweighs the bad. If I had to pick anywhere to live in the 1930s, I'd have picked the Soviet Union, without hesitation.
History can be interpreted in many ways so it is hard to define based on history. And everything you said was wrong in that paragraph.
The German state owned the means of production? Then what was this privatization all about?
It was a facade
Why did they bother privatizing in the first place, if they wanted it to be public?
To appeal to the masses
Why did Lenin allow private ownership in the first place?
They appealed to the masses... by selling collective property that belonged (theoretically) to the masses, to the wealthiest people in the country? That makes zero sense.
Lenin allowed private ownership in the countryside because it's what poor, landless peasants were demanding; they were demanding equal distribution of land, not collectivized land. The Bolsheviks wanted to do collectivized land, but they didn't want to break the alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry, so they decided to go down the road of redistribution of land instead of collectivizing land, which was a major step forward compared to the unequal distribution which existed before.
The wealthiest group in Germany were Jews. They didn't get anything. You can appeal to people and hurt them with the policy's that they support.
Not all the capitalists were Jews!
You're grasping at straws here.
Were the policies of the Nazis not backed by populist ideals among the Germans? If a government is backed by the people, is it automatically socialist?
No, because a socialist government needs to have collective ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services.
Russia/the USSR wasn't socialist under Lenin, by his own admission. Due to the domination of private property in the countryside, it was only state capitalist. It wasn't until they collectivized in the 30s that it became socialist.
Lenin himself was still a socialist, in word and deed. He couldn't go as far towards socialism as he wanted in his lifetime, but he still moved towards it. Unlike Hitler, who went farther away from socialism, yet he's somehow a socialist?
Hitler did move towards socialism through the repealing of previous laissez-faire policies and nationalized business. Why would he be a part of the national socialist party if he didn’t approve of socialism? He clearly had such beliefs even though he didn’t approve of other variants of socialism, such as communism. The same relationship can be seen in Russia, where the socialist leader Kerensky was often found at odds with the Bolsheviks in 1917.
Kerensky was also not a socialist, but since he was considered one, I imagine Hitler either a) named his party as bait for the masses, or b) wanted to indicate support for social democratic policies.
He didn't repeal laissez faire policies and nationalize businesses. He did the opposite. At the beginning of this thread I linked to a paper about it.
Firstly, Kerensky was a part of the democratic socialist Trudovik party. It is a historically proven fact, as a quick google search will reveal. Secondly, you do not have the evidence to claim exactly what Hitler would and would not do in response, being as his ideological responses towards different factions of socialism varied.
I should mention that the article you provided uses the word “privatize” very loosely, and used it to refer to government controlled enterprises on some occasions. That would make sense given that Hitler instituted many public works projects, most notably the autobahn.
Sozialismus in jeder Form zerstort Leben.
Long live Stalin ❤️
If Stalin is responsible for the death of about 20 million people. Hitler is directly responsible for around seventeen million people. Even though the many of the latter were killed in the Holocaust, many more died under the Soviets. We need to address this.
Stalin isn't responsible for the deaths in the Soviet Union. We talked about this the other day, but the policy of the USSR was not to starve everyone to death, but just the opposite. We saw that 800,000 were killed by the government, not millions.
And the Nazis killed 27 million Soviet citizens. Something is missing in your count.
The policy of socialism is never to starve its citizens. But, it is the natural result of the centralization of power until socialist theory.
It has always failed and will always fail.
Because famines don't ever happen in capitalist countries? Ever been to Africa?
That is false
Africa isn't really capitalist they are mostly totalitarian fascist and nobody is saying free markets are the best. nazism is a form of socialism, capitalism Is not part of this conversation
DoctorWasdarb, the 800,000 statistic was both a) in dispute and b) referring only to the number of executed kulaks.
The statistics I provide above refer to the number of citizens in each associated country each government killed. The number of foreigners killed was not taken into account.
Ubermensch, fascism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive.
Also, Africa isn't fascist...
Ned, 800,000 refers to all executions between 1924 and 1953, not only kulaks.
You don't get to count famines in any death toll unless you can demonstrate that they were forced or avoidable.
Why shouldn't we take into account the number of foreigners killed? It's kinda important concerning no their legacies to mention that Hitler started WWII, and that the policies that the German armed forces used in Eastern Europe alone constitute genocide, before even considering the Holocaust.
To return to your initial, comment, "we need to address this [distinction in number of killed]." In Germany at the time there were around 70 million inhabitants prior to the war, compared to almost 200 million in the Soviet Union. Maybe we should consider that the Soviet Union had almost three times the population?
Fascism is not mutually exclusive with capitalism but usually it is more socialist
Government only affects the citizens inside govt to be judged as good or bad
I've started a new thread above to respond to the fascism: capitalist or socialist.
Nazi Germany did not ban individualism the Soviet Union forced collectivism on everyone. And the Soviet Union killed anyone who complained about their life.