[TETENAL]

Were the Nazis (short for "National Socialists") socialists?

Nazism and socialism

Because Nazism is an abbreviation for "National Socialism", and Nazi leaders sometimes described their ideology as a form of socialism, some people believe that Nazism was a form of socialism, or that there are similarities between Nazism and socialism. It has also been argued that the Nazi use of economic intervention, including central planning and some limited public ownership, is indicative of socialism.

Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of class conflict and opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and that workers should control the means of production. For those who consider class conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of socialist progress, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize "National Socialism" as non-socialist.

Nazi leaders made statements describing their views as socialist, while at the same time opposing the idea of class conflict espoused by the Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD). Established socialist movements did not view the Nazis as socialists and argued that the Nazis were thinly disguised reactionaries. Historians such as Ian Kershaw also note the links between the Nazis and the German political and economic establishment and the significance of the Night of the Long Knives in which Hitler purged what were at the time seen as "leftist" elements in the Nazi Party and how this was done at the urging of the military and conservatives.

Many of the traditional center and right political parties of the Weimar Republic accused the Nazis of being socialists citing planks in the Nazis' party program which called for nationalization of trusts and other socialist measures. However, the German National People's Party (DNVP), the most important party on the mainstream right, usually treated the Nazis as a respected potential member of coalition cabinet.

The Nazis came to power through an alliance with some conservative factions, though also exprienced opposition from some others. Franz von Papen, a conservative former German Chancellor and former member of the Catholic Centre Party supported Hitler for the position of Chancellor. Events during the Papen chancellorship led to the Enabling Act which gave the Nazis dictatorial powers, passed with the support of conservative and centrist deputies in the Reichstag, over the opposition of Social Democrats and Communists. Other conservatives opposed Hitler, notably Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher, who attempted to construct a center-right led "cross front" that united anti-Hitler factions on the right and center-left in the Reichstag. Schleicher, having been forced from the Chancellorship by Papen, was assassinated by the Nazis on the Night of the Long Knives.

When the Nazis were still an opposition party some leaders, particularly Gregor Strasser, espoused anti-big business stances and advocated the idea of the Nazis as a workers' party. In spite of this, most workers continued to vote for the SPD or the KPD as late as the March 1933 elections held shortly after Hitler's appointment as chancellor.

Ideologically fascism and Nazism reject the most important aspects of Marxist theory. For instance, Hitler did not exalt the working class over the capitalist class as Marx prescribed. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote 'the suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists... We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims. ' Hitler despised Karl Marx as a Jew and condemned communism and Marxism as a Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy pledging to block its rise in Germany arguing that the nation's downfall was due to Marxism and its Jewish influence. These actions prompted some prominent conservatives and capitalists to fund and support the Nazis because they saw them as a bulwark against Bolshevism.

There were ideological shades of opinion within the Nazi Party, particularly prior to their seizure of power in 1933, but a central tenet of the party was always the leadership principle or Führerprinzip. The Nazi Party did not have party congresses in which policy was deliberated upon and concessions made to different factions. What mattered most was what the leader, Adolf Hitler, thought and decreed. Those who held opinions which were at variance with Hitler's either learned to keep quiet or were purged, particularly after 1933. Although this is in some respects comparable to the behavior of certain Communist dictatorships such as that of Stalin in the Soviet Union or Mao Zedong in China, it also presents a strong contrast to the collective leadership exercised in other Communist parties, more so to the more democratic organization of most European socialist parties.

In power, the Nazis jettisoned practically all of the socialistic aspects of their program, and worked with big business, frequently at the expense of both small business and the working classes. Gregor Strasser was murdered, as was Ernst Röhm while Otto Strasser was purged from the party. Independent trade unions were outlawed, as were strikes. In place of the unions, the Nazis created the Deutsche Arbeitsfront. The Nazis took other symbolic steps to co-opt the working classes' support, such as the introduction of May Day as a national holiday in 1933. These were described by socialists as superficial moves designed to win the allegiance of workers rather than grant them any material concessions at the expense of capital.

Industries and trusts were not nationalised, with the exception of private rail lines (nationalised in the late 1930s to meet military contingencies). The only private holdings that were expropriated were those belonging to Jews. These holdings were then sold or awarded to businessmen who supported the Nazis and satisifed their ethnic and racial policies. Military production and even film production remained in the hands of private industries whilst serving the Nazi government, and many private companies flourished during the Nazi period. The Nazis never interfered with the profits made by such large German firms as Krupp, Siemens AG, and IG Farben. Efforts were made to coordinate business's actions with the needs of the state, particularly with regard to rearmament, and the Nazis established some state owned concerns such as Volkswagen. But these were functions of the new German expansionism rather than an implementation of socialist measures. Germany had moved to a war economy, and similar measures occurred in the western democracies during the First World War, and again once the Second World War had begun.

The Nazis engaged in an extensive public works program including the construction of the Autobahn system. As with the expropriation of rail lines, however, the Autobahn system was created with the purpose of facilitating military transport, and government investment in transport systems is common in almost all nations. Similarly, all political movements that have formed governments have used economic intervention of some form or another. The suggestion that economic intervention is left-wing ignores the tradition of intervention practiced by monarchies and oligarchies in Europe before the eighteenth century, and the intervention, including protectionism, subsidies and anti-trade union laws, practiced by right-wing parties in government in Europe and North America during the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Since the fall of the Nazi regime, many theorists have argued that there are similarities between the government of Nazi Germany and that of Stalin's Soviet Union. In most cases, this has not taken the form of arguing that the Nazis were socialist, but arguing that both Nazism and Stalinism are forms of totalitarianism. This view was advanced most famously by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism. However, most socialists argue that Stalin's system was not a truly socialist one, since it did not meet certain requirements that they see as essential for socialism - requirements such as a functional democracy, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#..._and_socialism

[MacNStein]

No, they were extreme populists (the opposite of Libertarian), as I said before, neither right nor left.

[Millennium]

They certainly called themselves socialist, and they did follow some socialist principles and methods. However, they didn't practice socialism as we know it today. Nowadays, we would recognize their adoption of the term "socialism" more as a marketing term than a reflection of actual ideology.

In the terms of their own time, however, a case could be made for saying that they practiced something which the people of their time would recognize as socialism. It was a time when many governmental models were still being experimented with, and socialism as an ideology had not settled on most models as "good" or "bad" yet.

Nazism may perhaps be best seen as an early experiment in practical socialism (as opposed to theoretical socialism), using a totalitarian form of government. The scary thing is that although the experiment was not given terribly much time to run, it was frighteningly successful during its short term. If it had not been deposed forcefully, who knows how long it might have been able to sustain itself, and who knows how terrible the price would have ended up being?

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, they were extreme populists (the opposite of Libertarian), as I said before, neither right nor left.

The opposite of liberal is authoritarian/totalitarian and that's what the Nazis were. That's not populism.

[Sherwin]

Programme of the NSDAP, 24 February 1920 (authors: Adolf Hitler and Anton Drexler):

10. 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.

We demand therefore:

11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

18. 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.

19. We demand that Roman Law, which serves a materialistic world order, be replaced by a German common law.

20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

21. 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.

23. We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand:
(a) that all editors of, and contributors to newspapers appearing in the German language must be members of the nation;
(b) that no non-German newspapers may appear without the express permission of the State. They must not be printed in the German language;
(c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravening such a law shall be the suppression of any such newspaper, and the immediate deportation of the non-Germans involved.

The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.

The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.

25. 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.

Looks socialist to me.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
They certainly [...] did follow some socialist principles and methods.

Like what?

In the terms of their own time, however, a case could be made for saying that they practiced something which the people of their time would recognize as socialism.

They were never recognized as socialists be contemporaries. Neither by the socialists of the time (SPD, KPD) nor by did contemporary conservatives see them as socialists.

Nazism may perhaps be best seen as an early experiment in practical socialism (as opposed to theoretical socialism), using a totalitarian form of government.

Not by the opinion of anybody I know. How you can think that Nazis were "practical socialism" when in fact they followed non of the ideas of socialism is beyond me.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
The opposite of liberal is authoritarian/totalitarian and that's what the Nazis were. That's not populism.

They were liberal in many ways, as they also had some conservative traits. Large (and abundant) social programs, total social control, and legislated morals = extreme populist.

[Sherwin]

Key:
Liberal Democrats = full bore socialists.
British National Party = Nazi scumbags, often mistakenly called "the far right".



What people fail to realise when saying that the Nazis were "right wing" is that the real and proper "right" doesn't believe in or support the existence of the government mechanisms which enable such things as mass racism and genocide. The mechanisms required for such things can only be grown out of "left wing" practices.

[Curios Meerkat]

[vmarks]

Originally posted by TETENAL:

Not by the opinion of anybody I know.

Classic.

Almost as good as the myopia perfectly captured by Pauline Kael's famous remark after Nixon's 1972 landslide: 'I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won, I don't know anybody who voted for him.'

In fact, many of the Germans after the war said "we didn't know" proclaiming a national ignorance.

Ingo Deutschkron was a German Jew who survived the war hiding in Berlin. He said

"This is no longer home, you see. And especially it's no longer home when they start telling me that they didn't know, they didn't know. They say they didn't see. 'Yes, there were Jews living in our house, and one day they were no longer there. We didn't know what happened.' They couldn't help seeing it. It wasn't a matter of one action. These were actions that were taking place over almost two years. Every fortnight people were thrown out of the houses. How could they escape it? How could they not see it?" -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/ne...00/4192955.stm

Just because "no one you know" holds a belief doesn't make that belief wrong- it just makes you and your circle of friends insular, isolated.

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Nazism may perhaps be best seen as an early experiment in practical socialism (as opposed to theoretical socialism), using a totalitarian form of government.

No. As the article TETENAL posted says, nazism had in practice nothing to do with socialism. It was sponsored by rich industrialists and followed an extreme right-wing agenda. There was no wealth redistribution, the rich became richer and the poor, unemployed, etc. - we know what happened to them. Corporations had a great time, fulfilling plenty of military contracts and exploiting slave labor. Never before there was such a huge social inequality.

Insisting that nazism was a form socialism is not only incorrect, it vilifies those who fought against it from its onset - which were the first to be sent to the concentration camps - not coincidentally, socialists.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by vmarks:
"This is no longer home, you see. And especially it's no longer home when they start telling me that they didn't know, they didn't know. They say they didn't see. 'Yes, there were Jews living in our house, and one day they were no longer there. We didn't know what happened.' They couldn't help seeing it. It wasn't a matter of one action. These were actions that were taking place over almost two years. Every fortnight people were thrown out of the houses. How could they escape it? How could they not see it?" -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/ne...00/4192955.stm

Just because "no one you know" holds a belief doesn't make that belief wrong- it just makes you and your circle of friends insular, isolated.

This is an extremely mean and dirty play of words you are playing here.

I explicitly said that I know nobody who considers Nazis to be socialists. I did not say that I know nobody who knows about Nazi crimes. Unless socialism is now somehow considered a crime.

That with your disgusting twist of words you are trying to imply that I am denying Nazi crimes is highly insulting and outrageous behavior. I demand an apology!

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
Insisting that nazism was a form socialism is not only incorrect, it vilifies those who fought against it from its onset - which were the first to be sent to the concentration camps - not coincidentally, socialists.

i had this discussion here before. the NAZIS were NOT socialists, BUT first and foremost nationalists! that was their primary aim. (they were practically the antithesis of what socialists were trying to achieve).

the ideology was (just like any right wing philosophy) first and foremost divisive. people like hitler and mussolini hated the idea that people become equals THROUGHOUT THE WORLD! they were only concerned with the welfare of their own.

again "NATIONALISM" is the key term here, - not socialism!

of course this is the new and stupid neo-conservative spin on things. oh yeah, everything can be neatly divided into pro big govt and anti big govt. bullsh1t.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:


i had this discussion here before. the NAZIS were NOT socialists, BUT first and foremost nationalists! that was their primary aim. (they were practically the antithesis of what socialists were trying to achieve).

the ideology was (just like any right wing philosophy) first and foremost divisive. people like hitler and mussolini hated the idea that people become equals THROUGHOUT THE WORLD! they were only concerned with the welfare of their own.

again "NATIONALISM" is the key term here, - not socialism!

of course this is the new and stupid neo-conservative spin on things. oh yeah, everything can be neatly divided into pro big govt and anti big govt. bullsh1t.

So, you're upset over the fact that Nazis and Socialists have similar social philosophies, and then say, "the ideology was (just like any right wing philosophy) first and foremost divisive" and accuse people on the Right of being Nazis? Look into the history of Volkswagon (the "people's car"), comrade... socialist doctrine, pure and simple.

Why does it upset you that Socialists and Nazis shared some common economic beliefs? It's a truthful comparison.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Sherwin:

i know "new labour" is pretty much a sellout scumbag organization, - but further right than the british national party? LOL, - you gotta be kidding!

oh, and "libertarianism" hardly equals "anarchism" . cash-cast system much?

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
the fact that Nazis and Socialists have similar social philosophies

fact? Why do folks continue calling your distorted perceptions facts?

The fact is that national socialism was an extreme right-wing social and economic philosophy... just like the one of a few vocal members of this forum.

That is the exact opposite of a left-wing social and economic philosophy.

It doesn't matter how they called themselves (worker's party) or how they called the products they manufactured... what matters is the policies they implemented: complete submission of the state to the will of a handful powerful industrialists... does it sound familiar?

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
i know "new labour" is pretty much a sellout scumbag organization, - but further right than the british national party? LOL, - you gotta be kidding!

As a matter of fact, yes. The BNP is in SA-recruiting mode right now, so it advocates more social spending, legalization of marijuana, etc.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by MacNStein:


Why does it upset you that Socialists and Nazis shared some common economic beliefs? It's a truthful comparison.

I don't think it should upset him. Or anyone for that matter. The Nazis shared philosophical beliefs with us Republicans. I don't care. I'm sure you could find something that they shared with just about any politcal movement. Not everything the Nazis stood for was bad.

That wouldn't even make sense.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
I don't think it should upset him. Or anyone for that matter. The Nazis shared philosophical beliefs with us Republicans. I don't care. I'm sure you could find something that they shared with just about any politcal movement. Not everything the Nazis stood for was bad.

That wouldn't even make sense.

Exactly right.

Just because Nazi Germany had a command economy doesn't make them socialist. The US had a command economy too and for the same reason--war.

Fascism espoused the virtues of the Corporate State. It might be called State Socialism by some for that reason but that shouldn't be mistaken for Marxist or Bolshevik Socialism. In fact, the communists were the most adamant and feirce anti-Nazis on the continent.

The French resistance was largely communists, as was the Italian opposition to Mussolini.

And let's not forget that it was Bolshevik Russia who did most of the dying in WWII by a very very wide margin.

Fascism was born in direct opposition to communism.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
fact? Why do folks continue calling your distorted perceptions facts?

The fact is that national socialism was an extreme right-wing social and economic philosophy... just like the one of a few vocal members of this forum.

That is the exact opposite of a left-wing social and economic philosophy.

It doesn't matter how they called themselves (worker's party) or how they called the products they manufactured... what matters is the policies they implemented: complete submission of the state to the will of a handful powerful industrialists... does it sound familiar?

No, you are incorrect. The Right is for Privatizing, the Left advocates Socializing. The Nazis wanted to Socialize their transportation, hospitals, major industries, all utilities, etc.. That's Socialist.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, you are incorrect. The Right is for Privatizing, the Left advocates Socializing. The Nazis wanted to Socialize their transportation, hospitals, major industries, all utilities, etc.. That's Socialist.

IYo!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, you are incorrect. The Right is for Privatizing, the Left advocates Socializing. The Nazis wanted to Socialize their transportation, hospitals, major industries, all utilities, etc.. That's Socialist.

Lots of things are socialist including America's precious love affair with farm subsidy.

Socialist merely means advocating that the economy be organized to produce common good rather than enriching an elete minority.

There are almost endless ways in which that idea can be carried out or best practiced and although they might all share the fundemental notion of common good, they differ immensely on exactly how that can or should be accomplished.

[itai195]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Look into the history of Volkswagon (the "people's car"), comrade... socialist doctrine, pure and simple.

So when Republicans talk about how 'the people' voiced their opinion in November and how 'the people' want to ban gay marriage, end abortion, etc, are they being socialist? You said it yourself above -- this is all populist lingo. The Nazis were extreme nationalists and totalitarians, they used populism, demagoguery, and socialist ideas as tools to gain power and crush dissent. That doesn't mean they were what conservatives commonly label as 'pinko communists.'

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by itai195:
So when Republicans talk about how 'the people' voiced their opinion in November and how 'the people' want to ban gay marriage, end abortion, etc, are they being socialist? You said it yourself above -- this is all populist lingo. The Nazis were extreme nationalists and totalitarians, they used populism, demagoguery, and socialist ideas as tools to gain power and crush dissent. That doesn't mean they were what conservatives commonly label as 'pinko communists.'

I'm talking about a gov't controlled industry and you're mentioning voting?

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Socialist merely means advocating that the economy be organized to produce common good rather than enriching an elete minority.

Or enriching the gov't leadership? Little "common good" comes from bloated social spending.

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
The Nazis wanted to Socialize their transportation, hospitals, major industries, all utilities, etc..

What? On which planet? And most importantly: what drug do you have to take to see things that way?

Nazis wanted (and accomplished) a state subservient to the industry, not the other way around.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
What? On which planet? And most importantly: what drug do you have to take to see things that way?

Nazis wanted (and accomplished) a state subservient to the industry, not the other way around.

No. they wanted a state that was the industry.

As Sherwin posted earlier:

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

Seems pretty obvious.


Edit: and also, no need to be rude ol' chap. Take a valium or get away from the `puter for a while. You're getting overly hostile.

[Curios Meerkat]

As countless others have said, that populist, italian fascist-style program of 1920 has very little relation to the policies implemented by the nazis in the '30s; see the 'long knives' reference.

And, given your insistence in proclaiming such a revisionist, anti-historical view as a fact, I think I've been overly polite with you.

[itai195]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I'm talking about a gov't controlled industry and you're mentioning voting?

No, you're talking about social philosophies. I guess only one of us read your post

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
As countless others have said, that populist, italian fascist-style program of 1920 has very little relation to the policies implemented by the nazis in the '30s; see the 'long knives' reference.

And, given your insistence in proclaiming such a revisionist, anti-historical view as a fact, I think I've been overly polite with you.

They can say it, but it doesn't mean it's true.


I'm used to your type, you're an obnoxious little brat. It's unfortuante that your parents didn't teach you any proper manners.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by itai195:
No, you're talking about social philosophies. I guess only one of us read your post

I was talking about Social spending and gov't controlled industry. That, as I said earlier, is what Socialism and the Nazis have in common.

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I'm used to your type, you're an obnoxious little brat. It's unfortuante that your parents didn't teach you any proper manners.

I won't step down to your level. I just wanted to preserve that, in case you edit it out.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
I won't step down to your level, so I won't reply. Just wanted to preserve that, in case you edit it out.

Oh, I most definitely won't edit it out... In fact, I'll say it again:

"I'm used to your type, you're an obnoxious little brat. It's unfortuante that your parents didn't teach you any proper manners."

Have a nice day.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Oh, I most definitely won't edit it out... In fact, I'll say it again:

"I'm used to your type, you're an obnoxious little brat. It's unfortuante that your parents didn't teach you any proper manners."

Have a nice day.

Maybe you should take some of your own advice?

"Edit: and also, no need to be rude ol' chap. Take a valium or get away from the `puter for a while. You're getting overly hostile."

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
What people fail to realise when saying that the Nazis were "right wing" is that the real and proper "right" doesn't believe in or support the existence of the government mechanisms which enable such things as mass racism and genocide. The mechanisms required for such things can only be grown out of "left wing" practices.

You seem to be contradicting your own graph there. According to that, left and right are independent of government size/power. That's the anarchy-authoritarian dimension in your graph, which is orthogonal to left-right.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I was talking about Social spending and gov't controlled industry. That, as I said earlier, is what Socialism and the Nazis have in common.

Well, then the US had it in common too.

First in WWI under the War Industries Board, then in 1932 under the NRA, then again beginning in the late 30's in marshalling the nation for WWII.

You had complete central planning, price fixing, cooperative industrial trades groups and "nationalization" of all necessary resources. The Fed told industry what to make, how much of it to make, who they could and couldn't sell it and and how much it should cost. And they outlawed competitives practices in favor of corporate cooperation in key industries.

Was it socialism? Technically, yes. The economy was ordered for the greatest common good. But that doesn't mean the US was Marxist or interested in ending liberal capitalism or forging a new classless society or anything of the other ideological trappings we tend to associate with capital "S" Socialism.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You seem to be contradicting your own graph there. According to that, left and right are independent of government size/power. That's the anarchy-authoritarian dimension in your graph, which is orthogonal to left-right.

One needs to separate the X/Y for that graph to be useful. For example, no government system which inhabits the lower-left quad could actually work in real life.

Also, one needs to question why the authoritarian government is authoritarian... ...Does it maintain power in order to spend your money for you? ...Or does it maintain power to keep "those who would spend your money for you" at bay?

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
Maybe you should take some of your own advice?

"Edit: and also, no need to be rude ol' chap. Take a valium or get away from the `puter for a while. You're getting overly hostile."

I was just pointing out the obvious. You haven't been paying attention to him over the last couple months.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
One needs to separate the X/Y for that graph to be useful.

If you get rid of the left-right axis, that defeats the entire point of your graph.

For example, no government system which inhabits the lower-left quad could actually work in real life.

Also, one needs to question why the authoritarian government is authoritarian... ...Does it maintain power in order to spend your money for you? ...Or does it maintain power to keep "those who would spend your money for you" at bay?

Your statements, IMO, represent the essential flaw of American/British conservatism. You folks seem to equate tyranny with social programs and freedom with low taxes. My argument against that is:

1. There are other freedoms aside from a freedom from taxation. You know, civil liberties. A government could be extremely powerful and intrusive and yet spend no money at all on social welfare programs. They could watch our bedrooms or put us in prison capriciously or prevent us from marrying who we want to marry or control our reproductive decisions or control the information we receive from the press, etc. etc.

2. An economically laissez-faire government could have a people that are not very free, even from an economic perspective, if corporations or some other oligarch with a high concentration of wealth develops that takes control or freedom from individuals. IMO, basic social welfare enhances freedom by guaranteeing the fundamentals like health and education, allowing people to freely pursue their own goals.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by BRussell:
If you get rid of the left-right axis, that defeats the entire point of your graph.

I didn't say get rid of it, I said separate it.

Originally posted by BRussell:
Your statements, IMO, represent the essential flaw of American/British conservatism. You folks seem to equate tyranny with social programs and freedom with low taxes. My argument against that is:

1. There are other freedoms aside from a freedom from taxation. You know, civil liberties. A government could be extremely powerful and intrusive and yet spend no money at all on social welfare programs. They could watch our bedrooms or put us in prison capriciously or prevent us from marrying who we want to marry or control our reproductive decisions or control the information we receive from the press, etc. etc.

And if the taxes are low, how is the government going to employ enough people to achieve that control?

Do you think that Hitler would have had the machinery for a war if Germany had had a 5% overall tax rate and no nationalised industry?

Originally posted by BRussell:
2. An economically laissez-faire government could have a people that are not very free, even from an economic perspective, if corporations or some other oligarch with a high concentration of wealth develops that takes control or freedom from individuals. IMO, basic social welfare enhances freedom by guaranteeing the fundamentals like health and education, allowing people to freely pursue their own goals.

How, exactly, can corporations take control or freedom from people? See the Wal-Mart thread - if you don't like something, you don't buy it, that corporation doesn't make any money, another corporation comes along with better products and service to replace it.*

* I agree with the principle of the monopoly laws, BTW - however this is an example of the government exercising authority to maintain economic freedom.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I didn't say get rid of it, I said separate it.



And if the taxes are low, how is the government going to employ enough people to achieve that control?

Do you think that Hitler would have had the machinery for a war if Germany had had a 5% overall tax rate and no nationalised industry?



How, exactly, can corporations take control or freedom from people? See the Wal-Mart thread - if you don't like something, you don't buy it, that corporation doesn't make any money, another corporation comes along with better products and service to replace it.*

* I agree with the principle of the monopoly laws, BTW - however this is an example of the government exercising authority to maintain economic freedom.

Again, the Allied powers had command economies too for the duration of the war. If they hadn't, we'd be speaking German right now.

How exactly can Corporations take away freedom?? Are you at all familiar with the US economy prior to the 1930s?

[olePigeon]

Socialism and Communism aren't necessarily bad for a small community. It works best for an agriculturally/farming based society. But when you move into industry and service based economy, Socialism and Communism completely fails.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Socialism and Communism aren't necessarily bad for a small community. It works best for an agriculturally/farming based society. But when you move into industry and service based economy, Socialism and Communism completely fails.

Only if the concept of the State persists.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I didn't say get rid of it, I said separate it.

Then you'll have to explain yourself, because I don't know what that means.

And if the taxes are low, how is the government going to employ enough people to achieve that control?

Do you think that Hitler would have had the machinery for a war if Germany had had a 5% overall tax rate and no nationalised industry?

It's not so much about taxes as it is about social spending. Most conservative Americans do believe in high spending on our military - it's the taxes for social spending they primarily object to. Anyway, the point I made is that governments can be powerful and intrusive even without taxes, through passing laws that restrict civil liberties.

How, exactly, can corporations take control or freedom from people? See the Wal-Mart thread - if you don't like something, you don't buy it, that corporation doesn't make any money, another corporation comes along with better products and service to replace it.*

* I agree with the principle of the monopoly laws, BTW - however this is an example of the government exercising authority to maintain economic freedom.

The wealthy and the corporations might exert control by gaining special access to gov't and obtaining preferential treatment. For example they might give money to politicians' campaigns and then obtain special tax breaks and other legislation that consolidate their wealth and screw over the lower/middle classes.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Also, one needs to question why the authoritarian government is authoritarian...

...and one also needs to ask the question: "when government ceases to be the "center of power" in a society, - who picks up where it left of"?

individuals in general ? - wrong! those with teh $$$ will do it. and in the case of where corruption has become the norm (as in most countries in the world (see special interest groups etc.)), it really doesn't make any difference one way or the other.

that's why small govt. != (neccessarily) most amount of freedom for individuals. it just shifts the power from largely cultural and social interests to financial and economic considerations.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by BRussell:
1. There are other freedoms aside from a freedom from taxation. You know, civil liberties. A government could be extremely powerful and intrusive and yet spend no money at all on social welfare programs. They could watch our bedrooms or put us in prison capriciously or prevent us from marrying who we want to marry or control our reproductive decisions or control the information we receive from the press, etc. etc.

2. An economically laissez-faire government could have a people that are not very free, even from an economic perspective, if corporations or some other oligarch with a high concentration of wealth develops that takes control or freedom from individuals. IMO, basic social welfare enhances freedom by guaranteeing the fundamentals like health and education, allowing people to freely pursue their own goals.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
For example, no government system which inhabits the lower-left quad could actually work in real life.

And, for example, why?

OTOH, maybe it would work because it wouldn't be a government imposed from above, but rather a self-government?

Anyway, it worked - and very, very well for that matter, - for example for a short period during the Spanish revolution: i.e., anarchist communism, or libertarian socialism, or whatever one might call it - definitely in the lower left angle of the diagram...

[Sven G]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Socialism and Communism aren't necessarily bad for a small community. It works best for an agriculturally/farming based society. But when you move into industry and service based economy, Socialism and Communism completely fails.

Not at all: depends on what kind of socialism/communism you consider. For example, in Barcelona/Spain 1936 (libertarian communism/socialism) things worked much better than before, from an industrial "rationality" point of view (much better production, of much better overall quality, both in general and in particular) - albeit for a short period, crushed by authoritarianism, from both the fascist and "communist" (sic!) fronts.

It's maybe all a heart + brain + guts problem, after all: implement them all, in a simultaneous dynamic equilibrium, and suddenly communism and socialism (gradually begin to) work in a perfectly libertarian context - which requires a quantum leap in the so-called (repressed and manipulated, sofar) "human nature", of course...

[macintologist]

"We stand for the maintenance of private property,... we shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."

Hitler = Libertarian

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Sven G:
And, for example, why?

OTOH, maybe it would work because it wouldn't be a government imposed from above, but rather a self-government?

It wouldn't work because it doesn't take human nature into account. The very minute one person says "I'd like to own my own Ferrari/Paul Reed Smith/Macintosh - one which belongs to me, not to the people" the whole system collapses and moves into either the lower right quad (if nobody is bothered about this guy's wishes) or the upper left quad (if the other people try to stop him).

Thus the lower left quad is usually reserved for dreamers with no grip on reality (i.e. the Greens).