4 ms·

Not entirely related, but always amazes me: In the US, the word “socialism” seems to be confused with ”communism” like they were exchangeable. Mostly like peop

Not entirely related, but always amazes me: In the US, the word “socialism” seems to be confused with ”communism” like they were exchangeable. Mostly like people think vegan and vegetarian are the same thing. Nazis and Soviets were both socialists, despite being classified as right and left wing respectively. There’s a lot of things the US could do so much better if it understood that even hardcore republicans can be socialist and remain ideologically intact. I guess we’ll have to find another word for it, since this one seems to have been tainted during the Cold War.

fwdpropaganda 8y ago
I don't disagree from your overarching point, but just a nitpick: I mostly disagree when you say that Nazis were socialists. Of those people who supported the Nazis, the vast majority did so in part because the Nazis marketed themselves to those people as socialists. On the other hand, Hitler marketed the Nazis to "the industrialists" as enemies of the communists: in Germany too communism and socialism was bundled together. So I would say it's more accurate that Nazism was a bunch of marketing ideas that Hitler et al used to grab power. Now, you could say the same thing about the soviets, that their ideology was just a tool for grabbing power. They might have flipfloped on other topics, but I don't think they flipfloped on the specific topic of socialism.
- gfiorav 8y ago
  They maintained a socialist state, financing the healthcare of all with the contributions (not symmetrical) of society. Not surprising. Spain’s healthcare system (arguably one of the best public ones) was started by Franco, a fascist ditactor. They also did some other pretty socialist-things with ecology
  - SeanLuke 8y ago
    Whether the Nazis were socialist in anything other than name is a matter of considerable debate to say the least. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists...
    - fwdpropaganda 8y ago
      > is a matter of considerable debate to say the least. Correct. Ironically the person you're responding had an issue with the black and white claim that "socialism=communism" and wanted to add nuance, and did that by presenting a black and white claim that "the nazis were socialists", which is a claim that could use a lot more nuance.
    - edanm 8y ago
      I'm not so sure I buy this article. It seems to spend quite a bit of time defending claims that the Nazis were socialist from the obvious modern-day attacks of Trump supporters, which is probably not the way to get the most historically-valid ideas. I spent a (tiny) bit of time looking for other articles on this topic, and it seems like one of the main arguments goes something like "Nazis were not socialists - they were racists". However, I really fail to see what one thing has to do with the other. The other main argument is much better - that the Nazis were using the word "socialist" in their name as a cynical political ploy, and not really an expression of their "true beliefs". For my part, I have to say I was quite surprised when recently reading "Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich", which talked a bit about the Nazis actual policies towards the economy. I have to say, they certainly sounded very socialist to my (libertarian-leaning) ears. I mean, they took major control of the economy, dictating work hours and salaries, among other clearly socialist/communist things that I can't quite remember anymore. I think it's a pretty interesting question, and as others have said, "Socialism" isn't so well-defined. But looking at actual Nazi policies instead of motivations and rhetoric seems to me to be table-stakes in actually understanding the issue.
Synaesthesia 8y ago
Like most political terms, socialism and communism are not exactly well defined. They’ve been very much distorted by propaganda over the years.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
amptorn 8y ago
The Nazis were not socialists. Sure, it was in the name, but are you seriously going to take a Nazi's word for it? They were fascists.
- gfiorav 8y ago
  They maintained a socialist state, financing the healthcare of all with the contributions (not symmetrical) of society. Not surprising. Spain’s healthcare system (arguably one of the best public ones) was started by Franco, a fascist ditactor.
  - Fukkaudeku 8y ago
    The Nazis were so socialist they invented the term "privatisation" https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.20.3.187 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.20.3.187
    - Grue3 8y ago
      And Lenin invented NEP [1], what's your point? Of course socialists would sometimes borrow capitalist concepts, because they actually work. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
- RA_Fisher 8y ago
  I like Hayek's "planning" tool for distinguishing socialism. That is, does the ideology position the state as the planner of its citizens lives in one way or another? Socialism is the intervention of the state in its citizens lives be it healthcare, industry, moral rules, etc. From this view fascism is indeed socialism. The alternative is liberalism or the absence of planning.
  - detaro 8y ago
    By that definition, many monarchies would be "socialist" (E.g. the German Empire, which created many of the social security systems in Germany, specifically to avoid socialism rising). That sounds like a pretty massive re-definition of the term to allow pushing it into a one-dimensional scale, especially in the context of the time where the Nazis choose their label.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
atmosx 8y ago
I would like to add that a true libertarian would be aghast at the thought of a state bailing out private ventures, especially without assimilating them, no matter how big or small. Most people don’t dive deep into ideologies. They stay in the surface and end up believing whatever the media outlet expresses as a “truth widely acknowledged”.
- DanielBMarkham 8y ago
  Ideologies are not geometric proofs. Whatever you believe, whether it's socialism, communism, or in the Great Pumpkin, you have to live and work with other people. So you gotta compromise it. And it's not like the "pure" version is so awesome and every compromise is a failure. No. No pure version of anything has ever worked, so it's all hacks to one degree or another.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    When things don't work as promised those compromises also give the ideologues the opportunity to claim that their ideology would have worked if it only had been applied correctly.
    - DanielBMarkham 8y ago
      Yes. Political power is all about selling the dream. Various dreams sell differently to various demographics at various times. The dreams don't have to make sense, or even be implementable. People just have to buy into them. Highly-emotional, easy-to-understand dreams get a lot of buy-in. One of the things I like about my personal philosophy, which I'm not going to talk about, is that it teaches me how to lose. That is, it teaches me how to compromise with lots of other folks with different dreams. That's quite unusual. Most of the time the hardcore folks of any political philosophy are busy fighting the evil bad guys in some other group and purity-checking the folks in their own camp. There is a meta level to politics, and you can live there without sacrificing any of your values.
gaius 8y ago
In the US, the word “socialism” seems to be confused with ”communism” like they were exchangeable Marx and Engels used them interchangeably too, so you can see where the confusion would arise. You might be surprised, if you read them, just how little they had to say about how it would all actually work. There’s no detailed blueprint for a communist utopia anywhere in their writing. Mainly they just critique the class system - and you can see that the observations they made were often quite accurate even in today’s world of zero-hours contracts and the gig economy. I’m pretty capitalist myself, but some of this is taking it too far.
- gfiorav 8y ago
  Very interesting indeed. I have dwelled with Marx a bit, and I too was surprised about the lack of a blueprint on how it should work.
  - e12e 8y ago
    It might be worth reading Rosa Luxemburg - she had some strong opinions on the importance of freedom and democracy.
kingofhdds 8y ago
From communist viewpoint socialism is an intermediate stage before achieving communism. And in Soviet Union propaganda both terms were used interchangeably to describe their side in the Cold War. And many self-described socialists in the West sympathised strongly with Soviets (even not being friendly with hardcore Stalinism), believing the USSR, and its satellites are the counterweight and alternative to the capitalist alliance united around the US. So there's no mistake, it's just a historical practice.
james1071 8y ago
The Nazis were not Socialists. They came to power by opposing Communists and Socialists, who were seen as a threat to middle class Germans and their property. The Nazis and facists in Italy operated a dictatorship for the benefit of corporations.
- gaius 8y ago
  for the benefit of corporations. It’s true that some corporations did very well under those regimes, but it’s not accurate to say that enriching corporations is why they did what they did. Hitler never thought “starting a war is the perfect cover for making my buddies in the private sector rich”, he wasn’t angling for a lucrative post-political career as a board member or a lobbyist or after-dinner speaker.
  - james1071 8y ago
    I did not say that every action was done for the benefit of corporations.
    - gaius 8y ago
      every action was done for the benefit of corporations Corporate interests were pretty low down the priority list in those regimes. German corporations would certainly have been more competitive and profitable if they had kept their Jewish workers and been permitted to use "Jewish science". The Nazis merrily hamstrung the corporations in their territory for the sake of their overarching ideology, they totally subordinated economic interests to serve the State.
      - james1071 8y ago
        Here is a good reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  "Nazi" is a derogatory abbreviation for (the German equivalent of) "national socialist". It's what they called themselves.

fwdpropaganda 8y ago

I don't disagree from your overarching point, but just a nitpick: I mostly disagree when you say that Nazis were socialists. Of those people who supported the Nazis, the vast majority did so in part because the Nazis marketed themselves to those people as socialists. On the other hand, Hitler marketed the Nazis to "the industrialists" as enemies of the communists: in Germany too communism and socialism was bundled together. So I would say it's more accurate that Nazism was a bunch of marketing ideas that Hitler et al used to grab power. Now, you could say the same thing about the soviets, that their ideology was just a tool for grabbing power. They might have flipfloped on other topics, but I don't think they flipfloped on the specific topic of socialism.

gfiorav 8y ago
They maintained a socialist state, financing the healthcare of all with the contributions (not symmetrical) of society. Not surprising. Spain’s healthcare system (arguably one of the best public ones) was started by Franco, a fascist ditactor. They also did some other pretty socialist-things with ecology
- SeanLuke 8y ago
  Whether the Nazis were socialist in anything other than name is a matter of considerable debate to say the least. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists...
  - fwdpropaganda 8y ago
    > is a matter of considerable debate to say the least. Correct. Ironically the person you're responding had an issue with the black and white claim that "socialism=communism" and wanted to add nuance, and did that by presenting a black and white claim that "the nazis were socialists", which is a claim that could use a lot more nuance.
  - edanm 8y ago
    I'm not so sure I buy this article. It seems to spend quite a bit of time defending claims that the Nazis were socialist from the obvious modern-day attacks of Trump supporters, which is probably not the way to get the most historically-valid ideas. I spent a (tiny) bit of time looking for other articles on this topic, and it seems like one of the main arguments goes something like "Nazis were not socialists - they were racists". However, I really fail to see what one thing has to do with the other. The other main argument is much better - that the Nazis were using the word "socialist" in their name as a cynical political ploy, and not really an expression of their "true beliefs". For my part, I have to say I was quite surprised when recently reading "Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich", which talked a bit about the Nazis actual policies towards the economy. I have to say, they certainly sounded very socialist to my (libertarian-leaning) ears. I mean, they took major control of the economy, dictating work hours and salaries, among other clearly socialist/communist things that I can't quite remember anymore. I think it's a pretty interesting question, and as others have said, "Socialism" isn't so well-defined. But looking at actual Nazi policies instead of motivations and rhetoric seems to me to be table-stakes in actually understanding the issue.

Synaesthesia 8y ago

Like most political terms, socialism and communism are not exactly well defined. They’ve been very much distorted by propaganda over the years.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

amptorn 8y ago

The Nazis were not socialists. Sure, it was in the name, but are you seriously going to take a Nazi's word for it? They were fascists.

gfiorav 8y ago
They maintained a socialist state, financing the healthcare of all with the contributions (not symmetrical) of society. Not surprising. Spain’s healthcare system (arguably one of the best public ones) was started by Franco, a fascist ditactor.
- Fukkaudeku 8y ago
  The Nazis were so socialist they invented the term "privatisation" https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.20.3.187 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.20.3.187
  - Grue3 8y ago
    And Lenin invented NEP [1], what's your point? Of course socialists would sometimes borrow capitalist concepts, because they actually work. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
RA_Fisher 8y ago
I like Hayek's "planning" tool for distinguishing socialism. That is, does the ideology position the state as the planner of its citizens lives in one way or another? Socialism is the intervention of the state in its citizens lives be it healthcare, industry, moral rules, etc. From this view fascism is indeed socialism. The alternative is liberalism or the absence of planning.
- detaro 8y ago
  By that definition, many monarchies would be "socialist" (E.g. the German Empire, which created many of the social security systems in Germany, specifically to avoid socialism rising). That sounds like a pretty massive re-definition of the term to allow pushing it into a one-dimensional scale, especially in the context of the time where the Nazis choose their label.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

atmosx 8y ago

I would like to add that a true libertarian would be aghast at the thought of a state bailing out private ventures, especially without assimilating them, no matter how big or small. Most people don’t dive deep into ideologies. They stay in the surface and end up believing whatever the media outlet expresses as a “truth widely acknowledged”.

DanielBMarkham 8y ago
Ideologies are not geometric proofs. Whatever you believe, whether it's socialism, communism, or in the Great Pumpkin, you have to live and work with other people. So you gotta compromise it. And it's not like the "pure" version is so awesome and every compromise is a failure. No. No pure version of anything has ever worked, so it's all hacks to one degree or another.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  When things don't work as promised those compromises also give the ideologues the opportunity to claim that their ideology would have worked if it only had been applied correctly.
  - DanielBMarkham 8y ago
    Yes. Political power is all about selling the dream. Various dreams sell differently to various demographics at various times. The dreams don't have to make sense, or even be implementable. People just have to buy into them. Highly-emotional, easy-to-understand dreams get a lot of buy-in. One of the things I like about my personal philosophy, which I'm not going to talk about, is that it teaches me how to lose. That is, it teaches me how to compromise with lots of other folks with different dreams. That's quite unusual. Most of the time the hardcore folks of any political philosophy are busy fighting the evil bad guys in some other group and purity-checking the folks in their own camp. There is a meta level to politics, and you can live there without sacrificing any of your values.

gaius 8y ago

In the US, the word “socialism” seems to be confused with ”communism” like they were exchangeable Marx and Engels used them interchangeably too, so you can see where the confusion would arise. You might be surprised, if you read them, just how little they had to say about how it would all actually work. There’s no detailed blueprint for a communist utopia anywhere in their writing. Mainly they just critique the class system - and you can see that the observations they made were often quite accurate even in today’s world of zero-hours contracts and the gig economy. I’m pretty capitalist myself, but some of this is taking it too far.

gfiorav 8y ago
Very interesting indeed. I have dwelled with Marx a bit, and I too was surprised about the lack of a blueprint on how it should work.
- e12e 8y ago
  It might be worth reading Rosa Luxemburg - she had some strong opinions on the importance of freedom and democracy.

kingofhdds 8y ago

From communist viewpoint socialism is an intermediate stage before achieving communism. And in Soviet Union propaganda both terms were used interchangeably to describe their side in the Cold War. And many self-described socialists in the West sympathised strongly with Soviets (even not being friendly with hardcore Stalinism), believing the USSR, and its satellites are the counterweight and alternative to the capitalist alliance united around the US. So there's no mistake, it's just a historical practice.

james1071 8y ago

The Nazis were not Socialists. They came to power by opposing Communists and Socialists, who were seen as a threat to middle class Germans and their property. The Nazis and facists in Italy operated a dictatorship for the benefit of corporations.

gaius 8y ago
for the benefit of corporations. It’s true that some corporations did very well under those regimes, but it’s not accurate to say that enriching corporations is why they did what they did. Hitler never thought “starting a war is the perfect cover for making my buddies in the private sector rich”, he wasn’t angling for a lucrative post-political career as a board member or a lobbyist or after-dinner speaker.
- james1071 8y ago
  I did not say that every action was done for the benefit of corporations.
  - gaius 8y ago
    every action was done for the benefit of corporations Corporate interests were pretty low down the priority list in those regimes. German corporations would certainly have been more competitive and profitable if they had kept their Jewish workers and been permitted to use "Jewish science". The Nazis merrily hamstrung the corporations in their territory for the sake of their overarching ideology, they totally subordinated economic interests to serve the State.
    - james1071 8y ago
      Here is a good reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
thaumasiotes 8y ago
"Nazi" is a derogatory abbreviation for (the German equivalent of) "national socialist". It's what they called themselves.