3 ms·

I can’t reply to the dead post, so I’m commenting here: I see this confusion a lot, and I don’t understand it. North Korea is the Democratic People’s Republic

I can’t reply to the dead post, so I’m commenting here: I see this confusion a lot, and I don’t understand it. North Korea is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and its clearly not democratic. China claims to be communist when they’re not.

all2 7y ago
I think that's part of the point, though. People get sold on an ideology; enough so that they revolt. But those who begin the revolution are fodder for the machine as it progresses. The socialist party in Germany began with socialists. Then, when Hitler and Co. had concentrated enough power, their original constituents became liabilities and thus political enemies. [edit] I'm curious to know if the downvotes are because I'm not adding anything substantive? Or if they are happening because someone disagrees with what I am saying? Am I incorrect in my assertions? [/edit]
- yorwba 7y ago
  The big Socialist party in Germany at the time (SPD) never had any relation to Hitler at all. They founded a paramilitary organization to fight both Nazis and Communists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Front https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Front I think you're overthinking the "Socialist" in the NSDAP's name. Their ideas weren't exactly compatible with mainstream Socialism.
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    other examples of socalisim also ended in large body counts, the "doing it wrong" excuse misses the lack of a positive feedback loop in the system.
    - yorwba 7y ago
      Huh? I wasn't trying to excuse the body count of Socialist experiments or something like that. Pointing out that the Nazis were decidedly anti-Socialist is not a defense of Socialism any more than pointing out the SPD was decidedly anti-Communist is a defense of Communism. The Nazis weren't "doing Socialism wrong." They viewed Socialists as traitors who signed the Treaty of Versailles to further the agenda of the internationalist Jews.
      - jakeogh 7y ago
        Thanks. I appologise for writing it that way and appreciate the correction to my baked in assumption there.
- detaro 7y ago
  The NSDAP was neither "the socialist party", nor really "a socialist party", at any time.

all2 7y ago

I think that's part of the point, though. People get sold on an ideology; enough so that they revolt. But those who begin the revolution are fodder for the machine as it progresses. The socialist party in Germany began with socialists. Then, when Hitler and Co. had concentrated enough power, their original constituents became liabilities and thus political enemies. [edit] I'm curious to know if the downvotes are because I'm not adding anything substantive? Or if they are happening because someone disagrees with what I am saying? Am I incorrect in my assertions? [/edit]

yorwba 7y ago
The big Socialist party in Germany at the time (SPD) never had any relation to Hitler at all. They founded a paramilitary organization to fight both Nazis and Communists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Front https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Front I think you're overthinking the "Socialist" in the NSDAP's name. Their ideas weren't exactly compatible with mainstream Socialism.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  other examples of socalisim also ended in large body counts, the "doing it wrong" excuse misses the lack of a positive feedback loop in the system.
  - yorwba 7y ago
    Huh? I wasn't trying to excuse the body count of Socialist experiments or something like that. Pointing out that the Nazis were decidedly anti-Socialist is not a defense of Socialism any more than pointing out the SPD was decidedly anti-Communist is a defense of Communism. The Nazis weren't "doing Socialism wrong." They viewed Socialists as traitors who signed the Treaty of Versailles to further the agenda of the internationalist Jews.
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      Thanks. I appologise for writing it that way and appreciate the correction to my baked in assumption there.
detaro 7y ago
The NSDAP was neither "the socialist party", nor really "a socialist party", at any time.