3 ms·

Oh, I don't think socialism is only in the name of nazis, I think their nationalization of many practices and aspects of culture is key. Do you think "nazis had

Oh, I don't think socialism is only in the name of nazis, I think their nationalization of many practices and aspects of culture is key. Do you think "nazis had socialist tendencies" is a position that no reasonable people can take? I didn't mean to suggest taking the name itself as the only evidence of socialism.

danans 6y ago
> Do you think "nazis had socialist tendencies" is a position that no reasonable people can take? Yes, because a socialism that benefits only members of the "Aryan race" while excluding, oppressing and murdering others in the same country is not socialism at all.
- throwaway4china 6y ago
  I'd say that's a staple of socialism/communism/marxism. From Mao to Venezuela, the core idea depends upon excluding, oppressing, and murder of others in the same country based on class. The only thing different about the Nazis is they targeted by race not class, though Communist China is targeting Uighur and other minorities in their country.
  - danans 6y ago
    > excluding, oppressing, and murder of others in the same country based on class. > The only thing different about the Nazis is they targeted by race The government excluding, oppressing, murdering based on race ... so the American south was socialist then right?
    - throwaway4china 6y ago
      Yes, in a way, the Dixiecrats never changed.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  That can very well be socialism for a subgroup of your existing population. I think the divergence in views is in the definition of socialism we have; I see it as an economical doctrine of state centralisation, you probably have other egalitarian ideals attached to it. Economically, on a scale from free-market to socialism, where do you think nazis rank? I think they were closer to socialism that nowadays mainstream left wing parties
  - danans 6y ago
    > That can very well be socialism for a subgroup of your existing population. This is like calling ancient Sparta - where the Spartans lived in an egalitarian structure while simultaneously oppressing their Helot slaves - socialism. Or for a more a recent example, apartheid South Africa, where whites received a great deal of support via government policy that practically ensured their prosperity. That wasn't socialism, either. Socialism is not about centralized state control. It's about whether the state plays a strong role in ensuring a standard of living for all it's citizens. In successful examples (like Social Security and Medicare in the US) it has accomplished this while the majority of the economy is not under state control.
    - jokethrowaway 6y ago
      That's exactly my point, there is a difference between the ideals of socialism and the economic doctrine which plays out when socialism gets implemented. In terms of economic policy, all the examples you cited are on the left side or going left in my book. There is definitely nothing capitalistic about state intervention. It also makes sense historically: it took us a long time to understand that capitalism is the most efficient way to create value and advance technology. Even the communist dictatorship that is China understood that and it's using this to rule the world, while the western world (especially the USA) marched back on their capitalism and hampered their economy with more and more regulations. I think we still don't have enough capitalism and we need a completely unregulated market and no government at all.
      - danans 6y ago

danans 6y ago

> Do you think "nazis had socialist tendencies" is a position that no reasonable people can take? Yes, because a socialism that benefits only members of the "Aryan race" while excluding, oppressing and murdering others in the same country is not socialism at all.

throwaway4china 6y ago
I'd say that's a staple of socialism/communism/marxism. From Mao to Venezuela, the core idea depends upon excluding, oppressing, and murder of others in the same country based on class. The only thing different about the Nazis is they targeted by race not class, though Communist China is targeting Uighur and other minorities in their country.
- danans 6y ago
  > excluding, oppressing, and murder of others in the same country based on class. > The only thing different about the Nazis is they targeted by race The government excluding, oppressing, murdering based on race ... so the American south was socialist then right?
  - throwaway4china 6y ago
    Yes, in a way, the Dixiecrats never changed.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
That can very well be socialism for a subgroup of your existing population. I think the divergence in views is in the definition of socialism we have; I see it as an economical doctrine of state centralisation, you probably have other egalitarian ideals attached to it. Economically, on a scale from free-market to socialism, where do you think nazis rank? I think they were closer to socialism that nowadays mainstream left wing parties
- danans 6y ago
  > That can very well be socialism for a subgroup of your existing population. This is like calling ancient Sparta - where the Spartans lived in an egalitarian structure while simultaneously oppressing their Helot slaves - socialism. Or for a more a recent example, apartheid South Africa, where whites received a great deal of support via government policy that practically ensured their prosperity. That wasn't socialism, either. Socialism is not about centralized state control. It's about whether the state plays a strong role in ensuring a standard of living for all it's citizens. In successful examples (like Social Security and Medicare in the US) it has accomplished this while the majority of the economy is not under state control.
  - jokethrowaway 6y ago
    That's exactly my point, there is a difference between the ideals of socialism and the economic doctrine which plays out when socialism gets implemented. In terms of economic policy, all the examples you cited are on the left side or going left in my book. There is definitely nothing capitalistic about state intervention. It also makes sense historically: it took us a long time to understand that capitalism is the most efficient way to create value and advance technology. Even the communist dictatorship that is China understood that and it's using this to rule the world, while the western world (especially the USA) marched back on their capitalism and hampered their economy with more and more regulations. I think we still don't have enough capitalism and we need a completely unregulated market and no government at all.
    - danans 6y ago