Is it true that Nazism was a form of Socialism?

[iceaura]

certainly you're not obligated to watch or appreciate.

But you are obligated to post argument or claim here - bare links to evidence you are not accountable for are an abuse of a forum such as this.
Bare links - and that's what a video like that is - are spam, nine times in ten.

I could rehash what others can say more eloquently than myself. Honestly, could I have said it better than the gentlemen in the above videos?

You could have said it in such a way that calling it on its bullshit would take only a few seconds, and you would be accountable for it.

 

[Bowser]

Bullshit.

Lazy fucking bullshit.

Well, make of it what you want, Tiassa. We live in a world of soundbites. I don't question it as much as I try to participate.

 

[Bowser]

But you are obligated to post argument or claim here - bare links to evidence you are not accountable for are an abuse of a forum such as this.
Bare links - and that's what a video like that is - are spam, nine times in ten.

You could have said it in such a way that calling it on its bullshit would take only a few seconds, and you would be accountable for it.

Ice, I participate as I see fit. I'm having trouble determining how a couple videos are so, well, disturbing. I can't force you to watch them. I believe they are a reflection of what people are thinking at this time. Hell, you don't even need to comment on them. I'm sharing.

 

[iceaura]

Ice, I participate as I see fit. I'm having trouble determining how a couple videos are so, well, disturbing. I can't force you to watch them. I believe they are a reflection of what people are thinking at this time

I'm responding to your "participation": you are spamming a science forum with video bs, a form that allows you to escape responsibility for views you cannot defend - most likely because they are indefensible, irrelevant, or both.

 

[billvon]

Honestly, could I have said it better than the gentlemen in the above videos?

Perhaps not. But:

1) Many other posters can accurately summarize the contents of a video quickly and succinctly. This has advantages in a primarily text forum.
2) Most people read faster than they can watch a video.

Also, I believe video a much more impressive method for conveying an idea than simply throwing out some text.

I find that people without a coherent point often use a video as a substitute for thinking about a topic. They instead post the video and say "me too!" - often without understanding the video.

I mean, I've seen your posts and find myself yawning midway before I give up and moving on to the next post.

That's certainly your right. I just skip videos altogether.

 

[Bowser]

Perhaps not. But:

1) Many other posters can accurately summarize the contents of a video quickly and succinctly. This has advantages in a primarily text forum.
2) Most people read faster than they can watch a video.

I find that people without a coherent point often use a video as a substitute for thinking about a topic. They instead post the video and say "me too!" - often without understanding the video.

My premise is that popular media is corrupt. Either you agree or disagree. We could nitpick over the details, but what's the point when all you need do is turn on your television. A video on the subject might offer a better look at the issue than I can offer.

That's certainly your right. I just skip videos altogether.

I've done the same. I understand.

 

[joepistole]

My premise is that popular media is corrupt.

Okay, and your evidence is where? What is popular media? Is Fox News popular media? Is right wing radio popular media? Is right wing web media like Brietbart popular media? And what is corruption? What makes them corrupt? Please be specific. If you want any meaningful discussion on this topic, you need to first answer those questions.

. Either you agree or disagree. We could nitpick over the details, but what's the point when all you need do is turn on your television. A video on the subject might offer a better look at the issue than I can offer.

I get the impression you think any news source which provides you with information which disturbs your confirmation biases is in your view "popular" and "corrupt".

 

[joepistole]

The world is changing, bill. I think we are realizing a new coming, politically and culturally. It's exciting to watch. But don't take my word. Listen to one of my favorite homosexuals explain it.

Yes, the world is a changing. But what we are seeing is not something new. It's something old. We are seeing the resurgence of national socialism. The Trump Train is the resurgence of national socialism, and that is a threat to our democracy and our freedoms. We fought war a war with national socialism 77 years ago. National socialism isn't new. It has been around for a very long time. This time it has surfaced under the guise of the Republican Party.

The Republican Party use to be about free markets. Trump is the antithesis of free markets. Trump isn't for free markets. He isn't for free trade. Trump wants to control capitalism. He wants private industry to do his bidding. In office for one month and he has already leaned on private industry to do his bidding. Trump's authoritarian penchant is pretty obvious. He has tried to rule by decree. He has attempted to politicize law enforcement and national security. That's national socialism. It isn't new. It has been around for a very long time.

Yes, by all means, let's learn the lessons of history. Let's call a spade a spade.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/09/alt-right-indicates-extreme-socialism/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollyw...sm-just-dangerous-hitlers-national-socialism/

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ken-burn...t-of-the-national-socialist-party-in-germany/

Your video reference:

It's funny to hear folks talk about the importance of history, and facts and rational thought and promptly ignore all of them. Unfortunately, it's all too typical of the American right wing. Where is the evidence Democrats are now pushing states rights? They aren't. But that doesn't stop your man from making that assertion.

 

[iceaura]

My premise is that popular media is corrupt. Either you agree or disagree.

That's meaningless. There are a hundred different ways to agree or disagree with whatever someone assumes you are talking about.

He has attempted to politicize law enforcement and national security. That's national socialism. I

If you have to use the term in English at all, which you shouldn't, at least always capitalize the brand name "National Socialism". It had the same relationship with actual socialism that "Democratic Kampuchea" had with actual democracy.

Calling fascism "socialism", with the small "s", will fundamentally confuse you from then on. And that was the intention, the deliberate tactic, adopted by the propaganda wing of the NAZI Party.

 

[Syne]

Nazi = National Socialist German Workers' Party.

I just find it curious that, being a populist, socialist movement, there was so much contempt for their Communist neighbor. In my mind there isn't much of a divide between socialism and communism, but maybe there are finer details that I'm not considering.

Nazism is national socialism, while communism is international socialism. International Socialists is the name of a number of Trotskyist (marxism) organizations. Nationalists basically believe that the State should oversee socialism, while Internationalists idealistically believe that States should not exist. While communism holds less authoritarian ideals, they are just as authoritarian in practice. So you have competing authoritarian systems.

 

[iceaura]

Nazism is national socialism, while communism is international socialism

As noted above:

Calling fascism "socialism", with the small "s", will fundamentally confuse you from then on. And that was the intention, the deliberate tactic, adopted by the propaganda wing of the NAZI Party.

That is: No, that's not the case. It's not even close. The economic policy and structure of Germany under Nazi governance was corporate capitalism, not socialism of any kind - as is the case with all fascist governance, as a defining as well as characteristic feature.

While communism holds less authoritarian ideals, they are just as authoritarian in practice. So you have competing authoritarian systems.

Communism, like most other setups included under socialism as well as many of those included under capitalism, can be the economic organization adopted by both authoritarian and libertarian ideologies. It is the characteristic economic organization of many American Indian tribes, for example - including those not authoritarian in the least.

 

[river]

nazism was more than a form of socialism , it is and was a form of fascism .

 

[Syne]

Fascism has historically proven a necessity to enforcing socialist ideals.
Just look at the violence of the supposed antifa movement. Their socialist ideals of equality lead them to the same fascist violence they claim to oppose.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[joepistole]

If you have to use the term in English at all, which you shouldn't, at least always capitalize the brand name "National Socialism".

Well, here is the thing Einstein, national socialism isn't a brand....oops. Yeah, those damn facts again. It's no more more of a brand than communism or fascism or socialism. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...evolution-is-not-over/?utm_term=.0be0fd7f6fac

It had the same relationship with actual socialism that "Democratic Kampuchea" had with actual democracy.

Calling fascism "socialism", with the small "s", will fundamentally confuse you from then on. And that was the intention, the deliberate tactic, adopted by the propaganda wing of the NAZI Party.

And you really think any of that makes the least bit of sense...seriously? You are confused right from the start of any discourse and nothing is going to change that fact comrade.

 

[joepistole]

Fascism has historically proven a necessity to enforcing socialist ideals.
Just look at the violence of the supposed antifa movement. Their socialist ideals of equality lead them to the same fascist violence they claim to oppose.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

And where is the basis for that assertion? Please be specific. Fascism is "a form of radical authoritarian nationalism"., "fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Equality, i.e. egalitarianism, and fascism aren't in anyway compatible by definition. They are by definition incompatible. So your attempt to equate them is seriously wrong and at best a gross misunderstanding of what authoritarianism and egalitarianism are. Yes, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. So why do you not learn from history? Trump, a man you support, is a self admitted nationalist. He is an authoritarian. Putin, a man you and your man Trump support, is repeating what Hitler did, even using the same justifications. That's why the world is so concerned. That's why Europe is especially concerned. They have learned from 2 world wars and have no desire to repeat 2 world wars. That's why they oppose what Putin has done and continues to do.

 

[joepistole]

nazism was more than a form of socialism , it is and was a form of fascism .

You are confusing economic and political systems. At some point facts matter. Below is the Webster's definition of Nazism.

"the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nazism

Nazism is:

1) Authoritarianism
2) Racial Superiority and supremacy

Nazism isn't a form of socialism. It's a political philosophy with authoritarianism and racial superiority and supremacy at its core. It's a form of authoritarianism.

Socialism is an economic construct, not a political construct. It has nothing to do with authoritarianism, race, or political philosophy of any kind.

Aspects of socialism exist in every developed economy, because it works. All modern economies are mixed economies: blending capitalism and socialism. Socialism and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive. Here is something else you should consider. Private ownership, i.e. capitalism, existed in fascist Europe. Capitalism was alive and well in Nazi Germany even with a national socialist dictator. If you were a capitalist in Nazi Germany you did quite well as long as you in the favored race. You did very well until war destroyed your ability to conduct business.

 

[joepistole]

Fascism has historically proven a necessity to enforcing socialist ideals.
Just look at the violence of the supposed antifa movement. Their socialist ideals of equality lead them to the same fascist violence they claim to oppose.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Then how do you explain Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, the US, Japan, the UK, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, et al.? Those countries all have a degree of socialism. Where is the authoritarianism in those countries? Facts matter comrade.

 

[Syne]

Then how do you explain Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, the US, Japan, the UK, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, et al.? Those countries all have a degree of socialism. Where is the authoritarianism in those countries? Facts matter comrade.

Socialism gets violent when it fails, as the perception in the recent US election and Greek riots over austerity measures demonstrate. The benefit of not having to fund a standing military is that those funds can prolong failures inherent to socialist Ponzi schemes. ALL the facts matter, crony.

 

[iceaura]

Capitalism was alive and well in Nazi Germany even with a national socialist dictator.

You are mistaking a brand name for an economic reality. Fascists are capitalists - by definition taken from description of historical, physical fact.

The central, dominant, entirely characteristic economic organization of Nazi Germany, was capitalism. The hired out their concentration camp slave labor, for chrissake - industrialists paid for them per capita, in cash. They piled up gold reserves in bunkers to pay the largest and best known capitalist corporations on the planet to provide the State with weapons and war materials. Their central bank, the source of their currency, was privately owned by investors of capital.

Socialism gets violent when it fails, as the perception in the recent US election

The US has been seeing a failure of capitalism, not socialism - especially in recent elections, after the crash of '08.

 

[joepistole]

You are mistaking a brand name for an economic reality. Fascists are capitalists - by definition taken from description of historical, physical fact.

Lol...the fact is Iceaura national socialism isn't a brand name as you asserted. It really is that simple. It's not difficult Iceaura. And as previously explained, it isn't an "economic" reality either. It's a political reality. There political systems and economic systems are not the same. Fascists can be capitalists, but they can also be socialists. In Hitler's case it was both. Capitalists did very well for themselves in Nazi Germany and Italy until warfare interfered with their ability to conduct business.

The central, dominant, entirely characteristic economic organization of Nazi Germany, was capitalism. The hired out their concentration camp slave labor, for chrissake - industrialists paid for them per capita, in cash. They piled up gold reserves in bunkers to pay the largest and best known capitalist corporations on the planet to provide the State with weapons and war materials. Their central bank, the source of their currency, was privately owned by investors of capital.

And your point is? Haven't I said that twice now? That doesn't change the fact that national socialism isn't a "brand" as you asserted. You are obfuscating as you are wont to do.

The US has been seeing a failure of capitalism, not socialism - especially in recent elections, after the crash of '08.

And you continue to falsely conflate political and economic systems. We aren't seeing a failure of capitalism in the US or anywhere else for that matter. What we are seeing in the US is a failure of democracy brought about by the rise of the fake news, i.e. right wing entertainment, and that has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism.