You can't have independent unions in a socialist state, simply because you can't have strikes. In a centrally planned socialist economy, whether it's the USSR or Nazi Germany, if the workers stop working, then the people starve, and that makes the government look bad, and left wing governments in particular do not like to look bad. Therefore if you stop working for better pay, better conditions, whatever, it is considered treason. Hugo Junkers found this out under the Nazis, and the sailors at Kronstadt found out under the Bolsheviks.
It's also a myth perpetuated by leftists that the Nazis murdered socialists whenever they could. There are many, many varieties of socialism, and as long as you weren't a Marxist, [the Nazis welcomed you into the party with open arms:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefsteak_Nazi)
>>Beefsteak Nazi (Rindersteak-Nazi) or "Roast-beef Nazi" was a term used in Nazi Germany to describe communists and socialists who joined the Nazi Party.
Sure, because the ideologies are so similar. [Right in Mein Kampf, Hitler says that the only major difference between Marxism and Nazism is racism:](http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt)
>>The racial WELTANSCHAUUNG [worldview] is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its WELTANSCHAUUNG [worldview].
>>If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the
fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely
varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the
majority principle, **it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground.**
Nah, that's because he was buthurt that the Germans managed to be more popular than him.
He was a Socialist before creating his own party and specially at the time Socialists and Communists are used interchangeably
>I believe at one point more than half of the brown shirts in Berlin were former Communist party members.
Don't forget Mussolini began his "career" as a socialist.
Yes indeed.
In fact, fascism proper is really just oldschool socialism with class solidarity replaced with national solidarity, along with a more sensible but still state-controlled economic system.
Incidentally, the closest thing we have to a defacto fascist country in the world today is the People's Republic of China. Since Deng Xiaoping and _especially_ since Xi Jinping, they have basically reinvented fascism in all but name.
It always gets me how people will admit Nazi's used symbols and ideology they weren't at all aligned with just to gain power but somehow the socialist part wasn't a lie to them. Anything to maintain the echo chamber I guess
Yes, they welcomed socialists up until they didn’t and they either got in line or were shipped off to camps.
Read your own fucking linked Wikipedia article, it makes explicit mention of the execution of Rohm and the night of long knives. Curious how the term is almost never used again post 1934, wonder what happened then.
Wrong. Rohm was one of Hitler's closest friends, despite being openly gay. Rohm got purged because he became a political threat to Hitler. [That's what leftists do,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge) they purge anyone who becomes a threat to their power.
B-but m-muh real socialism! I still don't understand how people advocate for socialism when it's been a catastrophic failure every time it's been tried.
> I still don't understand how people advocate for socialism when it's been a catastrophic failure every time it's been tried.
Same way any other cult does: it maintains its failures aren't real, aren't failures, or, if forced to admit them, blames them on external evils or the insufficient faith/effort/orthodoxy of the cult members. See:
- "Stalin didn't mass murder people, it was all capitalist propaganda"
- "Ok Stalin did mass murder people, but they were counter-revolutionaries/nazis/criminals"
- "Ok Stalin did mass murder innocent people, but Stalin wasn't a true socialist, he perverted the Soviet Union from Lenin's vision"
And so on, and so forth. There's never an end to the denials, deflections and excuses because it's not a principled or evidence-based creed.
The paradox of intolerance is a stupid stupid position that enshrines you as the ultimate arbiter of "tolerance" and what is good or bad. It has no value.
>I still don’t understand how people advocate for socialism when it’s been a catastrophic failure every time it’s been tried.
Because the people advocating it are losers who see this as spinning the roulette of life in the hopes of a better outcome. But like gambling, the best choice is to walk away when you’re up.
I can explain why *I* do, without attempting to speak for anyone else.
I advocate for socialism because I agree with the problem that socialists point out in the world (the struggle between the ownership class and the worker) and I agree with their proposed solutions to alleviate or eliminate this problem.
There are two reasons I continue to advocate for socialism despite it being a *"catastrophic failure every time it's been tried."*
For one thing, I don't believe this to be true. Socialism has been a failure when applied to large, authoritarian states at a national level, this is certainly true. But we've seen successful examples of socialism at a decentralized, local level before, and there continue to be socialist policies instituted by many countries across the world.
But the second reason is much more simple than that: something failing to work in the past does not mean it cannot work in the future. If we had that attitude then humanity would have never accomplished all the great things we have. Every truly ambitious thing we've ever attempted as a species has failed before it was successful, that's how you know it was truly something revolutionary. Now obviously something can just be a bad idea and will fail no matter how many times you try it, but most of the *"catastrophic"* attempts at socialism were governments kind of just trying the same thing over and over. I don't want to excuse the failings of the USSR or other socialist regimes, I want to look at what they did to avoid those mistakes.
Based and trying to change for a better future pilled. While I just don't agree with the inherent points of socialism and I just don't think it can ever work whatsoever, I still extremely respect your viewpoint on the matter. I will be honest and say that capitalism has had some market failures in the past, along with other negative side effects tied to it. The reasons you have for advocating for socialism are noble and I do agree that workers do have crucial struggles in life, which is a major reason I support *light* regulations along with private unions.
Capitalism is a great example of my point! Feudalism and mercantilism didn't die off overnight. It took years of revolutions, hard work, and multiple failures before it became the dominant system. Thanks for the kind words! This may surprise you, but I don't get them very often!
>For one thing, I don't believe this to be true. Socialism has been a failure when applied to large, authoritarian states at a national level, this is certainly true.
Uhhh... many times the authoritarianism came along with the socialism. Or it defeated an already authoritarian state only to be replaced with a socialist authoritarian state. I don't know if this is a good argument.
>But we've seen successful examples of socialism at a decentralized, local level before, and there continue to be socialist policies instituted by many countries across the world.
Can you give examples of these so called good, decentralized structures that performed well under socialism?
>something failing to work in the past does not mean it cannot work in the future. If we had that attitude then humanity would have never accomplished all the great things we have.
I dunno man. I feel like if something ends up in genocides, mass starvations and/or complete colapse of the state multiple times we should probably stop trying that.
>Uhhh... many times the authoritarianism came along with the socialism. Or it defeated an already authoritarian state only to be replaced with a socialist authoritarian state. I don't know if this is a good argument.
I wasn't making the argument you seem to think I was. I am criticizing authoritarianism as a means of instituting socialism, not claiming that the only reason socialism failed is because authoritarian governments were the ones trying it.
> Can you give examples of these so called good, decentralized structures that performed well under socialism?
You need look no further than the co-ops and communes that exist today, but if you're looking for historical examples where socialism improved the conditions upon what existed before, the Jewish kibbutz communities of the 1900s and Thomas Sankara's Burkina Faso are a few examples.
>I dunno man. I feel like if something ends up in genocides, mass starvations and/or complete colapse of the state multiple times we should probably stop trying that.
I agree. The only difference is you're blaming the entire economic concept of socialism for these things, whereas I am looking at the specific policies and mistakes that led to them. When I look at communist China, I can point to very specific decisions that led to disasters like the famine; the planned economy, entire regions being forced by gunpoint to move away from agrarianism, the ostracization and elimination of intellectuals who knew what the fuck was going on, etc
>I am criticizing authoritarianism as a means of instituting socialism
Not gonna attack you or anything, but how can one institute socialism without authoritarianism on a national scale? I understand the worker coops and am all for it, but they are by nature voluntary. So your idea is creating socialism on a small and voluntary foundation? I can admire the idea, but how would this help against the worst excesses of capitalism that you describe and are against? Like as I see it, this line of thinking amounts to "Wouldn't it be cool if everyone was nice to each other?" I mean, sure a noble goal, but not an attainable one. Or did I miss anything?
For the record I live in a country with a strong socdem background.
The issue I see is that co ops and communes operate within a larger capitalistic market. The commune isn’t entirely self sufficient but is reliant on much larger systems that exist outside of itself, so it goes to a market and sells its wares to buy the things that it needs that it can’t produce for itself. So how do you have a full socialist system when this is the case?
While the commenter can explain their reasons for advocating for something, throwing politics at the wall and seeing what sticks just doesn't work. Capitalism has proven itself with results and I don't see any "good, decentralized structures" under Socialism today.
If you want to apply that standard to civilizations as a whole instead of economic systems, No civilization ever is worth anything.
You aren't even using the standard I set. I said if it ends up on one of those three situations EVERY TIME its implemented.
I know your brain is lacking enough nutrients to function properly but man, at least try to strain it a little bit.
What a pointless thing to say lmao.
I love the scene in American Factory (netflix documentary) where they show the chinese boss of the union is a brother of the factory owner (that busted union in US) and they are all members of communist party
Except they weren’t? They were economically left wing (what the compass cares about mostly), and socially right wing (which, btw, most communists have always and continue to be. Go see what Stalin or Che thought of gay people)
I would prefer if you would see what Che thought of gay people. Because he was not a homophobe last time I checked.
Stalin no doubt was socially a right-wing conservative, including anti-semitic.
Those other socialists were the strasserites. To simplify their ideology, they were a radical faction within the nazi party who believed that the nazi party wasn't socialist enough. They believed they needed to overthrow Hitler to implement a second revolution. They were just as anti-Semitic as the nazi party, but they believed that all the wealth should be taken from the junkers.
These guys were not good people.
"See, the thing about us socialists is that we are the only real socialists and everyone else are posers and fake socialists" This is why I believe socialists should never ally with other socialists, and there should never be a socialist nation.
Socialism just has such basic internal contradiction as a goal ( "Stateless, moneyless, classless") that you cant really get anyone to agree on how it should work.
Most socialists want communism and use socialism as a vehicle for socialism, or they just use the terms interchangeably, or their socialism is about 1 step from communism. For people who bitch so hard about you misusing words, they really can’t get their own words correct
>Most socialists want communism and use socialism as a vehicle for socialism
Freudian typo. I've gotta say, it's pretty telling that you didn't even bother to proofread your comment. It's like you're not really invested in the conversation. Just like you can't define "woke", you can't define socialism.
>Freudian typo
Nope, just got the two terms mixed up in my head for a moment too
>Didn’t even bother to proofread
Yeah, it’s fucking Reddit
>It’s like you’re not really invested in the conversation
Yeah, it’s fucking Reddit
>Can’t define socialism
Entirely my point
"Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal \[health or well-being\]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists."
"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic."
"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…"
-Adolf Hitler, 9 July 1932
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions”
-Hitler 1927
"Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism."
-Hitler 1920
Well to quote the funny Austrian moustache man: “We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.”
What makes it absurd? If we accept the idea that socialism is the public control or ownership of the means of production, then why is this definition absurd?
had someone tell me communism has never been tried because the countries that tried them werent stateless (as in those countries didnt have communism because the countries existed)
Going to play Devil's Advocate: The Soviet Union represented the workers, therefore they did not need a full and independent trade union, because the *worker's state* protected their rights. The Nazis did not.
-----
I don't actually believe this, not for a second. But I'm sort of tired of mediocre memes like this, they're not even "political compass" memes, you could just remove the compass entirely and the meme would be the exact same.
> Going to play Devil's Advocate: The Soviet Union represented the workers, therefore they did not need a full and independent trade union, because the worker's state protected their rights. The Nazis did not.
The Nazi state also claimed to represent the worker. The party was literally the National-Socialist German Workers Party.
>Yeah, but they didn't abolish the capitalist class
Only because Hitler saw what happened to the Russian economy after the Bolsheviks abolished the capitalists. Hitler had big plans and needed to get a lot of shit done as quickly as possible. He was smart enough to understand that it was better to control the capitalists in order to get what he wanted rather than eliminate them and end up with a basket case economy.
The only difference between Lenin and Hitler is that Hitler kept the capitalists around in the role of competent middle management between the state and the means of production, while Lenin slaughtered competent management wholesale and then had to replace them anyway with people who were not. Oh, and Lenin had a goatee.
Idk about the USSR "representing" the workers. I think a better argument would be that the driving goal was not the same, regardless of the steps taken.
The Soviets did not set out to establish an empire with ethnic russians at the top of the hierarchy, even if in practice they ended up doing that, while the Nazis pretty explicitly set out to establish an empire with ethnic germans at the top of the hierarchy.
Likewise the Nazis didn't set out to establish a command economy, even if in practice they did some of that, while the Soviets pretty explicitly did.
“Nazi germany had social programs therefore it was socialist!!!1!”
Never mind that they privatised most industries and gave them to quasi-oligarchs, never mind that the distribution of wealth or property was based on your race or heritage, and therefor never could have been socialist. Don’t worry about the fact that the Nazi government was characterised by massive interventions to save private businesses.
Knight of long knives? Never heard of it. Doesn’t matter that the Nazi’s shipped just about every prominent member of the socialist and communist parties off to concentration camps, and assassinated ‘German socialist leaders, it’s in the name! Nationalist Socialist! Therefor they are socialist.
The Nazis were not socialists, they were pro-capitalist fascists protecting the interests of the bourgeois. The Nazis had no interest in abolishing capitalism or reducing the power of the bourgeois. The bourgeois saw their profits falling in the Great Depression and decided to fund the Nazis to protect their interests. Had it not been for these deteriorating material conditions, the Weimar Republic would never had fallen. Fascism is the use of reaction and authoritarianism to protect the interests of capital. Busting the unions and privatizing state industries was done so the bourgeois who funded the Nazis could cut costs and/or increase profits.
To this, many right wing “libertarians” will object and say the Nazis used slave labor, therefore they are not “real pro-capitalists”. This is a non sequitur. When the bourgeois see their profits falling, they are incentivized to break the rules to increase their profits. The crises and contradictions in the capitalistic system causes the bourgeois to engage in desperate measures to cut costs and preserve their profits.
In short, the Nazis’ purpose was to preserve the collapsing capitalist system and protect it against proletarian threats. Simply saying “the Nazis had big government so socialism” is devoid of any material analysis.
https://preview.redd.it/lbr51ullhy8d1.jpeg?width=943&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f2287740998a675b7388a1559c6617ab737915de
That's cap. There were plenty of private companies in Nazi Germany including but not limited to Audi, Hugo Boss, Deutsche Bank, Krupp, IG Farben AB, BMW, and more.
But speaking specifically about the NSDAP, the English word for "privatization" was literally invented to describe their sweeping economic policies. Socialists can't agree on much *besides* the fact that we don't like privatization, it's the only commonality in many situations.
the English word for "privatization" was literally invented to describe their sweeping economic policies.
The English also call private schools 'public school'. Let's not pretend English word usage means anything.
There's nothing 'private' about being the 'owner', but answering to the state about everything. Stop conflating UK english "terms" with what is actually meant by "privitization" in these debates.
>There's nothing 'private' about being the 'owner', but answering to the state about everything.
I mean, *definitionally* there is a difference, but I get your point. My point is that it's bad either way, doesn't matter if enterprise is owned by the state or a wealthy individual. Functionally amounts to the same thing for the worker.
>My point is that it's bad either way, doesn't matter if enterprise is owned by the state or a wealthy individual.
The latter is far better. Also, there is no tenable option 3. Ownership by 'workers' always ends up as state ownership.
I mean, I would generally agree with that. An individual is easier to manipulate than the state. But the two are usually joined at the hip under capitalism anyhow.
So your problem is that they shot Social Democrats and knock-offs ? Trade Unions were not suppressed, in fact those were the people who could send candidates to the elections (the only candidate)
You can't have independent unions in a socialist state, simply because you can't have strikes. In a centrally planned socialist economy, whether it's the USSR or Nazi Germany, if the workers stop working, then the people starve, and that makes the government look bad, and left wing governments in particular do not like to look bad. Therefore if you stop working for better pay, better conditions, whatever, it is considered treason. Hugo Junkers found this out under the Nazis, and the sailors at Kronstadt found out under the Bolsheviks.
They bamboozled themselves into literal slavery.
It's also a myth perpetuated by leftists that the Nazis murdered socialists whenever they could. There are many, many varieties of socialism, and as long as you weren't a Marxist, [the Nazis welcomed you into the party with open arms:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefsteak_Nazi) >>Beefsteak Nazi (Rindersteak-Nazi) or "Roast-beef Nazi" was a term used in Nazi Germany to describe communists and socialists who joined the Nazi Party.
I believe at one point more than half of the brown shirts in Berlin were former Communist party members.
Sure, because the ideologies are so similar. [Right in Mein Kampf, Hitler says that the only major difference between Marxism and Nazism is racism:](http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt) >>The racial WELTANSCHAUUNG [worldview] is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its WELTANSCHAUUNG [worldview]. >>If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, **it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground.**
So that's why Mussolini and all them were going "That's not real fascism!"
Nah, that's because he was buthurt that the Germans managed to be more popular than him. He was a Socialist before creating his own party and specially at the time Socialists and Communists are used interchangeably
Hitler actually was hated. Fascists in Austria actually persecuted Nazis when they got into power.
>I believe at one point more than half of the brown shirts in Berlin were former Communist party members. Don't forget Mussolini began his "career" as a socialist.
Yes indeed. In fact, fascism proper is really just oldschool socialism with class solidarity replaced with national solidarity, along with a more sensible but still state-controlled economic system. Incidentally, the closest thing we have to a defacto fascist country in the world today is the People's Republic of China. Since Deng Xiaoping and _especially_ since Xi Jinping, they have basically reinvented fascism in all but name.
>as long as you weren't a Marxist And not a Jew
Well yes, and you couldn’t be black, gay, trans, Romani, or plenty of other “undesirables”, but those are social and not economic policies
If you poke at it a bit, being a jew was fairly arbitrary
Imafine being so politically illiterate and biased that you don't even bother reading your own source. Stereotypical teenage PCM warrior
Average "libright".
[удалено]
It always gets me how people will admit Nazi's used symbols and ideology they weren't at all aligned with just to gain power but somehow the socialist part wasn't a lie to them. Anything to maintain the echo chamber I guess
[удалено]
[удалено]
>***beefsteak Nazis continued*** during the suppression of communists and socialists Sounds a lot like not every beefsteak was killed
And this differs from every other socialist purge how, exactly? They love their post-revolution purity checks.
Yes, they welcomed socialists up until they didn’t and they either got in line or were shipped off to camps. Read your own fucking linked Wikipedia article, it makes explicit mention of the execution of Rohm and the night of long knives. Curious how the term is almost never used again post 1934, wonder what happened then.
The SA got purged because of beefsteaks and the fact that the SA was loyal to the ideology, not to Hitler
Wrong. Rohm was one of Hitler's closest friends, despite being openly gay. Rohm got purged because he became a political threat to Hitler. [That's what leftists do,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge) they purge anyone who becomes a threat to their power.
>despite being openly gay Interesting then that homosexuals were some of those sent to camps. Why is that?
B-but m-muh real socialism! I still don't understand how people advocate for socialism when it's been a catastrophic failure every time it's been tried.
> I still don't understand how people advocate for socialism when it's been a catastrophic failure every time it's been tried. Same way any other cult does: it maintains its failures aren't real, aren't failures, or, if forced to admit them, blames them on external evils or the insufficient faith/effort/orthodoxy of the cult members. See: - "Stalin didn't mass murder people, it was all capitalist propaganda" - "Ok Stalin did mass murder people, but they were counter-revolutionaries/nazis/criminals" - "Ok Stalin did mass murder innocent people, but Stalin wasn't a true socialist, he perverted the Soviet Union from Lenin's vision" And so on, and so forth. There's never an end to the denials, deflections and excuses because it's not a principled or evidence-based creed.
[удалено]
You spoke the truth today.
They're literally at the point where "the kulaks deserved it". You can't come back from "the victims of genocide deserved it".
> You can't come back from "the victims of genocide deserved it". Depends on the victims..
They hit the “kulaks deserved it” stage during the Canadian trucker protest.
It's literally called the paradox of intolerance. I hate having to educate the bougies. Edit: /s
The paradox of intolerance is a stupid stupid position that enshrines you as the ultimate arbiter of "tolerance" and what is good or bad. It has no value.
>I still don’t understand how people advocate for socialism when it’s been a catastrophic failure every time it’s been tried. Because the people advocating it are losers who see this as spinning the roulette of life in the hopes of a better outcome. But like gambling, the best choice is to walk away when you’re up.
I can explain why *I* do, without attempting to speak for anyone else. I advocate for socialism because I agree with the problem that socialists point out in the world (the struggle between the ownership class and the worker) and I agree with their proposed solutions to alleviate or eliminate this problem. There are two reasons I continue to advocate for socialism despite it being a *"catastrophic failure every time it's been tried."* For one thing, I don't believe this to be true. Socialism has been a failure when applied to large, authoritarian states at a national level, this is certainly true. But we've seen successful examples of socialism at a decentralized, local level before, and there continue to be socialist policies instituted by many countries across the world. But the second reason is much more simple than that: something failing to work in the past does not mean it cannot work in the future. If we had that attitude then humanity would have never accomplished all the great things we have. Every truly ambitious thing we've ever attempted as a species has failed before it was successful, that's how you know it was truly something revolutionary. Now obviously something can just be a bad idea and will fail no matter how many times you try it, but most of the *"catastrophic"* attempts at socialism were governments kind of just trying the same thing over and over. I don't want to excuse the failings of the USSR or other socialist regimes, I want to look at what they did to avoid those mistakes.
Based and trying to change for a better future pilled. While I just don't agree with the inherent points of socialism and I just don't think it can ever work whatsoever, I still extremely respect your viewpoint on the matter. I will be honest and say that capitalism has had some market failures in the past, along with other negative side effects tied to it. The reasons you have for advocating for socialism are noble and I do agree that workers do have crucial struggles in life, which is a major reason I support *light* regulations along with private unions.
Capitalism is a great example of my point! Feudalism and mercantilism didn't die off overnight. It took years of revolutions, hard work, and multiple failures before it became the dominant system. Thanks for the kind words! This may surprise you, but I don't get them very often!
Based. Another proponent for market socialism I see.
>For one thing, I don't believe this to be true. Socialism has been a failure when applied to large, authoritarian states at a national level, this is certainly true. Uhhh... many times the authoritarianism came along with the socialism. Or it defeated an already authoritarian state only to be replaced with a socialist authoritarian state. I don't know if this is a good argument. >But we've seen successful examples of socialism at a decentralized, local level before, and there continue to be socialist policies instituted by many countries across the world. Can you give examples of these so called good, decentralized structures that performed well under socialism? >something failing to work in the past does not mean it cannot work in the future. If we had that attitude then humanity would have never accomplished all the great things we have. I dunno man. I feel like if something ends up in genocides, mass starvations and/or complete colapse of the state multiple times we should probably stop trying that.
>Uhhh... many times the authoritarianism came along with the socialism. Or it defeated an already authoritarian state only to be replaced with a socialist authoritarian state. I don't know if this is a good argument. I wasn't making the argument you seem to think I was. I am criticizing authoritarianism as a means of instituting socialism, not claiming that the only reason socialism failed is because authoritarian governments were the ones trying it. > Can you give examples of these so called good, decentralized structures that performed well under socialism? You need look no further than the co-ops and communes that exist today, but if you're looking for historical examples where socialism improved the conditions upon what existed before, the Jewish kibbutz communities of the 1900s and Thomas Sankara's Burkina Faso are a few examples. >I dunno man. I feel like if something ends up in genocides, mass starvations and/or complete colapse of the state multiple times we should probably stop trying that. I agree. The only difference is you're blaming the entire economic concept of socialism for these things, whereas I am looking at the specific policies and mistakes that led to them. When I look at communist China, I can point to very specific decisions that led to disasters like the famine; the planned economy, entire regions being forced by gunpoint to move away from agrarianism, the ostracization and elimination of intellectuals who knew what the fuck was going on, etc
>I am criticizing authoritarianism as a means of instituting socialism Not gonna attack you or anything, but how can one institute socialism without authoritarianism on a national scale? I understand the worker coops and am all for it, but they are by nature voluntary. So your idea is creating socialism on a small and voluntary foundation? I can admire the idea, but how would this help against the worst excesses of capitalism that you describe and are against? Like as I see it, this line of thinking amounts to "Wouldn't it be cool if everyone was nice to each other?" I mean, sure a noble goal, but not an attainable one. Or did I miss anything? For the record I live in a country with a strong socdem background.
I see. I mean I disagree on a general sense. But, I can respect your thought process. Thanks for the actual answer.
The issue I see is that co ops and communes operate within a larger capitalistic market. The commune isn’t entirely self sufficient but is reliant on much larger systems that exist outside of itself, so it goes to a market and sells its wares to buy the things that it needs that it can’t produce for itself. So how do you have a full socialist system when this is the case?
While the commenter can explain their reasons for advocating for something, throwing politics at the wall and seeing what sticks just doesn't work. Capitalism has proven itself with results and I don't see any "good, decentralized structures" under Socialism today.
Western civilization is full of examples of your last paragraph
Okay? No one is talking about west vs east, my guy. You are truly commie brained. Its amazing.
I didn’t mention anything about the east. Just pointing out your standard would mean western civilization was worthless
If you want to apply that standard to civilizations as a whole instead of economic systems, No civilization ever is worth anything. You aren't even using the standard I set. I said if it ends up on one of those three situations EVERY TIME its implemented. I know your brain is lacking enough nutrients to function properly but man, at least try to strain it a little bit. What a pointless thing to say lmao.
You deserve an upvote just because you have an actual and nuanced reason and doesn’t want to get anal voted through ass kissing by Daddy Stalin.
Ackshully, if socialism isn't international, it isn't socialism. National socialism. SMH
Every time I see the word socialism I have to check urban dictionary to make sure it still means what I think it means
I love the scene in American Factory (netflix documentary) where they show the chinese boss of the union is a brother of the factory owner (that busted union in US) and they are all members of communist party
My mom showed me part of that documentary like five years ago and said: “This is why the Chinese are kicking our asses”
"Nazis were socialists, look at the name!" "Erm actually Antifa aren't anti-fascists, the name is irrelevant"
who cares what the commies have to say, just bully them until they go away
The answer is always yes.
Saying the Soviets weren't socialists is the same level of dumb as saying the Nazis aren't right wing.
Except they weren’t? They were economically left wing (what the compass cares about mostly), and socially right wing (which, btw, most communists have always and continue to be. Go see what Stalin or Che thought of gay people)
I would prefer if you would see what Che thought of gay people. Because he was not a homophobe last time I checked. Stalin no doubt was socially a right-wing conservative, including anti-semitic.
Didn't Che literally execute gay people?
No he quite literally did not. I wonder what else you might believe that isn't based on actual events.
They were economically left wing. They were not socialists. Oh, and the compass changes with the time.
Socialism is a nebulous stupidly defined term that you could get 200 definitions for from a room of 100 leftists
Socialism = State ownership of the production. That's literally what it is. No other definitions.
[удалено]
Thousands of companies that worked in Nazi Germany disagree
[удалено]
They just had to do the government quotas. They werent state owned. If they were, how would there be international companies?
[удалено]
Those other socialists were the strasserites. To simplify their ideology, they were a radical faction within the nazi party who believed that the nazi party wasn't socialist enough. They believed they needed to overthrow Hitler to implement a second revolution. They were just as anti-Semitic as the nazi party, but they believed that all the wealth should be taken from the junkers. These guys were not good people.
It's not like Mensheviks and Trots were good guys either.
"See, the thing about us socialists is that we are the only real socialists and everyone else are posers and fake socialists" This is why I believe socialists should never ally with other socialists, and there should never be a socialist nation.
Socialism just has such basic internal contradiction as a goal ( "Stateless, moneyless, classless") that you cant really get anyone to agree on how it should work.
That's Communism
Most socialists want communism and use socialism as a vehicle for socialism, or they just use the terms interchangeably, or their socialism is about 1 step from communism. For people who bitch so hard about you misusing words, they really can’t get their own words correct
>Most socialists want communism and use socialism as a vehicle for socialism Freudian typo. I've gotta say, it's pretty telling that you didn't even bother to proofread your comment. It's like you're not really invested in the conversation. Just like you can't define "woke", you can't define socialism.
>Freudian typo Nope, just got the two terms mixed up in my head for a moment too >Didn’t even bother to proofread Yeah, it’s fucking Reddit >It’s like you’re not really invested in the conversation Yeah, it’s fucking Reddit >Can’t define socialism Entirely my point
It stops being socialism when things go wrong. Duh.
As someone without any stake in revisionism of the USSR that just seems more like the USSR was more fascist instead of the Nazis were more socialist.
[удалено]
"Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal \[health or well-being\]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists." "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic." "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…" -Adolf Hitler, 9 July 1932 “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions” -Hitler 1927 "Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism." -Hitler 1920
Well to quote the funny Austrian moustache man: “We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.”
But whenever people call them socialists they imply the Marxist type, no?
If you can't spot the absurdity in this redefinition, you are about as politically literate as the Austrian painter himself. Au revoir, KDN2006!
What makes it absurd? If we accept the idea that socialism is the public control or ownership of the means of production, then why is this definition absurd?
>public control or ownership Did the public control the means of productions in Nazi Germany? No. Get that fact inside your head, teenager.
https://youtu.be/ELXLxmXM_vw?si=5PFX-8cyj4xvCA-I I feel this show needs to come back
Are you new to "that wasn't real socialism if it was bad"?
Yes
had someone tell me communism has never been tried because the countries that tried them werent stateless (as in those countries didnt have communism because the countries existed)
Based
Surprisingly one of the more interesting comment sections for this topic.
Liblefts hate the Soviet Union for this exact reason, so yes
Saying the Soviets weren't socialists is the same level of dumb as saying the Nazis aren't right wing.
Interesting how whenever you put this type of system in the government, the State gets very aggressive and strict Hmmmmmm
I’ve taught my kids to use guns so bring it. Lol
Wild that the best implementation of socialism - the kibbutz - is so hated by leftists…
Exactly, they were not.
The Nazis and the USSR weren't socialist.
Going to play Devil's Advocate: The Soviet Union represented the workers, therefore they did not need a full and independent trade union, because the *worker's state* protected their rights. The Nazis did not. ----- I don't actually believe this, not for a second. But I'm sort of tired of mediocre memes like this, they're not even "political compass" memes, you could just remove the compass entirely and the meme would be the exact same.
> Going to play Devil's Advocate: The Soviet Union represented the workers, therefore they did not need a full and independent trade union, because the worker's state protected their rights. The Nazis did not. The Nazi state also claimed to represent the worker. The party was literally the National-Socialist German Workers Party.
>Yeah, but they didn't abolish the capitalist class Only because Hitler saw what happened to the Russian economy after the Bolsheviks abolished the capitalists. Hitler had big plans and needed to get a lot of shit done as quickly as possible. He was smart enough to understand that it was better to control the capitalists in order to get what he wanted rather than eliminate them and end up with a basket case economy.
The only difference between Lenin and Hitler is that Hitler kept the capitalists around in the role of competent middle management between the state and the means of production, while Lenin slaughtered competent management wholesale and then had to replace them anyway with people who were not. Oh, and Lenin had a goatee.
Exactly.
Idk about the USSR "representing" the workers. I think a better argument would be that the driving goal was not the same, regardless of the steps taken. The Soviets did not set out to establish an empire with ethnic russians at the top of the hierarchy, even if in practice they ended up doing that, while the Nazis pretty explicitly set out to establish an empire with ethnic germans at the top of the hierarchy. Likewise the Nazis didn't set out to establish a command economy, even if in practice they did some of that, while the Soviets pretty explicitly did.
For whom they came first again?
“Nazi germany had social programs therefore it was socialist!!!1!” Never mind that they privatised most industries and gave them to quasi-oligarchs, never mind that the distribution of wealth or property was based on your race or heritage, and therefor never could have been socialist. Don’t worry about the fact that the Nazi government was characterised by massive interventions to save private businesses. Knight of long knives? Never heard of it. Doesn’t matter that the Nazi’s shipped just about every prominent member of the socialist and communist parties off to concentration camps, and assassinated ‘German socialist leaders, it’s in the name! Nationalist Socialist! Therefor they are socialist.
Yeah, USSR did their purges before it became lame
False equivalence + aryanization of businesses
The Nazi Germany was as capitalist as a state can get.
The Nazis were supported by wealthy industrialists and AFAIK considered themselves third-positionist economically.
The Nazis were not socialists, they were pro-capitalist fascists protecting the interests of the bourgeois. The Nazis had no interest in abolishing capitalism or reducing the power of the bourgeois. The bourgeois saw their profits falling in the Great Depression and decided to fund the Nazis to protect their interests. Had it not been for these deteriorating material conditions, the Weimar Republic would never had fallen. Fascism is the use of reaction and authoritarianism to protect the interests of capital. Busting the unions and privatizing state industries was done so the bourgeois who funded the Nazis could cut costs and/or increase profits. To this, many right wing “libertarians” will object and say the Nazis used slave labor, therefore they are not “real pro-capitalists”. This is a non sequitur. When the bourgeois see their profits falling, they are incentivized to break the rules to increase their profits. The crises and contradictions in the capitalistic system causes the bourgeois to engage in desperate measures to cut costs and preserve their profits. In short, the Nazis’ purpose was to preserve the collapsing capitalist system and protect it against proletarian threats. Simply saying “the Nazis had big government so socialism” is devoid of any material analysis. https://preview.redd.it/lbr51ullhy8d1.jpeg?width=943&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f2287740998a675b7388a1559c6617ab737915de
[удалено]
That's cap. There were plenty of private companies in Nazi Germany including but not limited to Audi, Hugo Boss, Deutsche Bank, Krupp, IG Farben AB, BMW, and more.
[удалено]
They absolutely did. The owners of those business got to profit off of their businesses.
[удалено]
Their ability to take the businesses away does not mean they did. None of the businesses listed above were ever expropriated.
Nazis weren't socialist. Only fucking Americans say that.
So only Americans speak the truth, yet another European L
>The Soviets and every other socialist regime, were they not socialist by your logic? No, they were not. :)
But speaking specifically about the NSDAP, the English word for "privatization" was literally invented to describe their sweeping economic policies. Socialists can't agree on much *besides* the fact that we don't like privatization, it's the only commonality in many situations.
the English word for "privatization" was literally invented to describe their sweeping economic policies. The English also call private schools 'public school'. Let's not pretend English word usage means anything. There's nothing 'private' about being the 'owner', but answering to the state about everything. Stop conflating UK english "terms" with what is actually meant by "privitization" in these debates.
>There's nothing 'private' about being the 'owner', but answering to the state about everything. I mean, *definitionally* there is a difference, but I get your point. My point is that it's bad either way, doesn't matter if enterprise is owned by the state or a wealthy individual. Functionally amounts to the same thing for the worker.
>My point is that it's bad either way, doesn't matter if enterprise is owned by the state or a wealthy individual. The latter is far better. Also, there is no tenable option 3. Ownership by 'workers' always ends up as state ownership.
I mean, I would generally agree with that. An individual is easier to manipulate than the state. But the two are usually joined at the hip under capitalism anyhow.
The differences between Nazism and Socialism is mainly what they promise to do.
Suppressing trade unions is based. 
So your problem is that they shot Social Democrats and knock-offs ? Trade Unions were not suppressed, in fact those were the people who could send candidates to the elections (the only candidate)
The All-Union Central Council of
Still don’t think the Nazis were socialists though. They were socialists in the same way that North Korea is democratic.