Guns, Guns Guns

I'm taking a deep breath and trying to get the message across. Despite what you may have been told in an economics 1.0.1 class in a conservative state college, socialism is not Marxist, not facist, not totalitarianism, and not some conspiracy for government to control citizens.
It is a system for the commonwealth to regulate care and support for the less fortunate in society. To forstall the obvious comeback, it is not a system to regulate the people but their support.
The US economy today has significant socialist attributes, but admittedly not as much as the advanced nations.
Countries like virtually all of Europe, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia have had democratic socialist systems for many decades if not centuries, and are at least as free as the US.

An example that you may argue against was an article in the financial pages of this weekend papers, describing the culture shock experienced by US executives when visiting their Australian subsidiaries. One scenario went like this. The visiting Senior Vice President is touring a plant with all his flunkies, when a worker approaches him to say that senior management must be f###ing idiots to have done whatever. The high pobar then tells the worker he is sacked, only to have a local flunkey manager explain that he can't do that, due to unfair dismissal laws. Thus our workers are freer than those in the US.

Definitions are everything, Daryl.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

By this definition both Nazis and the USSR fall under the socialist definition. The USSR believed it was democratic because it was a government OF the people and FOR the people. Nazis could make the same claim. Neither claim is accurate to western minds but was made by those nations.

What matters more are what actions the government takes. Today's socialists use more of the capitalist tools than the Soviet Socialists, but have a greater antipathy towards nationalism. In some ways today's socialists have more in common with Nazis and in others they have far less in common with Nazis.

"Social ownership" hmm, me an Aussie owns shares on US companies so tick.
"Democratic control" Pretty sure elected officials create the laws under which companies operate, how they deal with workers and waste products etc. So tick.

Fuck me the US is a socialist country.
LIKE EVERY OTHER WESTEN COUNTRY.

Socialism is not Marxism, despite what the US tea party claim.

Nazism is not socialism.

Just look at actual real history.
Damn near the first thing the Nazi's did after the Reichstag fire was ... imprison the socialists after blaming the fire on them.

Mein Kampf accuses the communists of colluding with the Jews. ( but then the far right tends to ignore what Hitler actually said and did)

AFTER WW2 the German Democratic Republic went full communist. Not that it was a democracy despite the name.

I don't know what is sadder. That Port Arthur is now no longer the largest single gunman masacre, or that the US wont do a fucking thing about their massive gun problem. Or that our right wing PM managed to do a speach on Orlando without mentioning that the victims were gays etc, but manage to turb it into a party political statement on boat people.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Assert away. All I get are assertions that Nazis are not socialists. No rational why this is true, just assertions that they are not.

And socialist jail and prosecute each other with regularity. Bolsheviks did away with Menshevicks after all.

Yes, the US is moving towards socialism and has already gone a good distance into socialism. Why do you think many here are upset?

Annachie wrote:"Social ownership" hmm, me an Aussie owns shares on US companies so tick.
"Democratic control" Pretty sure elected officials create the laws under which companies operate, how they deal with workers and waste products etc. So tick.

Fuck me the US is a socialist country.
LIKE EVERY OTHER WESTEN COUNTRY.

Socialism is not Marxism, despite what the US tea party claim.

Nazism is not socialism.

Just look at actual real history.
Damn near the first thing the Nazi's did after the Reichstag fire was ... imprison the socialists after blaming the fire on them.

Mein Kampf accuses the communists of colluding with the Jews. ( but then the far right tends to ignore what Hitler actually said and did)

AFTER WW2 the German Democratic Republic went full communist. Not that it was a democracy despite the name.

I don't know what is sadder. That Port Arthur is now no longer the largest single gunman masacre, or that the US wont do a fucking thing about their massive gun problem. Or that our right wing PM managed to do a speach on Orlando without mentioning that the victims were gays etc, but manage to turb it into a party political statement on boat people.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Daryl wrote:Fully agree Biochem.
Unfortunately to try to 100% ensure that things like this don't happen, you'd have to develop a society like Stalin or Hitler with political prisoners kept in concentration camps by the hundreds of thousands. It didn't work for them anyway.
The cure would be much worse than the disease.
Back in the 1960s the daily papers were full of Buddists publically burning themselves to death in protests. The Islamic extremist crisis will also eventually become history.

Incidentally equating socialism with the NAZIs makes as much sense as believing the Democratic part of North Korea's official name. When will people get that socialism and totalitarianism are two quite different political concepts. They can be combined, but very rarely are, usually facists are the control freaks.

True you'll still miss some but fewer. People today even (or perhaps especially) those with the type of radical tendencies which makes us worry tend to post everything on social media. Sooner or later they'll come across someone who is smart enough to shut up, but they should be able to red flag most of these guys.

PeterZ wrote:Assert away. All I get are assertions that Nazis are not socialists. No rational why this is true, just assertions that they are not.

They aren't. Time for a bit of compare-and-contrast.

You are right when you say that both socialism and national socialism share certain things. Both advocate a sacrifice of the individual to the collective. Where they differ is in the definition of the collective. For socialism, the collective is the entirety of the working class, globally; For national socialism, the collective is the single state. Where socialism wants to better the lot of all, national socialism only concerns itself with the welfare of one nation.

This is an important distinction. Socialism is not inherently competitive, not inherently intent on distinguishing itself against an Other (because it doesn't recognize the Other as a competitor); national socialism, by contrast, wishes to create a state that is elevated above all others by virtue of the collective works of its citizenry.

In essence, though both philosophies share certain goals, they arrive at them by different means and intend to do different things once they are achieved. The claim that both philosophies are essentially equivalent is fallacious and more of a rhetorical device to create revulsion based on association in the listener or reader. (By which I mean, it's an underhanded rhetorical tactic used by people who are unable to argue against socialism without resorting to cheap tricks)

Yes, the US is moving towards socialism and has already gone a good distance into socialism. Why do you think many here are upset?

Because all you know about socialism is badly remembered propaganda from the days when communism was the greatest evil known to man?

Thank you for providing an answer, The E. I agree totally with the distinctions you make. Both do require the individual be sacrificed for the benefit of the collective. As a matter of fact the degree of sacrifice required by socialism is higher for those individuals that have more to offer. Marx captured the idea best "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Indeed with this as the principal incentive, there is no competition. Why produce more than the bare minimum when excess production is claimed by the collective to a greater or lesser degree? Within the State, national socialism works the same way.

Socialism isn't competitive, but assumes that societies that do not sacrifice the individual to the collective is morally inferior to those that do. That sacrifice must be made by government on behalf of its citizens. In other words it must be imposed upon the individual for the greater good as defined by that government. Mandating individual initiative be sacrificed in this way underscores the principal objections most conservatives have with socialist ideals.

Government imposes its moral paradigm of sacrificing the individual upon the citizenry. This is true for both National Socialism and the more generic Socialism. Supporting the greater good is a choice individuals can make without being mandated to do so by government. Both of these forms of Socialism assumes that citizens won't make that choice must be compelled.

The E wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Assert away. All I get are assertions that Nazis are not socialists. No rational why this is true, just assertions that they are not.

They aren't. Time for a bit of compare-and-contrast.

You are right when you say that both socialism and national socialism share certain things. Both advocate a sacrifice of the individual to the collective. Where they differ is in the definition of the collective. For socialism, the collective is the entirety of the working class, globally; For national socialism, the collective is the single state. Where socialism wants to better the lot of all, national socialism only concerns itself with the welfare of one nation.

This is an important distinction. Socialism is not inherently competitive, not inherently intent on distinguishing itself against an Other (because it doesn't recognize the Other as a competitor); national socialism, by contrast, wishes to create a state that is elevated above all others by virtue of the collective works of its citizenry.

In essence, though both philosophies share certain goals, they arrive at them by different means and intend to do different things once they are achieved. The claim that both philosophies are essentially equivalent is fallacious and more of a rhetorical device to create revulsion based on association in the listener or reader. (By which I mean, it's an underhanded rhetorical tactic used by people who are unable to argue against socialism without resorting to cheap tricks)

Yes, the US is moving towards socialism and has already gone a good distance into socialism. Why do you think many here are upset?

Because all you know about socialism is badly remembered propaganda from the days when communism was the greatest evil known to man?

PeterZ wrote:Wake up and smell tcoffee, gcomeau. Aside from the focus on nationalism you socialists and the Nazis want to control the economy through legislation. Both socialists and Nazis believed that the private sector had to be subject to government control.

Read a history book, and learn what socialism means. Your statements on this topic are just embarrassing. Socialism does not mean controlling the economy "through legislation". Even the link to the wiki page you attempted to use to prove your point refutes it if you actually bothered reading it. Despite conservatives best efforts to redefine reality socialism does not mean "centralized control". Fascism is the polar freaking opposite of socialism on the political/ideological spectrum and it is huge on authoritarianism and state control of everything.

Once again, the Nazis were an explicitly ANTI-socialist party. That was their freaking PLATFORM.

The concentration camps were built FOR SOCIALISTS and trade unionists and communists... the primary political enemies of the Nazis. Putting Jews and others in them came later. Claiming the Nazis were really a bunch of socialists is only slightly less ridiculous and slightly less wildly inappropriate than claiming they were really a bunch of Jews.

The Social Democratic party (which WAS a socialist party) was the only party that seriously stood against the Nazis in German politics when they made their move to secure total power.

The Night of the Long Knives was killing off everyone the party saw as too LEFTIST.



Etc... you are claiming up is down and light is dark in your rewrite of history on this.

PeterZ wrote:Thank you for providing an answer, The E. I agree totally with the distinctions you make. Both do require the individual be sacrificed for the benefit of the collective. As a matter of fact the degree of sacrifice required by socialism is higher for those individuals that have more to offer. Marx captured the idea best "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Have you read the manifesto of the NSDAP? Because it calls upon the abolishment of compound interest, the complete nationalisation of industry, the disowning of landowners without compensation and a strengthening of medium and small businesses. Ostensibly, they were as much about taking from the big guys as the actual communists (in practice, that did not happen, of course. Unless the big guy or landowner happened to be jewish).

Indeed with this as the principal incentive, there is no competition. Why produce more than the bare minimum when excess production is claimed by the collective to a greater or lesser degree? Within the State, national socialism works the same way.

Except that national socialism sees productivity as the highest good: In order to fulfill its goals, it needs to be as productive as possible, else it can't claim to be superior to the rest of the world.

Socialism isn't competitive, but assumes that societies that do not sacrifice the individual to the collective is morally inferior to those that do.

Just as democracies see non-democratic governments as inferior. This is a trait of the human need to see oneself as morally good; it is not something socialism is alone in.

That sacrifice must be made by government on behalf of its citizens. In other words it must be imposed upon the individual for the greater good as defined by that government. Mandating individual initiative be sacrificed in this way underscores the principal objections most conservatives have with socialist ideals.

Except socialism doesn't actually say anything about that. Five year plans and command economies are an expression of a dysfunction socialism is unfortunately prone to, that of vanguardism (the idea that society needs a vanguard in charge that leads the people to salvation because only the vanguard sees the big picture).
"From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs" has room for individuals taking the initiative or acting creatively.

Government imposes its moral paradigm of sacrificing the individual upon the citizenry. This is true for both National Socialism and the more generic Socialism. Supporting the greater good is a choice individuals can make without being mandated to do so by government. Both of these forms of Socialism assumes that citizens won't make that choice must be compelled.

A large part of the social contract in any society is the enforcement of mutually acceptable rules that define what measures of authority any member of the society has to give up in order to be part of the society. Whether that be through law enforcement or cultural mores doesn't matter, the end result is that living in society means sacrificing individual freedoms.

As evidenced by the climate change deniers and the tobacco lobby, you can always find an academic to selectively quote to "prove" your point.
A more practical approach is the old adage of the proof of a pudding is in the eating. Regardless of language definitions all developed countries have had socialist systems for many decades. I feel totally free and not in a police state. Our main national newspaper featured a letter to the editor of mine along with a graphic cartoon showing our PM being an anal suppository to Bush at the Iraqi invasion time. I'm still free.
Some of the comments here talk about the state taking charge of all the citizens' rights. Not so, all functional states do have to regulate some citizen activities, but socialism is not uniquely or specifically involved in this.
Societal norms also regulate behaviour. Despite being largish I can legally wear racing swimming pants (budgee smugglers) downtown, but am not likely to do so.
Despite SMR's assertion I own a number of legal guns, but our society has decided that I have no need or right to carry a handgun when just generally out and about, and I'm happy with that as it brings safety and freedom of movement to me.