• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was national socialism, socialism?

Was national socialism, socialism?

  • Yes, it was socialist

    Votes: 5 35.7%
  • No, it wasn't socialist

    Votes: 9 64.3%

  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
Just like everywhere back in the 20's and 30's, the communists were a big part of labor unions.

Hitler was anti-communist, this stance was one of the major things that brought him to power. People, business were afraid the communists would come to power and take their stuff, as communists do.

But communists are why Hitler attacked the unions.

The Nazis installed unions of their own, free of communists, of course.

Well no trade unionists were murdered period. Its why wealthy capitalists supported the third reich along with the ability to buy slaves.
 
Germany's unemployment rate:

1280px-Unemployment-rate-germany-1932-1939.svg.png

1/3rd of which was accomplished via conscription and paying women to stay home in the hopes that they would produce more babies.

Which ultimately would have been useless once Germany is no longer able to pay for the imports she needs to survive. Germany's biggest industries were manufacturing textiles, both dependent on foreign imports to operate. By 1939 German production began to slow down despite being on the eve of war due to a shortage of raw materials.
 
The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business.

And the obsession with state says it all. Socialist literature is very clearly anti-statism.

What matters is how socialism works in practice, not in theory. I want to focus on this one claim, because I want to see you defend socialism as anti-statist.


First, consider Bernie Sanders, who has been calling himself a socialist for 40 years. Do you deny that his entire platform consists of massively increasing the size and scope of the state?

Second, every socialist government that has ever existed has drastically increased the power of the state over the people.

Third, socialism is defined as public ownership/control of the means of production. About 98% of the time, that means state ownership/control. As you know, dictionaries don't define words, they report usage, and what they report is how I am using the word:



Merriam-Webster: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Lexico: A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

American Heritage: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Collins English Dictionary: an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state.

Macmillan Dictionary: a political system that aims to create a society in which everyone has equal opportunities and in which the most important industries are owned or controlled by the whole community

Cambridge: any economic or political system based on government ownership and control of important businesses and methods of production

Wikitionary: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Infoplease: theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Dictionary.com: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Allwords: Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making and public control of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists.

MnemonicDictionary: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry

FreeDictionary: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.



While I concede that socialism could work without state enforcement, the reality is humans overwhelmingly do not want to work for the common good, they want to work for themselves, which means when you impose socialism on them they resist, which necessitates the killing fields that are part and parcel of every socialist economy. Call them Nazis or Commies, doesn't matter, it's the same butcher with a different apron.
 
It could be argued that they were effectively centrists or centre-right but the notion that the NSDAP was socialist or even marginally leftist is hilariously stupid and wrong.
 
The German autobahn system of roads, built by Hitler, is still the envy of the world.
Hitler stole the concept, saddling onto a horse already broken in. IOW he enlarged what was already there.
 
The Nazi regime (and the other fascist states) were basically corporatist in their economic policies. Hitler adopted certain aspects of socialism, though he did not share their ideological goals. Moreover, his policies improved the German economy, which would strongly indicate that he was not a real socialist.
By 1939 the German state was broke.
 
Germany's unemployment rate:

1280px-Unemployment-rate-germany-1932-1939.svg.png
low unemployment figures do not signify financial stability of a state. Especially not when "employment" is concocted as artificially as it was under the Nazis.
 
It could be argued that they were effectively centrists or centre-right but the notion that the NSDAP was socialist or even marginally leftist is hilariously stupid and wrong.
Yeah, basically they just put the term "socialist" into their monicker to stick it to the commies and the Social Democrats.

It amazes me to this day how those leery of socialism are still falling for that ploy.
 
Yeah, basically they just put the term "socialist" into their monicker to stick it to the commies and the Social Democrats.

It amazes me to this day how those leery of socialism are still falling for that ploy.

According to the logic of a lot of people in this thread North Korea must be democratic because it calls itself as such and they have "elections".
 
What matters is how socialism works in practice, not in theory.

In what world do results invalidate intentions?

I want to focus on this one claim, because I want to see you defend socialism as anti-statist.

That's what socialist literature says pretty much verbatim. I'm not a socialist, but that is what they say.

First, consider Bernie Sanders, who has been calling himself a socialist for 40 years. Do you deny that his entire platform consists of massively increasing the size and scope of the state?

Does decriminalizing marijuana count as massively increasing the size and scope of the state? Keeping abortion legal? Opposing the death penalty? Keeping Church and State separate?

Second, every socialist government that has ever existed has drastically increased the power of the state over the people.

A state having control over the people is the basis of practically every form of government. Were the Romans socialists? The German Empire?

You're attributing to socialism something it did not invent or make widespread.

Third, socialism is defined as public ownership/control of the means of production. About 98% of the time, that means state ownership/control.[/QUOTE]

Actually, public ownership means public ownership and state control means state control. Words have meanings for a reason.

Call them Nazis or Commies, doesn't matter, it's the same butcher with a different apron.

Simply lumping everyone together because of perceived similarities makes honest discussion and study impossible.

Nazi Germany regularly get lumped together because they were totalitarian states that existed around the same time, but they were fundamentally different states ruled by drastically different philosophies.
 
Was national socialism, socialism?

What is socialism? Big government. Free health care, free food, old age pensions, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes and interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance. And even nationalizing private industry.

Not really though it has some socialistic elements the same way all modern countries and economies do.

As Matthew White put it in his book "The Great Big Book of Horrible Things".

Adding "socialism" to the title was mainly a way to appeal to the workers. And it sounded better than calling it the "We're Going to Stomp to Death Everyone Who Opposes Us" Party.
 
Yeah, basically they just put the term "socialist" into their monicker to stick it to the commies and the Social Democrats.

It amazes me to this day how those leery of socialism are still falling for that ploy.

"Only in America" as they say. Here in the UK the first thugs have turned up in London "to protect our historic statues" attacking police and Nazi saluring around Churchill's statue!
 
According to the logic of a lot of people in this thread North Korea must be democratic because it calls itself as such and they have "elections".


The Nazis provided a plethora of social welfare programs under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft, which promoted the collectivity of a people's community where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated 8,000 day-nurseries by 1939 and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families and was involved with a wide variety of other facilities.[7]

The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes and interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance, which was not decreed mandatory until 1941.[8] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible "for travellers' aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; support for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics".[9] The Office of Youth Relief, which had 30,000 branch offices by 1941, took the job of supervising "social workers, corrective training, mediation assistance" and dealing with judicial authorities to prevent juvenile delinquency.[10]

One of the NSV's premier activities was the Winter Relief of the German People, which coordinated an annual drive to collect charity for the poor under the slogan: "None shall starve or freeze". These social welfare programs represented a Hitlerian endeavor to lift the community above the individual while promoting the wellbeing of all bona fide citizens.


https://www.debatepolitics.com/redi...rg/wiki/National_Socialist_People%27s_Welfare





It was a socialist government. The main thing that sets it apart, is that the socialist practices only applied to people of "Aryan" descent. It was a nation built on racism.

In practice, it had a lot more socialism than many socialist countries do today.
 
It was a socialist government. The main thing that sets it apart, is that the socialist practices only applied to people of "Aryan" descent. It was a nation built on racism.

In practice, it had a lot more socialism than many socialist countries do today.

The definition of socialism is not "welfare".
 
Back
Top Bottom