Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am new to this subject. Since the word socialist seems to be throw around alot today. I started to read up on it. To me their beliefs seem to be very close to each other.I know both have had mad men for leaders i.e. Hitler and Stalin. But I'm asking about their ideas and systems of goverment.
First of all, any government can call itself socialist, without introducing any socialist policies. Like the famous People's Democratic Republics, which were democratic in name only.
Socialist is a pretty clearly defined hue of political economics, and it's important to make sure you are talking about socialism when you use the term. For example, there is nothing "socialistic" about the government injecting public wealth into war profiteers and their shareholders. Socialist, at its root, implies the distribution of wealth among the entire population, not just the fat cats, and if that feature is not present, then it is not socialism.
Hitler, Stalin and Socialism are very very different actually. Socialism is defined by no leaders and collective ownership by the people. Communism is a dictator and government ownership of industry. Fascism is a dictatorship with government regulations on business, but not outright control or capitalism (often called "The Third Position"), in addition to extreme nationalism and racial bias.
Hitler and Stalin's ideologies aren't the same thing based on levels of control of the economy, plus Fascism blames Liberalism and Communism for societal problems (class conflict) and attempts to exterminate them to solve this strife. Socialism is not even close to either, since the definition requires no government and political equality.
Many political pundits use these words interchangeably to polarize people. Often both the pundits and audience have little idea what they actually mean, and often bear no resemblance to what they slander, but get emotionally charged because of the negative emotional quality assigned to each. Wiki has some good definitions of each, plus historical examples.
National Socialism usually refers to a political mindset, while socialism is primarily seen as an economic theory. National Socialism conveys a strong, fervent sense of nationalistic pride and patriotism, usually backed-up by a strong, aggressive military. It also usually refers to a sense of distrust of outsiders. Regular socialism includes none of these ideas. Now: democratic socialism is what some european countries have incorporated, like France. And that is also what many people here feel Obama is attempting to put into play.
Hitler, Stalin and Socialism are very very different actually. Socialism is defined by no leaders and collective ownership by the people. Communism is a dictator and government ownership of industry. Fascism is a dictatorship with government regulations on business, but not outright control or capitalism (often called "The Third Position"), in addition to extreme nationalism and racial bias.
Hitler and Stalin's ideologies aren't the same thing based on levels of control of the economy, plus Fascism blames Liberalism and Communism for societal problems (class conflict) and attempts to exterminate them to solve this strife. Socialism is not even close to either, since the definition requires no government and political equality.
Many political pundits use these words interchangeably to polarize people. Often both the pundits and audience have little idea what they actually mean, and often bear no resemblance to what they slander, but get emotionally charged because of the negative emotional quality assigned to each. Wiki has some good definitions of each, plus historical examples.
Hitler, Stalin and Socialism are very very different actually. Socialism is defined by no leaders and collective ownership by the people. Communism is a dictator and government ownership of industry. Fascism is a dictatorship with government regulations on business, but not outright control or capitalism (often called "The Third Position"), in addition to extreme nationalism and racial bias.
Hitler and Stalin's ideologies aren't the same thing based on levels of control of the economy, plus Fascism blames Liberalism and Communism for societal problems (class conflict) and attempts to exterminate them to solve this strife. Socialism is not even close to either, since the definition requires no government and political equality.
Many political pundits use these words interchangeably to polarize people. Often both the pundits and audience have little idea what they actually mean, and often bear no resemblance to what they slander, but get emotionally charged because of the negative emotional quality assigned to each. Wiki has some good definitions of each, plus historical examples.
Well stated.
Hitler was indeed a Facist, and that ideology runs almost counter to Socialism, and considered Communism the msot dire of enemies. The party he ran in might have called themselves the National Socialist Worker's Party, but by the time Hitler gained power the party had evolved into anything BUT socialist.
Islam simple doesn't have the staying power that Russia had, depsite 9/11. No hordes of Muslim tanks rolling across Europe, no Mutually Assured Destruction with a Muslim country, despite the best attempts of the Right (sic). So now that the former USSR is no more and Russia is of little to no threat to the US, the empty party rhetoric attempts to ressurect the Old Fears and equate anything that runs counter with party ideology with the old USSR, interchanging Nazi Facism and Russian "Socialist Communism" with quite apperent, and ignorant, ease.
What a difference the state makes, democratic socialism, vs, state socialism. State socialism is, and always has been, a construct that serves the state, not the citizens. It is very different from the democratic types of socialism in the European nations of today.
In America we have the spectacle of big business being against the very idea of socialized medicine, socialized higher education, housing, and many other aspects of living that the rich have an abundant supply of. The hypocricy of the anti socialism crowd of well heeled CEO's and others becomes apparent when we see that the government/big business combine has indeed created a "special" kind of socialism here in America, the government takes from the masses and gives to the corporate welfare queens, the total amount of dollars given in this scenario are much greater than the general welfare for the nations neediest people.
The state has always been the front for it's real masters, the merchant class. Beginning in the colonies, the planting class needed to create a government that assured their position of economic control, the "new" government was formed to prevent the liberation of all peoples from the tyranny of the Crown. The wealthiest men created a government that prohibited those without land from voting, it also prevented the participation of Women in the voting, they had slaves, they killed the Indians for their land.
This was the beginning of the rise of capitalism in the raw, a crude form of collectivism that rewarded the cruelest and most contemptible men. We have been able to modify that earlier model of greed driven government, but, we can see from recent events that the original concept is alive and well, that is, the unholy alliance between government and it's wealthiest citizens.
No country has a complete system of fair economics, the fear of a real, equitable, distribution of wealth, is what keeps most government agencies from doing anything but maintaining the illusion of fairness, but, any fool can see the results. As a side note, I've often wondered why so many folk's have bought into the myth of this being a Christian nation, all the evidence points to anything but.
The that I have considered this question and the more that I have reviewed the literature, the more I am coming to think that National Socialism had little to do with either fascism or socialism. This strange and abhorrent philosophy had more to do with Hitler's singular and monstrous vision of nationalism than anything ever devised by any of the Italian fascist theorist and certainly nothing akin to anything promoted by any socialist that I've ever read. Like many things with Hitler, borrowing phrases that sounded good, names that intentionally designed to mislead as long as they lead to hsi rise to unequaled power appear to be the sole underpinning of political philosophy.
I am new to this subject. Since the word socialist seems to be throw around alot today. I started to read up on it. To me their beliefs seem to be very close to each other.I know both have had mad men for leaders i.e. Hitler and Stalin. But I'm asking about their ideas and systems of goverment.
Hitler started out somewhere between Fascism and Socialism. The SA was a Peoples Army, sort of like todays Tea Baggers but in uniform. They showed up at Political Rallies and fought tooth and nail with the Communists. Until 1933 the SA under Ernst Roehm was supposed to be armed amnd replace the Army.
In 1933 Hitler led in the elections but did not have a majority. He was approached by an alliance of the Army and Industrialists, represented by Prescott Bush, who had minor parties with enough seats to make him Chancellor. The terms were that he had to sell out the Socialists and the SA. He did and became Chancellor. Socialists were jailed or shot and he bacame the first true Corporate Fascist.
What a difference the state makes, democratic socialism, vs, state socialism. State socialism is, and always has been, a construct that serves the state, not the citizens. It is very different from the democratic types of socialism in the European nations of today.
In America we have the spectacle of big business being against the very idea of socialized medicine, socialized higher education, housing, and many other aspects of living that the rich have an abundant supply of. The hypocricy of the anti socialism crowd of well heeled CEO's and others becomes apparent when we see that the government/big business combine has indeed created a "special" kind of socialism here in America, the government takes from the masses and gives to the corporate welfare queens, the total amount of dollars given in this scenario are much greater than the general welfare for the nations neediest people.
......
So well put.
Having lived in Europe and experienced what is generally considered the positive aspects of socialist democracies, I cringe when I hear the anti socialist rhetoric here in the States. It's painful to hear the rantings of the anti socialist crowd in the US (as well as embarrassing for Americans to some degree), as well as to see the term "socialist" as something to be immediately interpreted as negative and frightening. I think there is a real reason to be concerned that people are learning their political terminology through sensationalist news sources.
jertheber- your post much appreciated
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
