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'll preface with the fact that I actually do like Rand Paul as a politician and from what I've seen of him in media. He seems to have the ability to think about things and not take a hard, polarized perspective and I admire that about him. Also that he can admit and learn from his mistakes.
However, I disagree with the definition of "socialism" the OP states that Paul wrote. Socialism by definition and from an historical theoretical position, does not imply that the "government" control the means of production - it implies that the people/community regulate the means of production of a society. Government in the 21st century is not implied and so cannot be defined as the only way of implementing socialism. The people themselves/ourselves can decide that we want XYZ to occur. We can work organically within our community structures to allow this to take place or we can advocate for a centralized government to do XYZ.
Hitler was not some sort of manifestation of Marxism either, as Marxist theory was based upon the idea that human society would experience particular phases (and note his theory was biased with a Eurocentric worldview), whereas there would be "dialectics" of time. The final dialectic would be a socialist dialectic (a period of time) whereas the people would overthrow a capitalist regime and replace it with a communistic regime. Hitler was the embodiment of a populist movement and not a Marxist movement of the socialist dialectic. Also historians accept that Marxism as a theory, failed to materialize. It is primarily only studied from an historical perspective as it relates to specific sub-genres of history. Typically the history of labor, ethnohistory (including the history of race/ethnicity and its formation of a class and upon cultures), etc. It is a tool historians employ typically to review economics of a society and specifically certain time periods/dialectics where a transition took place.
Nazism's goal was not to centralize capitalism within their bureaucratic regime. Hitler was not seeking to defeat capitalism with his rise. So him being defined as some sort of Marxist revolutionary is misguided.
Also Scandinavia actually does participate in a Democratic Socialist sort of bureaucratic existence. The people as a consensus did decide in those nations to provide certain means to all members of a society. They are not communist but they are socialist in nature as socialism does not include a government takeover of free markets in their entirety like communism does.
Interesting chapter late in the book is "Welcome to the Panopticon" about the big-brother aspect of socialism. There is a section about China's facial recognition system for restrooms:
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
Back to the topic of socialism, I found this quote interesting about Bernie Sanders:
Paul gets another quote from Vaclav Klaus, the first prime minister of the Czech Republic after the fall of the USSR:
On these, other than the quote about Bernie Sanders, which is indicative of Marxist theory, all of the others you mention are speaking of communist/communism.
As middle aged mom stated - socialism and communism are not the same things.
If Paul is acting like they are, he needs to take a course on Marxist theory so he can learn the difference.
If I were you, I'd not take anything he says seriously about "socialism" because he is confusing socialism with communism. They are not the same.
Government ownership of all means of production is Communism, not socialism.
It is the definition of Socialism, and not only means of production, but also distribution and exchange.
Socialism: 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.
Communist: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
There are very few countries which are socialist, or in danger of becoming one, which is why the overwhelming fear in US is fairly irrational.
There are degrees of it in US, and elsewhere. For example in Norway, the government owns owns 67% of their oil company. In Sweden, the government controls the distribution of hard liquor. But in both cases, their nations have free market economies.
As opposed to throwing the word around, as saying we are going to become another Cuba, we could attach a rank to some examples, lets say a scale from 1-10 (10=most socialist).
North Korea = 10 (their government owns and operates everything, and people are employees of the govt)
Norway = 5. Free market economy + tax payer funded social services + some govt ownership of industries
US = 4. Free market economy + massive government deficit spending
Venezuela = 8. Increasing government takeovers of private industries
Cuba=9. Government owns pretty much all means of production, distribution and exchange
It may come as a surprise to many, that US is not even in the Top-10 most capitalist nations, while some of the countries which are called socialist are in fact more capitalist than the US.
1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. New Zealand
4. Switzerland
5. Australia
6. Ireland
7. United Kingdom
8. Canada
9. United Arab Emirates
10. Taiwan
Government ownership of all means of production is Communism, not socialism.
Incorrect--gov't ownership of the means of production (and nowhere is it written that it must be "all") is socialism. But socialism allows for private ownership of consumer goods. Communism is the elimination of all private property--everything is owned by the collective, i.e. the gov't.
...
Unfortunately, he contradicts himself in your quotes, by first correctly defining socialism, and then claiming Hiter was socialist even thought he never met the very definition Paul offers. Nazis did not own and operate the means of production. Nazis were a nationalist military dictatorship who put a gun in every mans hand.
I missed this comment at first blush, but it deserves follow-up. In fact, the Nazis did have aspects of gov't ownership of the means of production. Volkswagen, for example, which Hitler helped to found, was a gov't owned automobile manufacturer. Read Hitler's '25 point plan' from 1920. As Rand Paul says:
Quote:
Most of the plan could be found in any Bolshevik platform except for the racial animums against Jews..
Hitler's platform called for "THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY BEFORE THE GOOD OF THE INDIVIDUAL."
One of the 25 points was "We demand the nationalization of all (previous associated industries (trusts." Paul points out that this is "[t]he essence of socialism--state ownership of the means of production."
So yes the Nazis were in fact socialists. It was a new variant, no doubt, which Hitler believed could challenge Bolshevism on its own turf, but socialism nonetheless.
I missed this comment at first blush, but it deserves follow-up. In fact, the Nazis did have aspects of gov't ownership of the means of production. Volkswagen, for example, which Hitler helped to found, was a gov't owned automobile manufacturer. Read Hitler's '25 point plan' from 1920. As Rand Paul says
The Kubelvagen! Yes, a government owned car company is an example of socialism, but for the more part the Nazis left corporations in private hands, probably because they understood they would produce more war goodies that way.
Every country has aspects of socialism, and the debate a about the Nazis being socialist, or radical right wing is a stupid partisan bicker-fest. It is disappointing Ran Paul would even go there, but I guess he had a book to sell to a certain target audience. He might have sold a lot of books if Sanders had won, but it seems he lost that gamble. Either Nazis took ownership of the German industries or they didn't. They did not, so they do not meet the definition.
Incorrect--gov't ownership of the means of production (and nowhere is it written that it must be "all") is socialism. But socialism allows for private ownership of consumer goods. Communism is the elimination of all private property--everything is owned by the collective, i.e. the gov't.
The bold is not true. Socialism doesn't specifically involve "government ownership."
Quote:
Socialism: 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.
As I noted in my previous response, socialism is not always about government. Government is a "bureaucratic structure" in the theory world. Bureaucratic structures and societal structures are two different things. One can have socialism in a society without the input/influence of government. Not so with communism.
I noted I like Rand Paul but one of the things that I've noticed about him before (especially when he went to Howard University, an HBCU and tried to "teach" black college students how Lincoln was a Republican - which made me shake my head at him and laugh) is that he doesn't have a solid amount of knowledge of history and historical theories. Note I'm working on a PhD in history and interestingly, I just took a class about historical theory and had to lead a session on Marxism, so am pretty well informed on this subject. Rand Paul is not based on the quotes you've provided of him. Most theoretical methods go over people's heads, which is why I don't often have conversations about them outside of an academic environment.
The Kubelvagen! Yes, a government owned car company is an example of socialism, but for the more part the Nazis left corporations in private hands, probably because they understood they would produce more war goodies that way.
Every country has aspects of socialism, and the debate a about the Nazis being socialist, or radical right wing is a stupid partisan bicker-fest. It is disappointing Ran Paul would even go there, but I guess he had a book to sell to a certain target audience. He might have sold a lot of books if Sanders had won, but it seems he lost that gamble. Either Nazis took ownership of the German industries or they didn't. They did not, so they do not meet the definition.
It is not necessarily a "stupid partisan bicker-fest." It's important history that is very often distorted.
Here's some more from Rand Paul on Nazism and socialism. This begins with a quote from an economist named George Reisman:
Quote:
"The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands."
But, as we will see, industries were privately owned in name only. State control over industry was so complete that, in reality, owners were essentially stripped of private control of their property.(p.142)
And:
Quote:
"The minister of economics in 1937, reported that 'Germany's export trade involves 40,000 separate transactions daily; yet for a single transaction as many as forty different forms must be filled out.'"(p. 153)
This is how fascism, which allows nominal private ownership of the means of production, morphs into socialism, which does not.
There would be zero point for Rand Paul to have run for president in 2020. Wasting time on quixotic ventures is often a characteristic of libertarians, but happily Rand Paul doesn't suffer from that.
Rand Paul. What a joke he is. Is he going to stand for ending the socialism we pay for to farmers? Coal miners? Appalachia? Medicare recipients only pay a third of the benefits they receive. Is he going to stop them from receiving Medicare? What about the top five states on Disability all residing in the South? West Virginia has 15% on Disability, just imagine that. Is Rand Paul going to run on ending Medicare Part B that cost us a half a trillion dollars? Who paid for that when it began?
If he wants to end socialism, he needs to run on ending it and all the programs HIS VOTERS benefit from.
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.
