The Silly Debate About Socialism

realclearpolitics ^ | 09/06/2018 | Froma Harrop

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

IMHO: Socialism is powered by cynicism towards society - and (the other side of the same coin) naiveté towards government. Without cynicism towards society, no socialism.

“You didn’t build that” is cynicism towards the people who lead in society (by becoming employers).

[VanShuyten]

Socialism is the state owning the means of production. Communism is the workers owning the means of production.

For a good look at the effects of socialism, look up British Steel, British Air, British Coal, and the NHS and study how they fared under socialism.

[SunkenCiv]

The only "labor unions" allowed in socialist countries are window dressing sweethearts of the single party, and the single party is another important and common characteristic. But it's better to try to make apologia for the USSR. /sarc

Actually, the "Nazis and Fascists were liberals" line of thinking...

That's your line, not mine.

[SecAmndmt]

The more important question is, where does the ultimate authority lie under any form of socialism? The State.

So while there was/is private property under national socialism, it was only at the pleasure of the State.

There are no individual rights/God-given freedoms recognized under either system. Moreover, there is no God under either system.

The Nazis recognized that their war machine was furthered by private Enterprise, because the German people are industrious.

The modern left in America is far closer to fascism that communism.

[ek_hornbeck]

The more important question is, where does the ultimate authority lie under any form of socialism? The State. So while there was/is private property under national socialism, it was only at the pleasure of the State. There are no individual rights/God-given freedoms recognized under either system. Moreover, there is no God under either system. The Nazis recognized that their war machine was furthered by private Enterprise, because the German people are industrious. The modern left in America is far closer to fascism that communism.

In theory, an individual's private property only exists at the pleasure of the state in any authoritarian government. That doesn't mean that all authoritarian government have equivalent economic systems. In fact, you don't even need to compare authoritarian or totalitarian governments: eminent domain law means that through a better part of US history, private property rights have been hardly absolute. That doesn't mean that the US economy was "socialist" in any sense of the word.

The point is that any meaningful definition of leftist socialism requires extensive state ownership and nationalization of industry. That simply didn't happen under the Fascists or Nazis (except confiscation of the property of political enemies or, in the case of Nazis, Jews and other non-Germans). There was more than a practical aspect to this - it was part and parcel of Fascist and Nazi ideology to preserve private property rights. The agricultural ideal in the Soviet Union was the collective farm: the independent, landowning peasant was an enemy. In Nazi ideology, and part of the drive behind seizing territory in eastern Europe and Russia was to create "living space" and land ownership for private German farmers. So in their attitude towards private property, Nazis and Communists were quite far apart - not only in practice but in theory.