Oh...am I to understand then that you are no longer even making an attempt to differentiate socialism and Nazi-ism? However, this *was* your response when challenged to differentiate socialism and Nazi-ism. It's weak, and it doesn't differentiate socialist policy from Nazi policy.
Whatever. All I said was that in its purest form, socialism posited a brotherhood of workers worldwide. There was a big movement in the American northwest 70-80 years ago that pushed the "One Big Union" -- the Industrial Workers of the World. They still exist.
Labor Unions, as I understand, are a big part of socialism. Hitler outlawed them. He didn't give a fig for socialism. Calling the party the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party, seems disingenuous to me. You don't buy that -- fine.
Surely we have talked this out by now.
Walt
That is only partially correct. In the U.S. and most western countries, labor unions are almost entirely of the political left and approach very closely to the socialist movement. Many historical labor union leaders have been themselves socialist leaders and the sort. That being said, the labor union is to them only a means of moving toward socialism and achieving it. When pure socialism is achieved or is in sight, they say, the unions are rendered useless or no longer needed.
That is why communist states don't have western-style labor unions - they don't need them, and having them around is only another power to question their authoritarian ways. Therefore when unions emerge in these countries they are often outlawed, opposed, crushed, or eliminated. Unions opposed the Soviet puppet regime in Poland. They opposed the Vietcong in Vietnam, and in fact several international union organizations came in there to work with the South Vietnamese government to create a labor union buffer to Ho Chi Minh's communism before the country fell.