Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: worst-case scenario

How is it you could be a Freeper since 2002 and still not know that the NAZI party was socialist?

Please enlighten me as to when you took leftists words over the truth?

Finally, why would any Freeper use Wikipedia as a trusted source of information?

Please, enlighten me, because inquiring minds want to know.


43 posted on 01/13/2011 8:53:48 AM PST by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: OneVike

I don’t restrict myself as to the sources of my information. I read as many sources as possible and make up my own mind about issues. It’s called being a skeptic. Must one absolutely be an Objectivist in order to be a Freeper? Is there some sort of intellectual straitjacket that one agrees to wear, that prevent all intellectual critique and analysis?

No, absolutely not. Nor would have our Founders ever proposed such a system. The debates found in the Federalists Papers, and in the recently-printed records of the debates held at the Constitutional Convention, show that the original representatives of the colonies held vigorous and often widely divergent views. That has continued until today.

Is there a law that a Freeper *has* to believe that Nazis are Socialists? I have read a tremendous number of history texts — it was my major in college. I have a particular definition of Socialism - one that is used in Universities and by historians all over the world:
“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.”

According to this definition, the Nazis were not Socialists. They did not assume ownership of all means of production. I’ve read both von Mises and Reisman, and see their points regarding government direction of production. I agree, along with Hannah Arendt, one of my great influences, that Socialism and Nazism shared the common traits of fascism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and police state status. However, co-ordination of state and business interest sis not, technically, socialism. Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. This was a feature never seen in Nazism.

However, this is fascist *corporatism,* not socialism. The fascist economic model of corporatism promoted class collaboration by attempting to bring classes together under the unity of the state, a concept that is anathema to socialism. Socialists claim their power from the people.

There is a huge and contentious debate over this topic, which I’ve been following for decades. I am not convinced by von Mises’ arguments. There is no confirmed “truth” on this topic.

Obviously, you and I do not agree the definition of what makes someone a “leftist,” just as we may not agree over the definition of socialism. “Please, enlighten me, because inquiring minds want to know.” Do you really seek enlightenment, and are you asking in a true spirit of inquiry?


46 posted on 01/13/2011 11:13:30 AM PST by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson