Replies

> But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of
> production.
>
> Thus the USSR wasn't socialist either; everything was owned by the State,
> specifically Party members acting in the name of the State, and more
> accurately, Stalin. Not "the workers".

Correct. That is the difference between socialism and communism.

>
> Same goes for Cuba. Effectively, everything is owned by Castro, not "the
> workers".
>
> In fact no country has ever been or will ever be "socialist" if we insist on
> the definition you put forth.

Well I agree that you would be hard pressed to find a socialist state.
You usually find a mixed bag.

> But then it can't be a very useful definition,
> can it? Especially since millions of people call themselves "socialists" and
> some of them get in power and do certain things while still insisting they are
> "socialists". Clearly there must be a better definition, one which actually
> covers the actual people who are de facto socialists by their own light.

No the term is valid. You just have to face the realities on a case by case basis.

>
> private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn
> were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state.
>
> What is a "private capitalist individual"? Is that the same thing as "person"?

Yes

> If so, then we can make that replacement, and also replace the word "Nazi" by
> the word "Communist", and we get an equally good characterization of the USSR.
> Which, therefore, also "wasn't really socialist".

Well that is an over simplification. They were both totalitarian but they were also ideologically opposed AND mortal enemies.
>
> Again, it's a useless definition under which nothing is "really" socialist.
>
> True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be
> democratic.
>
> Ah, "true" socialism! And socialism is based on what it "advocates"! So in the
> USSR the Communist party "advocated" ownership by "the workers" and pretended
> to be "democratic". The fact that in reality they (and not "the workers")
> simply controlled everything, and were not "democratic" at all, doesn't
> matter. They were socialist because of what they "advocated", while being
> fascist.

Socialism and communism are two different beast.

> Since Hitler had almost the same system, but didn't pay as much lip
> service to "the workers", he's not socialist at all! In fact, the opposite! I
> think I understand now, it's what they say, not what they do, which makes them
> "socialist".

Wrong it is what they do.

>
> Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He
> advocated racism over racial tolerance,
>
> And what does this have to do with being on the right? How "tolerant" was
> Stalin of Ukrainians? How "tolerant" is Castro of blacks? How "tolerant" is
> Mugabe of whites? I guess all of these guys are on the right?

You keep bringing up stalin. He was a tyrant. Tyrant span the political gammit.

>
> eugenics over freedom of reproduction,
>
> See Sweden, as recently as the 1970's....

See the US 20/30's
>
> merit over equality,
>
> Hitler advocated "merit"? Except for Jews, I guess. Stalin advocated
> "equality"? Except for kulaks, Ukrainians, other useless eaters, I guess.

That's right. If you weren't a german it didn't matter.
>
> This definition of socialism is becoming more and more detached from reality.
>
> competition over cooperation,
>
> USSR, Cuba, North Korea, they're all about "cooperation", don'cha know!
>

Let's stay on topic, we are talking about the politics of nazism. And btw they are NOT socialist.

> power politics and militarism over pacifism,
>
> Ah, Mugabe that lovable "pacifist". Many here probably fondly remember
> Kruschev's (?) famous "pacifist" words, "we will bury you".

There you go again. Off topic.

> There is also the
> wonder "pacifist" way in which the Bolsheviks rose to power using terrorism,
> slaughtered the Czar's family, purged people, and excused all form of murder
> and assassination because in their eyes "political terror" is perfectly
> justified. Gotta love those leftist "pacifists".

We are talking bout socialism.

>
> dictatorship over democracy,
>
> So unlike leftists.

Socialism not tyrants
>
> nationalism over internationalism,
>
> Stalin, again, was so "international". That's why he had such love for
> Ukrainians. Not to mention Jews!

Stay on topic.

>
> exclusiveness over inclusiveness,
>
> USSR, of course, being so "inclusive". Everyone was "included" in the
> opportunity to be sent to slave labor camps.

Stay on topic, sheesh. The FACTS of nazi germany.
>
> common sense over theory or science,
>
> By contrast the USSR advocated "theory or science" over common sense? Yup,
> that Lysenko.. such good "science".

Again, you go off to the USSR. We are talking about the NAZI PARTY and how they MORE resemble the FAR RIGHT!

Shoot look at this country, the far right is taking over and what policies do they promote?
>
> What a worthless "summary". Does it have anything to do with reality?

Your? No.

peace

[socialism = ownership by "the workers", but in USSR everything was owned by the state] Correct. That is the difference between socialism and communism.

I see, so I'm right: there have never been nor will there ever be any true "socialist" nations. What kind of definition of "socialism" is that?

Well I agree that you would be hard pressed to find a socialist state. You usually find a mixed bag.

Okay then. Well you see, that just proves your definition isn't very meaningful. We're trying to discuss who is socialist and who isn't, and to what extent. You coming along with a definition of "socialist" which is impossible to satisfy isn't very helpful. My response is to nod my head, say "I see, thanks for the proposed definition, and you've answered our question - No One Is Ever Socialist. Now goodbye." and continue the discussion using a more realistic definition of "socialist".

[replace "Nazi" with "Communist" and description is equally valid] Well that is an over simplification. They were both totalitarian but they were also ideologically opposed AND mortal enemies.

You're absolutely right. They were both totalitarian, they were ideologically opposed to each other (as were the "Mensheviks" and "Bolsheviks" - both socialists, you will notice), and they were mortal enemies.

And they were both socialist too.

[[eugenics over freedom of reproduction,]] > > See Sweden, as recently as the 1970's.... ] See the US 20/30's

Agreed, another good counterexample. The US, under leftists like Wilson, and activist judges like Holmes, also had a strong eugenics movement.

[ Hitler advocated "merit"? Except for Jews, I guess. Stalin advocated "equality"? Except for kulaks, Ukrainians, other useless eaters, I guess. ] That's right. If you weren't a german it didn't matter.

Exactly my point - you (or rather, your quote) claimed that rightists advocated "merit over equality". But Hitler, as you admit, didn't advocate "merit" at all. If you were German, it didn't matter. Thus Hitler was on the left (since he wanted equality for all true German folk). I'm glad we now agree.

Let's stay on topic, we are talking about the politics of nazism. And btw they are NOT socialist.

Yes, they are. Quite a bit.

[ dictatorship over democracy,] So unlike leftists. Socialism not tyrants

I'm starting to understand. A guy can be a socialist, call himself a socialist, advocate socialist ideas, gain socialist followers, and then rise to power. But if he does anything bad or unpopular, then he's "not a socialist", he's "a tyrant", and I'm not allowed to use him as an example of a socialist anymore.

Socialists, apparently, can only do good and nice things. Anything bad done by any socialist automatically kicks them out of the socialist club. So you can never use any bad socialist behavior to discredit socialists. Only good and perfect beautiful socialist behavior. The definition of socialists excludes all bad behavior and only includes utopian behavior.

I understand now. What I understand is that it's a loaded definition, and a propagandandistic one, designed only to help socialists advance their cause. What I don't understand is why you buy into it and are promulgating it. Are you a socialist?

[...several times] Stay on topic.

You keep telling me to stay on topic. You put forth a list designed to prove that Hitler was on the right, I knocked down every item on that list by showing either that the claim was wrong or that it could equally apply to well-know leftists. That's completely on topic, whether you realize it or not.

Again, you go off to the USSR. We are talking about the NAZI PARTY and how they MORE resemble the FAR RIGHT!

Yes, and what you don't understand is that they don't "MORE resemble the FAR RIGHT", they more resemble the USSR, which is acknowledged to be on the far left.

And that's why I kept bringing up the USSR. Don't you understand that? Apparently not.