Replies

I don't believe that using Stalin as an example of a good Socialist is very accurate or fair. The man was a racist psychopath. He was transporting the USSR's Jews to the Gulags when he died. Lenin and Trotsky didn't have his pathological hatred for Jews, or for the other ethnic groups he persecuted.

Hitler wasn't a Socialist. However, he used some of the ideas of Socialism, like collectivism and statism, in order to advance his nationalistic schemes. Hitler's ambition was for the Aryan race to become all powerful and for other races, like the Jews, Slavs etc to be enslaved. That's why the NAZI party described itself as 'National Socialist'. It used a perverted form of Socialism, one that only benefited the Aryan Germans (the untermenschen were just the slave labour and fertiliser), for the benefit of German nationalism. Don't confuse the NAZI party's slippery use of the term Socialism, with real Socialism.

To summarise, Orthodox Socialism is egalitarian and anti-nationalist, unfortunately, it also requires collectivism and statism. Hitler accepted the last two, but rejected the first two, in favour of racism and nationalism. The USSR claimed to accept all four, but actually was also a racist cesspool. The USSR was not a proper Socialist country, nor is the PRC one. I doubt that there will ever be a proper Socialist society.

George Watson, a professor at Cambridge University, has traced the racial and eugenic ideas of the Fabians and other socialists. It's the fashion today to ascribe racialist ideas solely to the right. In fact, in the days of Marx, Shaw, Wells and the Webbs, you would find such ideas among socialist elites as well. Not a pretty chapter of their history, but not something one can or should ignore. That doesn't mean that we put racism on the left, rather than the right, just that the idea was associated more with the age, rather than with leftism or rightism.

The argument that Nazism was inegalitarian, and therefore on the right, is also something that doesn't stand greater scrutiny. Among Germans, there was a feeling that they had never been so equal as they were under Hitler. There were similar feelings in France and Russia during the revolutions. Revolutionary leftism may make professions of universal equality, but the practice is passionate opposition to some external or internal enemy. This common cause creates subjective feelings of equality, which may or may not be true. In general, money and wealth are taken out of the calculation, but differences in power remain and may even increase. There are similarities in this regard between Nazism and revolutionary leftist regimes.

The distinction would be that the Nazism aimed at creating a permanent slave class, rather than exploiting a temporary one. Fair enough, I suppose, but this wasn't true of all those who supported Hitler, and looks more like a technical or theoretical difference than a real one.

I don't believe that Nazism can be simply and baldly described as left-wing socialism. The Nazis courted the traditionalist, nationalist and anti-communist right too much for such a label to apply. But the self-characterizations of leftists and socialists often don't hold water.

I don't believe that using Stalin as an example of a good Socialist is very accurate or fair.

No, he is an example of a bad socialist.

The man was a racist psychopath.

True. He was also a socialist. You think they are mutually exclusive or something? Why?

Socialists can only be nice wonderful beautiful people, right?

Lenin and Trotsky didn't have his pathological hatred for Jews, or for the other ethnic groups he persecuted.

No, those two psychos had pathological hatred for groups of people based on slightly different criteria.

Hitler wasn't a Socialist. However, he used some of the ideas of Socialism, like collectivism and statism,

He "wasn't a socialist", he just acted like one. Got it.

I don't know why this is supposed to be an important distinction.

That's why the NAZI party described itself as 'National Socialist'. It used a perverted form of Socialism, one that only benefited the Aryan Germans

Agreed! Whereas, similarly, the Bolsheviks in USSR used their own (also perverted) form of socialism, one that only benefitted... well... them, really.

What's your point?

Don't confuse the NAZI party's slippery use of the term Socialism, with real Socialism.

What is "real Socialism"? Is that the same thing as the utopian imaginary socialism of the other guy arguing with me? Let me guess... if it's bad, it's not socialism. If a guy says he is socialist, advocates socialist things, has socialist supporters, and rises to power, we're allowed to call him a socialist. But the moment he does something bad he's no longer "really" a socialist. Do I have that about right?

To summarise, Orthodox Socialism is egalitarian and anti-nationalist

Very well. Then no nation has ever been "Orthodox Socialist", which makes it a pretty useless definition for our purposes. Like other arguers, you insist that Hitler "wasn't really a socialist", but apparently the only way you can get away with doing this is by defining "socialism" so narrowly that no human being in any government is or could even conceivably be socialist!

You're right: if socialism is defined so purely that no one's "really" a socialist, then neither was Hitler. But what exactly do you think you're proving? I mean, in a similar way, if you define the word "fruit" narrowly enough then apples aren't "really" fruits, either. But what does this have to do with reality, in particular, the necessary and useful exercise of drawing comparisons between two sets of ideas (in this case "Bolshevism" and "Nazism") and deciding whether they are more similar than different?

Is this anything other than a stubborn word game?

The USSR claimed to accept all four, but actually was also a racist cesspool. The USSR was not a proper Socialist country, nor is the PRC one. I doubt that there will ever be a proper Socialist society.

Right - you're admitting my above point that your entire argument rests on defining "socialist" so narrowly that it will never actually be found in the real world.

So you will understand my posts, and the original article, then, if you globally replace the word "socialist" by the phrase "like the USSR, China, and Cuba". Whatever kind of "ist" Hitler was, it not much different an "ism" than whatever kind of "ism" you will allow us to say that USSR, China, and Cuba is or was. If those countries were/are "foo-ist", then Hitler was also very close to being a foo-ist, and certainly not an anti-foo-ist and not on the "opposite side of the spectrum" from foo-ism at all, as the self-proclaimed foo-ists often like to claim.

You see, that was the actual point of the article, and of my posts, your (and others') annoyingly purist word games notwithstanding.

So Stalin isn't really a socialist?But of course socialists would persecute business people, steal their propety put them in gulags etc.That is Socialism.

"Hitler wasn't a Socialist. However, he used some of the ideas of Socialism, like collectivism and statism"

That is what a socialist is; collectivism and statism.The minor policy differences hardly makes them opposite.Coke and Pepsi are different brands but they are still colas.

"To summarise, Orthodox Socialism is egalitarian and anti-nationalist, unfortunately, it also requires collectivism and statism. Hitler accepted the last two, but rejected the first two, in favour of racism and nationalism. The USSR claimed to accept all four, but actually was also a racist cesspool. The USSR was not a proper Socialist country, nor is the PRC one. I doubt that there will ever be a proper Socialist society."

That is because the theory of socialism in all it's variants is wrong.If the theory doesn't work it is badly flawed.