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".

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. 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.

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"? 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".

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. 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".

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?

eugenics over freedom of reproduction,

See Sweden, as recently as the 1970's....

merit over equality,

Hitler advocated "merit"? Except for Jews, I guess. Stalin advocated "equality"? Except for kulaks, Ukrainians, other useless eaters, I guess.

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!

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 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".

dictatorship over democracy,

So unlike leftists.

nationalism over internationalism,

Stalin, again, was so "international". That's why he had such love for Ukrainians. Not to mention Jews!

exclusiveness over inclusiveness,

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

common sense over theory or science,

By contrast the USSR advocated "theory or science" over common sense? Yup, that Lysenko.. such good "science".

What a worthless "summary". Does it have anything to do with reality?

> 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

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.