DirtbagLeft
Well-known member
need to go to bed because I have to get up in a while. I will finish my replies after. The replies that I have already provided answer most of the objections I am seeing however.
I couldn't resist responding to this though. There is a free book out there I can provide both the PDF and or audiobook called Market's not Capitalism. It's a series of essays which argue for Market socialism. It's a good introduction. I would be extremely interested in the books you have read on socialist economics. A good primer that you might want to consider reading beyond that is "Market Socialism the debate among socialists"First, and sorry I forgot to do this earlier, welcome to the Sietch! Glad to have a lefty on the board.
You can get to anarchy/minarchy from the right as well. And honestly, I don't have a huge amount of respect for socialist thinkers or writers based on the plentiful economic evidence against socialism, which means I have little interest in moral arguments for something that doesn't make any economic sense, just as palentologists don't buy religious arguments for creationism. I'll listen to economic arguments from them, but I have found almost none that were convincing.
In addition, the distinction between private property and personal property isn't a good one. First, what does that have to do with Nazi Germany? Second, it is a crap distinction that no one cares about or recognizes. It's like monarchists and divine rights of kings. Sure, they can say it exists, but no one else buys into it or the theory behind it, and it only makes sense to people deep in the ideology.
More or less crudely cribbed from his best buddy il Douche, who argued that the only way to make a "real" socialist utopia was to first tear down the capitalist system entirely and reconstruct it as an autocracy.If you read the Hitler's incoherent word salat aka Mein Kampf, you will notice that he claimed that true social revolution was only possible once the Germany achieved autarky, which in turn was only possible once Germany controled the Lebensraum, since as long as they had to be a part of international trade network, they had to play by capitalist rules. Thus the Nazi state as we know it wasn't the end state of national socialist revolution, but intermediate period, before true socialism (presumably state socialism) was to be implemented, so yes they were socialists, on a murderous path to their socialist paradise.
I disagree with this. FIrst, any practical definition of socialism ought to include China under Mao, the USSR, Cuba, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and North Korea. If your definition does not consider these to be socialist, then the definition fails. Some of these countries were statist as well, notably North Korea and the Khmer Rouge.
And how do those Hitler's words in any way deny what I wrote? He was unwilling to commit to full revolution before autarky was achieved and industrialist had a place in his new order.I have read both Mein Kampf and Hitlers table talks as well as his debate with Strasser in which he said "Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings. " he went on to say "Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that."
When asked about what he would do with the major powerful and oppressive steel firm at the time Hitler answered "Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests. "
Hitlers true political leanings were fascist in nature "Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger." He cared nothing for the worker and everything for the nation.
But lets look at Hitlers definition of socialism so we can see how that word is to be understood within Nazi "Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land — that man is a Socialist."
"Deutschland ueber Alles" does not translate well into English as while we can literally translate the words as "Germany over all" this does a disservice to the meaning and intent of the phrase. If you are familiar at all with the problems of translating one language into another then you are aware that various words and phrases (particularly phrases) can be stronger or weaker than the translated version in their original language. The phrase is better understood as "Germany the master of the world".
So according to Hitler he believed that anyone who believed that Germany should dominate the world was a socialist.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
An important point about this definition of socialism is that socialism is not equivalent to, and is arguably in conflict with, statism. (i*) involves expansion of social power—power based on the capacity to mobilize voluntary cooperation and collective action—as distinct from state power—power based on the control of rule-making and rule enforcing over a territory—as well of economic power—power based on the control of material resources (Wright 2010). If a state controls the economy but is not in turn democratically controlled by the individuals engaged in economic life, what we have is some form of statism, not socialism.
To cherry pick a definition of socialism that is rejected by every socialist thinker is fallacious in the extreme. To define socialism by the definition of an individual who's definition reflects in no way even slightly any prior understanding of that term verges on the dishonest.
Allow me to make your argument absolutely clear.
Your argument is that the Democratic Republic of Congo is a democratic republic because their leaders define it into being a democratic republic.
That is neither how definitions work nor is it how political science works.
That's a nice piece of ivory tower theorycrafting, but it doesn't have a slightest interaction with the real world. Every time socialism was tried on large scale it turned into authoritarian state socialism, because that is it's natural outcome.An important point about this definition of socialism is that socialism is not equivalent to, and is arguably in conflict with, statism. (i*) involves expansion of social power—power based on the capacity to mobilize voluntary cooperation and collective action—as distinct from state power—power based on the control of rule-making and rule enforcing over a territory—as well of economic power—power based on the control of material resources (Wright 2010). If a state controls the economy but is not in turn democratically controlled by the individuals engaged in economic life, what we have is some form of statism, not socialism.
I haven't read a lot of socialist economics, but I have listened to people argue for it, and I've generally disagreed with their arguments. One of the chief ways in which I differ is that I value efficency much more than equity, because I generally don't see a huge problem with income inequality. IMO, the problem is people being absolutely poor, not relatively poor. But this seems like a conversation for another thread. Any chance you plan on sticking around past this debate/thread?I couldn't resist responding to this though. There is a free book out there I can provide both the PDF and or audiobook called Market's not Capitalism. It's a series of essays which argue for Market socialism. It's a good introduction. I would be extremely interested in the books you have read on socialist economics. A good primer that you might want to consider reading beyond that is "Market Socialism the debate among socialists"
FYI
I come from an Austrian Economics background
Socialism includes state socialism. If you deny that, this conversation just cannot continue. The argument for it, using socialist terms, is that the people own the state, and the state owns the means of production. Since socialism is an economic system, it doesn't need democracy either, any more than capitalism does.Further the reason socialists say that most examples of governments which people claim as examples of "socialism gone amuck" are not socialists. Is exactly because the workers do not own the means of production. You are correct however that I should have added one other thing to my definition. Socialism is also democratic. The form of democracy (just like in modern democracy) varies but every socialist system requires democracy (see workers co-ops).
I think this is the second time we have done this! Great minds think alike.I think that making a big about whether or not Nazis are technically socialists is silly and ultimately comes from Godwin style thinking.
Though there is no point in having the discussion if you refuse to call any nation socialist. If the USSR isn’t true socialism, if North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, and Cuba aren’t examples of real socialism in action, then you’re not going to think that National Socialist Germany is socialism either.
If we are to discuss whether or not Hitler’s Germany was socialist, we need to use a definition of socialism that includes Stalin’s USSR otherwise it’s just a semantics game.
EDIT - oops, I should have read the thread more thoroughly before posting. Abhorsen said almost exactly the same thing yesterday
This is actually so stupid as to make my head hurt. Are you aware of history at all? This is exactly the argument which monarchists made against democracy and republicanism. This take is exactly why I despise reactionaries. Anarcho-Syndicalist Spain was an anarcho-socialist government.I second this. If socialism is to be absolved of these states' failures, then socialism has never existed nor will ever exist.
Do you or do you not understand the difference between a set of values and failure to execute those values? Yes or no. Direct questions require direct responses.Not to mention the idea that they weren't socialists because they purged other socialist movements is ludicrous when you look at the history of other countries that had socialist dictatorships.
A problem that I am having repeatedly is an in ability for others to engage the argument due to an over fascination and fixation on a term. This is made even more problematic by the general historical ignorance which seems to be evident in nearly every single reply. I have a continually growing frustration with peoples in ability to carry out a simple request. There is one of me and many of you. Identifying which premise you are objecting to is not only polite but also keeps us on topic and helps me (one person) keep track of exactly who is replying to what.I think that making a big about whether or not Nazis are technically socialists is silly and ultimately comes from Godwin style thinking.
Though there is no point in having the discussion if you refuse to call any nation socialist. If the USSR isn’t true socialism, if North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, and Cuba aren’t examples of real socialism in action, then you’re not going to think that National Socialist Germany is socialism either.
If we are to discuss whether or not Hitler’s Germany was socialist, we need to use a definition of socialism that includes Stalin’s USSR otherwise it’s just a semantics game.
EDIT - oops, I should have read the thread more thoroughly before posting. Abhorsen said almost exactly the same thing yesterday
It doesn't matter what leaders say, it matters what they do. For the same reason that Communist Party of China is not communist anymore, but they still claim to be.I will allow you to figure out which premise your objection falls under. It's my hope that you will name it. After I am caught up I will simply point out that whoever I am talking to has failed to name the premise. (okay so frustration is not entirely gone). To address what you said however. If I could provide quotes from the leadership of the regimes you listed in which they explicitly admit that they are not either socialist or communist would you accept that those states were not socialist states?
The difference with that is that we have functional examples of successful implementation of enlightenment values and democracy. We do not have a single successful implementation of a non-statist socialist government that has survived even a few years. You are left with either socialism is statist or socialism cannot actually exist with human beings. It’s a utopian concept that never can actually succeed to even win a revolution let alone make a functional society.This is actually so stupid as to make my head hurt. Are you aware of history at all? This is exactly the argument which monarchists made against democracy and republicanism. This take is exactly why I despise reactionaries. Anarcho-Syndicalist Spain was an anarcho-socialist government.
The argument you just made is literally "The french revolution failed therefore enlightenment values failed." and "Because the US failed at implementing enlightenment values democracy failed."
Your statement wasn't even an argument. It was a brain dead assertion. If you are going to engage then actually engage and do not resort to willfully ignorant reactionary talking points.
This is a distinction without a difference as historically speaking the "political class" and the "business class" have always intermarried and intermingled their interests and to provide mutually supporting legitimacy to one another. The defining characteristic of both terms is "The leveraging of wealth and political power together by an oligarchy". To argue that it matters what the titles of the oligarchs are is to loose the forest for the trees.I really reject premise 4, but it argues in your favor.
If major businesses are all (or almost all) entirely owned by the state, that's state socialism.
The thing that separates State Capitalism from state socialism is that entrepreneurship and major private businesses are allowed, and sometimes encouraged. Basically, can businessmen get rich?
My head hurts but you are acting in good faith so allow me to counter. Two words. Banana Republic. The origin of this term is interesting and illustrative. Let us grant that everything you said about corporation in the United States not spying on the citizens of he US for the state as true (It is not but lets grant that).What makes State Capitalism STATE capitalism, and not regular capitalism, is that the major companies created are ultimately, forcefully, suborned to the state. Modern examples include China using its internet companies to spy/censor on its populace, China using Huawei to spy on foreign countries, partial state ownership, etc. In contrast, in America, most major businesses aren't directly advancing American Governmental goals, outside of being economically profitable. The ones that are mostly treat America as a customer. There have been exceptions (AT&T datacenter linked up to the NSA), but those are exceptions.
As for this, it's not a good point. Christians kill Christians all the time. Notably the protestants killed off a number of competing theologies, including martianites and zwinglinas... Do I really need to list them all? As this is something that continues even to today. We just tend to ignore it because it doesn't happen in first world countries that much anymore.Oddly, many countries were state capitalists during WW2, as they needed to mobilize for total war. Notably in America, the Wartime Production Board was in charge of this.
So Let's look at Nazi Germany. Yes, they have socialist in the name, but that doesn't matter. They privatized a lot of stuff, but the privatization came with strings that gave Germany more control over the economy.
As for this, it's not a good point. Commies kill commies all the time. Notably the Bolsheviks killed off a number of competing ideologies, including Trots and Mensheviks.
I haven't read a lot of socialist economics, but I have listened to people argue for it, and I've generally disagreed with their arguments. One of the chief ways in which I differ is that I value efficency much more than equity, because I generally don't see a huge problem with income inequality. IMO, the problem is people being absolutely poor, not relatively poor. But this seems like a conversation for another thread. Any chance you plan on sticking around past this debate/thread?
This goes back to the other conversation we might end up having. In large part because they are assuming egoism and rational self interest.Meanwhile, that book is interesting. I'm having fun reading it. I disagree with some of it (the labor theory of value is hilarious), but one question: if they get their freed markets, why do they think that will result in socialism? (Haven't finished yet, but it doesn't seem likely to me).
A) Give me a base definition for socialism. Not an example of socialism but a base definition.Socialism includes state socialism. If you deny that, this conversation just cannot continue. The argument for it, using socialist terms, is that the people own the state, and the state owns the means of production. Since socialism is an economic system, it doesn't need democracy either, any more than capitalism does.
Alright I am not going to engage with bad faith actors. Provide a definition of socialism. A definition not an example. Until you do so I will no longer reply to you other than to continually ask you for a definition.And how do those Hitler's words in any way deny what I wrote? He was unwilling to commit to full revolution before autarky was achieved and industrialist had a place in his new order.
That's a nice piece of ivory tower theorycrafting, but it doesn't have a slightest interaction with the real world. Every time socialism was tried on large scale it turned into authoritarian state socialism, because that is it's natural outcome.
And why do we have functional examples of successful implementation of enlightenment values? And further how long did it take before we had our first successful implementation vs when was the first implementation tried. Seriously does no one on this forum read history? I swear it's like you all believe democracies and republics came fully birthed like Athena from Zeus. No it took a long time with lots of blood and lots of failures and lots of external sabotage. Even then just taking the US as an example the US didn't begin to achieve anything near enlightenment values until the last century.The difference with that is that we have functional examples of successful implementation of enlightenment values and democracy. We do not have a single successful implementation of a non-statist socialist government that has survived even a few years. You are left with either socialism is statist or socialism cannot actually exist with human beings. It’s a utopian concept that never can actually succeed to even win a revolution let alone make a functional society.