@ShieldWife
You say that we’re reactionaries like it’s a bad thing.
What the absolute fuck! I am going to either assume "You say that we’re reactionaries like it’s a bad thing." is either a joke or a statement made in ignorance. Yes. Yes being a reactionary is a bad thing. It's a very bad thing. Very very bad. That is unless you think the enlightenment was bad. Within a political context the term reactionary has a very specific meaning.
Anyway, let me go through the premises and see if I can be a bit more concise about my objections. I suppose that my primary problem is that we can draw this really strict line and everything on one side is socialist and everything on the other side isn’t - and then this distinction is supposed to be really important for some reason. Trying to use technicalities to strictly define whether Nazis are in camp x or camp y is silly. It all goes back tohow modern Western society obsessed over and fetishizes Nazis. It’s like they have religious significance for us.
It's because they do have religious significance to us. A little known fact but both Hitler's Nazi Germany and the refounding of Israel as a Jewish state can be drawn back to Protestantism. Luther's "Against the Jews" was directly responsible for the success of the Nazi Party. The founding of Israel was motivated by the belief that Jews must return in order for Jesus to come back.
Anyway, the premises.
Premise 1) Socialism is defined as the workers owning the means of production.
What does it mean for workers to own the means of production? That is a phrase meant to create a pleasing emotional reaction, not describe real situations. If a factory exists, the entire country isn’t going to be overseeing the activities of that factory, or the hundreds of other factories in a country. Those factories will have relatively small groups who are in charge and they will be making important decisions regarding those factories as well as the resources generated from them. As a technicality, those people might be subservient to a person who supposedly represents the will of the “people” or “workers” but that only represents reality to a limited degree.
Okay so assuming that you were not intentionally attempting to make a strawman of my argument so that you could burn it down let me move forward from there. What workers owning the means of production looks like in practice is worker co-ops. See Mondragon Corporation which is the largest workers co-op in the world. Mondragon is a federated corporation with each location being owned by the workers at that location. The managers are elected and act as go between's and coordinators. The goal is not the abolition of hierarchy but the abolition of unjust hierarchy and the flattening of hierarchy as much as is practicable. The managers are directly responsible to the shareholders (the workers) and may be removed if the shareholders are displeased with their performance. Additionally the managers make more money than the average worker. This is because socialism qua socialism is not of necessity opposed to "wealth inequality" but rather a specific type of wealth inequality.
For the people own the means of production in North Korea?
As I pointed out to someone else. A lot of that comes down to the definition of ownership. There is a legitimate debate about if NK is a socialist country or not within socialist circles. I push back on the claim that it is because I am a Market Socialist and as such we have a particular idea as to what constitutes ownership. This however is not something I am willing to push back on too hard here as granting NK is socialist here gains you nothing. This is because if I grant this you are conceding that worker ownership of the means of production is a part of the definition of socialism. Which means Nazi Germany was not socialist.
Premise 2) Socialism rejects the notion of Privatse Property.
Premise 3) Socialism does not reject the notion of Personal Property.
What is the distinction between private and personal property? If some possession can be seized at will by a representative of “the people” or “the workers” then is it personal or private property
and here is the grand error on full display. "If some representative of the people". The representative of the people is the people. Now pay very close attention because I have just set a trap for you. You can show that you are willing to act in good faith or you can expose yourself as a bad faith actor. I know which one I am betting on. Within a Marxist framework (I am not a Marxist) a democratically elected representative may seize the means of production on behalf of the worker but at no point does the representative own the means of production. The Marxist-Leninist twist is that the representative may or may not be elected but is a representative of the state who seizes the means of production. Again at no point does the representative or the state own the means of production. In either case the individual in question serves as a process server.
So lets carry this out. Personal property is that property which you own through use and occupancy. Private property is that property which you own through title. Socialists do not recognize the concept of private property. That is a really complicated philosophical conversation on realism which I am willing to engage in on another thread but not here. Take for granted that Socialists do believe private property is real. The one thing I will say about realism here is that belief or disbelief that X is real is independent of X being real. Have you followed the reasoning so far? You don't have to agree with the reasoning to follow it.
This is where it gets simple. By the socialist view of things because private property does not exist the seizure of the property is a formality and a polite fiction. The workers by nature of being the workers already own the property.
Premise 4) State Capitalism/State Socialism are semantically the same.
I don’t know whether or not I reject or accept this premise. I’d have to have good definitions of both. Do you consider these things to be forms of socialism? How do these things tie into the argument?
The way this plays into the argument is by addressing ownership. Both words like nearly all words are polysemous and if I did not have this in here someone would claim (as they have already tried to claim) that state ownership of the means of production = workers own the means of production. Sorta kinda maybe? If you squint really hard that statement can be true. In the way in which that term us usually to be understood it absolutely cannot be true.
In the case of NK for example you could apply the term State Socialism as meaning "A state which is socialist". I would push back on that depending on exactly what conversation I am having depends on how hard. If however what is meant is that "the state owns the means of production and the workers own the state" then I reject that because only by twisting distorting the definition of each terms in such a way as they do not convey anything near the original meanings can you say "that is socialism".
Premise 5) Appropriation of a term is does not entail application of the values expressed in the term.
This is the one thing that really makes me uncertain if your acting in good faith or bad faith. Honestly if not for this I would assume you were acting in bad faith.
Premise 6) The Democratic Republic of Congo is neither democratic nor a republic.
Irrelevant. There is no point in opening up a can of worms about what a true Republic is, what a true democracy is, and whether or not the Democratic Republic of Congo meets those definitions when it is irrelevant to Nazis.
sort of. It's a supporting premise for premise 5.
Premise 7) Neither the Nazi party nor the Nazi government rejected Private Property.
I need a definition of private property to answer this. Though yes, people owned property in NS Germany, including businesses. Though those businesses were subject to regulation by the state and even seizure by representatives of the people.
Personal property is that property which you own through use and occupancy. Private property is that property which you own through title.
Premise 8) The Nazi government arrested, detained in concentration camps, and outright murdered individuals for advocating the workers owning the means of production.
They did persecute some people who advocated these things, but we’ve already discussed in detail that socialists can persecute socialists, fascists can persecute fascists, Christians can persecute Christians
Conclusion: The Nazi Party was not a socialist party.
I am uncertain of this conclusion.
Yes but what I think is missed is that why the persecution is done is actually relevant here. When the DSP fought the Marxists in Germany that was socialist on socialist violence. Both held to the idea that the workers own the means of production. The Nazi's on the other hand did not and arrested socialists for even advocating for socialism. The Nazi's legally reinforced private property rights. When you compare words to actions the Nazi's were not socialist. Before the conflict the DSP and the Marxists worked together to expand workers rights and to push towards the abolition of private property as a legal concept. In the end though the conflict was over timing. The fact that the DSP resisted the Marxists over the issue of timing while at the same time continued to push towards the goal of abolition of private property and worker ownership of the means of production while doing so is why almost all socialists still consider the DSP socialist. I say almost all because the ML crowd has never forgiven the rest of the socialists for the counter-revolution.
It would probably be better to throw out all of the premises aid from 1, 2, and 3. Workers controlling means of production, private property, and personal property.Then actually define what these things mean in a couple cues way that allows evaluation. Then we could see if the various communist regimes that have existed through out history - notably the USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, and Castro’s Cuba meet the definition of socialist. I we find that out definition of socialism excludes these noteworthy socialist regimes, then it is fair to conclude that the definition is too narrow to mean fully evaluate the socialism of the National Socialist German Workers Party.
So I was originally invited here to debate the question "are nazi's socialist?" I could have made my entire case in a single post and saved a lot of back and forth by making it utterly clear and air tight with no room for maneuver. While that can be really fun with Flat Earthers, Young Earth Creationists, and Nazi's it's often counter-productive. My goal is not just to make a good argument but to make a good argument and to change minds. Through trial and error there are things I have picked up that are more likely to change minds than others.
Putting forward the argument as I have allows for back and forth where as a tighter cleaner argument does not. As much as I wish it were otherwise rhetorical back and forth is just as important as the logic.
If we use a definition of socialism that excludes those various governments then Nazis also failing to satisfy the definition is meaningless.
So, how can the workers own the means of production and how can private property be eliminated? How did the USSR and Mao’s China implement these policies. How does North Korea and Cuba implement these policies?
Of everything you have written this actually brings me physical joy rather than the mouth dropping shock of your opener (i actually when from tired considering bed to wide awake when I read your first words). Personal property and private property already exist as legal concepts. The way to eliminate private property is really simple. Abolish the legal definition. It's also really difficult. The people who own private property don't want to give it up and so do everything they can to hold onto it. How did the USSR and Mao's China implement these polices? They didn't. This was the criticism of Emma Goldman against Lenin. Lenin even stated that the USSR wasn't socialist but rather could claim the name based on the fact that it was intended to be temporary and a transitional state. Lenin and Mao have made the majority of socialists wary of vanguard parties. The idea is great. The practice... not so much. They are too easily exploited by strong men. The exception to this rule is tankies who are authoritarian in nature and get hard at the thought of mass murder of people they dislike.
NK and Cuba are interesting. I very much understand why they have gone about things the way they have. When an 800lbs gorilla is standing outside your door trying to get in you make compromises. I don't agree with the compromises but I do understand them. NK in the absolute bare bones strictest sense may be considered Socialist. Cuba on the other hand is transitioning to socialism as much as the myth that they are transitioning to a capitalist system persists. Cuba has made strides in the last decade to turn state controlled property over to the workers. Additionally Cuba has also begun to liberalize its government through democratic reformations.
Unfortunately the chances the NK or Cuba will ever become a full on socialist powerhouse is slim to none. The thing that makes them difficult for the 800lbs gorilla to fuck them up is also the thing that precludes this. Geography and natural resources. The ability to manufacture "wealth" is directly proportional to ability to exploit resources. And both are resource poor.
On a practical level with loads of resources the way to actually get to socialism is rather short. A media campaign would be first and foremost at the front. While talk radio and television broadcasts of an informative nature would be important they would actually be secondary. I would focus on a campaign of shows and movies which have egoism and rational selfishness central in their themes but also covertly so (I hate when people sacrifice a good story for a political agenda). Promoting these concepts should never come at the expense of being entertaining. at the same time the agenda must not get lost to the entertainment. As the values in society begin to reflect the values expressed within the media phase 2 is implemented. Phase 2 is mandatory minimums of worker ownership. Phase 3 is abolition of the legal concept of private property. I should also add that Critical Thinking courses would also become mandatory in both jr high and high schools from the beginning.
This is just one way to get there. There is another way using a hard reset model and the banking system which I like less but would work better for values of better.
en.m.wikipedia.org
