Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Montreal is where its at, but then I speak French.

They wouldn't let me in because I only had $14 cash on me last time I tried to cross. I had a brit passport and everything. Just going to see a friend, but they didn't let me cross because I wasn't going there to spend money. no wonder we hate canadia.

dogma wrote:
Actually, it is. Corporatism is the term that denotes the closest thing the right has to a socialist ideology.

The difference is evident in the approach to integration, and the manner in which state control manifests itself.

This is a common, American mistake. One I even made in this very forum, and I study politics for a living.

This gets into a tomato vs tomahto argument. Their is currently a double standard to the terminology depending upon whom is impllementing a given system. I disagree wth the mutable labling where a system or program is socialist until it is proposed or run by a conservative where it suddenly is fascist. Same system, same implementation, only difference is those in control.

Every major totalitarian government in the past 100 yeards has started by a bipartisan move towards socialized programs in conjunction with a xenophobic fear campain that placed the governmemt firmly in control of its people as opposed to the people controlling their government. This is what has made me uneasy with the current trend within this country. Just because we have a popular and "pretty" new figure head as president doesn't mean that the world should be any less concerned with the U.S.'s growing xenophobia and ever increasing police presence.

focusedfire wrote:Sorry, Sebby but your ignoring that Socialism is an all-encompassing term with a broad definition.

Sort of, at the broadest level, and the one needed to make Nazism a form of socialism, the term can be extended to any government that interferes in the market. Which makes every government of every Western country in the 20th century socialist. Even the presidency of Saint Reagan.

But as you would know, or at least should know, in other contexts words have very different understandings. When referring to the various governments of the 20th century we need to use a lot more detail than 'socialism is an all encompassing term with a broad definition that includes every government in the 20th century, including every major power in WWII'. It would be an extremely unproductive way to develop an understanding of history and economic systems.

Socialists attacked the socialists and totally kicked their ass, and then attacked the socialists and were doing really well until the socialists started winning, but then the socialists attacked the socialists on the other side of the world, prompting the socialists to declare war on the socialists, and from there it was a steady march to victory for the socialists over the socialists. Welcome to understanding history the focusedfire way.

Instead we look at the nature of intervention in the economy and its intended purpose, and assign broad categories to different types of government. Socialist governments become distinguished from Social Democratic governments, and in turn from Communist governments, Liberal Democracies and all the rest, and in turn considering that each of those categories is incredibly broad.

One of these definitions is when the economy is nationalized and is derived directly from the economic system that Adolph instituted and continued to use throughout the war. You seem to think that socialism is purely a leftist/liberal system. It is not. Many whom support the concept of socialism try to use a symantic double standard where if a liberal group supports the socialist ideal it is good, but if a conservative group does the same then they are fascist.

No, nationalisation of assets isn't enough to meet a useful definition of socialism, you're missing the primary distinction in why a country interferes in the economy. When interference is intended to benefit a group of have nots, it can be seen as social policy (whether it actually helps or whether the real have nots ever benefit is a whole other category of discussion). In the case of Nazi Germany, while difficult to categorise as the Nazis notably lacked coherent national strategy, the purpose of almost all nationalisation and public works projects were to develop the strength of the nation, economically or militarily, for the purpose of that strength alone. The benefit to the individual was at best a nice side effect, the point was national strength for the sake of national strength - and we call that fascism.

Seriously, look at your argument. You would have everyone believe that once Hitler came to power that he had all the liberals killed or removed leaving only conservatives. This would be a massive portion of the population and is utterly preposterous. Adolph, was to busy going after another massive portion of the population and I don't think you want to argue that they, exclusively, were the liberals.

No, dude. Stop right there. You've just said something really, really ridiculous. I did not say that Hitler killed the liberals, and left conservatives. Why did you write that? Up until that point I didn't think your argument was strong, but you seemed to be engaging in the topic honestly... then you go and throw that silliness in there.

Now, I did refer to the Night of the Long Knives, in which Hitler assassinated the other power blocs within the Nazi party, including the leaders of the socialist element. This is a basic, established fact, and I invite you to look up the Night of Long Knives and Gregor Strasser. It's an interesting piece of history. It's important to understanding the evolution of Nazism over it's short existance. It is not at all like that silliness you tried to claim I believed, so stop that.

Check out the journalist Otto D. Tolischus. He wrote an interesting book on how Hitler rose to power. Its been 20+ years since I read it but some of the key elements I remember were that it covered in depth, Hitlers rise to power through the use and exploitation of socialized programs that he instituted. That by nationalizing Germany's economy and creating public works programs, he pulled the German people out of their economic depression and put them to work. These people were so happy just to be working and eating that they followed him with little reservation.

Umm, infrastructure projects aren't a socialist thing. Every government builds roads. As a footnote, most public works were actually started under previous governments, though much of the benefit only came to recognised once Hitler took power.

focusedfire wrote:
This gets into a tomato vs tomahto argument. Their is currently a double standard to the terminology depending upon whom is impllementing a given system.

Sort of, there are differences in methodology. Don't listen to American rhetoric, it is vapid. I know I compared socialism and corporatism, but that was only done to refer to your argument.

focusedfire wrote:
I disagree wth the mutable labling where a system or program is socialist until it is proposed or run by a conservative where it suddenly is fascist. Same system, same implementation, only difference is those in control.

Not fascist, corporatist. Stop mixing terms.

Additionally, all labeling systems are mutable. When things are not the same they are referred to with different terms. If labeling systems were not mutable, they would be useless.

focusedfire wrote:
Every major totalitarian government in the past 100 yeards has started by a bipartisan move towards socialized programs in conjunction with a xenophobic fear campain that placed the governmemt firmly in control of its people as opposed to the people controlling their government.

Nope. South America disagrees, as do India and Iran.

sebster wrote:Sort of, at the broadest level, and the one needed to make Nazism a form of socialism, the term can be extended to any government that interferes in the market. Which makes every government of every Western country in the 20th century socialist. Even the presidency of Saint Reagan.

But as you would know, or at least should know, in other contexts words have very different understandings. When referring to the various governments of the 20th century we need to use a lot more detail than 'socialism is an all encompassing term with a broad definition that includes every government in the 20th century, including every major power in WWII'. It would be an extremely unproductive way to develop an understanding of history and economic systems.

Socialists attacked the socialists and totally kicked their ass, and then attacked the socialists and were doing really well until the socialists started winning, but then the socialists attacked the socialists on the other side of the world, prompting the socialists to declare war on the socialists, and from there it was a steady march to victory for the socialists over the socialists. Welcome to understanding history the focusedfire way.

Instead we look at the nature of intervention in the economy and its intended purpose, and assign broad categories to different types of government. Socialist governments become distinguished from Social Democratic governments, and in turn from Communist governments, Liberal Democracies and all the rest, and in turn considering that each of those categories is incredibly broad. .

Yes, the words can be used in different context. They can also describe the exact same thing that has two different names.

I find it interesting how the focus has been upon my few Nazi parrallel statements but that my more plentiful Iron curtain comments have been ignored. The point that I've been making is that the most powerful dictatorships in the past hundred years began with the nations moving initially to the left in order to gain control of the populace by taking over massive sections of the private sector then subsequently instituting the police state.

In response to your last line. The three major super-powers to emerge in the last hundred years that could be described by the governments you listed, with 2 of these 3 having gone the route of tyrrany and the third teetering on the brink.

sebster wrote:No, nationalisation of assets isn't enough to meet a useful definition of socialism, you're missing the primary distinction in why a country interferes in the economy. When interference is intended to benefit a group of have nots, it can be seen as social policy (whether it actually helps or whether the real have nots ever benefit is a whole other category of discussion). In the case of Nazi Germany, while difficult to categorise as the Nazis notably lacked coherent national strategy, the purpose of almost all nationalisation and public works projects were to develop the strength of the nation, economically or militarily, for the purpose of that strength alone. The benefit to the individual was at best a nice side effect, the point was national strength for the sake of national strength - and we call that fascism..

"Can be" is the operative term here, Meaning that while some may choose to not see it as such others can just as legitimatly can see it as such.

As to the rest of your comment, you know that Nations never do things out of altruism and that the very existence of true altruism is questionable. Nations don't feed their poor because it is good or right to do such, they do these things for internal security, public safety, to keep the populace productive which are all about national strength.

So taking my two above points, the the difference between socialism and fascism can be described as purely subjective.

sebster wrote:No, dude. Stop right there. You've just said something really, really ridiculous. I did not say that Hitler killed the liberals, and left conservatives. Why did you write that? Up until that point I didn't think your argument was strong, but you seemed to be engaging in the topic honestly... then you go and throw that silliness in there.

Now, I did refer to the Night of the Long Knives, in which Hitler assassinated the other power blocs within the Nazi party, including the leaders of the socialist element. This is a basic, established fact, and I invite you to look up the Night of Long Knives and Gregor Strasser. It's an interesting piece of history. It's important to understanding the evolution of Nazism over it's short existance. It is not at all like that silliness you tried to claim I believed, so stop that.

My apologies for misunderstanding but your comment about the Night of the Long Knives, but when read with the sentence that followed it seemed to imply such.

So with your statement as clarification, "Would you agree that Nazi Germany still contained a sizable number of socialists whom worked and contributed to the nation/society?
This question could then be rephrased to my asking, "Do you concede that the Nazi party and Nazi germany contained and were supported by socialist within the country?".

And yes, I am familiar with that momemt in history and find some interesting parallels between it and Stalins Great Purge, Lenin establishing the Cheka, and what Sen McCarthy was attempting with his investigations.

sebster wrote:Umm, infrastructure projects aren't a socialist thing. Every government builds roads. As a footnote, most public works were actually started under previous governments, though much of the benefit only came to recognised once Hitler took power.

Depending upon how they are implemented, yes they can be and in Nazi Germany's case were. When public works programs are created with the main idea of putting people to work and ingnore a civil contracting process in favor of being state run then they are very much a socialist program.

focusedfire wrote:

sebster wrote:Sort of, at the broadest level, and the one needed to make Nazism a form of socialism, the term can be extended to any government that interferes in the market. Which makes every government of every Western country in the 20th century socialist. Even the presidency of Saint Reagan.

But as you would know, or at least should know, in other contexts words have very different understandings. When referring to the various governments of the 20th century we need to use a lot more detail than 'socialism is an all encompassing term with a broad definition that includes every government in the 20th century, including every major power in WWII'. It would be an extremely unproductive way to develop an understanding of history and economic systems.

Socialists attacked the socialists and totally kicked their ass, and then attacked the socialists and were doing really well until the socialists started winning, but then the socialists attacked the socialists on the other side of the world, prompting the socialists to declare war on the socialists, and from there it was a steady march to victory for the socialists over the socialists. Welcome to understanding history the focusedfire way.

Instead we look at the nature of intervention in the economy and its intended purpose, and assign broad categories to different types of government. Socialist governments become distinguished from Social Democratic governments, and in turn from Communist governments, Liberal Democracies and all the rest, and in turn considering that each of those categories is incredibly broad. .

Yes, the words can be used in different context. They can also describe the exact same thing that has two different names.

I find it interesting how the focus has been upon my few Nazi parrallel statements but that my more plentiful Iron curtain comments have been ignored. The point that I've been making is that the most powerful dictatorships in the past hundred years began with the nations moving initially to the left in order to gain control of the populace by taking over massive sections of the private sector then subsequently instituting the police state.

In response to your last line. The three major super-powers to emerge in the last hundred years that could be described by the governments you listed, with 2 of these 3 having gone the route of tyrrany and the third teetering on the brink.

sebster wrote:No, nationalisation of assets isn't enough to meet a useful definition of socialism, you're missing the primary distinction in why a country interferes in the economy. When interference is intended to benefit a group of have nots, it can be seen as social policy (whether it actually helps or whether the real have nots ever benefit is a whole other category of discussion). In the case of Nazi Germany, while difficult to categorise as the Nazis notably lacked coherent national strategy, the purpose of almost all nationalisation and public works projects were to develop the strength of the nation, economically or militarily, for the purpose of that strength alone. The benefit to the individual was at best a nice side effect, the point was national strength for the sake of national strength - and we call that fascism..

"Can be" is the operative term here, Meaning that while some may choose to not see it as such others can just as legitimatly can see it as such.

As to the rest of your comment, you know that Nations never do things out of altruism and that the very existence of true altruism is questionable. Nations don't feed their poor because it is good or right to do such, they do these things for internal security, public safety, to keep the populace productive which are all about national strength.

So taking my two above points, the the difference between socialism and fascism can be described as purely subjective.

sebster wrote:No, dude. Stop right there. You've just said something really, really ridiculous. I did not say that Hitler killed the liberals, and left conservatives. Why did you write that? Up until that point I didn't think your argument was strong, but you seemed to be engaging in the topic honestly... then you go and throw that silliness in there.

Now, I did refer to the Night of the Long Knives, in which Hitler assassinated the other power blocs within the Nazi party, including the leaders of the socialist element. This is a basic, established fact, and I invite you to look up the Night of Long Knives and Gregor Strasser. It's an interesting piece of history. It's important to understanding the evolution of Nazism over it's short existance. It is not at all like that silliness you tried to claim I believed, so stop that.

My apologies for misunderstanding but your comment about the Night of the Long Knives, but when read with the sentence that followed it seemed to imply such.

So with your statement as clarification, "Would you agree that Nazi Germany still contained a sizable number of socialists whom worked and contributed to the nation/society?
This question could then be rephrased to my asking, "Do you concede that the Nazi party and Nazi germany contained and were supported by socialist within the country?".

And yes, I am familiar with that momemt in history and find some interesting parallels between it and Stalins Great Purge, Lenin establishing the Cheka, and what Sen McCarthy was attempting with his investigations.

sebster wrote:Umm, infrastructure projects aren't a socialist thing. Every government builds roads. As a footnote, most public works were actually started under previous governments, though much of the benefit only came to recognised once Hitler took power.

Depending upon how they are implemented, yes they can be and in Nazi Germany's case were. When public works programs are created with the main idea of putting people to work and ingnore a civil contracting process in favor of being state run then they are very much a socialist program.

Fateweaver wrote:With you sometimes it's hard to tell. LOL.

Seriously though, I always enjoy going to Winnipeg. Too bad Canada is not a place I'd ever want to live but it's good for a visit.

Wow. Another reason to pity Fateweaver. He likes going to Winnipeg. Not even people who live in the Peg admit liking it.

focusedfire wrote:Yes, the words can be used in different context. They can also describe the exact same thing that has two different names.

No. The substance of the policies of Nazi Germany were not at all like the substance of Soviet Russia’s. It just can’t be said more clearly.

The point that I've been making is that the most powerful dictatorships in the past hundred years began with the nations moving initially to the left in order to gain control of the populace by taking over massive sections of the private sector then subsequently instituting the police state.

Look at the history of Franco’s Spain or Pinochet’s Chile, even Soviet Russia. Coups are responsible for far more dictatorships than governments expanding their power.

"Can be" is the operative term here, Meaning that while some may choose to not see it as such others can just as legitimatly can see it as such.

No. “Can be” means in different contexts different uses are preferred. While the broad definition can be valid, it’s quite useless as a means of discussing governments of the pre-war period, because everyone is socialist.

As to the rest of your comment, you know that Nations never do things out of altruism and that the very existence of true altruism is questionable. Nations don't feed their poor because it is good or right to do such, they do these things for internal security, public safety, to keep the populace productive which are all about national strength.

First up, if there’s no true altruism then how do explain the existence of soup kitchens?

Second up, the exact true motive at the heart of the policy maker, whether he genuinely cares about the working poor is just playing for their vote, doesn’t matter. What matters is the intended purpose of a nation building project. If road construction is undertaken to facilitate trade with other countries, it’s a very different thing to a road undertaken to allow for the transport of steel to arms manufacturers. The latter tends to result in the invasion of Germany. The former not so much.

So taking my two above points, the the difference between socialism and fascism can be described as purely subjective.

Sure, if you completely ignore or dismiss helping people as a motive, then some forms of socialism can begin to look vaguely like some forms of fascism. But ignoring that is a big problem.

The second issue is in thinking totalitarianism is somehow related to government works, as opposed to the level of governmental accountability, extent of civil liberties, nature of the political dialogue, separation of power and independence of the civil service – those things really matter in stopping the slide into totalitarianism – government spending is not really as much of a factor.

My apologies for misunderstanding but your comment about the Night of the Long Knives, but when read with the sentence that followed it seemed to imply such.

Cool. Sorry if I sounded a bit strong, it was just a really out there response to my point, and well, you know how Dakka goes. You gotta call things out early and loud here, or it just doesn’t go away.

So with your statement as clarification, "Would you agree that Nazi Germany still contained a sizable number of socialists whom worked and contributed to the nation/society?
This question could then be rephrased to my asking, "Do you concede that the Nazi party and Nazi germany contained and were supported by socialist within the country?".

I would dispute that point most strongly. Opposition to actual socialist parties was a cornerstone of the Nazis, the word Nazi comes from their opposition to the Sozis, there were violent street clashes nightly between the Nazis and the Sozis. As I pointed out before, there was a wing of the Nazi party that merged nationalism and anti-Semitism with socialist beliefs, and they were relevant to early policy formulation, but their leaders were assassinated by Hitler and the right wing of the party.

And yes, I am familiar with that momemt in history and find some interesting parallels between it and Stalins Great Purge, Lenin establishing the Cheka, and what Sen McCarthy was attempting with his investigations.

You think so? They all involved persecution of ideological opponents, but they were pretty different in method and motive.

Depending upon how they are implemented, yes they can be and in Nazi Germany's case were. When public works programs are created with the main idea of putting people to work and ingnore a civil contracting process in favor of being state run then they are very much a socialist program.

You think a road being publically built is meaningfully different to being privately built and publicly funded? I mean, yeah, on a point of efficiency it matters, but as a point distinguishing a right wing party from a left wing party?

@ Sebster-Psyc 101, there is no such thing as true altruism. People are purely self motivated and only help others because it makes them feel better, look better publically, or to achieve some other self serving goal.

It is this portion of the curriculum that allows people to spot first year psycology majors, ya know, by the perpetual hurt expressions on their faces.

I made a joke, but it is the serious study of human nature that has caused the concept of true altruism to become questioned.

Now to some of the above:
1)The substance of both Germany's and Soviet Russia's policies were to maintain an iron grip upon the populace while expanding the nations borders.

2)You missed the point of that sentence. You assumed that Nazi germany would be included but the three super-powers I was refering to were the U.S.S.R., Communist China, and the U.S.A.

To answer what you did post. Both the Russian Communists and the German Nazis came to power more by promising a populace disenfranchised by inneffective bureaucracies and promises of food and work than by strength of arms.

3)I dispute the everyone is socialist line because socialism has a clear and simple definition:

SocialismAny of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

You focus on the nations controlling planning the economy portion while ignoring the operative portion of state ownership.

4)(Skipping down to the last) It is the state ownership that differentiates between socialist and non-socialist systems. When the state takes control and does not allow for private civilian contracting and participation then the peogram by definition becomes socialist in nature.

Skipped the stuff in the middle because it would necessitate a seperate debate on the possibility of existence of true altruism. Are you comfortable with this pass on motives portion of our debate?I feel it would be a tree in a quagmire that bears little fruit.

focusedfire wrote:@ Sebster-Psyc 101, there is no such thing as true altruism. People are purely self motivated and only help others because it makes them feel better, look better publically, or to achieve some other self serving goal.

It is this portion of the curriculum that allows people to spot first year psycology majors, ya know, by the perpetual hurt expressions on their faces.

Feeling good because you’ve done something nice for someone else is altruism.

It seems you’re selfishness with self-interest. Self-interest is the idea that everyone does things for their own reasons, but it doesn’t mean those reasons are selfish, it refers to a CEO wanting to pay workers a Christmas bonus, while the shareholders might prefer to give money to build an orphanage.

Now to some of the above:
1)The substance of both Germany's and Soviet Russia's policies were to maintain an iron grip upon the populace while expanding the nations borders.

No, they really, really weren’t. To ignore ideology and the policies that ideology produced in practice in each country, and just say each group was attempting to enforce an iron grip is hopelessly simplistic. I mean, what have you read on early Soviet policy. They were some cruel bastards, but you can’t say they were simply operating to expand their power. They really believed in building a utopia, and this is reflected in policy. The ideology of the Nazis was different, and while they were probably even more cruel, their policies were markedly different.

2)You missed the point of that sentence. You assumed that Nazi germany would be included but the three super-powers I was refering to were the U.S.S.R., Communist China, and the U.S.A.

Heh, I did read that as including Nazi Germany. Mind you, I just raised an eyebrow at thinking you were including them, I didn’t comment on that point.

To answer what you did post. Both the Russian Communists and the German Nazis came to power more by promising a populace disenfranchised by inneffective bureaucracies and promises of food and work than by strength of arms.

Sort of, but that’s a pretty loose definition of the promises of each party. You’re making a constant mistake in this thread, insisting that a cat is just like a dog as they both have four legs. When it is pointed out that there are lots of other factors that make them very different, you just repeat that each has four legs.

The Nazis call to the workers was built around the idea that the foreign nationals, Jews and communists were keeping the German man down, and what was needed was a strong state to lead the German people to their dominant position in history. This included a promise of jobs and prosperity for the individual Germans, but it wasn’t the whole of the issue.

Now, ignoring that the Bolsheviks didn’t come to power under popular support but by coup, there platform was still fundamentally different to the Nazis. There the narrative was land owners and bourgeoisie were stealing the goods produced by the worker, and a revolution was needed to reallocate the means of production equally. It was not a nationalist but an internationalist movement.

Dogs and cats are very, very different things.

3)I dispute the everyone is socialist line because socialism has a clear and simple definition:

SocialismAny of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

You focus on the nations controlling planning the economy portion while ignoring the operative portion of state ownership.

Yeah, that’s a definition, too narrow for some purposes, too general for others. It also isn’t a particularly good definition, as it completely fails to distinguish a nation like Zimbabwe, where government control is purely for the benefit of the political elite, from an actual socialist state. It also fails to capture countries that personally identify as socialist, such as the Scandinavian countries.

It’s a reasonable definition for some purposes, but probably not for ours.

4)(Skipping down to the last) It is the state ownership that differentiates between socialist and non-socialist systems. When the state takes control and does not allow for private civilian contracting and participation then the peogram by definition becomes socialist in nature.

State ownership is a significant factor, but the state funding private contracts, only to see the completed road return to state hands, is not meaningfully different from state built roads. Certainly not in terms of defining national economic policy – China wouldn’t become capitalist because they opened road construction up to tender.

Skipped the stuff in the middle because it would necessitate a seperate debate on the possibility of existence of true altruism. Are you comfortable with this pass on motives portion of our debate?I feel it would be a tree in a quagmire that bears little fruit.

focusedfire wrote:@ Sebster-Psyc 101, there is no such thing as true altruism. People are purely self motivated and only help others because it makes them feel better, look better publically, or to achieve some other self serving goal.

Leave Nietzsche at home, and stop projecting your own inequities on the rest of us.

focusedfire wrote:
I made a joke, but it is the serious study of human nature that has caused the concept of true altruism to become questioned.

If you need to attach the word 'true' to another, then you aren't referring to what you believe you are. Altruism is altruism, and 'true' altruism is short hand for 'what I want altruism to be'.

Stop hurting logic.

focusedfire wrote:
3)I dispute the everyone is socialist line because socialism has a clear and simple definition:

Earlier in this thread you said that it does not.

sebster wrote:Feeling good because you’ve done something nice for someone else is altruism.

That is not the definition of altruism.

sebster wrote:It seems you’re selfishness with self-interest. Self-interest is the idea that everyone does things for their own reasons, but it doesn’t mean those reasons are selfish, it refers to a CEO wanting to pay workers a Christmas bonus, while the shareholders might prefer to give money to build an orphanage.

I will take it that you were trying to say that, "It seems that I am confusing selfishness with self-interest".

In response to that I bring the definition:
Altruism-Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

You are focusing on the unselfish portion of the definition while I am focusing on the selflessness portion. That is why I offered to pass on debating the topic and appreciate your acceptance of the pass. I think it would make for an interesting discussion in a thread of its own. Maybe when I have less to deal with IRL.

sebster wrote:No, they really, really weren’t. To ignore ideology and the policies that ideology produced in practice in each country, and just say each group was attempting to enforce an iron grip is hopelessly simplistic. I mean, what have you read on early Soviet policy. They were some cruel bastards, but you can’t say they were simply operating to expand their power. They really believed in building a utopia, and this is reflected in policy. The ideology of the Nazis was different, and while they were probably even more cruel, their policies were markedly different.

Lenins early establishment of the Cheka and his reasons for doing so had nothing to do with building utopia and everything to do with consolodating power.

sebster wrote:Sort of, but that’s a pretty loose definition of the promises of each party. You’re making a constant mistake in this thread, insisting that a cat is just like a dog as they both have four legs. When it is pointed out that there are lots of other factors that make them very different, you just repeat that each has four legs.

The Nazis call to the workers was built around the idea that the foreign nationals, Jews and communists were keeping the German man down, and what was needed was a strong state to lead the German people to their dominant position in history. This included a promise of jobs and prosperity for the individual Germans, but it wasn’t the whole of the issue.

Now, ignoring that the Bolsheviks didn’t come to power under popular support but by coup, there platform was still fundamentally different to the Nazis. There the narrative was land owners and bourgeoisie were stealing the goods produced by the worker, and a revolution was needed to reallocate the means of production equally. It was not a nationalist but an internationalist movement.

Dogs and cats are very, very different things.

Actually, they woulbd be best described as dogs of differing breeds and colour, but dogs none the less. They used the same formula to achieve popular support, just when it came time to demonize a particular group for tearing the country apart one group inserted the word Capitalist into their rhetoric while the other used the word Jew.

I'd like to take a moment here and clarify our stances. You are arguing the differences in Ideology between these groups while I am arguing their similarity in the mechanics of how they operated. Would you say that this is accurate?

sebster wrote:Yeah, that’s a definition, too narrow for some purposes, too general for others. It also isn’t a particularly good definition, as it completely fails to distinguish a nation like Zimbabwe, where government control is purely for the benefit of the political elite, from an actual socialist state. It also fails to capture countries that personally identify as socialist, such as the Scandinavian countries.

It’s a reasonable definition for some purposes, but probably not for ours.

The problem with disregarding definitions is that it breaks the ability to communicate through the written and spoken word. It prings us to an empasse.

4)(Skipping down to the last) It is the state ownership that differentiates between socialist and non-socialist systems. When the state takes control and does not allow for private civilian contracting and participation then the peogram by definition becomes socialist in nature.

State ownership is a significant factor, but the state funding private contracts, only to see the completed road return to state hands, is not meaningfully different from state built roads. Certainly not in terms of defining national economic policy – China wouldn’t become capitalist because they opened road construction up to tender.

This thread has gone into the land of the surreal.

Every time someone asks me if I can bum them a cigarette I become a socialist, and every time someone bums me one, I also become a socialist. When it gets to larger levels, and 'macro' economy levels it becomes more difficult to justify. I love the idea of saying "YOU ARE NOT MY PROBLEM! LEAVE ME ALONE!" but, face to face, on a local level, I cannot do that. I HAVE to care about other people's problems because it is a right thing to do, even if it inconveniences me. Socialism on the micro-scale works very well I have seen it in action back in my street tribe days... just yesterday I borrowed my neighbors ladder to fix my girlfriend's mom's roof for instance. He didn't charge me to use it he was just, well, nice. I didn't charge her for fixing the roof either it was just something nice to do for the lady. She fed me chicken. Later last night I brought him some chicken and bummed him a cig, etc. Sort of goes round in circles on a local level, it just gets complicated when the federal tendrils start digging into forcing everyone to behave in a nice neighborly way (which they, like me, may have been doing anyway) but forcing them to do it for people who aren't their neighbors who they have never met and who may just be taking advantage of them, that's when it becomes the government's domain, who have no trust whatsoever afforded to them, fo numerous reasons made obvious over the years.

If I trusted that every single person in the country would treat me the same as I treat my neighbor, then socialism would be great. Until that trust is evident (aka utopia) of course we will all remain scared of where our money is being taken from us and used towards. Personally I don't like buying tanks and missiles, training little teenage boys to be awesome and ready to kill, and hate that churches don't pay taxes too, but that's my beef I guess. Social programs work on a small local level, but like with everything LARGE in government, they become bogged down with each individual's sense of what is or is not a priority. Sorry but lots of federal programs (like buying tanks), or even town council meeting programs (like how much to raise the city dumpster fee)... are simply nothing I give a gak about. Does that make me a socialist? I would rather fix a roof, eat some chicken, and share some with my friendly neighbor.

Guitardian wrote:Every time someone asks me if I can bum them a cigarette I become a socialist, and every time someone bums me one, I also become a socialist. When it gets to larger levels, and 'macro' economy levels it becomes more difficult to justify. I love the idea of saying "YOU ARE NOT MY PROBLEM! LEAVE ME ALONE!" but, face to face, on a local level, I cannot do that. I HAVE to care about other people's problems because it is a right thing to do, even if it inconveniences me. Socialism on the micro-scale works very well I have seen it in action back in my street tribe days... just yesterday I borrowed my neighbors ladder to fix my girlfriend's mom's roof for instance. He didn't charge me to use it he was just, well, nice. I didn't charge her for fixing the roof either it was just something nice to do for the lady. She fed me chicken. Later last night I brought him some chicken and bummed him a cig, etc. Sort of goes round in circles on a local level, it just gets complicated when the federal tendrils start digging into forcing everyone to behave in a nice neighborly way (which they, like me, may have been doing anyway) but forcing them to do it for people who aren't their neighbors who they have never met and who may just be taking advantage of them.

Now is that socialism or is that charity Guitardian? Your instances are all voluntary. There is nothing voluntary about socialism.

The "You are not my problem, leave me alone!" crowd can be broken into several segments: the you segment; the I give but don't coerce me segment; and the "give a hand up not a hand out" segment. Of course there are mixes as well. I am the latter two and detest strongly people telling me what to do.

I suppose agreeing to a socialistic society implies that everyone has kind of mutually agreed to be charitable. That ain't gonna happen though I think. Good point frazz.

Well we're also assuming socialism is enfoced charity. Much of what I see about socialism is not charity, but control and redistribution.

Robin Hood?

Guitardian wrote:Robin Hood?

We now interrupt this program for an important message.

This Just in..........

AFP is reporting that budget cuts across the US/Mexico boarder are starting to be felt. More at 11.

Here it is: We all want to take care of each other as best we can, if given the opportunity and resources to do so. I really believe that in the human spirit. People who become selfish or aggressive about who is the "alpha-male" in their own little world are only doing so because of a sense of self-preservation that is caused by having to live in a society which they work for, but does not always work for them. We get racism, gay-bashing, feminazis, real nazis little skinhead feths, all sorts of things most of us don't care about... but with LOUD voices.

Everyone wants a perfect society where they love and trust their neighbors to love and trust them. That has to be a decision of the people though. not the law. If the law creates a precedent for it, it will only become another brick on that pyramid of bitterness and hate and anger. I will be charitable because I WANT to not because I HAVE to.

I guess that makes me a socialist opposed to socialism?

focusedfire wrote:
This is a seriously debatable concept that is questioned and studied in the field of psycology.

It was about 50 years ago, but its not anymore. Game theory ended the debate.

focusedfire wrote:
Not my terminology but the term used in course to question the existence of such in our daily reality. Now the term may be outdated and if it is, then please correct me. College for me is 2 decades in the past.

The term is outdated because its fallacious. Its the definition of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and works against discovering the existence of a thing which could not reasonably exist in common situations. It does this by eliminating any instance in which any benefit of even ancillary association to the altruistic act from consideration.

In other words, true altruism does not exist, not because there is no altruism, but because our standard for what would constitute true altruism was unreasonable.

focusedfire wrote:
Where? I have argued its use/misuse in the broader sense but the actual definition is quite clear. There is a difference between use and definition. You will find that my arguments stay with the definition.

focusedfire wrote:
Yes, the words can be used in different context. They can also describe the exact same thing that has two different names.

For that to be true, the definition has to be murky.

However, there is a difference between use and definition, and it is relevant here. If the use is inconsistent with the definition, then the use is incorrect, but mass proliferation of the incorrect usage will affect the definition.

In this particular case, your definition is not consistent with numerous policies that are broadly considered socialist, such as redistributive taxation, because state ownership is a necessary contingency with respect to it. You cannot ignore necessary components of a definition when attempting to utilize a word; not without forcing yourself to change the definition. We could remove the need for ownership from definition, but doing so implies that all states which intervene in their economies through regulation, or even criminal prosecution, are socialist; rendering the definition useless.

As far you use of the word socialism to describe Nazi Germany, that is also inconsistent with your definition, as it deals in government ownership of the means of production. The Nazi German state did not own the means of production, it controlled them but it did not own them. Both are required for your definition to apply. Considering this in the light of my above point explains how, if Nazi Germany is to be considered socialist, all states would have to be considered socialist.

The entire argument, as presented in this thread, necessarily indicates that the definition is neither clear, nor consistently applied, and you'll find that whenever socialism is referenced in an academic text it is provided with a working definition. It is not a word that is used with any necessary specificity, as its historical use varies wildly.

dogma wrote:It was about 50 years ago, but its not anymore. Game theory ended the debate.

Game Theory has done no such thing. Game theory when applied to ethics and morality is still very much theory and very limited due to th inabilty to factor infinite variables.

dogma wrote:The term is outdated because its fallacious. Its the definition of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and works against discovering the existence of a thing which could not reasonably exist in common situations. It does this by eliminating any instance in which any benefit of even ancillary association to the altruistic act from consideration.

Your use of the "No true scotsman" is a very wordy prevarication.

The question of the existence of altruism is one of the contradiction of the definition. That what is to be a selfless act is always motivated by a very self based desicion.

I will offer to drop this portion of the debate based upon the impression that you seem to be taking this personally and that you seem unfamiliar with the concept. Yes the term had the word true in it but not all questions about the trueness of something are fallacious. This debate only becomes a "no true scottsman" scenario if you provide an instance of someone behaving altruistically/without self motivation and "I" then change the set pardigm's based off of the word true or have unfairly set the parameters originally. This debate is based purely upon the contradiction of personal free will and the concept of a selfless act.

dogma wrote:In other words, true altruism does not exist, not because there is no altruism, but because our standard for what would constitute true altruism was unreasonable.

Unreasonable? Unattainable is a more accurate word here because the definition is an irrevocable contradiction. Hey, I didn't write the definition.

Again, I offer to drop this as it is unlikely to move the dicussion forward or be productive.

dogma wrote:For that to be true, the definition has to be murky.

No, it does not. This fails to take into account the massive amount of mis-information on the subject that has been pumped out by various political groups.

dogma wrote:However, there is a difference between use and definition, and it is relevant here. If the use is inconsistent with the definition, then the use is incorrect, but mass proliferation of the incorrect usage will affect the definition.

So we don't attempt to correct but instead just dumb everything down?

dogma wrote:As far you use of the word socialism to describe Nazi Germany, that is also inconsistent with your definition, as it deals in government ownership of the means of production. The Nazi German state did not own the means of production, it controlled them but it did not own them. Both are required for your definition to apply. Considering this in the light of my above point explains how, if Nazi Germany is to be considered socialist, all states would have to be considered socialist.

And this statement ignores the production facilities seized from certain groups and operated by the Nazi State.



I think in the long run we are going to end up agreeing to disagree.

focusedfire wrote:
Game Theory has done no such thing. Game theory when applied to ethics and morality is still very much theory and very limited due to th inabilty to factor infinite variables.

All of ethics is predicated on theory, and theories can indeed invalidate one another through the application of logic.

What game theory does in this particular instance is illustrate that there must exist certain scenarios in which altruism is the only possible description of a possible outcome. The text book case being any instances in which a person sacrifices his life in the absence of social compulsion.

You don't need to account infinite variability, which doesn't exist anyway, you only need to display a single positive outcome given all relevant variables. And, if infinite variability did exist, it would be fully possible to account for it using game theory as there is no limit size of aggregated game.

focusedfire wrote:
The question of the existence of altruism is one of the contradiction of the definition. That what is to be a selfless act is always motivated by a very self based desicion.

That isn't a necessary contradiction, as it very widely with the accepted understanding of the self.

focusedfire wrote:
I will offer to drop this portion of the debate based upon the impression that you seem to be taking this personally and that you seem unfamiliar with the concept.

I've not taken anything personally.

focusedfire wrote:
Yes the term had the word true in it but not all questions about the trueness of something are fallacious. This debate only becomes a "no true scottsman" scenario if you provide an instance of someone behaving altruistically/without self motivation and "I" then change the set pardigm's based off of the word true or have unfairly set the parameters originally.

The term, and the concept it denotes, are inherently fallacious. Discussing 'true altruism' implies that there is some form of 'false altruism', which is nonsense. Either its altruism, or it isn't.

focusedfire wrote:
Unreasonable? Unattainable is a more accurate word here because the definition is an irrevocable contradiction. Hey, I didn't write the definition.

We're not talking about getting something, we're talking about defining something which is already there. Having defined 'true altruism' would not bring into reality. I mean, it would mean we had attained a definition, but that was assumed in the sentence you're referring to.

focusedfire wrote:
No, it does not. This fails to take into account the massive amount of mis-information on the subject that has been pumped out by various political groups.

Misinformation is still a component of defining a term. Words are created, and defined through use. That's why the first step in any argument is defining your terms.

focusedfire wrote:
So we don't attempt to correct but instead just dumb everything down?

There's no qualitative component. Correct only comments on the adherence of a thing to an agreed standard.

focusedfire wrote:
And this statement ignores the production facilities seized from certain groups and operated by the Nazi State.

The war economy was an anomalous component of the larger Nazi economy.

focusedfire wrote:
I think in the long run we are going to end up agreeing to disagree.

Most likely, yes.

focusedfire wrote:That is not the definition of altruism.

It wouldn't be the the classical definition, no, as it would rely on the context of this conversation to make sense.

And yeah, I did leave out the word 'confusing', and yeah, I had forgotten about my response at the top of the thread by the time I agree with dropping it at the bottom. That's the product of writing a response in three minute spots when you get a spare second or two.

I do agree with dropping it, it would probably be useful in seeing the actual underlying reason for our very different worldviews, but it'd take a crazy long time to get there, and is probably left to another thread.

Lenins early establishment of the Cheka and his reasons for doing so had nothing to do with building utopia and everything to do with consolodating power.

Yeah, but again you're looking at the legs and thinking that represents the whole dog. Yeah, the establishment of the Cheka was a part of the consolidation of power, but consolidation of power wasn't everything that was going on. Look at agricultural policy, while both the Nazis and the Soviets wished to exert greater control over the population, the Nazis were content to tie farmers to the land (selling farm land was made illegal) and then dictate what was produced, when certain elements of production were deemed in the national interest. The welfare of the farmer was of marginal interest to the Nazis, and the welfare of the farmhand was all but irrelevant.

This is wildly different to the agricultural policies of the Soviets. The kulaks were targeted, stripped of their land, and often persecuted, while the land was evenly distributed among the peasant class. That wasn't enough, though, as each farm remained a private affair, and so collectivisation was undertaken, taking the land back off of the farmers and putting them to work on vast communal farms.

Actually, they woulbd be best described as dogs of differing breeds and colour, but dogs none the less. They used the same formula to achieve popular support, just when it came time to demonize a particular group for tearing the country apart one group inserted the word Capitalist into their rhetoric while the other used the word Jew.

That's a simplification of my summary of the two positions, and when you think about how simplified my summary was, it's no surprise it's left out a whole lot of detail.

I'd like to take a moment here and clarify our stances. You are arguing the differences in Ideology between these groups while I am arguing their similarity in the mechanics of how they operated. Would you say that this is accurate?

I'd say the mechanics of how they operated were very, very different. Note my example of agricultural policy above.

The problem with disregarding definitions is that it breaks the ability to communicate through the written and spoken word. It prings us to an empasse.

Sure, but the solution isn't to insist on single definitions for all situations. The solution is to spell out the definition used in a given instance, and make sure that the most appropriate term is used in that situation.

If China allowed privatized contract bidding on state projects that woulb be a significant step towards capitalism.

Compared to private ownership of the means of production and the right to travel freely within one's own country and provide one's labour and capital in whatever market best suits, I'd say it's quite irrelevant.