Or do you only know the scary word sold to you by the GOP Congress who spend our tax dollars “passing” a dumbass resolution. Which literally does nothing but show off their idiocy.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/9/text
It is the intellectual product of the ideas of Karl Marx. In broadest terms it is the idea that man is the product of the dialectic of History - with a capital "H" - defined by the class war. Defined in policy terms, it is government ownership of the means of production, the abolition of private property and a centrally planned economy.
The questioner is not wrong that the word is slung around without much regard to precise definitions. Then again, that tends to be the nature of popular politics - especially in a populist age. Thus also is the NAZI - that is National SOCIALIST Worker's Party - defined as an extreme right party when in fact it is a party of the left.
(Indeed, even the terms "left," "right" and so forth are used with more carefree abandon than with much precision. These terms having their origins in the French Revolution in which supporters of the monarchy and church sat to the right of the Speaker's chair in the National Assembly and the opponents of the monarchy and church to the left of the Speaker's chair. Suffice to say, the precision of such terms in a contemporary context is rather limited.)
In truth, though, even the terms "conservative" and "liberal" as used in the United States don't mean quite so much as what they have meant historically. Conservative in the United States is actually classical liberalism - "that government is best which governs least" - with a strain of social traditionalism rooted in the 18th century Protestant church. (See also the Pilgrims.)
Liberals in the United States are actually "radical" liberals. The term "radical" here not meaning what it means in contemporary usage, i. e. "extremist." Rather its usage is from the ancient Greek, meaning "to the root of."
Radical - or American - liberals trace their intellectual pedigree to Rousseau. He argued that man was a "noble savage," but that society corrupted man's basic good nature. So he argued that the institutions of government and society should be reformed and used as instruments of social engineering to bring back man to his natural state.
In fact, as an aside, the welfare state was actually founded by two conservatives - Bismarck in Germany, Disraeli in Britain - to help stabilize society by reconciling the masses to the dynamics of a free market economy. This by alleviating the worst impacts of old age, illness and temporary unemployment. .
This differs it from the liberal welfare state which, as noted, is seen as a tool of social engineering and transformation. For a contemporary example, see also Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" agenda of the 1960s.
Bottom line, that people use terms that they do not fully grasp is no real surprise. The habit getting worse particularly in populist eras. This is in part because it is an easy - and bad habit - to sling words around less for their precise meaning than for their emotional impact. In part because people do not understand the historical and intellectual pedigree of their own ideas. Take it from a student of political philosophy.
Indeed, it would only be fair to ask, "Do you know what conservatism is?" My hunch is that fewer - perhaps even the questioner - know the answer than imagine they do.
@msc545 Yes, they are not the same thing. Communism was the adaptation of socialism to the one party state. Socialism made no such consideration in its theoretical structure, but rather posited a natural dialectic. Communism added the need for a party that would guide History to its intended outcome.
Hence why we often refer to Marxism-Lenninism. Marx was socialism. Lenin was communism.
Who said this?
"I'm a socialist. But a very different kind of socialist than your rich friend Count Reventlow."
The year was 1930 and the speaker was Adolf Hitler. It is problematic that Naziism was a right wing response to socialism when the founder of Naziism called himself a socialist.
You may want to study a bit of intellectual history on that one. Suffice to add that outsiders - specifically Americans - jumped to the conclusion that Naziism must be right wing because Socialism was left wing.
In fact, they represent a divide within the socialist school. The Socialists argued that class war was the driver of History. The Nazis argued that race war, not class and economics, was History's engine.
Suffice to say that fights within the family are the most bitter and thus the deep antagonism between the Socialists and the National Socialists.
Buddy, you really need to step away from presupposition of labels. The right wing government of Hindenburg appointed Hitler. Hitler himself said he wanted a “right wing version of socialism”. There’s even precedent for this…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussentum_und_Sozialismus
On your first point, Hindenburg did so to split the left. Given the divisions in the Reichstag, he had few other options. It was a tactical move - not surprising from a former Field Marshall, I might add.
Your second quote comes from Hitler and proves my argument BANG ON!! This was about a divide amongst the socialists as to its' true nature. Hitler argued that race, not class, was the driving force in History. He argued that the socialists had misappropriated the title and that HE was the true socialist.
This being why there was such bitterness between the Socialists and the National Socialists. It was divide within the family, so to speak. With each claiming to be the true voice of socialism.
P. S. By the way, a "right wing" version of socialism is still socialism. Say what you will. In any case, given that socialism is a philosophy of the left, it is somewhat problematic to call something right wing that takes its bearings from, in effect, opposition to the right.
You end up caught in an intellectual hall of mirrors. The point is to study the pedigree of the ideas and trace their origins. Because when you fail to do so you end up with things like Republicans calling Democrats socialists and Democrats calling Republicans fascists.
The point is to stand outside the hall of mirrors and judge the philosophies based on their intellectual heritage and history.
Sorry, not reaching. Hindenburg was working from a position of weakness. Moreover, recall that he was from the Junker aristocracy - an aristocracy that was deeply opposed to the Nazis. (Recall later that it would be a lower Junker aristocrat who would come closest to assassinating Hitler.)
The aristocracy had lost its footing after the fall of the house of Hohenzollern and was playing from a position of weakness, Hindenburg was no fan of the Nazis or the socialists but the makeup of the Reichstag post-WWI was deeply hostile to his views. Thus he was left to a strategy of playing one against the other in the hope - ultimately forlorn - that the conservative aristocracy could regain its political footing.
This ultimately failing, in part, because Hindenburg did not anticipate that the Nazis would consolidate their power in the way that they did,. One historian calling it a parliamentary coup.
Anyhow, you are spitting into a hurricane. Words have meaning and it would hardly have behooved a right wing party to call itself socialists as the Nazis did.
Yup. Hindenburg's position was politically weak and he regarded the socialists, right or wrong, as the more enduring threat. (Recall that Naziism was a relatively recent phenomenon.) When the Reichstag deadlocked, Hindenburg saw a chance to pit left against left divide and rule.
In the negotiations that followed, Hitler made the Enabling Act - and certain other pieces of legislation - his conditions for a deal. Hindenburg, thinking he could manipulate Hitler, went along. Hitler then taking power and moving against the socialists.
Recall again that post-WWI, the "right" had been discredited. They were blamed for the defeat in the war and lost their influence - which came mostly from the aforementioned Junker aristocracy - when the monarchy fell. Hindenburg himself coming to office mostly because of divides in the left. Thus it was not unreasonable for him to believe that he could pull off the same strategy in the Reichstag.
Because he thought as President and with his aristocratic background that he could manipulate Hitler. In effect, give him the authority on paper while Hindenburg retained the authority in practice.
He also believed that whatever power he handed to Hitler on paper would be counterbalanced by the opposition Hitler would get from the Socialists. This was a "divide and conquer" strategy.
By the way, for other examples - albeit on a more benevolent scale - see also the dominance of the Christian Democratic party in Italy in the mid-to-late 20th century post-WWII. That party retained power through most of that period mostly by splitting the opposition. (Thus for example, it pitted the Socialists and Communists against each other in what would have otherwise been a natural coalition.)
Yes, I understand that. However, there is what was on the paper and what he believed that he could pull off in practice.
In fact, he believed that if he gave Hitler the power and then could manipulate Hitler from behind the scenes, that he could act as a restraining force. Letter of the law vs. spirit of the law.
In any case, a question? Why did the Junker aristocracy oppose Hitler? After all, if he was the right wing icon you suggest, he would have been exactly what they wanted. Yet Hindenburg was no fan and - as I mentioned - the plot to assassinate Hitler was made among military officers of the Junker aristocracy.
The right in Germany - i. e. the aristocracy, - was dead set against Hitler and the Nazis. The business interests, i. e. classical liberals, preferred Hitler to the socialists, but that was a measure of degree and not of kind.
You are a smart man and I do not mean to offend,. but my sense is that you are mistakenly applying contemporary American definitions in an historical context where they were not operative. Not to mention that I am curious how you feel it is appropriate to ignore the word "socialist" in the name National Socialist German Worker's Party. Suffice to say, the label hardly - even in a contemporary context - evokes right wing imagery.
Socialists and Jews, obviously. Yes, the Nazis were rivals of the socialists. As I said - please read above - this was a conflict within the family, so to speak. Each claimed to be the authentic voice of socialism and it was a bitter internal conflict within the German left of that time.
This is not surprising nor unheard of. You need only see the fight between Stalin and Trotsky for a contemporaneous example. Also the fight between Chinese and Russian communists which had both a geopolitical dimension and an ideological dimension.
This is hardly unheard of. The world does not always divide itself into tidy neat little categories.
Indeed, I am curious, why do you think Hitler said what he said in the quote I provided above?
"I'm a socialist, but a very different kind of socialist than your rich friend Count Reventlow." ? (You can Google the quote.)
What would the advantage be to a right winger to call himself a socialist?
They did because - as I pointed out - the Junker aristocracy in particular was opposed to the National Socialists. Indeed, as I also pointed out, it was the a Junker aristocrat who made the most serious attempt on Hitler's life.
However, do recall that in the aftermath of Germany's defeat in WWI, the right wing - as particularly embodied by the aristocracy and the monarchy - was largely discredited and was not a significant force in post-war Germany. Thus the focus of the Nazis was against the Jews and those rivals onn the left who were the greatest threat to Hitler's ability to attain power.
So again, I ask the question, why did Hitler call himself a socialist? Albeit a "different kind of socialist."
Because….
“ Hitler at times redefined socialism. When George Sylvester Viereck interviewed Hitler in October 1923 and asked him why he referred to his party as 'socialists' he replied:
Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.”
Also interesting reading on the Junkers and Hitler
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED299607.pdf
On the second, yes, because they saw Hitler as a useful counterweight to the socialists. Again, it is why Hindenburg brought Hitler in as a way to play one side against the other.
By the way, do recall that Hitler staunchly opposed the monarchy. An odd position to take for a right winger. An antipathy, by the way, shared on the other side by the exiled Kaiser who referred to Hitler as a "guttersnipe."
Yes, also, Hitler DID redefine socialism. That is the point. He argued that the war between the races - not the classes - was the driving force of History. It was divide on the left, not between right and left.
So again, why did Hitler call himself a socialist?
Not sure I understand the relevance of your quote above, but in the age of Xi and Putin I am not sure that tyrants are irrelevant. In any case, understanding the pedigree of political ideas is extremely important - especially in an age where words get slung around without more regard to their emotional impact than to their intellectual weight.
Hence the current rancid nature of Western politics at this interregnum in history. It is more "sound and fury signifying nothing" than not. That having very negative consequences.
In any case, thanks for the kind words and I hope you are well.
Absolutely!
As far as Hitler, not sure what else to say.
1. He was quoted directly by a reporter describing his “socialism” as not left wing.
2. He was appointed Chancellor by right wing Hindenburg who gave him absolute powers.
3. Socialism can be right wing, as it just means “government run”.
You seem emotionally tied to linking lefties as socialists. I’d say maybe marxists, but socialists is different.
No, socialism cannot be right wing. You are mixing popular usages with intellectual pedigree. The latter is traced through the historical analysis of the evolution of ideas. The former is what we hear slung around the media to the present day.
Thus we hear Democrats accused of being socialists in the popular media. Thus are "MAGA Republicans" accused of being Nazis. These are merely popular slanders tarted up as thoughtful analysis. They are not.
As to Hitler saying he was right wing to a reporter, I've not ever seen that. However, again, I ask you. why did Hitler say, “I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist than your rich friend, Count Reventlow." You can look up the quote. The year was 1930.
So again, answer the question.
Yes, this does not change anything. Hitler thought Marx got socialism wrong and that HIS was the proper version. This was a split on the left, not between left and right. He believed that race, not class, was History's driving force. (Hence the reference to the "aristocratic" principle. It was survival of the fittest in the Darwinian sense.)
So try again - why would Hitler call himself a socialist if he was not one?
Because it was popular.
And I can start a Tea Party militia with an extreme leftist ideology. All tea Partiers don’t have to be right wing. Like all democracies aren’t left or right wing. Socialism is the govt running shit. Europe has right wing democratic socialist countries…ie the U. K.
So it was popular with his right wing base? How would that work? If a Tea Partier called himself a Nazi, would he earn the support of his fellow Tea Partiers.
Besides, the right wing in post-WWI was NOT popular. That is why the monarchy - which Hitler opposed, by the way - was overthrown. The left was dominant in post-WWI German politics.
So answer the question one more time - this time with some historical analysis.
Oh, and by the way, my s/o and I are leaving this morning for a belated Valentine's Day weekend and won't be back till Tuesday. So apologies but if you respond I will reply, but it will be delayed a few days. Sorry for the inconvenience.
P. S. Oh by the way, I forgot to add this. You may find it if interest:
medium.com/.../were-hitler-and-the-nazis-politically-left-or-right-wing-e9fcc9d3ab1e
First, what extreme views? I showed you an article that illustrated the similarities between National Socialism and traditional socialism at the policy level. These are historical facts.
Secondly, I am not sure why the outburst. We were discussing the fact that National Socialism is a leftist political philosophy, born of a divide within socialism. (Here I add that I have a dual degree in Communications and Political Philosophy and thus am experienced in intellectual history and the pedigree of political ideas.) This was not a discussion of my views - which are Tory (or Burkean) conservatism - but of the pedigree of ideas.
Finally, Hindenburg was seen as a war hero in a war that had not gone well for Germany and that is why he was able to win the presidency. That and the fact that the left vote was divided. Hence our conversation. It was as much because of a divided left as his own popularity.
By your argument, why did the Germans not retain the monarchy?
Next, repeating again, why did Hitler call himself a socialist? Please provide historical analysis and not just bald faced assertions? (Oh, and by the way, if a right winger, why did Hitler oppose the monarchy even before the war?)
Finally, please define for me, in detail, socialism and National Socialism? Be specific. In that connection, have there been splits within socialism before?
Oh, and apologies for the delayed response - as I mentioned, my s/o and I took an extended and delayed Valentine's Day vacation.
No worries how V day was good. And I meant it more as emphasis than outburst, apologies.
But it doesn’t look like we’re getting anywhere. You do seem wedded to this belief that socialism can only be left wing. That’s seems highly questionable as there are many extreme beliefs on both sides.
And you keep ignoring that Hindenburg was solidly right wing conservative. Appointed Hitler. Then signed off on giving him emergency powers to rule as a dictator after the Reichstag fire.
A political enemy wouldn’t do that. I don’t care what crazy ideas you form to explain it. That’d be like the Dems giving Trump absolute power.
We had a great "honeymoon"!!! Thanks for asking, Also, my apologies for misunderstanding you. Blame it on the fact t hat I was still on a "high" from vacation.
As to the rest, my academic background is in intellectual history and political philosophy. Nowhere have I ever heard of "fight wing" socialism.
To be sure, methods may overlap. Tyranny has methods in common, but the pedigree of the ideas of socialism are pretty straightforward.
However, we'll let it go. It's been a pleasure and one of the most interesting conversations I have ever had on this site. My thanks to you.
Also, apologies for this delayed response. We had a great time but came home to a power failure for some reason. Bottom line, my internet access was out for a bit.
Thanks again.
Sure it’s the means of government over production. Hitler Stalin Mao KIm Poll pot ass socialist. Do you understand the difference between socialism and the ides of the government program that are designed for the greater good vs government saying a business has to reject his belief to survive a people which he dreams to be morally wrong? No of course not
Right I’m saying government programs are socialistic especially the welfare programs. Police and military aren’t socialistic because it’s part of what you need for a thriving society. Welfare isn’t welfare and social security is socialist.
Fire departments is debatable because you don’t need government sponsored fire departments historically there was no fire department normally if a barn was on fire neighbors would try to come and put out the flames. So one could argue that the fire department is a socialist program.
Yes, I know what socialism is and I concur with the resolution. Sadly, socialism will lead to the destruction of the economy of the USA. There is almost nothing the government does that would not be accomplished better and far cheaper if left to the people and private enterprise.
If people hate socialism so much they should stop using roads, bridges, electricity, water, sewers, social security, firefighters, police officers, the military, public transportation, public parks, public schools, the post office, public libraries, Medicare, & Medicaid.
Opinion
10Opinion
Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a range of economic and social systems, which are characterised by social ownership of the means of production, with an emphasis on democratic control, such as workers' self-management, as opposed to private ownership. Socialism includes the political, social, and economic philosophies and movements associated with the proposal and implementation of such systems. Social ownership can be public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee.
While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element, and is considered left-wing.
Different types of socialism vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, on the structure of management in organizations, and from below or from above approaches, with some socialists favouring a party, state, or technocratic-driven approach.
Yes I do but what I don't understand is why Americans feel the constant need to denounce it. What motivates the average American to show how much he hates socialism at every opportunity? I can only conclude there's at atmosphere of fear and people are terrified if they don't sing from the same sheet they'll be taken away.
m Together with their uneducated, rabid MAGA base, the GOP is getting worse and worse…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%932010_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_States
Socialism is when the government does everything and runs your life but there are good points in some socialism like having fire departments highway the police and government things like USDA FAA many others
I do, but few countries run on pure socialism and those that do tend to do badly. Successful countries mix socialism with capitalism.
Yes I know precisely what it is. Unfortunately, almost all conservatives are completely unable to tell the difference between communism and socialism and persist in conflating the two even when that's the wrong and inappropriate thing to do.
I know what it is, and so do people that leave a socialist country to come to the United States, but Democrats either don't know what it is, or they are intentionally lying in order to trick people into wanting harmful socialism.
Only total morons think socialism is a good thing. Only total morons think this is about GOP. It's about reality.
The reality that socialism has never been shown to work except possibly at very small scales. Whenever this gets brought up the proponents of socialism are quick to point out that the failures are not real socialism, that somehow it was done wrong. That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that it's never been shown to work.
Socialism is an idealism. It relies on idealistic people, preferably people who enter into it by choice. This is why it breaks down with scale. When I was younger I went to some old hippie communes. They could work great, and I seriously thought about joining or starting one myself. But they only work with very small numbers of people. "The Farm" in Tennessee is the largest I knew of in the US, maybe one of the largest in the world.
I knew some people at The Farm, and visited one of their satellite branches. At one time it reached over a thousand members. But it started breaking down before that for the reasons I said. It relies on idealistic people who are all on the same page, and go into it by choice. It's extremely difficult to get that many people together who are all on the same page, and who will all carry their weight. Even at a small scale, those communes were only socialistic internally, and relied on other systems externally since they were not self sufficient.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Proponents always focus on the "to each" part, and ignore the "from each" part. There are always going to be slackers. If you give them a free ride, it will encourage them. So either you kick them out, force them to work, or simply put up with the freeloaders. This is what happened at The Farm. They whittled away at the slackers and people who didn't want to get with the program.
In every case of larger scale "socialism", either it wasn't real socialism, wasn't implemented right or it only contained minor elements of socialism. But whatever the reason, you can't get around the fact that it has never worked.
Yes I do. I saw the same document. My family and I are from the former Soviet Union.
It means that they have the experience and I have the knowledge through them what socialism is. They lived through it and my grandfather told me hours and hours of stories about his experience along with the rest of his family. He gave me a visualization of what it's really like as opposed to simply what is written on websites and books.
A form of communism that would destroy American society.
Capitalism attracts intelligent people. These intelligent people go off to create millions of jobs for our economy.
Chaos theory
You mad they called your bullshit out
Lol. You blamed inflation on Putin. I wouldn’t get to cocky with your economics knowledge
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
