International law, UN declarations, are all a complete joke. Are the UN police going to come and enforce their declarations on the U.S, let alone North Korea, Israel, China, etc? No. They have as much worth as my declarations on this forum, and are treated as such internationally.
The only international law that anyone really cares about is trade law, and that's the simple truth.
Maybe the worth of an idea isn't solely determined by how much military force it has behind it.
Above all, the Nazis were authoritarian German white nationalists.
That is more closely assigned with the position of conservatives.
Also they imprisoned unionists, communists and socialists.
Throw in jail someone by """hate speech""", by owning unregistered firearms, by not celebrating an gay weeding etc is authoritarian too. Just like the failed war on drugs who throw in jail someone from owning "drugs" and amazing idea of spending the tax payer money into bombing countries across the globe
Right and Left is a matter of deffinition. National socialism is third way from certain writers like Dugin, is right wing for some and left wing for some(Hoppe for eg), same with socialism. Some people doen't consider non maxist socialism as "true socialism". Just like Anarcho capitalism is anarchy in the sense of no state but is completely different than Bakunin's Anarchism.
Anyway, no mainstream conservative wanna race based citizenship, concentration camps or other "NS stuff"
Again, it's pretty fair to say the Nazis weren't real socialists considering the name predated Hitler and yes, the Nazis did in fact throw actual socialists in concentration camps. That's not a weird interpretation of their philosophy; throwing socialists into concentration camps was in fact something the Nazis literally, physically did.
Hitler also made a point of criticizing socialism in Mein Kampf. We consider Mein Kampf to be an accurate representation of Nazi ideology under Hitler.
Originally, socialism referred to a society where the means of production, distribution and exchange were owned by the community as a whole. However, I think in America the word is now more typically used to describe any system where the government owns the means of production - that leads to a confusion between socialism and totalitarianism (and I think the Nazi regime is clearly far better described by the latter). This article gives a bit of background to this distinction.
The reason why the Nazis attacked socialists and communists (which they did), was nothing to do with their political beliefs as such, but just part of consolidating their power. In their early existence the Nazi party was just a fringe group in politics. The party was banned for a period under the Weimar Republic, but even after the ban was lifted in 1925 they were not a major electoral force - see these results for instance in the 1928 elections, where they came in 9th place with 2.6% of the vote. That changed rapidly after that though and in the 1930 elections they came second. In both the 1932 elections they came comfortably first. However, their vote share dropped noticeably in the November election, despite use of 'strong-arm' tactics by the Brownshirts, and that electoral downturn was what prompted Hitler to push Hindenburg into making him Chancellor - a position he then used to take total power.
In that final election under the Weimar Republic the Nazi vote was 33.1%. The next 2 parties were the social democrats with 20.4% and the communists with 16.9%. Those parties therefore represented an electoral threat to the Nazis. They also had a rival form of social organisation and Hitler was keen to eliminate any such rivals - hence the crackdown after taking power not only included political rivals, but trade unionists.
Important to understand that "left" and "right" are originally terms given to where people sat in the French legislature. And these terms work for distinguishing the internal politics of a specific time and place. In many ways they function very much like relatives pronouns, i.e "this" and "that".
But they start to break down when used to compare across countries and across times. This is a controversial view in political science, but, personally, I don't think there's some universal definition of these terms. Politics changes as the nature of society itself changes.
After all, libertarian gun laws and libertarian abortion laws would seem to be on the same side of a universal political axis. But they're not.
It's impossible to really draw a thru-line from Nazi-era fascism to today's conservatism, even though it might be tempting to do so. The social norms of debate back then were radically different than today. Consider for one, that pretty much every major political European party back then did not question for a second the colonial empires and the human cost of that. Something that would be seen as completely abhorrent today.
They were, the basic definition of socialism was part of their platform, but so what? It's just silly to paint an entire economic train of thought as somehow inherently genocidal based on one subsection of it led by one fanatical leader. Those guilt by association tactics are almost always nonsense.
I remember having this literal discussion with you half a year ago. All of the socialist planks in the NSDAP's platform were dropped or changed well before WW2 started. This is the consensus view of historians and economists.
It's rather likely that the NSDAP were trying to tap into the rising socialist sentiment by advocating for some socialist ideas when they were out of power and therefore totally unable to deliver. As soon as they got into power, however...
It's impossible to really draw a thru-line from Nazi-era fascism to today's conservatism, even though it might be tempting to do so. The social norms of debate back then were radically different than today. Consider for one, that pretty much every major political European party back then did not question for a second the colonial empires and the human cost of that. Something that would be seen as completely abhorrent today.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
You're missing the forest for the trees if you can't see the links.
- scapegoating"others" (Jews vs. immigrants)
- "others" are kept in concentration camps and treated as less than human
- a lying leader who complains about 'the lying press'
- the leader lacks empathy and can't handle criticism
- a cult of personality around the dear leader and government officials selected who serve the leader; not the nation.
- A government that tosses out 'the law' to accommodate the dear leader
The NSDAP's most important goal in the beginning was to draw the mass of the workers away from their attraction to communist, or rather socialist, ideas, and to win them over for the nazi ideology. If you had the support of the workers, the way to power was open.
Their ideologies had nothing in common, except for the false promises of freedom and equality (as long as you were one of them), and their self-proclaimed right to kill anyone who opposed them.
"National Socialist German Workers' Party" is just a name saying "come over here, we have everything you've ever wanted". They explicitly rejected Marxism, and later, as others have said before, being labeled a communist was enough to get you on a deportation train to a concentration camp, or rather extermination camp, and never be seen again.
Disclaimer: that does not mean that I support Marxism. Marx, not even mentioning obvious flaws in his theories, was happy to propose an armed, violent revolution as the justified way to power. And we've seen enough examples of that.
It's impossible to really draw a thru-line from Nazi-era fascism to today's conservatism, even though it might be tempting to do so. The social norms of debate back then were radically different than today. Consider for one, that pretty much every major political European party back then did not question for a second the colonial empires and the human cost of that. Something that would be seen as completely abhorrent today.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
You're missing the forest for the trees if you can't see the links.
- scapegoating"others" (Jews vs. immigrants)
- "others" are kept in concentration camps and treated as less than human
- a lying leader who complains about 'the lying press'
- the leader lacks empathy and can't handle criticism
- a cult of personality around the dear leader and government officials selected who serve the leader; not the nation.
- A government that tosses out 'the law' to accommodate the dear leader
Scapegoating others - the rich vs. the poor. Targeting minorities - the rich vs. the poor.
Left vs. Right - the only difference is which minority is the target...
Again, it's pretty fair to say the Nazis weren't real socialists considering the name predated Hitler and yes, the Nazis did in fact throw actual socialists in concentration camps. That's not a weird interpretation of their philosophy; throwing socialists into concentration camps was in fact something the Nazis literally, physically did.
Hitler also made a point of criticizing socialism in Mein Kampf. We consider Mein Kampf to be an accurate representation of Nazi ideology under Hitler.
@semiticgod , it's good if other countries allowed printing and reading of Mein Kampf to understand history. It was forbidden in Germany until 2016.
That was probably done with good intention, to avoid its use for propaganda, but withholding original information is never helpful, in my opinion.
Again, it's pretty fair to say the Nazis weren't real socialists considering the name predated Hitler and yes, the Nazis did in fact throw actual socialists in concentration camps. That's not a weird interpretation of their philosophy; throwing socialists into concentration camps was in fact something the Nazis literally, physically did.
Hitler was largely responsible for the name of the Nazi party. The party was originally called the German Workers Party when it was formed in 1919. Right from the beginning it was nationalistic, anti-semitic and strongly protested the Versailles treaty (particularly the requirement for reparations for WW1) - so it's no surprise Hitler joined the party soon after it was formed (he was its 55th member). He quickly became the party's leading figure and spokesman and pushed for the name change in 1920 (he also designed the swastika emblem) before becoming the official party leader in 1921.
Early on, Hitler set up the Brownshirts as his private army and used them to try and seize power by force - attempting a coup d'etat in Bavaria in 1923 with the hope the rest of the country would rise in support of him. That was a dismal failure though and resulted in Hitler being sent to prison (where he wrote Mein Kampf) as well as getting the Nazi party briefly banned. That experience of a failed armed revolt was the reason that Hitler decided after that to seize power through subverting the electoral and governmental system.
If you want to insist these aren't human rights, you need to actually make a case for it, as what you described as reasonable is in fact multiple human rights violations.
Also, the right to seek asylum is recognized internationally and in the US. This idea that seeking asylum should result in punitive outcomes is actually not consistent with existing law.
So? Nothing I do or value is contrary to those articles.
And if you really want to go down that hole, I recall neither this declaration being legally binding nor my country ratifying it.
It's okay, you can say "Nazi" and admit that Nazis weren't socialist at all.
Much as I'd like, I can't. Socialism isn't one monolithic thing. USSR was a very socialist, if tyrannical, state. Third reich was also socialist, if racist, state. Nowadays we have Scandinavian countries. There're plenty of subcategories of it.
PS Think this is a fitting song to the current political discourse (or the Nazi subject in general)
So Epstein took the cowards way out this morning and committed suicide.
Kinda a blessing that his accusers do not have to relive the trauma during what would have been a very public trial.
And you know somewhere in a dark corner of the Internet, that Clinton will be accused of having him murdered due to then being connected.
You can rest assured this will que up ENDLESS conspiracy theories. At a minimum, one has to wonder why he would possibly be allowed anything he could hang himself with, simply because his case had the potential to inplicate many others.
So Epstein took the cowards way out this morning and committed suicide.
Kinda a blessing that his accusers do not have to relive the trauma during what would have been a very public trial.
And you know somewhere in a dark corner of the Internet, that Clinton will be accused of having him murdered due to then being connected.
CNN is talking about the conspiracy aspect as I type this...
He already tried this once, at a bare minimum EVERYONE on Twitter is asking how he this could have been allowed to take place, not for his sake, but because of what his trial could reveal and.....I don't think that's a crazy question. Why wasn't he on 24-hour suicide watch, and if he was, what happened?? Again, no one gives a shit about Epstein, but justice for others who might have been involved.
The reaction on the left so far is "this is really fishy". On the other side, a current Trump Administration official (not some random person) has already suggested on Instagram the Clintons had him murdered.
And you know somewhere in a dark corner of the Internet, that Clinton will be accused of having him murdered due to then being connected.
Ah. Dark corners. Also, Facebook. A conservative acquaintance just posted "Not healthy having the goods against Bill".
Regarding other posts. So long as the internet is a thing, you will always have people (wrongly) suggest that Germany in WW2 was economically socialist and that because Mussolini was originally a socialist that all fascism is a left-wing ideological stance.
I'd be more concerned about the handful of retirements in multiple Texas districts if I was them. Maybe not in 2020, but if and when Texas goes blue, even the Electoral College won't save the GOP from complete political exile on a national level.
There's a huge difference between a state with a strong social system, and a socialist state.
Err, isn't strong social system based on socialism, though?
"Based on" doesn't mean "equals". I'm a carbon-based lifeform. That doesn't make me a piece of coal ?.
I think I understand what you mean, but with the same logic you can call them capitalist, because their companies belong to individuals, not the state, and they make a personal profit.
Most modern states have taken ideas and concepts from different political ideologies, of course.
I think it's necessary to give your definition of socialism, if you're putting all the above mentioned states into a single, although broad, category.
It's impossible to really draw a thru-line from Nazi-era fascism to today's conservatism, even though it might be tempting to do so. The social norms of debate back then were radically different than today. Consider for one, that pretty much every major political European party back then did not question for a second the colonial empires and the human cost of that. Something that would be seen as completely abhorrent today.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
You're missing the forest for the trees if you can't see the links.
- scapegoating"others" (Jews vs. immigrants)
- "others" are kept in concentration camps and treated as less than human
- a lying leader who complains about 'the lying press'
- the leader lacks empathy and can't handle criticism
- a cult of personality around the dear leader and government officials selected who serve the leader; not the nation.
- A government that tosses out 'the law' to accommodate the dear leader
Scapegoating others - the rich vs. the poor. Targeting minorities - the rich vs. the poor.
Left vs. Right - the only difference is which minority is the target...
Well, the rich are the ones actually running the government yet no one is claiming there's an "INVASION" of rich people or that they are dirty and criminals. That's what I mean by scapegoating. Pointing out that the rich are rich on our expense is not really scapegoating because there's truth there. Rich lobbyists and super pacs and billionaires run the USA - Republican party especially but also most Democratic candidates. But again, no one is saying these are people that need to be locked up - they just need to pay their share and not get any more tax cuts that will be passed on to us.
So Epstein took the cowards way out this morning and committed suicide.
Kinda a blessing that his accusers do not have to relive the trauma during what would have been a very public trial.
And you know somewhere in a dark corner of the Internet, that Clinton will be accused of having him murdered due to then being connected.
Now investigators in Barr's crooked Justice department can allege whatever they want and Epstein won't be around to say different. And who knows what evidence might end up showing up, it's not like a cop would ever dream about planting evidence.
Well I think there should be an inquiry on his death and someone should be held accountable for it. As jj said, Epstein did attempt to kill himself a week or two ago.
I do not buy into conspiracy theories though and news organizations are doing themselves, and the public, a disservice by covering it.
The data still show that more Americans want to decrease immigration than increase it, with about a third of Americans just favoring current levels of immigration. The last several decades have seen more people steadily becoming friendly to immigration, though, and the opinion of immigration in general is positive ("immigrants are good, but we already have plenty").
Regarding the definition of socialism: I find it incredibly bizarre that socialism is somehow used to refer to Nazism, old-school Marxism, North Korean dictatorship, American Democrats, mainstream European governments, Latin American revolutions, labor unions, Chinese communism, Chinese capitalism, and Chinese fascism all at the same time.
These are wildly different systems, some of which are diametrically opposed to each other--the Soviet Union was famously anti-fascist, the Nazis cracked down on communists, mainstream European governments as well as the U.S. alternately fought against both the Soviets and the Nazis, the North Koreans run a dynastic monarchy on top of a caste system (people who descended from rich folks are now low in status; people whose ancestors were poor or revolutionaries are now high-ranking), and China has transitioned from a full-blown communist state to a highly nationalistic oligarchy (with rather strong support for ethnic supremacy) on a crony capitalist system.
The Nazis literally went to war with Britain and France, and yet some people call all three of them socialist. Germany overhauled its entire government after losing WWII, and yet some people call both governments socialist. If all these things are socialist, the word socialist has no meaning at all.
Comments
Maybe the worth of an idea isn't solely determined by how much military force it has behind it.
If they follow the definition of "democratic" and "popular", yes. Anyway, state controlling the means of production = socialism.
That is more closely assigned with the position of conservatives.
Also they imprisoned unionists, communists and socialists.
Throw in jail someone by """hate speech""", by owning unregistered firearms, by not celebrating an gay weeding etc is authoritarian too. Just like the failed war on drugs who throw in jail someone from owning "drugs" and amazing idea of spending the tax payer money into bombing countries across the globe
Right and Left is a matter of deffinition. National socialism is third way from certain writers like Dugin, is right wing for some and left wing for some(Hoppe for eg), same with socialism. Some people doen't consider non maxist socialism as "true socialism". Just like Anarcho capitalism is anarchy in the sense of no state but is completely different than Bakunin's Anarchism.
Anyway, no mainstream conservative wanna race based citizenship, concentration camps or other "NS stuff"
Hitler also made a point of criticizing socialism in Mein Kampf. We consider Mein Kampf to be an accurate representation of Nazi ideology under Hitler.
The reason why the Nazis attacked socialists and communists (which they did), was nothing to do with their political beliefs as such, but just part of consolidating their power. In their early existence the Nazi party was just a fringe group in politics. The party was banned for a period under the Weimar Republic, but even after the ban was lifted in 1925 they were not a major electoral force - see these results for instance in the 1928 elections, where they came in 9th place with 2.6% of the vote. That changed rapidly after that though and in the 1930 elections they came second. In both the 1932 elections they came comfortably first. However, their vote share dropped noticeably in the November election, despite use of 'strong-arm' tactics by the Brownshirts, and that electoral downturn was what prompted Hitler to push Hindenburg into making him Chancellor - a position he then used to take total power.
In that final election under the Weimar Republic the Nazi vote was 33.1%. The next 2 parties were the social democrats with 20.4% and the communists with 16.9%. Those parties therefore represented an electoral threat to the Nazis. They also had a rival form of social organisation and Hitler was keen to eliminate any such rivals - hence the crackdown after taking power not only included political rivals, but trade unionists.
But they start to break down when used to compare across countries and across times. This is a controversial view in political science, but, personally, I don't think there's some universal definition of these terms. Politics changes as the nature of society itself changes.
After all, libertarian gun laws and libertarian abortion laws would seem to be on the same side of a universal political axis. But they're not.
It's impossible to really draw a thru-line from Nazi-era fascism to today's conservatism, even though it might be tempting to do so. The social norms of debate back then were radically different than today. Consider for one, that pretty much every major political European party back then did not question for a second the colonial empires and the human cost of that. Something that would be seen as completely abhorrent today.
I remember having this literal discussion with you half a year ago. All of the socialist planks in the NSDAP's platform were dropped or changed well before WW2 started. This is the consensus view of historians and economists.
It's rather likely that the NSDAP were trying to tap into the rising socialist sentiment by advocating for some socialist ideas when they were out of power and therefore totally unable to deliver. As soon as they got into power, however...
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
You're missing the forest for the trees if you can't see the links.
- scapegoating"others" (Jews vs. immigrants)
- "others" are kept in concentration camps and treated as less than human
- a lying leader who complains about 'the lying press'
- the leader lacks empathy and can't handle criticism
- a cult of personality around the dear leader and government officials selected who serve the leader; not the nation.
- A government that tosses out 'the law' to accommodate the dear leader
1943 or a couple days ago
Their ideologies had nothing in common, except for the false promises of freedom and equality (as long as you were one of them), and their self-proclaimed right to kill anyone who opposed them.
"National Socialist German Workers' Party" is just a name saying "come over here, we have everything you've ever wanted". They explicitly rejected Marxism, and later, as others have said before, being labeled a communist was enough to get you on a deportation train to a concentration camp, or rather extermination camp, and never be seen again.
Disclaimer: that does not mean that I support Marxism. Marx, not even mentioning obvious flaws in his theories, was happy to propose an armed, violent revolution as the justified way to power. And we've seen enough examples of that.
Scapegoating others - the rich vs. the poor. Targeting minorities - the rich vs. the poor.
Left vs. Right - the only difference is which minority is the target...
@semiticgod , it's good if other countries allowed printing and reading of Mein Kampf to understand history. It was forbidden in Germany until 2016.
That was probably done with good intention, to avoid its use for propaganda, but withholding original information is never helpful, in my opinion.
Hitler was largely responsible for the name of the Nazi party. The party was originally called the German Workers Party when it was formed in 1919. Right from the beginning it was nationalistic, anti-semitic and strongly protested the Versailles treaty (particularly the requirement for reparations for WW1) - so it's no surprise Hitler joined the party soon after it was formed (he was its 55th member). He quickly became the party's leading figure and spokesman and pushed for the name change in 1920 (he also designed the swastika emblem) before becoming the official party leader in 1921.
Early on, Hitler set up the Brownshirts as his private army and used them to try and seize power by force - attempting a coup d'etat in Bavaria in 1923 with the hope the rest of the country would rise in support of him. That was a dismal failure though and resulted in Hitler being sent to prison (where he wrote Mein Kampf) as well as getting the Nazi party briefly banned. That experience of a failed armed revolt was the reason that Hitler decided after that to seize power through subverting the electoral and governmental system.
And if you really want to go down that hole, I recall neither this declaration being legally binding nor my country ratifying it.
Much as I'd like, I can't. Socialism isn't one monolithic thing. USSR was a very socialist, if tyrannical, state. Third reich was also socialist, if racist, state. Nowadays we have Scandinavian countries. There're plenty of subcategories of it.
PS Think this is a fitting song to the current political discourse (or the Nazi subject in general)
Scandinavian countries are parliamentary monarchies (or whatever the correct term in English is).
There's a huge difference between a state with a strong social system, and a socialist state.
(Edited the wording. Might have sounded offensive before. I apologize.)
Kinda a blessing that his accusers do not have to relive the trauma during what would have been a very public trial.
And you know somewhere in a dark corner of the Internet, that Clinton will be accused of having him murdered due to then being connected.
You can rest assured this will que up ENDLESS conspiracy theories. At a minimum, one has to wonder why he would possibly be allowed anything he could hang himself with, simply because his case had the potential to inplicate many others.
CNN is talking about the conspiracy aspect as I type this...
He already tried this once, at a bare minimum EVERYONE on Twitter is asking how he this could have been allowed to take place, not for his sake, but because of what his trial could reveal and.....I don't think that's a crazy question. Why wasn't he on 24-hour suicide watch, and if he was, what happened?? Again, no one gives a shit about Epstein, but justice for others who might have been involved.
The reaction on the left so far is "this is really fishy". On the other side, a current Trump Administration official (not some random person) has already suggested on Instagram the Clintons had him murdered.
Just read that in news. A jailed billionaire trying to suicide? Lmao what.
https://theconversation.com/americans-support-for-immigration-is-at-record-highs-but-the-government-is-out-of-sync-with-their-views-121215
Ah. Dark corners. Also, Facebook. A conservative acquaintance just posted "Not healthy having the goods against Bill".
Regarding other posts. So long as the internet is a thing, you will always have people (wrongly) suggest that Germany in WW2 was economically socialist and that because Mussolini was originally a socialist that all fascism is a left-wing ideological stance.
I'd be more concerned about the handful of retirements in multiple Texas districts if I was them. Maybe not in 2020, but if and when Texas goes blue, even the Electoral College won't save the GOP from complete political exile on a national level.
"Based on" doesn't mean "equals". I'm a carbon-based lifeform. That doesn't make me a piece of coal ?.
I think I understand what you mean, but with the same logic you can call them capitalist, because their companies belong to individuals, not the state, and they make a personal profit.
Most modern states have taken ideas and concepts from different political ideologies, of course.
I think it's necessary to give your definition of socialism, if you're putting all the above mentioned states into a single, although broad, category.
This is a great idea! It's made by scientists. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, the rich are the ones actually running the government yet no one is claiming there's an "INVASION" of rich people or that they are dirty and criminals. That's what I mean by scapegoating. Pointing out that the rich are rich on our expense is not really scapegoating because there's truth there. Rich lobbyists and super pacs and billionaires run the USA - Republican party especially but also most Democratic candidates. But again, no one is saying these are people that need to be locked up - they just need to pay their share and not get any more tax cuts that will be passed on to us.
Now investigators in Barr's crooked Justice department can allege whatever they want and Epstein won't be around to say different. And who knows what evidence might end up showing up, it's not like a cop would ever dream about planting evidence.
I do not buy into conspiracy theories though and news organizations are doing themselves, and the public, a disservice by covering it.
Regarding the definition of socialism: I find it incredibly bizarre that socialism is somehow used to refer to Nazism, old-school Marxism, North Korean dictatorship, American Democrats, mainstream European governments, Latin American revolutions, labor unions, Chinese communism, Chinese capitalism, and Chinese fascism all at the same time.
These are wildly different systems, some of which are diametrically opposed to each other--the Soviet Union was famously anti-fascist, the Nazis cracked down on communists, mainstream European governments as well as the U.S. alternately fought against both the Soviets and the Nazis, the North Koreans run a dynastic monarchy on top of a caste system (people who descended from rich folks are now low in status; people whose ancestors were poor or revolutionaries are now high-ranking), and China has transitioned from a full-blown communist state to a highly nationalistic oligarchy (with rather strong support for ethnic supremacy) on a crony capitalist system.
The Nazis literally went to war with Britain and France, and yet some people call all three of them socialist. Germany overhauled its entire government after losing WWII, and yet some people call both governments socialist. If all these things are socialist, the word socialist has no meaning at all.