When it came to anti-Communist hysteria, nobody was asking the accused “are you a Communist or a socialist?” The two have often been used interchangeably, at least in this country. While Communism - which, for the record is actually supposed to describe the final result of the Socialist state, which is why the USSR never referred to itself as Communist (it wasn’t) - does involve that bloodshed according to Marx, not everybody these days agrees with him.
Short form:
Socialism, by its very nature, denies all human rights. Even when “rights” like freedom of speech are granted, they are granted. American philosophy holds that by your nature of being a rationale creature you have a right to freedom of speech, no matter what anyone says. Socialist philosophy holds that you have no right outside of those granted by the collective.
Anyway, like I said, this debate has been dozens of times. Just search through GD for communism and you will many threads to read and answer your questions.
Not even arguing your point, I would point out that you stated that communism was more evil than nazism. You weren’t comparing communism and the american philosophy. Do you hold that under Nazism, people were assumed to had rights by their nature of being rational creatures???
No, Socialism is the base from which Nazis, and fascism as a whole, grew. That is why I say it is more evil.
Note:I am not saying that the Nazi’ “aren’t as bad as people say”. They are as bad as people say, more so in fact. What I am saying is that socialism and communism is worse. However the choice between the two is like a choice between burning to death or being stoned to death. Yeah, I guess stoning is kinda better, but, well, no thanks for either.
As far as I know, communism does not deny human rights. I think you confuse communism and totalitarian regimes.
The rise of Hitler was supported and only made possible with the money of German (and international) capitalists, which were afraid of the Bolschewiki. The Nazis despised the communists and Germany finally attacked the USSR in 1941. So fascism was hardly the base for communism.
The only thing they have in common is that they are not democratic. But the thread is about communism.
Posted by Muad’Dib:
Can you provide a cite for this in any of the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, or any other important theorist of socialism?
Socialist != Communism!
All communists are socialists. But not all socialists are communists.
I consider myself a socialist democrat, or a democratic socialist, or whatever.
I often wonder how many people who decry communism and Marxism have ever actually read The Communist Manifesto.
(Which, btw, really sucks).
Quite frankly, Marx correctly diagnosed the problems of laissez faire capitalism, but his solution was bullshit.
He never said that Fascism was the base for Communism. But Socialism certainly was the base for Nazism. (Am I correct in capitalizing the -isms?) National Socialists, and all that.
‘Communism’ (as seen in the real world), and it’s somewhat milder cousin ‘Socialism’, are greater evils than was (is) Nazism for the simple fact that they are not seen as great evils by so many. Doesn’t make sense to you either? Look at it this way: The threat of Nazism is gone. Only the most marginal of the marginal support it in any way, shape, or form. But Communism, which is every bit as evil in practice, has all sorts of fans (Just visit any given college campus.) Socialism is even more accepted, even given Socialist gov’ts incredibly bloody and repressive track records.
It was easier on the eyes than Mein Kampf, but that isn’t saying much.
Well, then Mein Kampf must be really bad. I HATED the Manifesto.
But I’ve heard that even Lenin himself couldn’t make it through Das Kapital.
All in all, I’ll stick with Mill and Bentham.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, The Crucifixion of Liberty, by Aleksander Kerensky. THAT’S a really good one.
“National Socialist German Democratic Workers’ Party” was a name. The party was neither democratic, nor socialist, nor particularly well disposed in its policies toward workers. It was fervently nationalist, and a party, so they did get two out of five. Nazi monetary and fiscal policy was similar to that of Great Britain at the time; not much in the way of a welfare state; government spending was high, which is where the “Nazis were big on socialism” idea comes from, but this was of course because they were building a massive war machine from scratch, not because they were subsidizing bread or something. The idea that Nazism sprang from Communism or socialism is untrue.
As far as communism having failed, the workers’ revoltion is supposed to take place in a wealthy, democratized capitalist state, which was hardly the case in the Soviet Union or in China. Consider how successful capitalist systems are in, say, north Africa- you’re talking about a similar level or relative development to post WWI Russia.
And the "threat of Nazism is most certainly NOT gone… http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/jan-june00/austria_2-3a.html Austria’s Freedom Party is essentially Naziesque in many of its policies, and its leader is an apologist for much of the evils of the Third Reich. I am sure you will of heard of the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France’s last election- he is the leader of the French National Front. Britain is not so far removed from similar figures in major office- Enoch Powell was one of the most powerful figures in Parliament for much of the 1960’s…
From this site (rather leftist, but all I could find on short notice):
I suppose you could say that they were just using Socialist principles to appeal to voters, but if it quacks like a duck…
Haider and Le Penn as a portend of the coming 4th Reich? Hardly. When it comes to actual policies, they skew a bit right on immigration, but are solid leftists (by American standards) when it comes to fiscal and other domestic policy. They are great examples of how far left European politics have gone; That when fairly centrist (again, by American standards, maybe even a tinge left) are so vilified as Hitler Jr.'s.
Yeah, 'cause Sweden is firing on its own protesting people and Denmark is moving tanks into Italy to preserve unity. :rolleyes:
The vast majority of socialist states are peaceful with more or less the same stability and freedom as the US.
UnuMondo
Yep…the nazis called themselves "national-** socialists **. And China calls itself ** democratic ** republic of China.
Nope, socialism wasn’t the basis for nazism, despite its name…
We have a lot of big words flying around this thread and for some reason they do not have the same meaning to all who write them. Heres websters less than perfect definition.
Websters:
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively
Too many ppl think of Communism as only 2b. This is simplistic at best and clearly not the way the Marx originally envisioned the system at the time it was coined. Communism as envisioned by Marx isnt even inherently violent. Marx’s later works make room for a peacefull transition. Marx did however believe that for communism to work the transition had to be “worked” on by the ppl in general. You are what you do so to speak. I would say that Communism isnt inherently evil but hard to implement in the way envisioned by Marx.
Lets go through the different definitions and see how they fare:
1a is live and well in the world. Mostly in western democracies by Cults and Communes (although both are too small scale to really qualify as a system of ownership).
1b This definition is flawed. Marx clearly identifies manufacturing goods as key. So this definition should read “Common ownership of manufacturing goods, but consumable goods are available to all as needed”. As such 1b is working in its purest form in the Isreali Kibbutzes partly sponsored by American tax money (again a bit small scale to fit the definition).
2a is not in effect anywhere.
2b is in effect in N-Korea, home to 20million ppl. No other state is currently as involved in manufacturing goods.
2c has never existed. Its precursors have never been met.
2d …semantics.
The only definition of communism which I think is inherently bad is 2b, but then again calling it communism is a stretch.
Socialist doctrines are live and well and all around us. MedicAid and public schools are all part and parcel. All western democracies qualify to a varying degree as socialist.
Actually that the People’s Republic of China. And you have to admit if there is one thing they do have, it’s people.
But you are right that the Nazis were socialist in name only.
I can understand that. It should be read in the original German as it loses a lot with the translation. 
Socialism: (from dictionary.com)
It may be unpleasant for the socialists among you to admit it, but Nazism is mired with socialist ideas. I realize that the name alone doesn’t make it so; stop fixating on that. But the fiscal and domestic policies of Nazi Germany were socialist in nature.
Not really. That there were some socialist tendencies in the Nazi government (as in most 20th century European governments) is true. However, there was no state ownership of either major or minor industry and there were many aspects of the German economy that were clearly capitalist in nature. Even with the Nazi government setting war priorities for the weapons industries, they never really developed or made a serious effort to create a “controlled” economy.
What generally happens is that someone who wants to attribute all the world’s ills to socialism takes the Nazi level of government control of society and pretends that it is the same as government control of the economy and declares Socialism! Simply decalring that the Nazis were socialists does not make them so, no matter how bad they were. There are other evils in the world besides socialism.