Can Socialism and Nationalism co-exist?

[Herrebrugh]

What, being afraid you're (becoming) too nationalist?

Not for my nationalism. I meant a certain sort of concern for my country.

I do tend to view things sometimes through a prism where I value the wellbeing of my country's residents above quite a handful of other things, is what I meant to say. I certainly don't believe we're intrinsically superior to anyone and I'm of the opinion that the whole human race has more in common than apart, however.

Oh. right.

I have that too. It especially showed during the whole MH17 clusterfuck...

[Jugendbund]

"We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.

Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and the regaining of German freedom. Socialism therefore is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total combat brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the Fatherland!"
- Joseph Goebbels, 'Those Damned Nazis'

[Herrebrugh]

"We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.

Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and the regaining of German freedom. Socialism therefore is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total combat brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the Fatherland!"
- Joseph Goebbels, 'Those Damned Nazis'

Goebbels has the wrong definition of socialism.

I can say socialism means cake for everyone, but that doesn't make it true.

[Jugendbund]

"We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.

Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and the regaining of German freedom. Socialism therefore is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total combat brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the Fatherland!"
- Joseph Goebbels, 'Those Damned Nazis'

Goebbels has the wrong definition of socialism.

I can say socialism means cake for everyone, but that doesn't make it true.

Goebbels states that "socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class". Do you disagree with this statement? Did you actually read the entire quotation I provided? Goebbels makes no attempt to redefine socialism he merely argues that what it stands for , ie. collectivism and working class solidarity, is necessary if the best interests of the German race as a whole are to be met through the instruments of the state.

[Herrebrugh]

Goebbels has the wrong definition of socialism.

I can say socialism means cake for everyone, but that doesn't make it true.

Goebbels states that "socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class". Do you disagree with this statement? Did you actually read the entire quotation I provided? Goebbels makes no attempt to redefine socialism he merely argues that what it stands for , ie. collectivism and working class solidarity, is necessary if the best interests of the German race as a whole are to be met through the instruments of the state.

Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Jugendbund]

Goebbels states that "socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class". Do you disagree with this statement? Did you actually read the entire quotation I provided? Goebbels makes no attempt to redefine socialism he merely argues that what it stands for , ie. collectivism and working class solidarity, is necessary if the best interests of the German race as a whole are to be met through the instruments of the state.

Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less.

But why do socialists advocate collective ownership? For the very purpose of liberating the working class!

[Herrebrugh]

Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less.

But why do socialists advocate collective ownership? For the very purpose of liberating the working class!

... What does this have to do with anything?

[Jugendbund]

But why do socialists advocate collective ownership? For the very purpose of liberating the working class!

... What does this have to do with anything?

Because the telos of socialism is implicit in its very definition! Therefore Goebbels is correct in stating that socialism is a doctrine for the liberation of the working class.

[Herrebrugh]

... What does this have to do with anything?

Because the telos of socialism is implicit in its very definition!

There is no "telos"... Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. C'est ça.

[Jugendbund]

Because the telos of socialism is implicit in its very definition!

There is no "telos"... Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. C'est ça.

God this is rather like arguing with a brick wall. Do I have to walk you through everything? Answer me this, what is the reasoning behind socialism's preference for collective ownership of the means of production and what does social ownership even mean? It means that land, labour and capital should be in the hands of the majority, the workers, the working class. Socialists maintain that the current system where land, labour and capital is in the hands of the capitalists is unjust and oppressive. Therefore society, in their view, ought to be reshaped in order to benefit the working class. In other words, liberate them from their oppressors. Therefore socialism is a doctrine of liberation.

Happy now?

[Herrebrugh]

There is no "telos"... Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. C'est ça.

God this is rather like arguing with a brick wall. Do I have to walk you through everything? Answer me this, what is the reasoning behind socialism's preference for collective ownership of the means of production and what does social ownership even mean? It means that land, labour and capital should be in the hands of the majority, the workers, the working class. Socialists maintain that the current system where land, labour and capital is in the hands of the capitalists is unjust and oppressive. Therefore society, in their view, ought to be reshaped in order to benefit the working class. In other words, liberate them from their oppressors. Therefore socialism is a doctrine of liberation.

Happy now?

It means that the means of production are organised through cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. Whether it's a liberation is debatable, even though I personally believe it to be so.

In any case, it doesn't really matter what the minister of PR of the Greater German Reich says socialism is, considering that same reich really didn't do anything socialist, and put all the actual socialists behind bars, or in Sachsenhausen.

[Soselo]

> Soviet Union in 1942

yes, they can coexist

You might even say Betsy Ross was a communist, after all, red stripes.



The Soviet Union was communist, not socialist.

[Jugendbund]

God this is rather like arguing with a brick wall. Do I have to walk you through everything? Answer me this, what is the reasoning behind socialism's preference for collective ownership of the means of production and what does social ownership even mean? It means that land, labour and capital should be in the hands of the majority, the workers, the working class. Socialists maintain that the current system where land, labour and capital is in the hands of the capitalists is unjust and oppressive. Therefore society, in their view, ought to be reshaped in order to benefit the working class. In other words, liberate them from their oppressors. Therefore socialism is a doctrine of liberation.

Happy now?

It means that the means of production are organised through cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. Whether it's a liberation is debatable, even though I personally believe it to be so.

In any case, it doesn't really matter what the minister of PR of the Greater German Reich says socialism is, considering that same reich really didn't do anything socialist, and put all the actual socialists behind bars, or in Sachsenhausen.

So you admit that Goebbels was right to define socialism as a doctrine for the liberation of the working class? Thank you.

Eh that's a moot point and it's 1:05 a.m. Goodnight.

[Arglorand]

> Soviet Union in 1942

yes, they can coexist

You might even say Betsy Ross was a communist, after all, red stripes.



The Soviet Union was communist, not socialist.

No. No, it wasn't.

Hell, it didn't even claim to have reached communism yet. It claimed to be "on its way", whatever that meant.

[Herrebrugh]

It means that the means of production are organised through cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. Whether it's a liberation is debatable, even though I personally believe it to be so.

In any case, it doesn't really matter what the minister of PR of the Greater German Reich says socialism is, considering that same reich really didn't do anything socialist, and put all the actual socialists behind bars, or in Sachsenhausen.

So you admit that Goebbels was right to define socialism as a doctrine for the liberation of the working class? Thank you.

Eh that's a moot point and it's 1:05 a.m. Goodnight.

No. I'm saying it's debatable.

[Duvniask]

Goebbels states that "socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class". Do you disagree with this statement? Did you actually read the entire quotation I provided? Goebbels makes no attempt to redefine socialism he merely argues that what it stands for , ie. collectivism and working class solidarity, is necessary if the best interests of the German race as a whole are to be met through the instruments of the state.

Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less.

It means that the means of production are organised through cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.(...)

That's a rather simplified view of socialism. You can conclude from this that the USSR was socialist, when it was anything but.

Socialism implies co-operative organization of the economy along participatory notions, of which societal ownership is the central factor, but not the only one.

[Arkolon]

Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less.

It means that the means of production are organised through cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.(...)

That's a rather simplified view of socialism. You can conclude from this that the USSR was socialist, when it was anything but.

Socialism implies co-operative organization of the economy along participatory notions, of which societal ownership is the central factor, but not the only one.

Or, in the Marxian sense of the word, socialism is the transition stage from capitalism to communism. By that definition the USSR was socialist.

[Rob Halfordia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S ... capitalism

The National Socialists were big anti-capitalists. True, they did also hate Communism, but only because it was blocking their success, not for any ideological reasons.

Being anti-capitalist does not automatically make you socialist. At all.

Otherwise, that one neo-feudalist we used to have here is a socialist, and I'm sure even you will disagree with that.

Also, that's entirely and completely wrong. Nazis hated Communists for a shitton of ideological reasons, not least of which is the fact that Communism, at least in theory (we are not considering certain examples in mostly stalinist regimes simply because let's be honest here ideology is built on theory and not on practice - if we evaluate practice alone, stalinist regimes are simply red nazis anyway) rejected ethnic and national pride and put the class above the nation in the list of priorities. Not to mention Nazis did not believe in any main principle of communism. They rejected solidarity in favour of loyalty, equality in favour of worshipping the Leader, and class interest in favour of a very narrow and racist definition of "national interest".

Contrary to what you seem to think, they did not hate capitalism because they wanted to abolish the class system or because they wanted economic equality. They hated unlimited, untamed capitalism because they hated the idea of the economy being subject to the whim of individuals rather than nations, and because they thought the nation was an organic organism composed of many parts. This ideology was, as proven, absolutely disconnected from reality, but that's what they thought. If those parts were capitalists, they were quite okay with those people having their private enterprise as long as those people weren't Jewish, Polish, other "untermensch" or dissenters in any way - and developing economic growth without looking at the needs of the State first, in the eyes of a fascist, is dissent. So naturally they clamped down on this.

Not to mention that laissez faire capitalism does not help when building a war economy.

I agree with this guy. Just because you hate one thing, doesn't mean you like it's opposite. I hate everybody

[Duvniask]

That's a rather simplified view of socialism. You can conclude from this that the USSR was socialist, when it was anything but.

Socialism implies co-operative organization of the economy along participatory notions, of which societal ownership is the central factor, but not the only one.

Or, in the Marxian sense of the word, socialism is the transition stage from capitalism to communism. By that definition the USSR was socialist.

That's a stupid oversimplification born out of ignorance of Marxism. Aye, the transition stage is socialism, doesn't mean the USSR was in the transition stage for fuck's sake. The transitional period is the dictatorship of the proletariat, rule by the working class, not the dictatorship of the party. Initially the workers attempted to establish real political rule and economic socialization through soviets and factory committees, and then the Bolsheviks took it away and replaced it with capitalist types of management (now under the direction of the state).

It did not meet the conditions at all, and it's leaders were fully intent on developing capitalism through state planning.

[Geilinor]

God this is rather like arguing with a brick wall. Do I have to walk you through everything? Answer me this, what is the reasoning behind socialism's preference for collective ownership of the means of production and what does social ownership even mean? It means that land, labour and capital should be in the hands of the majority, the workers, the working class. Socialists maintain that the current system where land, labour and capital is in the hands of the capitalists is unjust and oppressive. Therefore society, in their view, ought to be reshaped in order to benefit the working class. In other words, liberate them from their oppressors. Therefore socialism is a doctrine of liberation.

Happy now?

It means that the means of production are organised through cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. Whether it's a liberation is debatable, even though I personally believe it to be so.

In any case, it doesn't really matter what the minister of PR of the Greater German Reich says socialism is, considering that same reich really didn't do anything socialist, and put all the actual socialists behind bars, or in Sachsenhausen.

Socialism means that the means of production are socially owned, but what do you think the purpose of socialism is? Surely it's the liberation of the working class.

[Liberaxia]

I don't think you quite understand why they did it.

The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism.

They weren't even claiming to be socialists. They were literally just trying to hijack the name and ergo socialist voters, much like what would happen if far-leftists suddenly decided that they are the Capitalist Party for no purpose other than to redefine the word, but kept saying they were anything but that. Hell, the Nazis kept repeating how National Socialism is not only different from just Socialism, but is also opposed to the very concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S ... capitalism

The National Socialists were big anti-capitalists. True, they did also hate Communism, but only because it was blocking their success, not for any ideological reasons.

¬∀(anti-capitalism=socialism)

[Neo Rome Republic]

Why are people still arguing if National Socialists are actual Socialists, they're not. They're Fascists, Fascist economic model would be a mix of private and public enterprise under Heavy State control. Also, private enterprise did exist in Nazi Germany. If memory serves, Nazis have already been classified as a branch of Fascism. So the bickering here is pointless, Nazis are Fascists, and that is simply the matter of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Economics

[Neragua]

Germany under Adolf Hitler, the USSR under Stalin, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Syria under the Assads, Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, Cuba under Fidel Castro, Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Argentina under the Perons.

Those are just a few of many examples on nationalism and socialism co-existing as part of the same ideology.

[Margno]

"We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.

Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and the regaining of German freedom. Socialism therefore is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total combat brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the Fatherland!"
- Joseph Goebbels, 'Those Damned Nazis'

Woah, Joseph Goebbels was wrong about something? When has that ever happened before?

[Arkolon]

Or, in the Marxian sense of the word, socialism is the transition stage from capitalism to communism. By that definition the USSR was socialist.

That's a stupid oversimplification born out of ignorance of Marxism. Aye, the transition stage is socialism, doesn't mean the USSR was in the transition stage for fuck's sake. The transitional period is the dictatorship of the proletariat, rule by the working class, not the dictatorship of the party. Initially the workers attempted to establish real political rule and economic socialization through soviets and factory committees, and then the Bolsheviks took it away and replaced it with capitalist types of management (now under the direction of the state).

It did not meet the conditions at all, and it's leaders were fully intent on developing capitalism through state planning.

It wasn't in the transition stage all the way to 1991. It was in the transition stage at one point, though. This isn't even special pleading, it's what I meant the whole time.