Red Mosquito

Don't worry, you can be a socialist without being a nazi or a stalinist I suppose, if that makes you any happier.

I have never and probably will never vote for a socialist party, so I'm not arguing from a supporter standpoint. You are wrong about the Nazis. They were both capitalist, nationalist, used slave labor, anti-globalist, there's a million reasons they weren't social democrats.

Anders wrote:I have never and probably will never vote for a socialist party, so I'm not arguing from a supporter standpoint. You are wrong about the Nazis. They were both capitalist, nationalist, used slave labor, anti-globalist, there's a million reasons they weren't social democrats.

I didn't say they were social democrats. I said there economic model was pretty similar.

And most of it was pragmatism. You're kidding yourself if you think some German corporation had any real autonomy or that they wouldn't be swallowed up when the Nazis gained enough power to do it.

Whether you consider them socialists are not, I don't care, but there is no doubt they hated capitalists nearly as much as they hated communists and jews.

Bernie is just as "socialist" as the leading german parties which is not comparable at all to the socialism of the past. There's nothing super radical or nothing even slightly comparable to communism in Bernies policies. The nazis weren't bad because they also were socialists. They were bad because they were nazis. Why are some people so hung up about the negative connotations of the word socialism? I'm living in democratic socialism and I'd saying it's going pretty swell so far.

And you're already living some kind of socialism. Bernie just wants to make you more socialist. He doesn't want to revolutionalize your whole system.

Mike wrote:Why are some people so hung up about the negative connotations of the word socialism?

Why indeed. I don't see any problems bringing up the negatives. I don't know why people get so defensive about it.

Because a word means different things in different contexts?

The Nazis had elements of social justice and equality for all (but only for their people that were not gay, of Jewish blood, etc), and a state run economy, but also equal amounts of capitalism. Their entire worldview goes against any social democratic or socialist party. The Conservative Party in Norway and England, have more state control and social justice as part of their policy than the Nazis did, doesn't make them socialist.

Mike wrote:Because a word means different things in different contexts?

sure does.

If the other side uses cheap attacks by throwing "SOCIALISM!!!" at your head because they are to stupid to know how words and their meanings work you are forced to clarify your position.

Mike wrote:Bernie is just as "socialist" as the leading german parties which is not comparable at all to the socialism of the past.

That's not true. The socialism of the past is the root of socialism today. It's the same ideology.

Anders wrote:The Nazis had elements of social justice and equality for all (but only for their people that were not gay, of Jewish blood, etc), and a state run economy, but also equal amounts of capitalism.

So that's 4 points in favor of nazis having a similar economic model to social democrats. I'm glad we agree.

Anders wrote:Their entire worldview goes against any social democratic or socialist party.

It obviously didn't go against every socialist party's worldview. The national socialist party was big fans of this form of socialism.

Anders wrote:The Conservative Party in Norway and England, have more state control and social justice as part of their policy than the Nazis did, doesn't make them socialist.

Depends on how you define socialism. And I hate to break it to you, but they are socialist by many of them.

Anders wrote:

Mike wrote:Bernie is just as "socialist" as the leading german parties which is not comparable at all to the socialism of the past.

That's not true. The socialism of the past is the root of socialism today. It's the same ideology.

Okay, maybe I'm getting the words mixed up. Would you say most of europe is socialist? And would you say that's a bad thing?

The opposition of Bernie is using "socialism" as an attack that makes people think of the Soviet Union which is completely unfair.

Mike wrote:If the other side uses cheap attacks by throwing "SOCIALISM!!!" at your head because they are to stupid to know how words and their meanings work you are forced to clarify your position.

When communists and socialists refuse to recognize that USSR and Nazi Germany were at least somewhat socialist (and its a lot more than somewhat, especially in the first case), I have a hard time pitying them when Americans call them out on it.

We don't agree. What I listed above is not enough to be socialist. Then every American president since the 1930s is a socialist.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mike wrote:If the other side uses cheap attacks by throwing "SOCIALISM!!!" at your head because they are to stupid to know how words and their meanings work you are forced to clarify your position.

When communists and socialists refuse to recognize that USSR and Nazi Germany were at least somewhat socialist (and its a lot more than somewhat, especially in the first case), I have a hard time pitying them when Americans call them out on it.

They were somewhat socialist. Is anyone denying that? Being somewhat socialist is not what made them bad, though. So using socialism as an attack in that context makes no sense.

Mike wrote:

Anders wrote:

Mike wrote:Bernie is just as "socialist" as the leading german parties which is not comparable at all to the socialism of the past.

That's not true. The socialism of the past is the root of socialism today. It's the same ideology.

Okay, maybe I'm getting the words mixed up. Would you say most of europe is socialist? And would you say that's a bad thing?

No, most of Europe is not socialist. Europe is mostly run by non-socialist parties, even some that are strongly against socialism. But all European countries have more social justice, health care and equality for all, than they did in the 19th century, when Karl Marx lived.

Anders wrote:

Mike wrote:

Anders wrote:

Mike wrote:Bernie is just as "socialist" as the leading german parties which is not comparable at all to the socialism of the past.

That's not true. The socialism of the past is the root of socialism today. It's the same ideology.

Okay, maybe I'm getting the words mixed up. Would you say most of europe is socialist? And would you say that's a bad thing?

No, most of Europe is not socialist. Europe is mostly run by non-socialist parties, even some that are strongly against socialism. But all European countries have more social justice, health care and equality for all, than they did in the 19th century, when Karl Marx lived.

And isn't that just the sort of "socialism" Bernie also wants? Social justice, health care and equality for all? (Maybe we're already on the same side of the argument) My point is just that Bernie is unfairly lumped in with bad political systems of the past because of word semantics.

If socialism = the Marxist/communist definition, the no, the nazis weren't socialists. Neither are social democrats. (but the USSR was)

If socialism = the above as well as any state run economy (possibly with some corporate middlemen) with massive redistribution of wealth, then the nazis, commies and social democrats are all socialists.

The problem is that many socialists constantly switch between the two when arguing.

Mike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mike wrote:If the other side uses cheap attacks by throwing "SOCIALISM!!!" at your head because they are to stupid to know how words and their meanings work you are forced to clarify your position.

When communists and socialists refuse to recognize that USSR and Nazi Germany were at least somewhat socialist (and its a lot more than somewhat, especially in the first case), I have a hard time pitying them when Americans call them out on it.

They were somewhat socialist. Is anyone denying that? Being somewhat socialist is not what made them bad, though. So using socialism as an attack in that context makes no sense.

Well Sanders seems to be in the case of the USSR, which is what kickstarted this whole thing.

"Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy."

"During the late 19th century and the early 20th century, social democracy was a broad labour movement within socialism that aimed to replace private ownership with social ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, taking influence from both Marxism and the supporters of Ferdinand Lassalle. By 1868–1869, the socialism associated with Karl Marx had become the official theoretical basis of the first social democratic party established in Europe, the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany."

Social democracy would not exist without Marx.