Political Spectrum Revised

[unmerged(110051)]

Wait, so being a blue collar worker makes you automatically a socialist
All kinds of parties around the world made the pretence of representing "the common people". Today as well as in the past, many critiques of the leftwing are based on it being out of touch with real life Ivory Tower intellectuals and contrasting it with the honest, god-fearing, working class regular folks. William Henry Harrison was running a campaign based on living in a log cabin in 1840 already. Was he a socialist, too?
It's also quite astounding that you can present the Falange as socialist when they directly rebelled against a governemt of Popular Front, coalition of all Spanish political forces that considered themself left wing.

If you would have the intellectual curiosity to read about Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera from Falange or the Italian fascism, you wold understand what I am saying and in which terms they talked about worker class.

I also would like to remind you a saying at Nuremberg trials about national socialism


Geyr: "Any objective observer will admit that National Socialism raised the social status of the worker, and in some respects even his standard of living as long as that was possible."
L (Leeb): "This is one of the great achievements of National Socialism. The excesses of National Socialism were in the first and final analysis due to the (warped) personality of the FUEHRER [capitals in the orig. script]."
GUD (Guderian): "The fundamental principles were fine."
L: "That is true."

You may not like it but that´s how it is. The difference is how that socialism / syndicalism was structured, among class against other social classes or among nations against other nations.

The common denominator of both kind of socialism were their hate for liberals and free markets. Antithesis of free markets and liberalism ? yes you are right, socialism either left or right.

And please bear in mind the differences between socialism and communism in regards to the property of the production means, socialism and fascism both allowed private ownership but with a huge public sector and other economics measures.

sorry if you do not like it, but they are very very very close in certain matters

 

[unmerged(110051)]

Wow, that's another bold claim. They are many causes of antisemitism, and the one you present seems to be a comparatively minor ones.
There's a religious antisemitism (which obviously has little to with socialism), and the economic antisemitism was mostly based on Jews being a dangerous COMPETION in trade, industry and professional occupations (Law, Medicine). Most of people who felt endangered by Jewish ecomical advasement were definetly not of socialist inclinations.
On the other hand, Jews tended to be overrepresanted in the socialist and communist parties (not suprisingly, giving their internationalistic and egalitarian stances). So this assosiation of antisemitism and socialism seems to be in large part your own invention.

Fine but if you read the context of my post it was referring to fascism/nazi antisemitism , and "socialism" meant national socialism that ws teh reason for the " "

Nazis were pagan, so no religious issues here, but more the economics and certain economic practices in Germany by jews (like dummping prices to destroy competitors in certain area or neighbor, to collude agreements to make prices higher than they should) that brought that sentiment in.

So mainoly two reason, first economic, as mention liberals but also because monopolistic attitudes. And second because within their notion of national unity was confronted with a group who will puts their own profits and own racial community first was somehow unacceptable.

 

[Raczynski]

If you would have the intellectual curiosity to read about Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera from Falange or the Italian fascism, you wold understand what I am saying and in which terms they talked about worker class.

I also would like to remind you a saying at Nuremberg trials about national socialism


Geyr: "Any objective observer will admit that National Socialism raised the social status of the worker, and in some respects even his standard of living as long as that was possible."
L (Leeb): "This is one of the great achievements of National Socialism. The excesses of National Socialism were in the first and final analysis due to the (warped) personality of the FUEHRER [capitals in the orig. script]."
GUD (Guderian): "The fundamental principles were fine."
L: "That is true."

You may not like it but that´s how it is. The difference is how that socialism / syndicalism was structured, among class against other social classes or among nations against other nations.

The common denominator of both kind of socialism were their hate for liberals and free markets. Antithesis of free markets and liberalism ? yes you are right, socialism either left or right.

And please bear in mind the differences between socialism and communism in regards to the property of the production means, socialism and fascism both allowed private ownership but with a huge public sector and other economics measures.

sorry if you do not like it, but they are very very very close in certain matters

I would like you to stop insinuating what I might like and what I might not like. I'm an (European sense) liberal, so contrary to what you seems to think, I don't have any ideological interest in the question.
Also, as far I can tell, there's actually a difference between syndycalism, corporationism, and socialism. I didn't deny that the first two were connected with Italian Fascism and Spanish Falanga; I did deny your claim that both of these were "socialist".

 

[unmerged(135152)]

OFFTOPIC - take your political rants elsewhere.

marvelous contribution !!! I am impressed.

Considering that the other guy is trying establish fascism as a form of socialism, this is actually a pretty good contribution.

Just like debating with people who deny the Holocaust or gravity, it just isn't worth the effort. Sorry.

 

[unmerged(110051)]

Considering that the other guy is trying establish fascism as a form of socialism, this is actually a pretty good contribution.

Just like debating with people who deny the Holocaust or gravity, it just isn't worth the effort. Sorry.

Normally i would forbid myself to answer this, but I am going to make an exception in your case: get informed before talking.

If socialism is define as: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

then Nazism could be considered a form of socialism with a racial and expansionist component

If socialism is defined as "The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved."

Then Nazism can not be defined as socialism but fall quite short, change above "communism" for lebensraum or Reich, and "dictatorship of the proletariat" by "dictatorship of the elites" and you have it.

 

[unmerged(110051)]

I did deny your claim that both of these were "socialist".

That depends of what your definition of socialism is. See post above

 

[Vanguard44]

In fact the new deal of FDR was in part inspired by germany´s economic miracle, did you knew?

You sure about that eh? FDR came into power in 1931 and started practically immediately on his plan - Hitler, on the other hand, came in in 1933...

Essentially I think that the statist powers - Fascism, Falangism, the South American populist movements - used Socialist means to achieve anti-Socialist ends. This doesn't necessarily make them Socialist, but it does explain the reason why their regimes appear pretty similar.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

1. I follow Austrian economics, most neoliberals are Monetarists (macroeconomic socialists).

The Austrian School, back when it was actually active in Austria did lean heavily towards the right wing of the Austrian political spectrum (specifically, the conservative Christlichsoziale Partei). In fact, Friedrich Hayek was economic advisor to the Austrofascist Dollfuß, and even in the 1970s was eager to excuse right-wing dictatorships on the grounds that good economic policies were more important than political rights.

 

[sbielas]

IMHO Communism, Facist and Nazis have more common then it looks from the first sight. There is an interesting comparison of those ideologies made by prof.Richard Piper in his book - Russia of Bolsheviks.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

And please bear in mind the differences between socialism and communism in regards to the property of the production means, socialism and fascism both allowed private ownership but with a huge public sector and other economics measures.

That's not quite true, unless you ascribe to a peculiar definition of the term where "socialism" is everything to the left of classical liberalism. In fact, one of the key policies (and the most controversial one) of 1920s and 1930s communism was the seizure of private property and the establishment of state-run, centrally administered enterprises.

Not so with National Socialism - in fact, the Nazis made a point out of courting influential businessmen in their rise to power, and later awared these people with juicy government contracts, while putting down all forms of organised labor, slashing the welfare system of the Weimar Republic, and locking up or silencing all socialist-leaning politicians, artists, and intellectuals.

 

[Porkman]

Normally i would forbid myself to answer this, but I am going to make an exception in your case: get informed before talking.

If socialism is define as: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

then Nazism could be considered a form of socialism with a racial and expansionist component

If socialism is defined as "The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved."

Then Nazism can not be defined as socialism but fall quite short, change above "communism" for lebensraum or Reich, and "dictatorship of the proletariat" by "dictatorship of the elites" and you have it.

This is just abusive. Most of us would use the second definition to define what actually makes a country socialist.

Every country in the world is socialist to some degree. Look at national defense, it's a good, and the most efficient way to distribute that good is through collective ownership. Compare the way armies are organized now vs. the privately owned and funded armies of middle ages.

The American interstate highway system is socialist because the federal government owns all of the roadway.

My point is, a couple socialized services do not make a country socialist.

Some would argue that China is socialist, including the Chinese, but you would be hard pressed to find a country that cares less about socialist ideals. There is no socialized medicine there, the government pays more attention to the needs of corporations than it does to the individual workers, environmental laws are weak, the government has sold off almost 80% of the formerly state owned enterprises and is just trying to figure out how to sell the rest without creating massive unemployment.

They are free market authoritarians, not socialists.

The difference between dictatorship of the proletariat and dictatorship of the elites is profound. Not a "there you have it" sort of deal.

 

[unmerged(135152)]

This is just abusive.

--


My point is, a couple socialized services do not make a country socialist.

You should note that he/she isn't actually trying to engage in an intellectual debate on the subject. There are thirteen in a dozen of these fools around. Their basic pointers are:

-Socialism is bad, it's the worst thing ever, nothing good has ever come of socialism. 8-hour work day just sucks, as does having the weekend off, minium wages and everything else.
-Fascism is the greatest thing ever. Stealing and decifit spending is the way to success, as is mindless military expansion no matter what the cost.
-The only reason why fascism, the greatest thing since sliced bread, ever failed was because of socialism.

If they had any sense they would note that:

1.Fascism is very hard to define.
2.Socialism isn't.
3.The practise of Fascism and all known theories related are very far from socialism by any standard (Apart from fundamentally flawed ones).
4.Decifit spending and state control over strategically important industries during times of war (Or in preparation for them) does not equal socialism.


But then again let's be realistic, and realize that we should start small. Maybe with the one guy who stated that operation Barbarossa was a socialist civil war and the US of A was the main enemy of Nazi Germany all along. I mean if their views are that, pardon me, fucked up, it's not like you can offer them any advice or counter-arguments. I mean where do you begin? At establishing gravity? By trying to prove that WWII did happen? Like I said, it's exactly the same thing like with people who deny the Holocaust. If you don't believe in the best recorded event in history, you probably don't believe in anything else, either. "The Roman empire was just a scam, I tells you!!1" and so on.

Having received the answer from Paradox staff earlier in this thread already, I wouldn't waste my time explaining the differences of fascism and socialism to people who understand neither concept, but that's just me.

 

[King]

Obviously, game play comes first. But it might be worth thinking about chaing the name of the slider to whatever it is you mean by the concept. Maybe from "right-left" to something like "private property - state ownership."

there are no sliders in HoI3.

 

[sbielas]

You should note that he/she isn't actually trying to engage in an intellectual debate on the subject. There are thirteen in a dozen of these fools around. Their basic pointers are:

-Socialism is bad, it's the worst thing ever, nothing good has ever come of socialism. 8-hour work day just sucks, as does having the weekend off, minium wages and everything else.
-Fascism is the greatest thing ever. Stealing and decifit spending is the way to success, as is mindless military expansion no matter what the cost.
-The only reason why fascism, the greatest thing since sliced bread, ever failed was because of socialism.

If they had any sense they would note that:

1.Fascism is very hard to define.
2.Socialism isn't.
3.The practise of Fascism and all known theories related are very far from socialism by any standard (Apart from fundamentally flawed ones).
4.Decifit spending and state control over strategically important industries during times of war (Or in preparation for them) does not equal socialism.


But then again let's be realistic, and realize that we should start small. Maybe with the one guy who stated that operation Barbarossa was a socialist civil war and the US of A was the main enemy of Nazi Germany all along. I mean if their views are that, pardon me, fucked up, it's not like you can offer them any advice or counter-arguments. I mean where do you begin? At establishing gravity? By trying to prove that WWII did happen? Like I said, it's exactly the same thing like with people who deny the Holocaust. If you don't believe in the best recorded event in history, you probably don't believe in anything else, either. "The Roman empire was just a scam, I tells you!!1" and so on.

Having received the answer from Paradox staff earlier in this thread already, I wouldn't waste my time explaining the differences of fascism and socialism to people who understand neither concept, but that's just me.

Yes - you are right. However IMHO we should NEVER mix socialism with the Soviet communism. Those systems are located in different galaxies
For me personally there is no discussion which system was more criminal - German Nazism or Soviet Communism. Both system was totalitarian dictatorship guilty of milion of human beings.
When I think about socialism I think rather about kind of democracy - not about totalitarian system. Using adjective socialist for Soviet Union is for me the intellectual mistake.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

there are no sliders in HoI3.

... instead we'll have laws!

Just out of interest, will laws be limited/restricted by the ruling ideology?

 

[unmerged(39280)]

I always find these arguments interesting, but often unsatisfying. Too often it seems to me to we treat Fascism like some Platonic Idea. A great unified intellectual theory. In reality it was a hodgepodge ideology espoused by two neurotic and idiosyncratic dictators IMO.

In reality there were, what, two fascist nations that existed for one or two decades (Italy and Nazi germany.) Fascism, as traditionally defined, was then very quickly relegated to the dustbin of history by the way of its defeat.

This is not a overly large representative sample. Whats worse for the purpose of having a grand intellectual debate about how "fascism is Y", fascism does not seem to me to be a very rich intellectual movement, with many luminaries produced dense intellectual tomes. Its true the democratic and communist opponents of fascism definitely did a lot of scholarship on it. But in terms for how the fascist saw themselves it seems to me you really have to look at Mein Kampf or Mussolini's speeches.

The question then becomes how this is a real, separate ideology from hitlerism or mussolini-ism. Take one fairly simpe example: does fascism equal anti-semitism or biological racism? Must people would reflexively say yes. But Mussolini seemed to not be anti-semitic or play up a biological superior Italian race. Does that mean fascism does not equal antisemtism, or that Mussolin was an idosyncratic and "imperfect" fascist? Maybe we could turn that on its head: German fascism played up biological racism and anti-semitism due to idiosyncratic factors in Germany in 1930s and Hitlers own neurosis, not due to fact that fascism somehow intellectually requires anti-semitism.

And so we go. Mussolini, we are told, was once (and continued to be?) a socialist. Okay. But is that an personal quirk, or an intellecutal hallmark? Some have argued that nazis were anti-religous, "pagan" and anti-catholic. If Mussolini had better relations with the Vatican, what, if anything does that prove about the nebulous idea called "Fascism" and its relationship to organized religion?

Excellent post, the best one in this thread so far - my toughts on the subject as well.

Someone mentioned HoI1 triangular system. It was very simple and elegant, good for game purposes and still much better/ more accurate than the "right-left" dichotomy imo.

 

[unmerged(110051)]

there are no sliders in HoI3.

That´s a pitty, I kind of enjoy them

 

[unmerged(52491)]

Normally i would forbid myself to answer this, but I am going to make an exception in your case: get informed before talking.

If socialism is define as: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

then Nazism could be considered a form of socialism with a racial and expansionist component

If socialism is defined as "The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved."

Then Nazism can not be defined as socialism but fall quite short, change above "communism" for lebensraum or Reich, and "dictatorship of the proletariat" by "dictatorship of the elites" and you have it.

So you try to argue about one of the biggest and most complex ideologies of the modern times with a couple of dictionary definitions. Great job there. I can't see how could that go wrong. Do you exactly know what "means of production" or "dictatorship of the proleteriat" means? Do you know what does stages signify in Marxist theory? And what was "lebensraum" really?

If you are really going to take a smug attitude about this at least talk beyond bullet points and historical anectodes. Nazis were antisemitist because of socialism? :rofl:

edit: I really didn't want to enter to this discussion because it was off-topic but now King made it clear their position on the subject I think this topic would be better off in OT or History forums.

 

[unmerged(110051)]

You should note that he/she isn't actually trying to engage in an intellectual debate on the subject. There are thirteen in a dozen of these fools around. Their basic pointers are:

-Socialism is bad, it's the worst thing ever, nothing good has ever come of socialism. 8-hour work day just sucks, as does having the weekend off, minium wages and everything else.
-Fascism is the greatest thing ever. Stealing and decifit spending is the way to success, as is mindless military expansion no matter what the cost.
-The only reason why fascism, the greatest thing since sliced bread, ever failed was because of socialism.

If they had any sense they would note that:

1.Fascism is very hard to define.
2.Socialism isn't.
3.The practise of Fascism and all known theories related are very far from socialism by any standard (Apart from fundamentally flawed ones).
4.Decifit spending and state control over strategically important industries during times of war (Or in preparation for them) does not equal socialism.

That´s not even close to what I am saying, so boy, read my posts again cause you haven´t understood them. (and I am a "he" by the way).

 

[Mrdie]

So let's see here, these are the groups and their views on Nazism:

Anarchists: The State
Communists: State Capitalism
Liberals: Pseudo-Socialism
Conservatives: Socialism
Libertarians: Über-Socialism
Fascists: "You went too far, you assholes"