- 2
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
This is what people like to imagine. But nazis and bolsheviks too built a state of welfare and social justice. The difference between them and social democrats ('socialists' in the narrower sense) is the attitude to the question of power. Common for all of them, on the other side, is that they need to control the state and make the state strong to make their goals real.It is rather what we call "communism". Socialism is about a welfare state
- 1
Every party wants as much power as possible to control the state for such goals to be achieved. Nothing exclusive for the socialists here.
So, the distinguishing feature of "socialism" is that it is "radical" and "modern". Do these descriptions actually mean anything or are you just pulling them out to give the appearance of specifity without actually having to be specific?
I'm taking a wild guess and say that we're contending with an exemplar of "Libertarianism" where everything that's kind of bad is characterized as "socialist", and everything good as American and "freedom".
Public welfare in Germany predates Nazism by half a century. The Nazis actually made wide ranging cuts to public welfare, in an effort to shift as many resources as possible to the arms industry.
Liberals or conservatives do not want a strong state. They compete in elections to limit the state's control over people's doings. Such is the theory, at least.
Well, liberals maybe. But conservatives? We have ones right now ruling in Poland. They are actually on their way of putinisation policy
- 3
Social Conservatism is the idea that the state has a role in regulating both public and private morality. Aside from totalitarian states conservative states tend to be the MOST controlling of peoples doings.
Liberals want a state with limited powers. Some want a weak state as well but it is possible to be both a liberal and a socialist.
The National Socialist party was socialist in the same way the Democratic Republic of North Korea is a democratic republic.
Yes. Actually I've become the one last years (from the hard liberal position).
Don't mitake liberalism with libertarianism, especially laissez faire...
- 1
I guess it would be if you first define Socialism as 'the opposite of liberty'.
As to facts about Nazi Germany: the current Germany is its legal successor.
A nonsense aimed to attract voters. Something like 'ethanol-free alcoholic beverage'.
There's a lot of confusion and fake in democratic politics, because no lie is banned to attract voters. As a result, we have lost sense for core political denominations. In such environment, a nonsense like 'social-liberal' is possible. People like these words, and you can promise 'a bit of this, a bit of that, trust me, everybody will be just fine'.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
I do hope you mean ethanol-free alcoholic beverage, ethanol is relatively safe to drink, methanol makes you blind (it's why 90% of the people in siberia have bad eyesight, bad homemade vodka)
so according to you under what system is a free market with a safety net?
Hehehehehe, (M)ethanol, yes, my fault! Better joke than I've intended.
Safety net is a good idea, I agree. A modern humane society is unthinkable without it, definitely. BUT! Any social scheme
1. requires administration, and not a small one, and
2. has an inherent tendency to expand. We can see it everywhere in Europe and America.
So if you prefer free market, you cannot say "I will also support social system", because social system is essentially a killer of free market. Frankly, the most you can say is "I will support free market, but I'm not particularly aimed at cutting down the social schemes." But it does not sound nicely, does it? So we rather use some basically confusing words...
- 1
Nazi's were socialists in the same way North Korea is a democracy in that neither the Nazi's or NK are those just because they said or say they are.
The Nazis basically just kept the socialist tag to make things seem more palatable for the workers whilst the Nazis snuggled in with Krupp and pals and the standard of living for the German worker declined.
The actual radical idealists like Röhm were bumped off to stop the Nazi's many aristocratic backers getting the scary idea that they were actually anything near a socialist party.
The actual radical idealists like Röhm were bumped off to stop the Nazi's many aristocratic backers getting the scary idea that they were actually anything near a socialist party.
Last edited:
While I agree with your point, I wouldn't call it "snuggeling in". The Nazis kinda seduced everyone, the workers with socialist paroles, the traditionalists with their nationalism and the leading capitalists with prospects of deregulation, big government spending and stability. But while they definitely lived comfortable with that agreement, the leading industrialist weren't allies of the Nazis per se, especially not the Krupps (they weren't big in the resistance either, but most Germans weren't).
And if you weren't seduced, there was always SA, SS and Gestapo waiting for you.
I don't really get you point? Social liberalism is a common name for policies trying to balance both capitalism and socialism. Take Germany as an example, we even have it in our constitution (-ish). Your argument is basically that water can't be warm, because it's either hot or cold, but never anything in between.
- 2