The Nazis believed in an elite few controlling the many. To me, that does not seem to follow the original tenants of socialism.

I certainly don’t think we have anything to fear in the United States except maybe better working conditions, better compensation, a police and fire department that respond immediately, etc. Also, people here can still say the pledge of allegiance however they want and whenever they want without being thrown in prison. Forcing everyone to do it in a certain way and at the same time seems kind of fascist (or socialist if going by some people’s definition) to me.

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named “National Socialist.” But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. In other words, more a Corporate-Government, much like Mussolini’s. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship — it can only be democratic.

To most people, Hitler’s beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler’s warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s “Liberal Democrat” party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party “socialist,” but whether or not it actually was.

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people — after all, wasn’t the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves “socialist,” but none have actually tried socialism.

Germany’s far-right Neo-Nazis are now called The National Democratic Party. Does this now mean that Nazis are Democratic? This is the absurdity of Reisman’s claims.
Or perhaps the new claim will be that ‘Democrats’ are fascists, but Republicans are good, strong members of the Corporate-government. Goebbels would be proud.

On another note, Hitler said he had taken the image for the swastika from a book on Buddhism. So the double ‘s’ ? Uh, no.

A lie travels halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its shoes on.

REPLY FROM REISMAN:
Nazi Germany was socialist not because it was called socialist but because the Nazi government possessed de facto ownership of the means of production in Germany. This came about as the result of its imposition of universal wage and price controls, which created general shortages, necessitating government rationing of consumers’ goods and allocation of the means of production. The Nazi government decided what was to be produced, by what methods, and in what quantity, and who was to receive it. That is socialism.

The same symbol was used by the Theosophical Society during the time when the Bellamys, Freemasons and the Theosophical Society worked together. They also helped spread the stiff arm salute via the Pledge at their meetings.

The symbol was used as alphabetical symbolism for socialism, and adopted later by German socialists as their flag symbol. Although an ancient symbol, was altered for use as overlapping S-letters for ‘socialism.’ It was deliberately turned 45 degrees counter clockwise and always oriented in the S-direction. Similar alphabetic symbolism is still visible as Volkswagen VW logos.

American Socialists also created the stiff-arm salute of German socialism. The early Pledge of Allegiance (created by Francis Bellamy in 1892) used a straight arm salute, not the modern hand over the heart.
http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html

Edward Bellamy’s book “Looking Backward” was an international bestseller that launched the nationalism movement worldwide. Edward’s book was translated into every major language, including German. They wanted government to take over all schools and impose robotic chanting to flags. The Pledge’s early right-arm salute was not an ancient Roman salute, and the ‘ancient Roman salute’ myth came from the Pledge.

People were persecuted for refusing to perform robotic chanting to the national flag at the same time in the USA and Germany (to the American flag, and to the German symbol flag). All of the above are modern discoveries by America’s leading authority on the Pledge of Allegiance, the historian Dr. Rex Curry (author of “Pledge of Allegiance Secrets”).

A perfect example of precisely the conditions Reisman refers to, is modern Cuba:

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=163059878&p=y63x6x584

In regards to the US being socialist, there are clearly groups in the US whose aim is to overthrow the current order and impose socialism. These groups attempt to gain their goal through incrementalism.

However, I agree with Reisman that the US cannot be considered truly socialist, if the definition of socialism is government control of the means of production. There are many regulations to guide and nudge, but the US government in no way dictates what will produced or to whom it will be distributed.

People colloquially use the term “socialist welfare state” to refer to the US and Western Europe, but by and large we are still pretty free to do business as we see fit.

To me, one of most concerning trends in the US is government seizure of private property for someone else’s private redevelopment. This pretty clearly crosses the line from regulation to outright total control of assets by the government.

Assuming ethics is a conclusion drawn from a prior premise (such premise in the areas of metahysics and epistemology), if one’s basic premise is that, metaphysically, the nature of reality requires dependency (rather than independence) for human security and flourishing, then leaching off of others is a natural, ethical, logical conclusion. If that really WAS the nature of reality, it might have moral (ethical) standing. Of course, that is NOT the nature of reality (despite government’s best efforts to make life hard!), and such behavior, whether you rob people directly or hire thugs or goverment to do it for you, is extremely immoral, as you note.

To your point, public education and many other venues do their best to ignore reality, and start kids out upside down with the asumption that mutual plunder is the best way to live–give them bad ideas and then try to destroy their conceptual faculties so they can’t figure it out on their own; quite a racket!

If the philosophical problem you are alluding to is the common lack of sound ethics, then i agree. Our schools raise kids to not give a second thought to the premise that it is ok for John to steal from Jane, as long as he at least puts up a pretence to give some of the loot to the more needy Paul or at least to some great and altruistic general cause.

They learn it is even better for them if they can construe themselves to in fact be that needy Paul, or at least be the beneficiary of the wealth transfer. This is, in fact to them Democracy and liberty: it is the freedom to leach off of and steal from others and the right to vote for John the thief of their choice. It’s not just ignorance of economics that holds us back; it’s our utter lacking in valid ethics.

But the socialist characterization of the greedy Corporate Man versus the all-wise altruist providing gentle tutelage to us in goverment may be more means than ends. I would suggest that there is a common element of human nature that drives all of this–the desire for security/certainty. We all (socialist, capitalist or otherwise) desire a degree of certainty–where is our next meal coming from, where will we sleep tonight, etc. But then the philosophical/psychological paths diverge. One party with the belief that greater certainty (security) can be achieved through an ethic of INdependence and the other the belief that greater certainty can be achieved though an ethic of DEpendence. This is why philosphy and a postive sense of life–a personal sense of efficacy–is so critcal to winning the battle for liberty. Anyone who doesn’t believe in the basic ability of human beings to cope with the world around them will be more inclined to follow the path of believing dependence is the key to security–why wouldn’t they? And I have no criticism of their desire for security–I share it. But I criticise their philosophy and concomitant psychology that leads to a sub-human existence of surrending oneself and one’s rights to others. Socialist “leaders” exploit this weakness by characterizing the “greedy” capitalist who will take advantage of the “incompetent” little guy. The irony, of course, is that it is such leaders who are insecure in their (lack of belief in) humanity and are morally corrupt.

This also relates to why this is primarily a philosphical battle and not an economic one.

Because of the surprising discussions i’ve had with old friends of mine, your comments regarding the socialist’s view of man really struck a chord with me.

“corporate man” greedy and sinful vs “government man” good and upright

The thing is that this mentality has infiltrated and permeated the minds of so many people from all points of view. It seems to me that even entrepreneurs have been taught subliminally to hold this view despite themselves.

Besides personal inclination, I also attribute this to the socialists’ control over the schools (the state’s number one propaganda dispenser). You’re right, dazzling logic is not persuasive, especially against years of subtle indoctrination. Sometimes when i think about it, it strikes me as miraculous that any adult libertarians exist at all.

By the way, I got a hoot watching the part in Serenity where the little girl explains to her teacher why people hate their government. It was great, until she had to stay after class and recite lines.

Socialists do more than that. Socialists are making claims about the nature of man (all social systems do). They believe “corporate man” to be greedy and sinful but “government man” to be good and upright.

Frankly I think people choose worldviews based more on personality than any other factor. So the psychological underpinnings are what has to be addressed. Dazzling logic will not convince …

Communisim is a socialist eschatology, not a realistic or existing social order. It is just plain stupid to claim that Soviet system was communistic – in fact, in was never claimed to be such by the communists themselves (the official definition taught in schools was “mature socialism”). Communism figured only as some undefined happy future, never specific, and always very short on details. Exactly like Christian Heaven.

The American or European socialism is not different from Soviet socialism in anything of consequence. The difference is only of degree of penetration of the population’s minds.

You have got to be joking! I can tell you from direct experience that living in a small country under the yoke of socialism is not a pleasnt experience. Socialism does not work. It fails everywhere.

For a start, socialism is not about extended family life. It goes directly against family life. Socialism is about stealing and defrauding. Any family that is based on those socialist ideals would soon cease to be a family.

Next, even the people living in a small country (as I did), are not all part of an extended family. The very notion a socialist mess is similar to an extended family is completely false.

In many ways having a socialist system in a small country is worse than in a big country. It is easier for the govt. to control people. It is harder for individuals to accumulate wealth without interference. The culture is more uniform and compliant. It is harder for an individual to remain unnoticed for long if he or she is “different.” That is, a person who does not toe the socialist line is more easily identified and observed.

The fact that people in smaller countries may share such things as race, religon, culture, history, national myths and other ideas makes no difference to the nature of socialism or how it operates or its results.

Socialism is against the individual just as surely as it is against family. After all, what is a family made up of? Individuals.

I respectfully submit you try living in a small socialist country for a few years!

Reismann certainly does not confuse socialism and communism. He has it right on.

Socialism seems to operate decently in a small country united by “race,” relion, culture, and history where the country is more like an extended family than a nation of individuals.

Every dollar I spend on a Big Mac is a vote in favour of McDonalds and its continued existence. Similarly were I to donate money to the local school, I am voting for its continued existence (of course I do not do this as I want them gone).

Representative democracy is a form of fraud. It is based on the careless notion that entire populations can trust a professional politician to “represent” their interests collectively. A simple example shows why this can’t work.

My neighbour is of the opinion that the death penalty is a proper action to be undertaken by the state for particlar “crimes.” I disagree with him. We have the same member of parliament to “represent” us. That MP can’t “represent” both of us. He would either decide that the death penalty is OK or that it isn’t. And he would do that according to his own point of view. He “represents” no-one but himself.

The local MP does not know me or my neighbour. We’ve never met the man. Yet he would say that he does “represent” us and our interests. He would claim to speak on our behalf. How silly is that? Clearly based on a falsehood.

DS,

China is not Capitalist or free-market. As you indicate, it is a totalitarian state. As such, it has more in common with a representative democracy than with Capitalism.

Capitalism and representative democracy are not related. One does not lead to the other.

I believe he would call it Mercantilism. China is patterning itself after Japan, without messy stuff like democracy getting in the way.

China poses a real dilema because on the one hand it appears to an un-regulated free-market orgy, but on the other hand it is a socialist nightmare with slave labor and a totalitarian government.

I really don’t know what to make of China except that to this point the idea that free-market capitalism will ultimately lead to democracy has turned out to be false.