Bernie: Pope Francis Is a Socialist

[abucs]

Actually i have read large parts of Hitler’s earlier book Mein Kampf.

I see that you are having trouble with the Nazi writing and Nazi policies.

Try it the other way around. Would Stalin write to his Communist party followers criticising Britain for its social reforms which took money from wealthier citizens to give to the disadvantaged while claiming the USSR was the one to defend the rights of business and capitalism?

Of course not. That doesn’t make sense. Nor would any extreme right wing leader write to his party members during the sensitive time of war criticising capitalism and extolling socialism as Goebbels did. That’s because the Nazis weren’t right wing, let alone extreme right wing.

They were Socialists. They expounded their ideals of Socialism with many Nazi writers in many publications. They were National Socialists. They criticised Russia for going about Socialism the wrong way by creating class warfare instead of building socialism within a country. Their policies and rhetoric was for the German workers. They nationalised business that didn’t support the state. They took the private possessions of citizens who they declared were enemies of the state. They looked to destroy all organisations that were independent of the state.

Hitler joined the party in 1919 when they were called the German Labour Party. The following year they renamed themself the National Socialist Workers Party. They were uncompromising in their opposition to Christianity and looked to build a new morality based on the state.

Surprise - they were socialists.

If not for the corruption of western education by socialists wishing to distance themselves from National Socialism, it would be obvious to everyone.

 

[Latias]

Try it the other way around. Would Stalin write to his Communist party followers criticising Britain for its social reforms which helped the poor while claiming the USSR was the one to defend the rights of business and capitalism?

Of course not. That doesn’t make sense. Nor would any extreme right wing leader write to his party members during the sensitive time of war criticising capitalism and extolling socialism as Goebbels did. That’s because the Nazis weren’t right wing, let alone extreme right wing.

The CCCP would not defend the rights of private property owners and never wavered in this before Khrushchev. On the contrary, Stalin criticizes liberal democracy in an interview with H.G. Wells, as Stalin said the US is still largely influenced by capitalists.

It would certainly not make sense if a right-wing politician extolled the virtues of Marxism-Leninism or Trotskyism, but Goebbels didn’t do that.

Goebbels simply wanted to differentiate themselves from its enemy Great Britain. To Germany’s credit, their policies did lead to full employment, and which created a base for popular support. Do you not deny the passages where Hitler spoke fondly of Britain?

You also sound like Johnny Cochran. “OJ Simpson in a knit cap from two blocks away is still OJ Simpson. It’s no disguise. It’s no disguise. It makes no sense. It doesn’t fit. If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” So the knit cap of the rhetoric of socialism that Goebbels placed on the Nazi Party is not a disguise.

You are exaggerating the differences between Nazism and liberal democracy. There are substantial differences in political leadership as the former embraced the Fuhrer Principle.

A better description for Nazism than “national socialism” is völkisch nationalism.

Their policies and rhetoric was for the German workers. They nationalised business that didn’t support the state. They took the private possessions of citizens who they declared were enemies of the state. They looked to destroy all organisations that were independent of the state.

Of course, those policies are “socialist”, only because that is how you define “socialism”, as any political philosophy that puts the interests of the state before individuals whose economic and ideological interests were not aligned with that of the state. Perhaps, to you, those economic interests may merely mean not wanting to pay a high marginal tax rate.

Socialism, from my view, require the acknowledgement of class struggle and the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. That means there would be no capitalists, but Nazi Germany certainly had capitalists. It would also see the primary struggle, not as an issue of race or nationalism, but of class, both domestically and internationally.

 

[abucs]

Socialism, from my view, require the acknowledgement of class struggle and the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. That means there would be no capitalists, but Nazi Germany certainly had capitalists.

Yes, your view of socialism is different to the Nazi view of socialism. As my links say, Hitler and Mussolini criticised the Russian view of socialism on the grounds that it could not get to it’s ultimate goal by creating class warfare. The Russians shot dead the Lithuanian landholders much like the French revolutionaries decapitated the French nobles. People do not give up their private property without a bloody fight. You cannot take citizens private property without bloody violence. That is a repeated observation in your type of socialism. A landowner that produces lettuce is not going to give up the family lettuce farm to a bunch of beaurocrats who simply assert it is no longer theirs.

The Germans and Italians looked to incorporate all their people’s skills for the good of the state. That was the idea of National Socialism.

But because the Nazi version of socialism is different to the Russian one does not make the Nazis right wing.

 

[estesbob]

The article was in the collection “German Propaganda Archive”. In the sense of your post, “Nazi” is fairly broad, since it refers to registered members of the dominant political party in Germany. In such a medium, it would still be a conduit to express jingoist propaganda.

You should also remember that in Mein Kampf Hitler did propose an alliance with Great Britain (and he said that he should not compete with them for Naval dominance, something that was later abandoned with the ambitious naval rearmament Plan Z). Some historians also speculate that Hitler did not finish of the British Expeditionary Force due to his sympathies with the British.

“Liberal capitalism” was not itself any enemy by the Nazis, but it was regarded as a decadent form of government in contrast the philosophy of the Führerprinzip.

The British did not embody “liberal capitalism”; in more pragmatic terms, the British feared that the Axis power would threaten their colonial holdings. The prospect of a German victory in Case Blue threaten to cut off the British Empire if Rommel prevailed in North Africa so he could link up the forces in the Caucasus.

This was posted as a response to the Telegraph article in the comment section

“No true Scotsman…”

 

[Darryl1958]

Neither the Pope nor Sanders are National Socialists nor communists.
That does not mean that they are not socialists in a very real sense, and according to common understandings of the concept of socialism.

 

[estesbob]

Neither the Pope nor Sanders are National Socialists nor communists.
That does not mean that they are not socialists in a very real sense, and according to common understandings of the concept of socialism.

Sanders says he is a socialist. So does that mean he is a liar?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Sanders says he is a socialist. So does that mean he is a liar?

It means he’s trying to appropriate radical leftist terminology to appeal to voters. It also has the added bonus of pushing mainstream political discussion further right. It’s pretty much impossible for any genuine socialist/communist viewpoints to be expressed without confusion or discussions like this, because people now believe that socialism is welfare in capitalism and communism is an evil bureaucratic state controlling everything.

 

[Path_Finder]

Sanders says he is a socialist. So does that mean he is a liar?

He proclaims himself to be a “Democratic Socialist”. thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/01/26/Bernie-Sanders-Says-He-s-Democratic-Socialist-Here-s-What-Means

It may have as many nuances as those who proclaim themselves “pro-life”.

It looks like Sanders even says this on his own website for further reading.

 

[Darryl1958]

Sanders says he is a socialist. So does that mean he is a liar?

It makes him a socialist, a life-long one to boot, according to common usage of the term.

 

[estesbob]

It means he’s trying to appropriate radical leftist terminology to appeal to voters. It also has the added bonus of pushing mainstream political discussion further right. It’s pretty much impossible for any genuine socialist/communist viewpoints to be expressed without confusion or discussions like this, because people now believe that socialism is welfare in capitalism and communism is an evil bureaucratic state controlling everything.

So he is a liar?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

So he is a liar?

Personally, considering his past, I think he knows full well that he isn’t really a socialist and is just taking advantage of people’s misunderstanding of the term. However, he may well believe he is a socialist, but it’s disingenuous to act as if that means he shares any similarities with the far-left.

 

[estesbob]

Personally, considering his past, I think he knows full well that he isn’t really a socialist and is just taking advantage of people’s misunderstanding of the term. However, he may well believe he is a socialist, but it’s disingenuous to act as if that means he shares any similarities with the far-left.

So he is lying. correct?

 

[Crossbones]

So he is lying. correct?

How many socialist programs do you have to support to be a socialist?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

So he is lying. correct?

I don’t know. It seems that lots of people genuinely believe nowadays that socialism is just welfare capitalism or, by more ridiculous definitions, the state doing or funding anything. I just personally think he’s aware of the fact that he’s appropriating the term from radical leftists, particularly as he claims to be fond of Eugene Debs, a genuine democratic socialist. Call it lying if you like. I only think it’s bad because it makes the expression of actual radical left-wing sentiments difficult.

Honestly, as much as I hate to use this term because of its appropriation by right-libertarians, it’s pretty Orwellian. Decades of Cold War propaganda is starting to make it impossible to even express genuine socialist/communist sympathies. Give it another century and social democrats will start calling themselves communists.

How many socialist programs do you have to support to be a socialist?

You have to want an end to private property/capitalism. It doesn’t matter how many welfare programs you support or how big you want the public sector to be.

 

[estesbob]

How many socialist programs do you have to support to be a socialist?

He says he is a socialist. you should ask him.

 

[Crossbones]

You have to want an end to private property/capitalism. It doesn’t matter how many welfare programs you support or how big you want the public sector to be.

I don’t know that I agree with this. There seems to be shades of gray between socialism and capitalism. Very few people are pure capitalists and very few people are pure socialists. For example, most people support public education, so that is socialist. Similarly, social security. Medicare.

I think by your definition, Senator Sanders is not a socialist, but I don’t know that is the definition he is using and may consider stronger public support for programs like single payer or free college education push him to the socialist side and I don’t know that most would disagree on it.

Yes, I agree with you that it is being used as a weapon drawing on Cold War fears though.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I don’t know that I agree with this. There seems to be shades of gray between socialism and capitalism. Very few people are pure capitalists and very few people are pure socialists. For example, most people support public education, so that is socialist. Similarly, social security. Medicare.

Socialism and capitalism are entirely different modes of production. You can’t be slightly socialist and slightly capitalist at the same time anymore than you can be both a feudalist and a capitalist - you’re either one or the other. Socialism involves social ownership of the means of production. It has nothing to do with welfare capitalism or social democracy or whatever you want to call it, which is just capitalism with welfare programs.

I think by your definition, Senator Sanders is not a socialist, but I don’t know that is the definition he is using and may consider stronger public support for programs like single payer or free college education push him to the socialist side and I don’t know that most would disagree on it.

I know I don’t use the same definition of Sanders, but I think his definition is bad and I personally think it should be rejected. As I said in my last two posts, it pushes the mainstream political debate further right and makes it impossible to express far-left views. I understand there’s very little that can be done about it at this point, but it’s upsetting.

 

[Crossbones]

Socialism and capitalism are entirely different modes of production. You can’t be slightly socialist and slightly capitalist at the same time anymore than you can be both a feudalist and a capitalist - you’re either one or the other. Socialism involves social ownership of the means of production. It has nothing to do with welfare capitalism or social democracy or whatever you want to call it, which is just capitalism with welfare programs.

I know I don’t use the same definition of Sanders, but I think his definition is bad and I personally think it should be rejected. As I said in my last two posts, it pushes the mainstream political debate further right and makes it impossible to express far-left views. I understand there’s very little that can be done about it at this point, but it’s upsetting.

I see where you are coming from. Personally, I’d be happy if America could agree that, just maybe, starting unjust wars is a bad idea and torture is wrong, so I understand your issues with the current level of political discourse.

 

[estesbob]

I see where you are coming from. Personally, I’d be happy if America could agree that, just maybe, starting unjust wars is a bad idea and torture is wrong, so I understand your issues with the current level of political discourse.

Their is little or no disagreement among anyone that America should not engage in unjust wars or support torture. The disagreement is whether we have to buy into the Left wing definition of these use that definition as rationale for supporting the evil that is part and parcel of the Left wing agenda.

 

[Crossbones]

Their is little or no disagreement among anyone that America should not engage in unjust wars or support torture. The disagreement is whether we have to buy into the Left wing definition of these use that definition as rationale for supporting the evil that is part and parcel of the Left wing agenda.

Exactly. Thanks for making my point.