I think in practical terms, yes. In Homage to Catalonia, there’s a great part where Orwell points out that Soviet policy in foreign countries was Russian policy, and it was dangerous to forget that.
Liberals always deny that Hitler was a socialist because the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NAZI party) has the word “national” in it. But since every socialist government is a nationalist government if not by name in practical terms there’s really no difference other than in the name.
Other than the whole business of common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, of course.
Can you give some examples of this claim?
It’s not really up to me to provide examples because you’re the one making the claims about National Socialism and Socialism.
I’m only taking what Hitler’s Nazi party called itself at face value. “Socialist” is in the name of the NAZI party. You have made the claim that the NAZI party isn’t truly socialist as it claims it is in its name. Therefore, you are the one making the claim that needs support. And, so far, you have given no specific examples of actions taken by Hitler’s NAZI party that do not conform to the definition of socialism.
Actually, you’re basing your ideas merely on words that are a word-for-word English translation of a German compound word - read post #18 - and not on the policies of the NSDAP or of Socialist Parties. That’s OK, obviously, but it means that any discussion becomes unreal.
Bottom line: What specific policies of Hitler’s NAZI party do not conform to the definition of socialism?
I’ve been telling you - repeatedly - the lack of ‘common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange’ as an aim.
I think the burden of proof is on you, logically speaking. But the economics of Nazism was closer to fascism than socialism, from what I understand. They did not abolish private property entirely, but controlled it to a large extent. Socialism abolished private property.
The NSDAP ‘controlled’ business in much the same way as other governments - by placing contracts - which, in the rapid military build-up and war, were huge.
And that proves that Hitler’s socialism wasn’t socialism or it proves that it wasn’t communism?
Pure “Socialism” is an ECONOMIC system where the government has complete control of the markets, prices and sales.
The second one sounds more like what America is becoming.
If you define ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ as a government buying goods and services from private business then the Nazis were as communist as, say, Medieval princes and the Vatican.
Instead of looking at the definitions of socialism and communism, I look at the fruit of those governments that claim the name. And when a government is purely socialist or purely communist, the fruit is always bad. What I mean by purely socialist or purely communist is when they are so to a zealous degree.
Well, the history of what things were about and what actually happened isn’t important to everybody.
Technically, I think a lot of Socialists, at least in the WEst, were anti-communist. George Orwell was a socialist and he was anti-communist. In fact if I remember the Labour Party of Britain is considered a socialist party (though its more of a center left party now). Also I think the French socialists are anti-communists. So there is somewhat of a difference. I think the big thing is that Socialists are okay with democracy and for having another side. Communists aren’t big into that (at least not the Lenin Stalin types)