Kretoma provided a document I can't actually read, and I provided a counter argument to his point.

Kreto told you that if you could not translate it he could do it for yourself so stop being a douche and find problems where there do not exist, and tell me how could you provide a counter argument about something you are unable to read??

Also, I very clearly linked to hitlers platform for the nazi party (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm). This is a concept you seem to have a lot of trouble with, it's called sourcing. You can't simply claim whatever you'd like about historical events, you have to actually provide a reason that you believe that the events played out that way.

And your link was easily debunked by Kreto, this is why i told you that you were unable to provide relevant arguments/links yourself to support your views. I made many comments and analysis (that you call "fantasies") alongside these historical events which are good sources since it is clearly what happened in history irrefutably.
The thing is that whatever is against your views is wrong, pathetic behavior. Wait, you actually recall me someone...

I suggested that you link a wikipedia article backing up your claims, but really anything would do; It's just that wikipedia is normally the quickest way to find information online.

Everybody knows that a Wikipedia article is not really relevant at all since anyone can post things, this is why providing a trustworthy author (like the Che's biography by Anderson) to back up your points is clearly something better. I also provided you arguments (that you can find everywhere else in history books) that you chose to ignore, not my fault if you are unable to read properly.

What is socialism?
=> Socialism is a kind of government that works runned by the proletariat as a dictatorship. Government will own all means of production (such as farms, factories, mines,...). The wealth is then shared in an equal way for everyone. The main goal of socialism is to prepare a shift into communism. During socialism, there will be a reeducation of the human being, teaching him not to be greedy, to share the product of his labour, and understand that no one should be exploited by another one.

What you're describing, the idea that socialism is a step in between capitalism and communism, is actually Called Marxism, and there are a bunch of ideas about socialism, not just marxism. For example, national Socialism.

To that end, Hitler hated the USSR's marxism, and not their socialism per se, given that he himself was a socialist.

Everybody knows that a Wikipedia article is not really relevant at all since anyone can post things, this is why providing a trustworthy author (like the Che's biography by Anderson) to back up your points is clearly something better. I also provided you arguments (that you can find everywhere else in history books) that you chose to ignore, not my fault if you are unable to read properly.

If this information is so widespread, then provide me a link to it. I haven't heard of it before, and I don't consider your posts a reliable source of information.

Edited 4/21/2016 16:42:52

I'm so glad we have all these enlightened and intellectually superior leftists to save us from ignorance.

Hitler hated the USSR's marxism, and not their socialism per say, given that he himself was a socialist.

He wasn't a Socialist at all.

I'm so glad we have all these enlightened and intellectually superior leftists to save us from ignorance.

Same can be said about those "enlightened and intellectually superior rightists/conservatives" I presume, see your own participation Eklipse and how it enlightened the whole debate!! Impressive!

Left-right scheming is so 19th century.

4 partying (right, left, freedom, authority) is so 20th century.

When will people realize it is 2016? :(

^ It's indeed a shame. Many americans tend to think the political spectrum is so small, and that it's a battle of good (capitalism) against evil (socialism). It isn't near as that.

Imperator, I gave you the most broadly accepted definition of socialism. Marx himself didn't invent it, he copied it from people that came before him.



Wikipedia:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.

Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

uhhhh bring back National Socialism please

That was my point, Socialism is characterized by social ownership, not by having communism as the ultimate goal. You said this about it:

The main goal of socialism is to prepare a shift into communism.

^^That particular idea of socialism is called marxism.

Edited 4/21/2016 17:06:17

That particular idea of socialism is called marxism.

I agree with Imperator here, it is not like all Socialists want to turn and shift their parties into communist ones. This is why in France the current PS (Parti Socialiste currently leading the country) split from SFIO (workers party very linked with the Communist Party). Socialist people wanting an union with Communists are those who adhered to Marxist ideologies, and they are a minority in Democratic Socialism (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International )

Hmmm, I'd say socialism itself got corrupted over time. The french socialist party hardly can call itself socialism in this days lol... Even though I have to say I agree with it's actual position.

And yea, you can stop at socialism if you want, many "communists" that took power couldn't move or didn't want to move to anything past that.

The current Socialist Party isn't Socialist at all (see how absurd it is lol). There are different currents inside this party and the one dominating (represented by Prime Minister Manuel Valls) currently is clearly antisocial and pro-liberal.

We could actually compare the current French PS with Neo Labour of Tony Blair. They should clearly change their name "Parti Socialiste" means nothing at all.

Hmmm, I'd say socialism itself got corrupted over time. The french socialist party hardly can call itself socialism in this days lol... Even though I have to say I agree with it's actual position.

And yea, you can stop at socialism if you want, many "communists" that took power couldn't move or didn't want to move to anything past that.

For a lot of socialists, communism is not and never was the goal. Case in point; Hitler, who absolutely hated communism.

Like I said, Marxism is a very specific type of socialism, one which intends to implement communism.

Still, the USSR wasn't communist, but socialist. If he hated the URSS it was for two reasons, the first he hated the socialism it implemented aka everyone is equal, and the second is that he thought the russian as inferiors.

Both this thoughts would make him non elegible to be a socialist...

Socialism doesn't entail thinking of everyone as equals, but rather the minimum required to define an ideology as socialist in nature is, as we've previously established, Some form of social ownership, which is definitely present in the NSDAP party platform.

Still, the USSR wasn't communist, but socialist.

It was communist. The meanings of the words have changed over time, now the kind of communism you are talking about as anarchic communism or maybe Marxism.

The specific type of Fascism applied in germany during the 30's and 40's was called "National Socialism". It entailed an opposition to the free market because "All these nasty jews are exploiting it to oppress germans"; So yeah, definitely socialist in nature.

"Nazi" is just an abbreviation of the much less catchy term "Nationalsozialismus".

That it has socialist in the name doesnt mean its socialist, north korea has democratic in the name, is north korea democratic.
Was hitler for redistribution of the wealth? no,
was he for workers owning the means of production? no
was he socialist? no

Actually, he was for a lot of that stuff. Here are some highlights from the NSDAP party platform adopted by Hitler:

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.


11. Abolition of unearned incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.


13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries


14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.


15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.


16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.


17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.


20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

(http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm)

Everybody knows that a Wikipedia article is not really relevant at all since anyone can post things, this is why providing a trustworthy author (like the Che's biography by Anderson) to back up your points is clearly something better. I also provided you arguments (that you can find everywhere else in history books) that you chose to ignore, not my fault if you are unable to read properly.
ill have to disagree here, the big wikipedia pages are locked by wikipedia and can only be edited by specially appointed people and have been checked over and over by these specially appointed people. by all means stay away from the small ones but the big ones are generally locked

kreto already showed you a link showing that he wasnt for them