SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: combjelly who wrote (379804)4/22/2008 7:09:56 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 1574061
 
Which doesn't mean it was socialist.

I don't think Hitler himself was a real socialist in the strict sense of the word. Significant parts of the Nazi party wanted nationalization and socialism, but he was a fascist, wanting state domination of industry but not state ownership of industry. The economic part of fascism is close to socialism, but "state ownership" is a crucial difference.

Now Hitler did accept, and probably support some state ownership. Some parts where nationalized, but I'm not sure that this was at his direction (he would micromanage at times, but no one can personally control everything) and if it was it may have been to appease some faction in his party.

But the groups and individuals pushing strongest for socialism such as Ernst Röhm, where purged. So while the reality is fuzzier than the clear simple labels that might be applied, Hitler was more fascist than socialist in the classical sense of the term.

Now sometimes socialist is used to refer to supporting increased state control of the economy, and in that sense of the word Hitler was very socialist, but that usage, blurs the categories. Its probably best to stick to "socialist" for supporters of state ownership (or direct ownership by the workers), and "fascists" for supporters of state domination without ownership. In the real world they blur together (even in communist countries the state usually doesn't own everything, while in fascist countries you often have some state ownership) but the labels are still useful.

Socialist could be a label for both, but it would be better to have a different term. Perhaps "statist", but that's two general, it doesn't just refer to control of the economy. The lack of a good alternate term might be why "socialist" gets used as one so often, esp. since no one explicitly supports fascist policies any more (an small minority may call for policies that are fascist, but no one uses that term).

Maybe "anti-capitalist(ism)" but that only implies an opposition to capitalism, not the affirmation of state control.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext