Socialism As Socialism Does

[MSimon]

But let us put this on a rational basis. Where did Nobel Economics Prize Winner Hayek err in placing the National Socialist Germans among the socialists?

What was his mistake? I'm open to facts and logic. Show me where Hayek went wrong.

[Skipjack]

Where did Nobel Economics Prize Winner Hayek err in placing the National Socialist Germans among the socialists?

As I said it before, at the basics. He is getting it wrong at the basics, the foundation of the issue.
It is like saying that nuclear power plants and coal power plants are the same, just because they both produce electricity from steam.
They differ a lot at the basic principles.

I am neither a socialist, nor a libertarian, nor a national socialist. I dont fit (and I like it that way) into a drawer. I am for doing the right thing, not the thing that an ideology tells me is right. The libertarian view is good for a lot of things. There are a few things though that I dont trust them with. Heck I am an entrepreneur myself and if I have learned one thing (the hard way) then that there are many people that will money even over friendship. This is not what I live by, but I had to experience it more than once. So please forgive me if I dont trust a profit driven company with my health. Our socialist idiots at least try to do what is best for the patient, not what is best for their wallet. And let me make this clear: I am very glad that we have an opposition here that is smacking their red fingers every time they want to go over board with that. It keeps them in line and when the others are in charge then the socialist opposition will make sure that they dont go overboard either.
Also, I have never ever voted for the socialist party here. I never would even consider that. They are waaay to far on the left. Even our conservatives and the freedom party are lefties compared to your dems. The freedom party guys are the most libertarian ones of them all though (though they have other issues).

[MSimon]

As I said it before, at the basics. He is getting it wrong at the basics, the foundation of the issue.

Hayek was an economist. An observer of the scene. He watched history unfold. I'm not interested in generalities. Explain why racism precludes socialism. Can you have a socialist based economy in a racist nation?

[MSimon]

I am for doing the right thing, not the thing that an ideology tells me is right.

I look to history, economics, and demographics myself. I also like to factor in feedback.

[Skipjack]

Can you have a socialist based economy in a racist nation?

That depends on how you define socialism. They are very different ideologies. Heck the communists called the iron curtain the "Antifaschistischen Schutzwall", antifascist protective wall (or something of the likes).
Personally I dont really think it matters. They are both WRONG.
Why?
Because they are ideologies (pseudoreligions).
That however does not mean that they cant do the right thing, occasionally and probably quite by accident.

[Skipjack]

I look to history, economics, and demographics myself.

Then you should have a look at Austria. A tiny country, with NO natural resources on our own, not even a lot of farmland. The country would not be able to produce enough food for all its inhabitants. There is nothing of value here. Yet, we recovered from a very destructive war. We are among the richest countries in the world. People here have a very high life expectation and we do have public health care. All that even though, our god darn socialists have been leading the country for almost 40 years, one way or the other (with very brief interruptions).
And no, I dont like the fac that they are at the helm, because, as you have said it before, socialism has horrible side effects.

[MSimon]

Can you have a socialist based economy in a racist nation?

That depends on how you define socialism. They are very different ideologies. Heck the communists called the iron curtain the "Antifaschistischen Schutzwall", antifascist protective wall (or something of the likes).
Personally I dont really think it matters. They are both WRONG.
Why?
Because they are ideologies (pseudoreligions).
That however does not mean that they cant do the right thing, occasionally and probably quite by accident.

Ah. So the Germans could have been racist and socialist.

Now Hayek's point is that Germany needed the war because it was failing economically. He provides numbers.

===

Here is what I had learned until your most recent missive. With the latest one I am merely confused. ---->

So no matter the economic policies of a government or how much they fit into a socialist economic taxonomy if they are racist they are not socialist. Thanks for clearing that up.

I guess since the Soviets persecuted Jews and many other minorities they weren't socialist either.

It is looking more and more like real socialism never existed. There were just a bunch of fakers. And of course fake socialism is going to fail. Because real socialism is practically fail proof. Unless people stop having enough children and live too long or the government just wastes the money.

[Skipjack]

Now Hayek's point is that Germany needed the war because it was failing economically.

The Germans never wanted the war. They invaded Poland to take what was rightfully theirs and everybody declared war on them. Hitler begged Churchill for peace and Churchills response was: Unconditional surrender.
The Russians were about to roll over Europe. They had already thousands of tanks (with the GM stickers on them) built in factories that Roosevelt had paid for line up to conquer Europe. Hadnt it been for Hitlers preemptive strike, all of Europe would have been communistic less than a year later. I have talked to eye wittnesses that said that Hitler was crying tears when he learned of Stalins betrayal (they had a pact). The Germans had high flying transport gliders with high resolution cameras on board. Those happened to take pictures of the almost finished tanks that were lined up already. Tens of thousands of those. Do you realy think that Stalin only started to build those after the war with the Germans had started? The Russian industry was incapable of that.

The Germans were doing really badly economically because they had to pay a few trillion goldmarks in reparation pays to the allies until 1980 (as defined in Versailles and St. Germain).

I guess since the Soviets persecuted Jews and many other minorities they weren't socialist either.

For a very different reason than the Germans.
Why either of them hated the jews is not quite clear today.
For the Nazis one reason may have been because quite a few jews were associated with the communists in Germany (Rosa Luxemburg) and therefore with the terror regime of the Raeterepublik.

[Scupperer]

Clearly "Socialism" doesn't mean what "Socialism" means.

Most people who espouse it seem to have a difficult time defining the word and applying it to historic example. I believe this is a firm part of their education, especially in Europe. I base this on several long discussions with friends from the U.K., the Netherlands, and family in France, who invariably say similar things: The USSR wasn't Socialist! The NAZI's weren't Socialist! In fact, your USA is mostly a Socialist government, even before Obama! Defining Socialism is a slippery task, and it never seems to stick to the self-proclaimed Socialists of the world. To be a good Socialist, you apparently can't be a Socialist.

It's also a common theme to use an "outside of the box" defense when discussing Socialism with people who are steeped in Socialism. Who me? I'm no Socialist! **but I do like the free candy. I only believe in Socialism when it gives me candy. Otherwise, I'm for liberty and the free-market. Free candy or free market? Candy! My country makes the best candy! If only your country could make candy like mine, the world would be a better place. We'll have to teach you how to make candy.

I would re-frame the discussion into "Collectivism", or "Statism" vs. "Individualism". All forms of Statist control; socialism, national socialism, soviet socialism, fascism, Obamanomics, etc. are merely sub-branches of Collectivism, and always lead to more Statism, until they collapse. It doesn't matter how well they work while they work; they do so at the expense of the individual. Because of this, they will always collapse, usually in a very ugly manner.

Whereas all forms of allowing autonomous control of the governed, and protecting that (intent of U.S. Constitution), would be Individualism. Individualism is not Anarchy. Anarchy leads to Statism. Individualism leads to people working together for the benefit of all included (free market), within a framework of laws to prevent abuses.

There is no "left", there is no "right". They're just different masks of the same face; different methods to the same goal - control of the individual at the individual's expense. There is only the Individual vs. the State. Whether you prefer the bureaucratic rule of no one (left), or tyranny/theocratic/fascist rule (right) makes little difference. You either believe in the inalienable rights of the individual, or you believe the State grants rights.

If you're of any socialist bend, then the simple fact of the matter is that you don't trust people (or yourself) to live their own lives, and aren't willing to help provide them (or yourself) with the means or a proper education to do so. If you refuse to acknowledge you're Socialist (or just believe in a teeny-tiny bit of Socialism), but accept the "benefits", then you're either educated to accept it -usually with a whole lot of education, or you're ignorant and/or miseducated regarding any opposing philosophies and ways of life (majority).

Well, that's my rant for the month/year; I'll try to disappear into lurker mode once again now.

[pfrit]

Just to be clear. I am not a socialist at a federal level, but I am one on a local level. Police departments and Fire departments *ARE* socialist. I am in favor of them. That makes me a socialist. I believe that the flaws of socialism are workable as long as they are local. If you think it has gone too far, run for office or move. My problems with socialism come in when it moves to a larger level. I prefer minimal socialism on the state level and none on the federal level. BTW, the short (but by no means complete) description of a socialist program is when a government program is designed to work for the needs of many, not the few at the expense of all (or at least most). While I will grant that it would be possible to live in a community with *zero* socialist programs, you will probably end up with Judge Lynch in control. I believe that most people who rail against socialism are talking about Federal programs, not socialism in general. Think about Washington's phrase about fire and then think about setting the whole country on fire. A whole lot of small controlled fires are good. One big uncontrolled one is bad.

[Scupperer]

Fire Departments and Police Departments are *NOT* socialist, even when government funded. They're public services. They are not a means of production. One's purpose is for enforcement of the law, a mandate of government (any type), the other is for public safety, another mandate of government, if subsumed. When a fireman shows up at your burning house, it is not just your welfare he is concerned about; it's the communities. Same for the Armed Forces. This might resemble Socialism, simply because you are forced to pay for it as a citizen (and I applaud the equivalence of Socialism with use of Force), but it is not necessarily so.

Socialism is not defined as "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Socialism is defined as control of resources, means of production and means of distribution, and hence control of the economy and control of every individual who participates in it. Look it up!

This is why Medicare is socialist, yet Medicaid is not. Why Social Security is socialist, yet Welfare is not. It's a subtle distinction, if one's not paying attention, but the basic difference is one of using force and coercion, as opposed to voluntarily qualifying for assistance.

[Diogenes]

The book quite effectively "Marries" the Nazis with the Communists.

Of course it does. There is nothing like putting everything together that people hate to create the "super villain". I am sure someone will show up to get the muslims in there as well. Then you have the national socialist muslim communist party. I cant wait!

You mock a book that I doubt you've read. How about reading it and then pointing out it's flaws if you can find any?

[Diogenes]

Name 5 Positive things about the Nazis.

1. They got you on the moon
2. They influenced most of your post war submarine designs.
3. They got you up and running on ballistic missiles, launched from subs.
4. They stopped Stalin from rolling over Europe with the tanks that Roosevelt built for him.
5. They got you the final clues on how to get a nuclear bomb going.

They made the Trains run on time. Oh Wait! That was Benito.


My point is that the good and the bad are inseparable. You cannot have one without the other.

If an ideology kills millions of people, what possible benefit could outweigh the bad it does?

[choff]

Back in my late teens I attended a macro-economics class in a junior college, and had to lead a conservative debate team against the socialist debate team. The topic was the conservative budget brought in by the then government, but the prof made the two teams reverse roles. The right wingers had to debate as socialists and the socialists as right wingers.

As research for the debate, I asked an aquaintance to coach me on how to think and argue as a socialist, being he and I had taken part in left/right debates back in high school. He was amused by my request and agreed to assist me, and as a result I was fully prepared.

My team won the debate, Marx would have been proud of our effort, we crushed the socialists. My old socialist freind denouced them for losing to a bunch of capitalist roadsters.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union I moved from far right to only slightly right of center, but the neo-cons went the opposite way, they saw the collapse as vindication. Me, I live around liberals, including the wife. Some times they don't realize how far right they sound when they talk.

What I've learned from all this is that whether an economic policy is capitalist or socialist depends on which party is in power, as it can be dressed up to look like either. Adam Smith had no use for stock speculation, he believed it could only lead to mischief, but don't tell a broker he's not free enterprise.

[Scupperer]

What I've learned from all this is that whether an economic policy is capitalist or socialist depends on which party is in power, as it can be dressed up to look like either. Adam Smith had no use for stock speculation, he believed it could only lead to mischief, but don't tell a broker he's not free enterprise.

It's true that each party puts different lipstick on the pig, but the pig is still a pig. IMO, any economic policy that does more than guide the free market and protect individuals is a policy intended to control the economy and the individual. Since most lawmakers are all about exercising control, more of it is inevitably what we get, whether it's socialist (left) or corporatist (right). Fundamentally, there's no difference between those, as Obama Care is proving - it's corporatist protection of the insurance companies by taking control of the entire industry and forcing everyone to participate. Just because they paint an anti-corporatist position doesn't make it so. They still kiss each other when the doors are closed; it's just a matter of who's sticking their lips out first.

This is why I prefer not to speak in terms of left and right, because people see the equivalence and tend to dismiss entire arguments (usually in favor of the poorer choice), instead of seeing the other possibilities which will empower individuals rather than the state.

Capitalism is another term I dislike in its current evolution, because what I think most mean when they say it is Corporatism. Capitalism, like Socialism, is a slippery word, and that only works to the advantage of those who would abuse it.

In it's most generic sense, Capitalism means the private ownership of resources and means of production, based on the use of a market system and labor and wages. In this light, your statement makes no sense. Capitalism and Socialism are, by definition, antonyms. In practice, they are, imo, fundamentally incompatible.

When Capitalism morphs into groups trying to control the market by use of government force (which most of the "left" accuse the "right" of doing - assuming that's what they mean when they call Republicans Fascists and complain about Haliburton), then is it really still Capitalism? No, it's just another variation of collectivism chipping away at Individualism.

That sort of abuse of the market is much easier to correct than Socialism, however. At least Capitalism can be controlled and guided with respect to Individualism. Socialism can't.