How similar is National Socialism to socialism?
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html
"In my recent article on Tony Kushner, I suggested that his socialist views were somehow akin to fascism. Predictably enough, the knee-jerk reaction to this statement was the reassertion of an old historical fallacy: the notion that socialism and fascism are somehow opposed to each other, that they have been historical rivals, that there is nothing but difference between the two -- and that I must have been ignorant of this historical fact. I did not, however, make this comparison glibly. Taken in full historical context, with full consideration of philosophic principle, socialism and fascism are essentially the same."
"In case anyone still doubts the fact that there was no difference in princple between the fascists and the socialists, consider the following revealing quotations from various infamous Nazis and other fascists:
We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.
The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.
We demand profit sharing in big business.
We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.
We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state and municipal governments.
In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...
The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.
[We] combat the...materialistic spirit withn and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good ."
|
1
point
They have different axioms, socialism has many definitions but it is often seen as a transitive stage to communism; a state where the individual is as independent as conceivable, "national socialism" inverts this and wants a state of things where the group is primary and the individual is dependent absolutely on this group and works as if it is a part of it. They're not the same, but they are very similar. Socialism, in a nutshell, is the government providing for its citizens and having complete control of all things. There is no private sector. Fascism, on the other hand, has a private sector. People can own things, but the government can tell them what to do with it. I get it. What's the point in owning something if the government can tell you what to do with it? Because once government decides your duty is finished, you can do what ever you want with your private property. National Socialism, though, is Hitler's ideal view on what government should do. Socialism requires that you do what's best for the people. Fascism requires that you do what's best for the country. Also, Fascism has a more defined view on the role of government. Socialism focuses more on the role of government in economics. So what's the main difference? Socialism, economics wise, is far left. Fascism, economics wise, is regular left. And as I'll say again; National Socialism was a bastardization of what Fascism was. It's practically the same, but under Hitler it turned into genocide and elitism. Side: subtle differences
1
point
1
point
Examine the term, National - Socialism. Is it not obvious that National socialism is simply another of the many forms of socialism? Socialism is socialism like religion is religion. One can form it in whatever shape they want, but it is still socialism. What is never examined is where the modern concept of socialism began. The modern forms of the socialist state began with the ideas of Karl Marx. Karl Marx was a jew and his ideas of socialism were derived from those concepts found in the ancient book called the Torah. The jew's ideas about socialism came for the need to keep a nomadic people unified. The diaspora of the jews became the focus for their ideas about a socialist society governed by an elite priesthood who received their orders from their personal god. Under socialism, God and his priesthood has been replaced by an elite leadership that supposedly makes their decisions in societies best interest. In reality, they make decisions in their own best interest. Therefore, while such views may be useful to an ancient nomadic tribe, they have proven themselves antithetical to modern civilized cultures. For proof of this one only needs look at the havoc socialism has wrought throughout the modern world, especially among the civilized western cultures. Try finding one socialized country that is not bankrupt and corrupted beyond any possible redemption. One only needs to review the destruction wrought by the various socialist experiments conducted during the twentieth century. Count the millions that have been slaughtered and impoverished in the name of socialist revolution and you will find the underlying problem inherent in the socialist state. Socialism simply does not work beyond the primitive tribal level and I would posit that those professing otherwise simply have not done enough research on the subject. Side: subtle differences
|
