Conversations with Statists: Socialism and Fascism

So I like to browse the Being Liberal page on facebook and comment on some of their pictures. If, for nothing else, to at least have these people see things from a different perspective and challenge them. Their Memes are totally fallacious and lack any sort of credible intellectual base. But that is what Statism does, it grabs a hold of your emotions and manipulates you that way so that you can never see the economic, social and political issues rationally.

The other day they posted this image:

I am not Republican and Neo-Cons are just another side of the statist coin. But I felt that I couldn’t let them get away with this particular image. It screams “The other side is racist, we are the tolerant ones.” Below is the debate that ensued, I’ll let you judge just how tolerant and intelligent they are.

Me: News flash, the Nazi’s were socialists. Socialism is a step on the path to fascism because of the large central planning government it creates. I’m libertarian, but if I was a Democrat or Republican and saw that my party was for a large central authority, I’d be getting myself out.

This was my initial comment on the image above. I’m simply pointing out that “the Right” is not the only group with a sordid past. Of course a hail storm of unintelligible remarks and ad hominems erupt from here on out. Enjoy:

Dan The Statist Man: Adolf Hitler was in no real way a socialist. He was a corporal in the Heer (the regular German army, under Kaiser Wilhelm II) in WWI. He was a message carrier, which might sound innocuous, but was actually a quite dangerous assignment to have within a unit at that time. He was temporarily blinded by a gas attack, for which he was awarded an Iron Cross medal. After the war, he was contacted by his ex-officers, who asked him too infiltrate, and spy on for them, a small political group, NSDAP (Nazionale Socialist Deitsche Arbeitung Partie), the National Socialist German Workers Party. When Hitler first arrived, the NSDAP were an actual socialist political group. It was at their beer-hall meetings that Hitler discovered his talent for public speaking. He soon changed his goal from reporting on the group, to taking it over, which he quickly succeeded at (among the NSDAP’s extant leadership at the time were both Ernst Rohm, leader of the Stormtroopers, and Josef Goebbels, who at first was in staunch opposition to Hitler, but quickly became one of his most loyal followers). As part of an agreement with the group’s leaders as part of his take-over, Hitler was forced to sign a document entitled “The 25 Points of National Socialism.” Afterwhich, Hitler promptly ignored it, and molded the NSDAP into a totalitarian regime, with himself as the sole dictator. He did his level best to have the 25 Points buried and forgotten, it was actually an embarassment to him and his cronies later on. I REPEAT: The Nazi party in German was a socialist political unit IN NAME ONLY. It was a totalitarian regime, with Adolf Hitler as sole dictator.

Of course, there is nothing but fluff here. Nothing that proves that the Government of Germany at the time was in fact not socialist. Then another Statist chimed in with a very persuasive argument.

Carlton The Charlatan: Jon, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

Solid stuff there. This comment, as I am writing this, has 2 likes!

Me: Sorry guys, but Nazi Germany was socialist. I’m afraid neither of you know what you are talking about.
http://mises.org/daily/1937
You both miss the entire point. Socialism involves large central planning and central authority as a means to redistribute wealth and make market decisions. Nazi Germany had this. It’s as simple as 1+1=2. You have a large central government with control over the means of production. You have a large central government that fixes prices. What is to stop it, when you give it this much power, from turning fascist? I implore you to read the article above. Do you maybe think that Hitler saw the socialist party, with its advocacy for centralized planning, as a vehicle to power simply by the nature of socialism and it’s centralized monopoly? Let’s do some critical thinking here guys rather than reading a wiki or just saying “you really don’t know what you’re talking about.”

I apologize in advance because these people are dense and don’t get things right away. I make these same points often because they go unchallenged for the entire conversation.

Mark the Mentally Disembarked: Socialism is an economic system not a political system.

Me: Sorry mark but it is a political system.
“Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
It’s an economic system (and terrible one at that) but it requires a central authority and government in order to organize and enforce it. It’s still politics buddy.

Marks comment has 5 likes! This isn’t a very bright bunch, but lets just keep moving as it starts to get better.

Craig Moffitt Who Doesn’t Want The State To Stop It: Jon, why think for yourself when you can just blindly follow people who make shit up. I could tell you chapter and verse how you are spreading lies but arguing valid points with you is obviously a complete and total waste of time seeing how the only facts you except are ones that validate your already held bullshit.

I respond in kind:

Me: Really? So you have no argument other than ad hominems? I blindly follow people and don’t think for myself? Yeah thats why I think both parties are terrible. Because I let other people think for me. If anyone is rejecting facts it’s you. Instead of showing a valid counter argument you would rather insult my character. I have shown that in Nazi Germany they had price and wage control. They owned the means of production and they made centralized decisions. If you can prove otherwise and show that that is not socialism then be my guest. But don’t insult me personally, ignore the facts I bring, then accuse me of special pleading. If anyone else is special pleading it’s you.

Then I came back with a little jab, I’m not proud, but I’m not wrong about it either.

Me: No statist is satisfied it seems until everyone is liking the boots of the state with them. But hey, my refusal to kneel just means I’M the one too lazy to think for myself right?

Kim (Jong Un): Jon, despite having “socialist” in their title the Nazis were far from socialists. The Nazi ideology was based on a form of Fascism that incorporated scientific racism and anti-semetism. You seem to think socialism is a problem but the Democratic Socialism of the Scandinavian countries is working just fine. They all rate highly for education, healthcare, care of the elderly and disabled, environmentally sound, housing, job creation. They also rate low for teenage pregnancy and their crime levels are so low they have closed prisons down in some places.

Again, note that they keep suggesting that because the Nazi party was violent and racist, they couldn’t possibly be socialist too! Yet they have yet to address 1) The fact that the Nazi Government took the means of production away from private owners. 2) They had wage and price controls. And 3) they had large central planning that coordinated the economy. But hey, none of that is important. They like socialism and what does “means of production” mean anyways right?

Me: Kim you don’t seem to understand that socialism can take many forms and that the socialism of Scandinavia is not complete socialism. They actually have a less regulated and more capitalistic economy than the U.S.. They do well despite their their socialist leanings, not because of it. That said, they have a higher tax rate and they make less before taxes. They also have a smaller population than the united states and if they were to become states within the united states, they would rank as some of the lowest economic producers. So Scandinavia and it’s supposed prosperity due to socialism is a myth.
This doesn’t change the fact that Nazi Germany was socialist. As I said, they had price and wage control along with no private citizens owning the means of production. Look up the definition and key markers of socialism and you will see that Germany at the time contained all of them. Like I said 1+1=2. Socialism involves centralized planning which means it eventually leads to fascism.

Ah, Scandinavia. The supposed socialist paradise… Believe it or not, Sweden has it’s own racial issues at the moment concerning immigration so… But then someone named Sonja backed me up. Sonja, you’re cool.

Sonja: Jon, the statists don’t know how easy they they have it here.

Sonja: how Bush made it so easy for them.

R.C… Cola: What about the socialist countries that appear to be doing very well to day. Much better than the US in so many ways.

You see, this is how I know liberals don’t actually read. I answered this question already RC Cola!

Inflated Bill: Folks who equate Nazism with Socialism are invariably those who wish to put forward a really warped view of history. They really have no interest in facts or truth, so it is an utter waste of time to engage in a debate with them – because they are more interested in their own, oddball opinions than anything approaching rational thought.

No Bill, liberals are the ones who have a warped view of history. Care to have a discussion on socializing the means of production, ignoring property rights and central planning? No? Ok. Now  this next comment was really good. You can tell this guy is a real critical thinker.

Angry Andrew: Jon, you’re a fucking idiot. Socialism is an economic system… it is not naturally totalitarian nor ancarchist. The Nazis were indeed socialist in their beginning, but that was only to attract people, they quickly switched to fascism thereafter and they promoted corporatism.

Wow, convincing. I didn’t see this fellows comment till later so I address it later.

Lacy the Crazy: perhaps you should look up “the Night of the Long Knives” when once he did not need them anymore Hitler eliminated all the “socialists” from the Nazi party to consolidate/cement his power and then read how he did his level best to stamp out communism. Hitler dismissed socialists and HATED communists and most were eliminated outright or enslaved or loaded onto the trains with the other “undesirables”. you are obviously a Troll whose intent is to muddy the waters. I would like links to your suppositions that fascism and socialism are related or the same and while you are at it I would like to hear how Scandinavia Is not heavily regulated and how they are closer to capitalism. did you pull that out of your ass? I have many friends in Norway, one of them actually works in the Banking industry. I can probably bring her into this conversation if you like…..

Tamara Shmamara: They used the socialist title to soften the blow but historians and economists have pointed out that they were clearly NOT true socialists. Kinda like we call ourselves a democracy but in all reality we are an oligarchy. You can call yourself whatever you want, doesn’t make it true.

This whole time I was asleep like a normal human but I awoke to answer the call!

Me: It’s funny how you all assume the Nazi party wasn’t socialist because they committed acts of violence. Sorry, but you can be a violent institution and still be socialist.
So let’s deal with this because all of you ignore it. Nazi Germany took the means of production away from private citizens. That is something you do in socialism. They had a prices and wage controls. They had a centrally planned economy. All of this is socialism. Stop saying that they are not socialist because they committed acts of violence. It just shows your bias because you like socialism. Lacy, you wanted articles? I posted one above.
http://mises.org/daily/1937
There it is again.
And then Scandinavian/Nordic countries:http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Scandinavia_and_the_social_state
Oh no, someone thinks differently than the mainstream statist propaganda you love so much.

At this point I start getting cheeky. Simply because no one seems to know what the definition of socialism is but they all think it’s great. These people vote. I know it’s scary. I then added:

Me: “You can call yourself whatever you want, doesn’t make it true.”
You can keep saying “they were not socialist” but that doesn’t make it true. Especially when they have all the economic indicators that show that they are. I know you all like socialism that’s why you find this so offensive. But Hitler used that specific party because, like I said, socialism requires a large and powerful central authority to enforce it. That large central authority is the first step towards fascism. This isn’t hard logic to follow guys.

Then this guy chimed in.

La La La La I Can’t Here you Chris: You need to go back to school and study the difference between socialist (communist), as opposed to fascism (Nazi-Hitler). Those two ideologies are 180 degrees apart. Whoever, saw a Muslim country that was socialist? Their government/ideology is based on their religion. Fascism is based on conservative ideology about purity and elitism usually, purity of race and religion. Hitler believed in a pure race, the Aryan race. Look up Aryan Race, Rick see what that means. Socialism is based on equality for all, now that rules out extreme Muslim leanings. Socialism is left of center, fascism is right of center. The Tea Party leans toward fascism, ie the KKK and neo-Nazi’s (skin heads etc.) Also read:http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

Me: Chris, just like everyone else you make the mistake of assuming that because Nazi Germany did violent things, that it must not have been socialist. This is based off of your bias that you like socialism. I read your article and I don’t really disagree with it but let me take you through the logical steps in how socialism eventually leads to fascism.
1. Socialism, as I defined it above is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
2. It takes a large central authority in order to organize such an economic concept. Simply because if it didnt, we would have a free market. It takes a central government to take away the means of production, to set wage and price controls, and to enforce this process. This means government is not to be competed with.
3. Such a large central monopoly on force and coercion naturally leads to abuse. So you can see that you can be fascist with out being socialist, but you cannot be socialist without becoming fascist eventually.
Read this article chris, this is the third time I’ve posted it.
http://mises.org/daily/1937

At this point, I realized Andrew was really nice in his critique of my argument. Unfortunately for him, he only proved my points.

Me: Andrew above has eloquently shown how socialism centralizes authority making it easy to abuse. So thanks for that Andrew.

Me: Also Andrew has pointed out that corporatism only comes about with government meaning corporatism is separate system than pure capitalism. Thanks again andrew!

I then posted this info graphic because I thought maybe pictures would help them understand where I’m coming from. You have to keep things simple for them.

And it’s been quite over on this thread for last 6 hours.
So I post this not just to make fun of these people, because they do deserve to be made fun of, but to show the illogical nature of a Statist. Socialism aims to own the means of production. Without people, there would be no production. This means you are the means of production, and by extension, socialism is the ownership of individuals. That is an absolutely disgusting prospect to me. Why anyone would advocate for such a system is beyond me. But as you can see, nothing I argued was ever challenged. I did get insulted though. And I thought liberals were the tolerant open-minded ones? Weird.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *