Is this the end for Venezuela Socialism?

They probably don't think of themselves as fascists but if they are fighting against free speech, the refusal to allow opposing opinions, and harassing innocent people when enjoying an evening out (encouraged by leftist politicians) then they might be well on their way to Fascism.

 

Not according to the Nazis.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.

Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

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

 

The most significant policy was marrying of business with a dictatorship.

 

I don't care about their propaganda, just what they did.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

 

Democrats are not stifling free speech.

 

Racism? Anti-communism? Killing democracy? Killing the rule of law? Killing human rights?

Did Hitler refer to Marx and Engels in his ideology? No!

 

Exactly right! This point routinely escapes those who read "National Socialism" or the writings and speeches of Nazis and conclude that Fascism was Socialist. Or that Fascism and Liberalism are somehow connected.

Fascists leading up to WW2 and all thru it lied a lot folks. It was propaganda. Examine their deeds to get beyond their lies.

.

 

The German national socialists were socialists - Hitler & Co. made that explicitly clear. Joseph Stalin also noted (contemptuously) that they were identical to democratic socialists.

Did they approach socialism in the same way Marxists, Maoists or Clement Attlee's socialists in Britain did? Of course, not. The German national socialists had their own strategies and methods, some of which are similar to contemporary Western (and American) democratic socialists, in my estimation.

I agree...

 

Which is Left-wing.

As any laissez-faire Austrian School libertarian could tell you, when it comes to economics/business the Right wants as little government involvement, interference and control as possible.

 

That is why I do not call "everyday Democrats" fascists.
"Everyday Democrats" like "everyday Republicans" are not part of our corrupt entrenched bipartisan ruling political class.

 

The differences between Communists and Nazis are significant, but they both embrace socialism, and before Hitler broke the Hitler/Stalin Pact Communists and Nazis often collaborated with each other.

"Hitler recognized in the early twenties the affinity between the Nazi and the
Communist movements: "In our movement the two extremes come together: the Communists
from the Left and the officers and the students from the Right. These two
have always been the most active elements. . . . The Communists were the idealists
of Socialism. . . ." See Heiden, op. cit., p. 147. Rohm, the chief of the SA, only
repeated a current opinion when he wrote in the late twenties: "Many things are be-
tween us and the Communists, but we respect the sincerity of their conviction and
their willingness to bring sacrifices for their own cause, and this unites us with them"
(Ernst Rohm, Die Geschichte eines Hochverraters, 1933, Volksausgabe, p. 273). "
THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM, By Hannah Arendt, Meridian Books, Cleveland, New York, 1958.
https://archive.org/stream/TheOriginsOfTotalitarianism/The-Origins-of-Totalitarianism_djvu.txt

 

I keep coming back to the same point: the Nazis never collectivized the economy even when Hitler had nearly absolute power. Capitalists retained their assets even when Germany was losing the war,

 

The nazis were fascists using the fascist economic model of private ownership but government control

Just like modern democrats

 

Since "Left-wing" includes American liberals who have always supported democratic rights, you're wrong on the idea of dictatorship.

As for the "marrying of business," socialists collectivize production and there is no business to marry with government.

Fascists who are on the right and stong promoters of business aren't laissez-fare.

 

You're suggesting we have a government completely unrespinsive to the people.

 

Is that the best you can do?

If so you lose

 

To a laissez-faire RWer it doesn't matter if the government is a dictatorship or not. Distinctions between the forms of government are irrelevant and meaningless.

As for dictatorship and Lefties who support democratic rights, that doesn't mean those same Lefties won't support dictatorial policies such as the individual HI mandate. This brings to mind former Whole Foods CEO John Mackey's observation that ObamaCare was "like fascism". As he correctly noted, "In fascism, the government doesn't own the means of production, but they do control it -- and that's what's happening with our health care programs and these reforms."

This was something that Hitler and the German national socialists figured out a long time ago - socialists don't need the government to own the means of production to control it. All they need is control, and this control can be obtained and exercised through government mandates, rules and regulations.

Collectivization is the marriage of government and business. It's not business that ceases to exist but private ownership and/or control.

That's precisely why fascists aren't on the Right - they don't believe in laissez-faire economics. They believe in government-controlled business.

 

Not completely, but closer to that all the time.

 

Yes, and the flip side that WITHOUT CHANGES IN MAIN GOVERNMENT, SLAVERY WOULD STILL EXIST, WOMEN WOULD STILL NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, PRIVATE COMPANIES WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO SELL SUB-STANDARD, POTENTIALLY HARMFUL GOODS & PRODUCTS, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A WEEKEND, CHILD LABOR WOULD STILL EXIST, ETC., ETC.

Once again, nothing is perfect, but your agenda driven myopic view of the situation is absurd. that is why the people must continually work to make it better for all, and not just individual comfort.

 

Interesting post with lots of time and examples taken to build your case.

Sure we can claim Babeuf as having socialist ideas (though I would argue more of an anarchist) looking back from a 21st century perspective but he would not have understood what you were talking about other than his activism against the injustices and disparities of French society in his time. It is true that ideas that incorporate socialist principles have been debated and discussed before Marx and Engels, the first real idea of worker's associations or unions did not come about until the Chartists of mid-1800's and true socialism as an analysis of economic conditions of workers did not arise until von Stien's "Socialism and Social Movement" in 1842.

Socialism arose as a critique of the deplorable living conditions and horrible injustices that arose in cities as people were forced off farms and into cities as feudalism gave way to the capitalist system during the industrial revolution. Specifically Engels described these conditions in Britain in great detail. The founders and framers had no understanding of socialism in the modern context though they would have been familiar with some of the utopian groups that arose in their time such as the Shakers or New Harmony which was likely what people like Adams were referring to in their writing.

The research I've done is clear on who had the right to vote at the time of the founding fathers. And yes, I've read Zinn and Chomsky and Chris Hedges and Peter Kuzniak but also mainstream historians like Max Ferrand and Forrest MacDonald. The record on what you call "hogwash" is pretty clear.

"Unfortunately, leaving election control to individual states led to unfair voting practices in the U.S. At first, white men with property were the only Americans routinely permitted to vote. President Andrew Jackson, champion of frontiersmen, helped advance the political rights of those who did not own property. By about 1860, most white men without property were enfranchised. But African Americans, women, Native Americans, non-English speakers, and citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 had to fight for the right to vote in this country."

https://www.loc.gov/teachers/classr...ntations/elections/founders-and-the-vote.html

As for the other history you mentioned it hasn't been lost nor did all of those men understand freedom and liberty in 18th Century colonial terms.

Again, the founding fathers would not have understood anything about socialism as the term had not been invented yet now would they have had any precedent to see anything about socialists in the future or how it could be imposed on people.You are imparting 21st century characteristics on 19th century men living on a frontier society.

I've never tried to paint those men as simpletons. I've tried to examine them as they really were rather than impart some kind of mythological greatness and heroism to people who were after all just men trying to create a better society as they understood it in 19 century terms. Don't forget that while the founders were railing against tyranny and injustice, at least half of them were slaveholders and many including George Washington were land speculators who's motives in wanting to throw off the yoke of the British Empire was at least in part the desire to acquire land in territories where the British had treaties with people who already lived there and who had been firm allies of the Empire in it's war with France.

I quite like some of the founders ideas and works - especially Paine whose ideas on taxation were years ahead of his time:

"If by "socialist" we mean a state-supported welfare system to ensure the poor and working poor lead comfortable lives, then yes. Paine supported a social welfare state. If by "socialist" we mean that wealth is produced by the working classes (in his day the farmers and the mechanics) and that they should reap the benefits of that wealth, then yes as well. (Paine had a labor-theory of value). But if by "socialist" we mean the definition it was to gain some 20-30 years after his death, ie. that the working classes control the means of production through the state, then probably not. Those ideas and even the language around them had not come into use during Paine's lifetime. In his era capitalist forces were just taking shape, and he did not foresee some aspects of that. In reference to "socialism" in that light, he would have no clear grasp of the issues involved."

http://thomaspaine.org/aboutpaine/was-thomas-paine-a-socialist.html

Your social programs were fought for in some of the most bloody and violent labour struggles experienced in the western world. Your social welfare programs arose from mass movements and labour parties - yes even socialist and communist parties which thrived in the early 20th century - that fought entrenched wealth and political power every step of the way for every civil rights and labour concession they every won.

Maybe you should do some research:

http://oxfordre.com/americanhistory...9329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-330

Certainly, as you have taken the time to write a thoughtful post, I will give Sowell's essay a read. I would argue that there is a lot more historically than "war on Poverty" that has created the economic conditions for minorities in your country but I will save my opinion until I have read the essay.

{quote]I have received timely, high quality and affordable health care from our private HC system my entire life and have no desire to see it turned over to a corrupt, inefficient and over-expensive federal government and bureaucracy that can't even provide a functioning universal healthcare system for our nation's veterans, much less the entire country. A majority of Americans agree with me on this, which is why we haven't made the mistake of doing that already.[/quote]

Nope, poll after poll says the majority of Americans favour a universal, user-pay health care system such as Canada's. Same polls also show they favour increasing taxes on the wealthy.

It is good for you that you have access to quality health care. Does is not concern you that so many of your fellow citizens do not have the same luxury you do - one that people in almost every other developed country takes for granted?

 

Big Government had nothing to do with any of those reforms.

1. SLAVERY is more common today than in the 19th century.
2. Male voters, not Big Government, gave women THE RIGHT TO VOTE
3. Companies are still ABLE TO SELL SUB-STANDARD, POTENTIALLY HARMFUL GOODS & PRODUCTS.
4. Organized workers, not Big Government gave some of us the WEEKEND off.
5. Voters, not Big Government, ended child labor in the West.

Government is not all bad, but Big Government always tilts toward evil.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine

 

It matters a lot because a dictatorship is absolutely incompatible with laissez-faire anything.

OMG. The individual mandate is nothing more than a tax.

You come across as an anarchist.

The Nazis weren't socialists and in fact courted the ownership class with the promise of fighting the collectivists. German industrialists retained their assets. What makes you think the ownership class is more concerned with what their businesses are producing than they are with retaining their wealth?

No, collectivization is the destruction of the ownership class. There's no marrying of bisiness because business ceases to exist.

The political spectrum is defined by control of productive assets, not personal freedom vs. control by government.

 

1. Slavery of Africans to Europe and America ended a some time ago, don't cha know? That was done by the will of the people via their gov't representatives, a small war, etc.
2. Newsflash: PEOPLE MAKE UP A GOVERNMENT, PEOPLE FORCE CHANGE OF OR ENFORCE LAWS. It's not some indigenous machine grown out of the ground. You can't separate the two.
3. Yeah, it's called COMMITTING A CRIME....if the product causes harm, they are liable. Defective? Money back or face legal monetary action....which is why you can function in this society with the percentage of worry on daily activities removed (clean water, good food, etc.).
4. And how did they do that? BY ENFORCING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ONTO GOV'T VIA REPRESENTATION, PROTEST, PETITION, VOTING, ETC. The laws were changed and enforced through the government, which is represented by, of, and for the people.
5. No kidding? and who makes up the government? See #2 here.

Please enlighten the readers as to what YOU consider "small" government as opposed to "big" government. Because small governments can and have been just as dysfunctional and corrupt.

 

There you go again confusing Big Government with the people dominated by it. Beyond that you failed to rebut a single point.
In fact, slavery is more common today that in the 19th century, and I suspect you know it.

The best, but obviously imperfect, model for small government was the early USG created by the COTUS.