I believe that there is something up there. Something large, vengeful and evil. Like an immortal ShiriBot. I also know that I'm in a LOT of trouble when I get there.

To whoever it was that said Hitler was a socialist, as well as a fascist, you're gonna have to explain more, because i can't see how that is possible.

I am not LARGE. I'm under 63kb, yo. >_<

I am mostly an atheist myself. If we are talking more broadly about belief systems... I think I would call myself a follower of deep ecology, but I haven't explored that avenue too much as yet.

Hitler was not a Socialist. His party's name was National Socialist (something something) translated into German. The Socialist was just there to provide an extra bump to make it sound better.

Im glad Im not the only one who keeps up with history.

Officially, his party promoted socialism. Perhaps he did not live up to the promise of his party. Though I do not believe that he used the government to take over any industries, I believe that he did have a very large welfare system, which is a means of equalizing personal holdings and would be socialistic. I also believe that his party formed a coalition with the communist party to nominate him as their president or whatever they called the position, and the argument supposedly was that they would work together to fight their common enemy, capitalism, and fight over power later once that goal as achieved.

I believe he argued that his system was socialist since socialism is owning the means of production and, so he argued, since human labour is the ultimate means of production, by the state owning human labour it thus owned the means of production. Other socialists would argue against this claiming it is only state ownership of innanimate objects used in the means of production that constitutes socialism, whereas critics of socialism would argue that there is not much of a difference between the two; they would say mainstream socialism indirectly controls people by controling their possessions, while the National Socialists just directly controlled the people without the middleman.

Perhaps it is a matter of quibbling over a definition. I personally see it like comparing different strains of the same thing, just like there were different forms monarchy, some attrocious and some that minimize their destructive attributes.

Regarding the question on how it is possible for a government to be socialist and fascist, the very definition of fascism includes strong government control over society, including its economy. (Indeed, since an ecnomy is the aggregate of a individual people's actions within a society, I would argue that controlling an economy and controlling society are two sides of the same coin.) Any form of government based on centralized control, such as labour socialism/communism, corporate mercantilism, and aristocrat monarchy, would all be very open to sliding into fascism, which is only distinguished from other systems of centralized power by its terror and thirst for blood. But that terror and bloodthirst must first have a concentration of political power established as a prerequisite.

I... was gonna say that.

Hitler was the Minister of Propaganda when the party first began, which was a Socialist party. But since Hitler was the only non-boring speaker out of the group, people wanted him to be the head of the party, which he took it to himself ot take it over, which he had planned from the beginning, or so he says in Mein Kempf. After that, the party was not Socialist, Hitler had supported private enterprise during all but war-time, where in war-time he did take over industry and became more of a planned economy instead of a capitilist economy.

Hitler had never formed a coalition with the Socialist party, in 1933 Nazi's had 33% of the popular vote, while the Socialist party had 20% of the popular vote, Hitler formed a coalition with the Liberal party (who was the President/whatever its called in German) and had Hitler appointed as Chancellor. In 1937, the Nazi party had a majority vote (50% or higher), because Hitler had outlawed all other parties aside from the Nazi party, and he became Fuhrer.

One of the main differnces between Communism and Fascism was that all the Fascists to this date (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Long, whoever the Hungary/Portugese people were) supported private enterprise and controlled capitilism during all but war time.

Communism can be fascism, as seen in the USSR. Though it does not always have to be, as seen in the old Shaker societies. But the above thing sounds more like mercantilism than capitalism. The writings of most capitalist economists like France's Bastiat and so forth describe it as a system that has no government involvement other than arbitrating disputes. Yeah, it is not a precise use of the word "mercantilism" since mercantilists were focused on the idea governments ought to exert their power to build up stockpiles of gold bullion, but it is the closest word I can think of. I always viewed the corporate/government collusion in things like the East India company and the 19th century American railroad subsidies as close to a strain of mercantislism as anything else in modern times. The original capitalist authors like Bastiat and von Mises all distinguished what they promoted from anything that intermingled with government including the East India-like scenerios, so fascism and capitalism, as the original capitalists would have it, are mutually exclusive since fascism is an adjective of the government while their vision of capitalism did not have government inolved. (It is probably fair to say that the traditional capitalist's view of capitalism would be closer anarchy than to fascism.)

Critrics of capitalism have given a different definition to it as government ruled by those that own the most property or some variation thereof. Advocates of capitalism dub that as crony-capitalism and a pervsion of the real meaning of the word. It is similar to how advocates of socialism denounce Hitler as twisting the definition of socialism, though in this case redefined by its detracters rather than someone at minimum posing as an advocate. All this reminds me of a funny comment I heard from someone a few days ago, which goes back to the thing with corporations financing fascists. He joked that corporations probably prefer and finance the fascists like like Mussolini because they fear the free market capitalism due to it being much easier to buy off a politician and a regulator than to profit from being the best competitor. I'm sure anyone can relate to that sentiment regardless of your nation's political-economic situation!

You are looking at capitilism pre-Napoleonic era, I'm looking at capitilism post-Napoleonic era.

You know, the whole middle class, burgeious (some French thing, I can't spell it, I detest French), industralization.

I was going to say, I don't see how anything facsist can be capitalist. I see no difference between sucking up everyone's money, and then redistrubiting and taking all the physical resources and redistrubiting it.

If someone is telling me what I have to do with over 50% of my money, its not capitalism.

Yeah, Marx sort of led the charge in the class-oriented definition. But surprisingly the Adam Smith view capitalism probably got much of its full shape in the post-Napoleonic time. IMO, Adam Smith left an incomplete work, and it wasn't until Frederik Bastiat (1801-1850) of France and Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) of Austria that Adam Smith's theories were fully fleshed out. But since socialist theory dominated Western politics and philosophy in the post-Napoleonic era, that model of capitalism tends to get more press in social circles than the Austrian counterparts.

I was looking under the 'most recent reply' column, and spied

Today, 08:47 PM
In: Religion
By: roark

"Well", I thought to myself. "I'd better not go in there. I'd hate to develop an inferiority complex, i've been managing to sound so nice and arrogant as of late."

I was right. Even more right that I had expected, because lo and behold, above Roark's posts were ones by Silvanus, and Silvanus had obviously reverted back to his 'smart' mindset (As opposed to his insane one), enhancing my terror by a minimum of twelve degrees. I've never even heard of these Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, or Bastiat people. Please, go on.

There were many common theories that seemed to be more appealing and better working, John Locke's theory on government (who Jefferson based the Constitution/Declare of Independence off of), the "City on a Hill" one, where was rather, iffy, I'd say, but its up there.

Adam Smith's "A Wealth of Nations," in theory seemed perfect, if everyone country was a Laissez Fairest, but realitistcly is impossible, as the human greed can never be satisified.

To me, the best theory of Government is Otto von Bismarck's 1862 speech, "Blood and Iron"


Edit: Adam Smith's theories didn't go into affect until 100 years later, and I do think it was completed, just set in the wrong time era. The Pre-Napoleonic Era was not ready for Adam Smith, and the post Napoleonic-Era had already realized Smith's theories due to other authors who got more recognition (see Voltaire, Ricardo, Quesnay, Necker). Smith's theories were taken too far, along with these other philosphers, and what came out of it was the French revolution, that is why I disregard Smith's views on the social class, because it does not fit the radical scene.

I'm really really really intelligent when it comes to political/war history, but generally I'm just immature.

Well, one thing, in the first two years of Hitler being CHancellor, yes he did this to fight the Great Depression, since the low class is what makes the economy go around. The only way for capitilism to work is if the rich buys and buys, and never stops buying. I believe it was.. Charles Coughlin, the Socialist Doctor of the 1930s who suggested that, every Elder and veteran gets $200 a month to help pay for them, but they must spend it in the month span, to help make the economy grow. Yes, the economy grows that way, when its down, but when it is up (see US 1920s), is the best way for an economy to work when it is like that, which is capitilism to the greatest degree, during those ages. It was just that the leadership was inconsistent and rather had the economy grow freely instead of regulate it (controlled Capitlism, which most historical Fascists are).

Funny you should say that the best way is for the Rich to buy and buy and never stop buying. Because the Government, is the richest entity in the economy, and when they buy and buy and get trade deficits the talking heads react negitivly.

However, and I think this is the point that gets lost all to often. The government, is not really a person. The government is made up of people who have thier own property and jobs to worry about. So even when the Government "owns" something, it does not have the "proper affects" of being owned. That is, being proplery cared for to the exttent that value increases over time. This can best be seen in the housing market, where owned property is in the best condition, while rented property tends to be in the worst condition.

The concept is ownership, not wealth. I can have access to the biggest bank account in the world, but if I don't personally own the items I'm caring for, they will decay and become worthless. Whereas if I do own it, (through effort and other such factors) I will care for it, and its value will go up.

So, in a goverment where people don't have personal control over thier own earnings, your not going to have the benefits of capitalism.

I will disagree with this. Granted, I have only read pieces of Smith, but he gets more credit from the capitalists than he is due IMO. I believe he advocated government control of schools and housing subsidies. I get the impression that he was detailing what he observed in markets, but was not necessairily claiming what he personally felt was ideal. I believe he also did not have 100% faith in it since he saw parts he could not explain, like how goods somehow seemed to appear where needed in a chaotic market despite there being no controling authority. Thus I suspect Smith felt there was more to it than he saw and did not know for certain where it would take his theories.

The American post-war model in Japan took the shiabatsu (spelling?) which were the moneymakers for the imperial fascist regime and made them a central part of the success that Japan became, which is why Honda and Sony stayed major players until now. It was a similar situation in Germany, with Daimler, Seimens and even Ford in Munich which were central industrial animals to the Nazi regime and stayed central to Germany's post-war success.

The only thing that changed in both of these countries was the political ethic. The capitalist system slotted right in because it fits with the fascist economic model. The only difference is in the drivers for this model - in fascism, the government control the choices the consumer makes (not too different to communism) and these choices are presented through industry which supports the government. In free-market capitalism, industry controls the choices and drives the government.

No-one tells you what to do with 50% of your money in a capitalist system, but you're fooled if you think the choice is completely with you.