NationStates Jolt Archive

Whats wrong with it?
Yes, people wearing the guise of national socialism took it to an extreme.
But the same can be said about stalin's "Communist." russia.

I am proud of my country, i am a nationalist. On international affairs i think my country should come first.

BUT i am a socialist.

Anything wrong with that?

Nothing, nothing at all.

...Anything wrong with that?

Not per se, but the term is now tainted beyond redemption. Just think of a new name.

Whats wrong with it?
Yes, people wearing the guise of national socialism took it to an extreme.
But the same can be said about stalin's "Communist." russia.

I am proud of my country, i am a nationalist. On international affairs i think my country should come first.

BUT i am a socialist.

Anything wrong with that?

No. I am also a supporter of National Socialism. I think it would work well in today's world, obviously with the racism etc toned down a bit. Just because it is right wing doesn't mean it's goal to to exterminate a particular group. For example Mussolini hardly killed anyone, in fact he was responsible for saving most of Italys Jews from Hitler.

National Socialism is a fascist ideology. It has about as much to do with socialism, as the Democratic Republic of Congo has to do with Democracy

National Socialism is a fascist ideology. It has about as much to do with socialism, as the Democratic Republic of Congo has to do with Democracy

Yes, but Fascism is socialist in nature. Mussolini was actually a socialist for most of his life.

Actually Fascism embraces Corporatism, not necessarily Socialism.

National Socialism is Socialist though (Hitler was recruited into the Nazi party by a Socialist and ardent Anti-Capitalist). That's what makes it different from Fascism.

Since when did national socialists ever favour worker empowerment?

If you looked up the definition of Fascism from Mussolini and Gentile and able to understand it, you deserve a degree because it makes no sense. Fascism kept changing policies as often as often as Paris Hilton changes men.

As for National Socialism it was virtually bankrupt just before the war. They needed to use the vastly built armies to be get the resources needed to stop the country from crashing economically. Only real socialist element is the "command economy" even though it was still privately owned.

"Communist" Russia wasn't even communist or seen to be heading in that direction about the time Stalin applied the principles of Ivan the Terrible to stay in power. Lenin led it and tried to guide it in the right direction but he died too early and at a bad time.

Things are given a name, and that name carries its own history.
National Socialism cannot be redefined as some blend of Nationalism and Socialism. It is how the Third Reich christianed their ideology.

That ideology had actually nothing to do with "traditional" Socialism (communists were Hitler's worst enemies from the beginning), and pushed Nationalism to the extremes of Racism (which is, I am afraid, not that difficult with Nationalism). Given that Germans are more consistent that we Italians happen to be, a horrid ideology turned into a horrid State and a horrid time for all Europeans. But Fascism was as antidemocratic, actually it was the model for Hitler.

It would be nice if History could dispose of this crap once for all. But things do not work this way: there will always be people so misled or so dumb to believe that they are better than someone else by virtue of their birthplace, or of their anthem. What can still be hoped is that such people do not rule the world, like in the thirties.

Fascism kept changing policies as often as often as Paris Hilton changes men.

Paris Hilton doesn't change men, she uses them for their bodies.

Yes, but Fascism is socialist in nature. Mussolini was actually a socialist for most of his life.What nature is that exactly?
It can't be the bit about creating an elite class that own everything. It can't be the bit about creating an elite class that rules society & cannot be challenged...
And honestly, I seriously doubt the bit about creating a class society can have anything to do with it either, nor can the isolationist dogma or the militarization of society.

What's left after that? Or are you like the average Republicant who thinks socialism is another word for anti-freedom, thought police & mass murder?

http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/anti-nazi.JPG

nationalism blows.

nationalism blows.

Damn right.

Damn right.

Technically, yes. But in addition to blowing, it sucks and screws a lot of people over. Nationalism is therefore a whore. :)

I am proud of my country, i am a nationalist. On international affairs i think my country should come first.

BUT i am a socialist.

Anything wrong with that?Yes. "National socialism" is an oxymoron. You have to pick one.

Technically, yes. But in addition to blowing, it sucks and screws a lot of people over. Nationalism is therefore a whore. :)

And since nationalist states usually make you pay taxes...

...Nationalism is a prostitute!

And since nationalist states usually make you pay taxes...

...Nationalism is a prostitute!

I love extending metaphors. :D

Whats wrong with it?
Yes, people wearing the guise of national socialism took it to an extreme.
But the same can be said about stalin's "Communist." russia.

I am proud of my country, i am a nationalist. On international affairs i think my country should come first.

BUT i am a socialist.

Anything wrong with that?

Stalin was not a Communist, he was someone who used the governmental system in place to change it from that of a government formed in order to be accountable to the people and ruled by the people to that of a government where the people were accountable to the government, and ruled by the government, which was modelled in his image and paranoia and lust for power.

Lenin hated him, and did not want him to be a successor.

You're not really a Socialist. Sorry.
If you were, you would not say "my country first" you would say "workers of the world, unite." in a global effort.

Nationalist yes.

Not per se, but the term is now tainted beyond redemption. Just think of a new name.

Oh they did.

It's called 'Neo-Con'.

National Socialism = Socialist and Nationalist?

Pfft, hardly. It's fascist, it divides by class and certainly likes elitism, so there goes Socialism out the window.

Nationalist? Yeah, that's a given. But nationalism is bad.

For example Mussolini hardly killed anyone, in fact he was responsible for saving most of Italys Jews from Hitler.

And I suppose whoever told you that, believes Hitler and Himmler were really quite loveable chaps who would not dream of killing anyone, and that the world is flat, and that lovely little pink pigs fly in the sky with fluffy wuffy wings, that the little people at the bottom of his garden keep stealing sweeties, and that fairies and kittens will die if you swear and curse.

You obviously do.

In other news: I'm now a cat owner. Granted, it looks a hell of a lot like a 21" CRT monitor, but since I've decided to write "Cat" on it, I must now be a cat owner, right?

Just for the hell of it, I'll also refer to myself as a Christian in the future. I don't believe Jesus ever existed. I haven't got a spiritual bone in my body, and even if there were such things as gods with divine decrees, I'd fight the lot for the right to my own autonomy.. But I'm a Christian now. I say I am, so I must be.

I trust my absurd behaviour doesn't feel too familiar for the nazi scum.

I've noticed that quite alot of socialist rhetoric talks about installing "democratic working class control" over everything from schools, factories to government thats about as oxymoronic as national socialism, you can't be democratic if you exclude people from having a share of the power based on their class.

Whats wrong with it?
Yes, people wearing the guise of national socialism took it to an extreme.
But the same can be said about stalin's "Communist." russia.

I am proud of my country, i am a nationalist. On international affairs i think my country should come first.

BUT i am a socialist.

Anything wrong with that?

Theres nothing wrong with it. The party did very well until in 1936 when they started spreading anti-jew propaganda. The government was excellent economically. The greatest socialist country of known history. But this is only economically speaking. Then Adolf Hitler was taking mesculine, methamphetymines. He became enigmatic and crazed about jews. One of Adolf Hitler's last quotes, "Although I may have led our country into the abyss, I have done a deed of god by relieving the world of most of its jewry." But that's nationalism, to the extreme. Nothing wrong with nationalism, it's what brings a country it's glory.

Theres nothing wrong with it. The party did very well until in 1936 when they started spreading anti-jew propaganda. The government was excellent economically. The greatest socialist country of known history. But this is only economically speaking. Then Adolf Hitler was taking mesculine, methamphetymines. He became enigmatic and crazed about jews. One of Adolf Hitler's last quotes, "Although I may have led our country into the abyss, I have done a deed of god by relieving the world of most of its jewry." But that's nationalism, to the extreme. Nothing wrong with nationalism, it's what brings a country it's glory.

Oh dear.

I've noticed that quite alot of socialist rhetoric talks about installing "democratic working class control" over everything from schools, factories to government thats about as oxymoronic as national socialism, you can't be democratic if you exclude people from having a share of the power based on their class.

That's communism for ya. Power to the government, and the scraps for the people. And the people will love it.

Oh dear.
What don't you like about what I said.

What don't you like about what I said.Not really a question of liking, is it?

you can't be democratic if you exclude people from having a share of the power based on their class.Ah, no, it's the opposite, you can't be democratic if you allow people to have a share of the power based on their class.

Ah, no, it's the opposite, you can't be democratic if you allow people to have a share of the power based on their class.

I don't see how what you said nulls what I said at all

I've never heard about a working class american president

And I suppose whoever told you that, believes Hitler and Himmler were really quite loveable chaps who would not dream of killing anyone, and that the world is flat, and that lovely little pink pigs fly in the sky with fluffy wuffy wings, that the little people at the bottom of his garden keep stealing sweeties, and that fairies and kittens will die if you swear and curse.

You obviously do.
Actually what he's saying is true. In north eastern italy many of italian soldiers hid jews away from nazis taking italian ground. And these some 200 soldiers were relieved of war crimes because of it.

Many people knew nothing of the haneous nazi concentration camps for the jews. The only soldiers that knew were half of the SS and those who the SS were associating with. Not even the german citizens knew anything about them. They knew they were stripped of their rights. But they never knew where all the jews went.

And so next time you wanna disagree, search for the knowledge before you make an ass of yourself, and stop thinking all the germans and italians in the world were fucking evil.

And you know the nazis were good for something, without the nazi's help, we wouldn't have ever won the cold war.

And you have to remember, nazism wasn't that bad back then. Hitler really turned it's economy around into the most economical country in the world while everyone suffered through the great depression. But that's basically it. They'd be better off without hitler, and they would probably still be quite a peaceful nation today. It's sad hitler had to go out and fuck everything up with his druggie friend himmler and goebells.

I've never heard about a working class american president

I've heard about stupid 15 year old kids being communist and buying che shit from capitalized markets.

I don't see how what you said nulls what I said at all

Communism and democracy don't work. Look at Russia, China, Cuba, N. Korea, and the south eastern african countries. Used to be real democracies. Now they're not, they say stfu we have economic power over you, elect me again, or i'll make the rest of your months and years by stealing all of your money.

I don't see how what you said nulls what I said at allBecause you said that you're only democratic if you allow people to have a share of the power based upon their class, which is wrong, it's the reverse, you're only democratic if you disallow people from having a share of the power based upon their class.

Communism and democracy don't work. Look at Russia, China, Cuba, N. Korea, and the south eastern african countries. Used to be real democracies. Now they're not, they say stfu we have economic power over you, elect me again, or i'll make the rest of your months and years by stealing all of your money.

China is still an evolving nation like the rest of asia and cuba would be working just fine if it wasn't becouse of the westworlds trading embargos.
N. Korea and Zimbabwe are pretty far from socialists arn't they? america would have been as bad as russia economicly if they had been to 3 WW...:rolleyes:

I've never heard about a working class american president

That's because America is designed to perpetuate the rule of the elite.

And @ the OP: If you are a Nationalist, and you are a Socialist, call yourself a Social Nationalist or something similar. If you go around saying you are a National Socialist people are going to hate/hit you. And rightly so.

What's in a name? Fascism, for example, is not necessarily indicative of being right-wing... It's largely from the standard ("Fascia"?) carried by the original Fascists in Italy, a roll-over from the Roman symbolism of a bundle as used to signify unity, grouping together. Ah, here we are, check out "Word History" at this dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism) entry... More or less what I've always believed.

Similarly, 'socialism', was originally a matter of social organisation, whatever the modern concept of large-'S' Socialism might mean to you. In the coal-fields of South Yorkshire (where I grew up) Socialist was essentially "slightly left of centre", on average, the Liberals taking the right-wing, but full-blown Communism was largely consigned to the fringes.

In fact, "Liberal", in my direct experience (UK) is 'middle-of-the-roadism', a sort of opposite to authoritatarianism (and thus opposite to the intensity of both hard-right and hard-left policies), but always strikes me as having been used as an insult equivalent to "Pinko Commie" by the more vocal people from the States.


Anywa, what I'm alluding to is that it depends largely on the manner in which a capital-letter is officially taken on by a word. With the exception of terms derived from a person's name (like Marxism, that starts off with a capital and should technically have mroe inertia, but can still be subverted as an idea after the originator's death/removal from the process he started) History is never kind to political ideas, and the labels applied to them get associated with the most prominent associations, not the most fundimental ones.

Even "Capitalist" is generally taken as an insult. Except by those who are proud to be such (i.e. would be insulted to be considered anything else).


So.. National Socialism. Originally a product of nationalist and socialist ideals (and arguably retaining large aspects of both, even while subverted), it is perhaps natural that we now think of the resulting system as "Naziism" with all the revulsion we might have. Which is not to say that a "working nationalist/socialist-hybrid system" could not somehow arise, but it would have to possess a different name to be taken seriously/without prejudice.

Similarly with communism which (from some perspectives) is indeed a decent system if run correctly, but impractical whilst Communists ran it...

(i.e. most -isms aren't intrinsically bad, it's the -ists that control it that make all the difference...)

What is up with all the nazis, wanna-be nazis and those who don't have a clue about history lately?

Nothing good that National Socialism and Nazism could have ever produced outweighs the atrocities that were comitted by the followers of that ideology.

That said, I absolutely loathe National Socialists and Nazis.

And before any more wrong claims about German history are made - don't just post what you'd like to have happened: Get yourself informed beforehand.

Some of you guys sicken me to no end.

What is up with all the nazis, wanna-be nazis and those who don't have a clue about history lately?

Nothing good that National Socialism and Nazism could have ever produced outweighs the atrocities that were comitted by the followers of that ideology.

That said, I absolutely loathe National Socialists and Nazis.

And before any more wrong claims about German history are made - don't just post what you'd like to have happened: Get yourself informed beforehand.

Some of you guys sicken me to no end.

Finally, another person in this thread with a sound mind.

*hands you cookies*

Finally, another person in this thread with a sound mind.

*hands you cookies*

What about me? :(

But yeah, what's up with all this (semi-) denial of what the nazis did?

Similarly with communism which (from some perspectives) is indeed a decent system if run correctly, but impractical whilst Communists ran it...

Exactly. That's because Communism is people working together, not people working under a ruling class with a "Chairmen" at the helm. Read about the Paris Commune and Spain during its civil war in the 1930's to see what real Communism is (also called Anarcho-Communism).

It's far awar from Marx's perverted working class dictatorship.

What about me? :(

But yeah, what's up with all this (semi-) denial of what the nazis did?

I think some people on NS General are closet Nazis. That's about all I can come up with.

Or maybe they're just insecure?

I hate it on these forums when you give the correct answers but everyone always replies to the retard.

I think some people on NS General are closet Nazis. That's about all I can come up with.

Or maybe they're just insecure?

Well, supposing you want to associate yourself with Nazism (and I've no idea why you would) then clearly, you'll have to either embrace what they did OR you'll have to deny it vehemently.

I find the Soviet Union's methods far more efficient: They wanted to remain communist and in order to distance themselves from what Stalin did, they just seperated the Party and Stalin.

It's very hard, however, to seperate Nazi and Hitler, because Hitler created the Nazi, while Stalin did not create communism.

Edit: Did that make any sense?

I hate it on these forums when you give the correct answers but everyone always replies to the retard.I imagine that most people agree with you, and it's usually unnecessary to post simply stating that you agree with what the poster said.

As a socialist i activally think that socialism is the way to go in the modern world. I am just one person though and I won't try and sway anyones political ideas. I just think that socialism gives it where its needed, would tone down bigotry, and would make everyone happy as a whole. In fact, I actully am a socialist libertarian democratic. This title, while it does seem like an oxymoron, takes the merits of , what I think, the finer forms of government and mixes them to form a new form. However, i do belive that national socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism is about bringing equality to the people while maintaining them. Nationalism is about the government exploiting pride of their country. people don't need to be proud about their country to maintain the government. It should be the hard work of everyone, not some workers while the upper-class profits from the blood.

Stalin was not a Communist, he was someone who used the governmental system in place to change it from that of a government formed in order to be accountable to the people and ruled by the people to that of a government where the people were accountable to the government, and ruled by the government, which was modelled in his image and paranoia and lust for power.

Lenin hated him, and did not want him to be a successor.

You're not really a Socialist. Sorry.
If you were, you would not say "my country first" you would say "workers of the world, unite." in a global effort.

Nationalist yes.

(tears your arguement to shreds.)
Firstly, no shit stalin wasnt communist. hence my "communist" note the ".
Secondly, Socialism a definition, not an assumption based on your own views, would be a system where the state owns companies and distrubutes wealth to the poor.
It is an interior system and foreign policy can be ANYTHING with socialism.

In conclusion, dont say stuff if you dont know what your talking about. Yes most socialists are internationalists, but using this logic most humans are (male or female) therefore ALL humans are.
Um... no. go home and read up on this.

Pwnage level please? 1-10?

(tears your arguement to shreds.)
Firstly, no shit stalin wasnt communist. hence my "communist" note the ".
Secondly, Socialism a definition, not an assumption based on your own views, would be a system where the state owns companies and distrubutes wealth to the poor.
It is an interior system and foreign policy can be ANYTHING with socialism.

In conclusion, dont say stuff if you dont know what your talking about. Yes most socialists are internationalists, but using this logic most humans are (male or female) therefore ALL humans are.
Um... no. go home and read up on this.

Pwnage level please? 1-10?
7

7

Thanks :D

I'd rather discuss Social Nationalism, which is when you only consider your country superior to others during dinner parties and at the park.

In fact, I actully am a socialist libertarian democratic.

You could save people a lot of time and just call yourself a liberal.

You could save people a lot of time and just call yourself a liberal.

What about liberals who believe in dictatorship?
(NOT contradiction, see benevolant dictatorship.)

So Liberal-Democrat is needed ;)

that seems to have cleared up on its own. Thanks.:)

that seems to have cleared up on its own. Thanks.:)
:D
i love being pedantic.

I forgot just how infuriating it is dealing with a liberal who thinks they're a socialist.

I forgot just how infuriating it is dealing with a liberal who thinks they're a socialist.

(pat pat.)

I understand. but look at scandinavia :)

(pat pat.)

I understand. but look at scandinavia :)

*shudders*

I forgot just how infuriating it is dealing with a liberal who thinks they're a socialist.
You are what you beleive and what you practice. One man's killer is another man's hero.

Whats wrong with it?
Yes, people wearing the guise of national socialism took it to an extreme.
But the same can be said about stalin's "Communist." russia.

I am proud of my country, i am a nationalist. On international affairs i think my country should come first.

BUT i am a socialist.

Anything wrong with that?
Just don't start the Jew burning again. That is NOT cool.

You are what you beleive and what you practice. One man's killer is another man's hero.

Not the person he killed i hope. ;)

Not the person he killed i hope. ;)
what do you think.:rolleyes: lol

However, if you think that your country should come first that is a much different stance from socialism from my point of view.

Finally, another person in this thread with a sound mind.

*hands you cookies*
Thanks. I'm just too preoccupied with watching football right now, elseways I'd be posting a lot more in this thread.

*shares half the cookies with Seathorn* There ya go!
What about me? :(

But yeah, what's up with all this (semi-) denial of what the nazis did?
Beats me. It's like going "But Hitler took pictures with little German girls handing him flowers, he sure was a nice man". http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/sm_shake.gif

You are what you beleive and what you practice. One man's killer is another man's hero.

Onwards to postmodernism, comrade!

Some people here need to learn there is a difference between political ideals and economic models.

A centrally planned economy is what was used especially by the Soviet Union (and proved very inefficient) and any other sort of government that attempts to control the entire economy (see war economies).

A free market economy is what has especially been used by capitalists.

Both have been proven to be rather bad when taken to extremes.

However, just because the Nazis may, or may not, have used centrally planned economies does not make them socialist.

And the Scandinavian countries are about as socialist as you'll get, politically, in a democracy.

Before I express any real opinions on National Socialism, I think I should state what I think that it is, and see if this is correct. It seems that all other online sources, either Wiki or other free online Encyclipedia's. when asked of National Socialism, simply bring up a history of Nazism and it's policy, so I will have to define Nat'l Socialism using Nazism as a base but not to copy it's policies exactly.

Lets see, Socialism is generally the redistribution of wealth to (attempt to) create a classless, equal society. So, national socialism would be the confiscation of wealth by the government, for it to use as it sees fit, whether for military or civilian purposes. It believes that the state is superior to all other authority, and should be the dominant factor in peoples lives.In it, it is people's duty to serve society and their government, and this means taking care of yourself and your offspring, which are simply government property. The Government should take care of its citizenry, and generally appies a utilitarian philosophy to bring the greatest good to the greatest number of its people, and thus the majority of society is protected. Nazism failed this last point because of the racism of it's leadership, As we all know, and ended up killing a significant number of it's people in a faulty attempt to protect it's society from the dirty (insert derogatory term for gypsies, jews, gays, communists, ect.)

Is that about right? I'm more a a Libertarian myself, though I have noticed a couple Neo-Nazis around here, and observations of them have helped this definition, I think.

No. I am also a supporter of National Socialism. I think it would work well in today's world, obviously with the racism etc toned down a bit. Just because it is right wing doesn't mean it's goal to to exterminate a particular group. For example Mussolini hardly killed anyone, in fact he was responsible for saving most of Italys Jews from Hitler.

I'd like to laugh, but anyhow I can't.

It seems that all other online sources, either Wiki or other free online Encyclipedia's. when asked of National Socialism, simply bring up a history of Nazism and it's policy, so I will have to define Nat'l Socialism using Nazism as a base but not to copy it's policies exactly.

Lets see, Socialism is generally the redistribution of wealth to (attempt to) create a classless, equal society. So, national socialism would be the confiscation of wealth by the government, for it to use as it sees fit, whether for military or civilian purposes. It believes that the state is superior to all other authority, and should be the dominant factor in peoples lives.In it, it is people's duty to serve society and their government, and this means taking care of yourself and your offspring, which are simply government property. The Government should take care of its citizenry, and generally appies a utilitarian philosophy to bring the greatest good to the greatest number of its people, and thus the majority of society is protected. Nazism failed this last point because of the racism of it's leadership, As we all know, and ended up killing a significant number of it's people in a faulty attempt to protect it's society from the dirty (insert derogatory term for gypsies, jews, gays, communists, ect.)

Is that about right? I'm more a a Libertarian myself, though I have noticed a couple Neo-Nazis around here.

I would have thought that having no class system, or atleast lessening the class divide is directly opposed to considering your country's native citizens superior to immigrants and foreigners.

Onwards Social Liberalism!

Whats wrong with it?
Yes, people wearing the guise of national socialism took it to an extreme.
But the same can be said about stalin's "Communist." russia.

I am proud of my country, i am a nationalist. On international affairs i think my country should come first.

BUT i am a socialist.

Anything wrong with that?

Call it (insert your nationality adjetive) People's Socialist Party...

I would have thought that having no class system, or atleast lessening the class divide is directly opposed to considering your country's native citizens superior to immigrants and foreigners.

Onwards Social Liberalism!

I said Socialism attempts to create a classless society. National Socialism does not, because wealth is not distributed equally among the populace. It is spent on whatever the government fancies, and that can be organizing patrician/plebian type class system, or whatever.

I'd rather discuss Social Nationalism, which is when you only consider your country superior to others during dinner parties and at the park.

hmmm would i have to wear jackboots to the park? i do so hate footwear that doesnt show my ankles.

*lonely* and brazil isn't winning :(

I think that socialism's point is to have everyone equal and under the care of the greater good.

Whats wrong with it?
Yes, people wearing the guise of national socialism took it to an extreme.
But the same can be said about stalin's "Communist." russia.

I am proud of my country, i am a nationalist. On international affairs i think my country should come first.

BUT i am a socialist.

Anything wrong with that?

There is plenty wrong with that. Veneration of abstract entities like "nations" is pointless, irrational, and unethical; it privileges a certain group over everyone else for no justifiable reason.

It also can be used to justify the most horrific of atrocities.

There is plenty wrong with that. Veneration of abstract entities like "nations" is pointless, irrational, and unethical; it privileges a certain group over everyone else for no justifiable reason.

It also can be used to justify the most horrific of atrocities.



GIANT COOKIE for you. bad idea :sniper: PWNED!

I said Socialism attempts to create a classless society. National Socialism does not, because wealth is not distributed equally among the populace. It is spent on whatever the government fancies, and that can be organizing patrician/plebian type class system, or whatever.

There's nothing Social about that at all, just sounds authoritarian to me. National Socialism = Fascism, sorry bub.

W00t BRAZIL PWNED!

I noticed that many of you here talk about "poor" socialism (ie confiscate the wealth of the rich and distrbute among the poor to form a classless society) I think the correct way for socialism to progress is " rich" socialism where the government will try to make the people as rich as possible much like what China is doing nowadays. i admit that China has not complete this job and it has along way to go....

Whats wrong with it?
Yes, people wearing the guise of national socialism took it to an extreme.
But the same can be said about stalin's "Communist." russia.

I am proud of my country, i am a nationalist. On international affairs i think my country should come first.

BUT i am a socialist.

Anything wrong with that?

Because Nationalist Socialism isn't socialism coupled with nationalism, it's socialism tools turned to nationalist ends.

In other words, modern socialism is about using the power of the state to help the poor and working people. Nationalist Socialism is about using the state to force the people to follow the ends of the government, even when it hurts the people.

E.g. it would be nationalist socialism to force people to join the army to invade Iraq for Halliburton, or to outlaw tap water so that Poland Spring could make more money selling water.

For example Mussolini hardly killed anyone

I got two words for you - Abyssinian Crisis.

Not to mention his participation in the Spanish Civil War, the invasion of Corfu etc etc etc.

Anyway, what's wrong with Nazism you ask? Racist/Sexist malarky aside, it's based on the fundamental idea that somebody else knows what's good for you and therefore they should run your life. Any nation that works on that philosophy dooms its populace to a life of servitude and misery.

There's nothing Social about that at all, just sounds authoritarian to me. National Socialism = Fascism, sorry bub.

I never said it was not fascist. I pointed out that the government completely controls society and the economy, which is Totalitarian. Socialism, if it works, redistributes wealth so that there less or no wealth gap. National Socialism can redistribute wealth however it wants to whoever it wants for whatever reason it wants to further the state as much as possible, and that CAN lead to Fascism. You seem to think I think Nat'l Socialism is done for the individual and is a voluntary, democratic process. I do not. It IS Authoritarian.

I noticed that many of you here talk about "poor" socialism (ie confiscate the wealth of the rich and distrbute among the poor to form a classless society) I think the correct way for socialism to progress is " rich" socialism where the government will try to make the people as rich as possible much like what China is doing nowadays. i admit that China has not complete this job and it has along way to go....

I don't think any socialist is aiming just to take some of the rich people's money and give it to the poor. Our aim is the social ownership of the means of production and the elimination of a profit motive, not to change a few tax rates.

Oh, and by the way, China's not socialist. It's not trying to enrich people. It's bringing back capitalism and guess who's benefitting from it- the bureaucracy. Hmmm peculiar that isn't it?

Secondly, Socialism a definition, not an assumption based on your own views, would be a system where the state owns companies and distrubutes wealth to the poor.Er, no. One of the requisities of socialism is that the workers own the means of production.

Er, no. One of the requisities of socialism is that the workers own the means of production.

Yep.

Er, no. One of the requisities of socialism is that the workers own the means of production.
No no no! Listen to the ultimate truth that is the neo-Nazi rubbish.

Socialism is about creating an elite ruling class, handing them the wealth of the society & civing them complete control over social interaction. A KZ camp is a great example of socialism, for example. There's an elite that distributes the wealth, labour & controls the lives of the people living in it.

... Forget all that "socialism is the ideology of letting the masses control themselves" & "egalitarianism" rubbish. The neo-Nazi scum obviously knows what it's all about. Contradict them & they'll kill you for anti-social behaviour.


For the daft among you, the above is a joke.

Screw you all commies! I hope you will burn in hell!

OP seems to suggest that being a nationalist as well as a socialist might make you a national socialist. Whoever thinks national socialism has anything to do with socialism politically or economically should get their money back from whatever education they got. Socialism was just a fashionable term when the European crisis struck. The S as well as the A in NSDAP were simply a way to get more votes from the uneducated masses. Like 'democracy' is now being used as a motivation to bomb the fuck out of the Middle East. No, communism didn't work. No, democracy doesn't work very well either. So of all people Hitler and Mussolini must've been doing the right thing?

I don't like the hooligan orc hordes. But what's even worse is the pseudo-intellectual crypto-fascist revisionists. It sure is in vogue lately. Ick.

Screw you all commies! I hope you will burn in hell!
Nah! I'm a satanic commie. I've been careful to stay on Satans good side by sacrificing as many cute fluffy animals as I can get my hands on. Satan will not torture me, he'll welcome me to hell and we'll have a good time.

Nah! I'm a satanic commie. I've been careful to stay on Satans good side by sacrificing as many cute fluffy animals as I can get my hands on. Satan will not torture me, he'll welcome me to hell and we'll have a good time.


But then again, Satan + minions will be burning in Hell, too, post Judgement Day.

Being on his good side wont do you any good.

I don't like the hooligan orc hordes.Hey! Skrew you.But what's even worse is the pseudo-intellectual crypto-fascist revisionists. It sure is in vogue lately. Ick.Well at least we agree on one thing.

<snip> there will always be people so misled or so dumb to believe that they are better than someone else by virtue of their birthplace, or of their anthem. What can still be hoped is that such people do not rule the world, like in the thirties.

Does this sound like the USA, or is it just me?

Hey! Skrew you.
Judging by your sig we may agree on more than one thing. I resent fascists, but that doesn't mean I have to like antifascists for kicking their teeth in. I don't care what direction the violence is coming from. Besides I probably wouldn't have the balls to do the same, even if it were WWII. ;)

Theres nothing wrong with it. The party did very well until in 1936 when they started spreading anti-jew propaganda. The government was excellent economically. The greatest socialist country of known history. But this is only economically speaking. Then Adolf Hitler was taking mesculine, methamphetymines. He became enigmatic and crazed about jews. One of Adolf Hitler's last quotes, "Although I may have led our country into the abyss, I have done a deed of god by relieving the world of most of its jewry." But that's nationalism, to the extreme. Nothing wrong with nationalism, it's what brings a country it's glory.

What, what, what?!? Aren't you forgetting the endorsement of voilence inherent in the NSDAP party-line. The leading cadré, and most of the members despised the weak and worshipped the strong. Political opponents were terrorised (the purpose of the SA), and even inter-party opponents were targeted. The latter most desicively on the Night of the Long Knives.

Not to mention the dolkenstoss-myth (a bit unsure of the spelling). In other words, the jews were marked from the start, they just waited until their power was secure before they started the deportations.

Sure, the Nazis did some good for Germany, but be wary of whitewashing them, for the prize was high. The element of terror was always a part of the doctrine, but it didn't become entirely visible until Hitler was appointed Reichschanseller.

I got two words for you - Abyssinian Crisis.

Not to mention his participation in the Spanish Civil War, the invasion of Corfu etc etc etc.

Anyway, what's wrong with Nazism you ask? Racist/Sexist malarky aside, it's based on the fundamental idea that somebody else knows what's good for you and therefore they should run your life. Any nation that works on that philosophy dooms its populace to a life of servitude and misery.

There is a difference between people who are killed in wars and people who are killed through extermination. If you include people killed in wars as his fault, then you must certainly come to the conclusion that Churchill and Roosevelt killed more men than Mussolini. And Mussolini was trying to kill people, so that doesn't say much about them does it.

There is a difference between people who are killed in wars and people who are killed through extermination. If you include people killed in wars as his fault, then you must certainly come to the conclusion that Churchill and Roosevelt killed more men than Mussolini.

For all of their flaws, they didn't start them. They didn't use chemical warfare and carpet bombing on tribesmen armed with spears.

What, what, what?!? Aren't you forgetting the endorsement of voilence inherent in the NSDAP party-line. The leading cadré, and most of the members despised the weak and worshipped the strong. Political opponents were terrorised (the purpose of the SA), and even inter-party opponents were targeted. The latter most desicively on the Night of the Long Knives.

Not to mention the dolkenstoss-myth (a bit unsure of the spelling). In other words, the jews were marked from the start, they just waited until their power was secure before they started the deportations.

Sure, the Nazis did some good for Germany, but be wary of whitewashing them, for the prize was high. The element of terror was always a part of the doctrine, but it didn't become entirely visible until Hitler was appointed Reichschanseller.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazi party's goal was not to initially to exterminate the Jews. They only made that decision at the Wannsee conference in 1942. At first they simply wanted to force them all to emmigrate, but then, with all the Jews from Poland in their sphere, they developed the Madagascar Plan in 1940. This was to send all the Jews to Madagascar, and while plannning and hoping many would die, I suppose let them have that as a Jewish homeland. However the British refused to allow German transports to ship them. I'm not blaming the British for the Holocaust, i'm just saying that the Nazis only decided to exterminate the Jews in 1942 and that decision was partly forced on them.

For all of their flaws, they didn't start them. They didn't use chemical warfare and carpet bombing on tribesmen armed with spears.
No, they firebombed civilians and refugees instead.

Does this sound like the USA, or is it just me?Yes, sadly. Thankfully not on anywhere near the same level though.I resent fascists, but that doesn't mean I have to like antifascists for kicking their teeth in. I don't care what direction the violence is coming from.I often get the impression that people think it's about fighting for what you believe in, and I wonder why that is.

For me, it's never been a question of fighting for cause X. It's simply a matter of defending myself & others, from Fascist terror. They revel in violence against others. Fear is a means to an end for them. If they can make Mustafa so afraid he'll leave the country, they've won a victory. If they can make a homosexual couple afraid to go out on a Friday night, they've won a victory. If they can scare union reps & co-workers to silence about Nazi terror in the work place, they've won a victory. If they can kidnap & beat the shit out of some lonely 15 year old punk, it's a victory.

I'm not the one fighting for something. I'm defending myself from a bunch of sadistic cunts who simply cannot be reasoned with, and I encourage everyone to do the same. If you lack the balls to fight them, chances are you're benefitting from the ones that will. Not that I'm trying to tell you to feel grateful or anything else of the sort, I'm not American. But you might want to reconsider your interpretation of the scenario. Anti-Fascists are usually very peaceful individuals, who despise violence themselves. I'm the only exception I've ever met.

Im sick of nazi fools.If you go around calling yourself a national socialist then your a fool and are going to get lynched.
Yeah fine, have pride in your country and your culture,fine, be a socialist I dont give a shit unless you are an insensivive fuck who wants to get attention by calling yourself a national socialist.Just call yourself a nazi,proclaim you want to kill all jews/gays/communists and be done with it.Dont be a coward and pussy foot around.If your a nazi symp just come out and say it, If your not give yourself a different title.
Who gives a shit whether the nazi economy was good(it may have been at first but the 4 year plans fucked every thing up-gunsvsbutter ect)
the fact is, whether they were forced to by churchil et all(highly doubtful-even if churchill stopped them shipping the jews to madagasgar didnt give the nazis licence to kill 6 million jews,100's of thousands of homosexuals and gypsys)the nazis were killers,violent brutes and they used psudeo science as an excuse to commit atrocities.
The excuse that the nazis werent going to kill the jews but transport them to madagasgar doesnt negate the fact that they killed tehm-In gas chambers!Its like saying saddam hussain wasnt going to gas the kurds he was going ship them to iceland.It doesnt matter what they were going to do-they did it!

No, they firebombed civilians and refugees instead.

Touché, I guess.

Like i've said before, there's no honour in war.

Touché, I guess.

Like i've said before, there's no honour in war.

Well we can agree on that.

Guys, befor getting your heads broken and flooding the forum, it pays to go further than wiki and look how the terms in question evolved.

Socialism as ideology did not incorporate nationalities and national borders whatsoever. It is all about relation to the means of production, regardless of you being German, Russian or Jewish, for that matter. As the ideology it postulates, that your conscience is defined by your materialistic needs and position, understood as your proximity to the abovementioned means of production. It's that simple.

Then here comes Germany, with humiliated national feelings after WW1. You take nationalism, combine it with Socialism, and voila, you got National Socialism. Not unlike in Lenin's work "Building of communism in a separate country" Just a mind trick, nothing more.

Hope that helped somebody.

As for nationalism being "bad". Guys, if you don't rush to help, i.e., people stranded in Darfur, you already are nationalistic. Do you think you are therefore bad?

I often get the impression that people think it's about fighting for what you believe in, and I wonder why that is. For me, it's never been a question of fighting for cause X. It's simply a matter of defending myself & others, from Fascist terror.
Perhaps I should explain my earlier remark about the 'hooligan orc hordes'. I was trying to refer to nazi skins, but you took it as meaning skins in general. I didn't mean to include you, but if you feel you're being spoken to, you're probably a violent anti-fascist. Violence is one of the things I disprove of in neo-nazis, and I don't see why I should approve of anti-fascist violence. The mindlessness and the fascist convictions I object to in nazi skins obviously don't apply to you personally.

The defense you're talking of seems out of proportion to me. Where do you find this fascist terror in any magnitude today? It's not like there's a fascist system anywhere around, unless it's in ideological terms. That's why I assumed your 'fight' is against the concept of fascism, and/or against groups of neo-nazis. I can't imagine your neighbourhood is controlled by hordes of nazis and you're just part of a resistance movement.

They revel in violence against others. Fear is a means to an end for them. If they can make Mustafa so afraid he'll leave the country, they've won a victory. If they can make a homosexual couple afraid to go out on a Friday night, they've won a victory. If they can scare union reps & co-workers to silence about Nazi terror in the work place, they've won a victory. If they can kidnap & beat the shit out of some lonely 15 year old punk, it's a victory.
That's where you have my sympathy. I agree with your conviction that our political/jurisdictional systems aren't doing their jobs properly to prevent this injustice. But I'm wondering if violence against fascists is solving that, or giving them a reason to be and increasing their determination. And of course, the collective indifference (or even the apologetic attitude) toward neo-fascism is inexcusable.

I'm not the one fighting for something. I'm defending myself from a bunch of sadistic cunts who simply cannot be reasoned with, and I encourage everyone to do the same. If you lack the balls to fight them, chances are you're benefitting from the ones that will. Not that I'm trying to tell you to feel grateful or anything else of the sort, I'm not American. But you might want to reconsider your interpretation of the scenario.
I don't know what scenario I'm supposed to be picturing, from what you're saying. I don't believe there is such a thing as an underground movement of nazis waiting to come to power if the Oi resistance would go on strike. I do believe that people need to speak up against fascism or racism and prosecute the hell out of any hate killers and their likes.

Anti-Fascists are usually very peaceful individuals, who despise violence themselves. I'm the only exception I've ever met.
I know. I'm against fascism and I despise violence. In fact violence is is one of the things I despise fascism for. And frankly, I agree you must be an exception (though not the only one I've ever met). Hope you're not saying people can't be anti-fascist unless they take up arms against them. I've heard that one before. ;)

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazi party's goal was not to initially to exterminate the Jews. They only made that decision at the Wannsee conference in 1942. At first they simply wanted to force them all to emmigrate, but then, with all the Jews from Poland in their sphere, they developed the Madagascar Plan in 1940. This was to send all the Jews to Madagascar, and while plannning and hoping many would die, I suppose let them have that as a Jewish homeland. However the British refused to allow German transports to ship them. I'm not blaming the British for the Holocaust, i'm just saying that the Nazis only decided to exterminate the Jews in 1942 and that decision was partly forced on them.

The dolkenstoss-myth originated from the German capitulation in WWI, were the soldiers at the front felt betrayed by the pepole back home. In short, it was an anti-sionistic conspiracy theory, blaming the jews for the capitualtion. Granted, the NSDAP didn't advocate the extermination of all jews at this point, but anti-semitic propaganda was one of the rethorical fundaments of the party.

By placing the responsibility for the defeat on anyone but germans (and remember that Germany derfined germans as a race), the Volk was blameless and betrayed. As Hitler said, the mark of a great leader is that he can gather his nation against a common enemy. The Allies were of course to blame for the situation in post-WWI Germany, but, according to propaganda, so were the jews.

the problem with bullshit,is that it stinks,and should really not deserve,to even catch any attention...
But i do...
It's not the definition that's worry's me,rather the multiple use of it...
Nazionalzozo's are bastard from a real human concept..
Stupidity,only that...
It's rather easy to screw people over and over again throughout history,
Call it what you want,call it neo cons,bonapartists,stalinist etc...
the list is too long
The fact is,we will all be screw at the end,and our petty ideals will fade like snow under the sun,that's the human factor and is pretty efficient ....
Look around...
Nothing to be really optimist thought,but i rather believe we once will mature and may be without sickness shall we see the next century