Is this the death of the family farm?

[NotNow]

Like my converstations with Mrs. NotNow, I know when to quit.  Thanks again.

[Adam W]

FACT: National socialism, fascism, socialism and communism are kissing cousins. In spite of the typical headlines about 'Right Wing Nazi's,' the Nazi government was in fact on the far left, as it was simply a different version of socialism. The far right fringes are populated by people that want little or no government, or government control, to the point of anarchy.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

Not at all. I said I simply disagree with the labels. As Stephen has pointed out, the popular tendency is to label the Nazi's as right wing due to their actions... IE racism, aggression, overt nationalism etc., but sweeping that aside, the governing concept of state controls in national socialism, socialism, fascism and communism is nearly identical. And while their activities might appear on the right, they have very little common ground with a system of less and less government control, assistance or aid. THIS is why the communists supported Hitler in 1933, they were told to support him in order to rid the state of the old 'right wing' conservative types that wanted zero change. They also thought that after Hitler was installed and his government was set up, it would be very easy to slide the state into communism... But again as Stephen would say, "HOW'D THAT WORK OUT FOR YOU?"

In other words, if you can wrap your head around this... For example the 'right' wants no part of Amtrak, mass transit, welfare, food stamps, medical care, etc., all things the 'left' supports. Germany had a state run railroad system, state run mass transit and the equivalent of welfare, food stamps and medical care. A state, no matter how evil, that takes care of its citizens, or its 'preferred citizens' with social programs would just seem to be on the left. No embarrassment, just observations of a historian, MJ is after all a place to discuss ideas and theories.

You are absolutely incorrect. The Nazis (and their friends in Italy) practiced corporatism. If you've seen Schindler's list you may remember the title character, a wealthy capitalist, setting up a private business and selling wares to the government.

You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about.

As a socialist and a former member of a communist party, I find your comments offensive. And you may be surprised that lots of socialists don't consider the USSR to have been a communist or socialist. Many socialists (and communists) don't believe in 'big government'.

[NotNow]

I've got to throw in with Ock here.  While the Italians were more classic fascist, the Third Reich was really about the National SOCIALIST and their charismatic leader.  The fascists closely controlled their private industries, and in Germany the government even provided slave labor.  Germany clearly sank quickly into totalitarianism, but the Nazi state was largely socialist. 

Perhaps there is confusion between "conservative" or "right" and "totalitarian" on the part of some.

Adam, I would be curious to hear your description of a socialist or communist state with a "small government".  Could you point me to a past or current example?

[Adam W]

Sorry - I don't really feel like explaining something when there is a lot of information available on the internet and beyond.

Socialism and communism have long histories and a variety of different schools of thought. The Bolshevik version of socialism was the view of a minority that, through its success, became the version most widely exported and practiced (to the detriment of other approaches). The only notable exception (in terms of governments) was Yugoslavia, but even for all its differences, it still had its roots in Marxism-Leninism.

If you'd like to learn more about other, democratic (and decentralised) versions of socialism and communism, I would refer you to the works of Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxemburg, Antonio Gramsci and Karlk Korsch (among others).

You may also want to read up on council communism and autonomism.

The Nazi party was as socialist as the current Communist Party of China is communist. The Nazi Party was a minor, socialist party that moved away from its slightly workerist roots once Hitler and his cronies assumed leadership. The party did not oppose private property and rejected the materialist conception of history.

I think it's worth pointing out that not only do socialists and communists reject the notion that Nazism was a form of socialism - Nazis themselves reject it. The only people who seem content to further this idea are right wingers who use the fact that the word 'socialist' was in the party name as an effort to discredit leftists.

But then again, a lot of uninformed morons also seem to think that the Democratic Party is socialist or Marxist.

[NotNow]

Of course, stephendare! is talking about me.  I'll defer to your expertise on the subject Adam, although many of the Nazi domestic policies seem to have been socialist policies. 

I would still be interested in hearing about a socialist or communist state with "small government".  It seems to be a contradiction.  Since you brought it up, it would seem that you would have a citation rather than telling me to "look it up".  As a suggestion, calling names does nothing to further a discussion.  If you really wish to convey your ideas, stick to facts and back them with verifiable citations.  Otherwise you sound like....stephendare!.

Stephendare!, before you accuse others of being "so ignorant and deeply propagandized that they literally can't be educated", you should check your use of Huffington Post citations.  We all have our bias's.  It is important that we recognize our own.  Perhaps your lack of post secondary education has you overcompensating?

[Adam W]

I would still be interested in hearing about a socialist or communist state with "small government".  It seems to be a contradiction.  Since you brought it up, it would seem that you would have a citation rather than telling me to "look it up".

All so-called "communist" states to date have been built on the Soviet ("Marxist-Leninist") model. And the Stalinist variety, in fact. The Spartakists in Germany attempted something (that might've been different), but failed. There is also the Paris Commune - worth reading up on.

I never claimed there was a communist state with a "small government." I said a lot of socialists and communists don't believe in "big government." There's a difference. They still exist.

[NotNow]

Yes, I am referring to the domestic policies early in Hitler's career.  That's why I said that Germany sank quickly into totalitarianism.  And I agree with you, that this occurred around 1934. 

I am aware that your post secondary education seems to be quite the privacy issue with you.  As is your right.  You lead a very public life and yet are quite coy about that education.  You are obviously an intelligent guy, but your practice of debate is....immature. 

I have stated before that the smartest and wisest man I have ever known did not have a high school diploma.  Heck, he never saw the inside of a high school.  But he was well read, worked and socialized with the brightest and most successful people, and educated himself when he needed information.  This was before the internet when self education was much more difficult.  So the fault with your arguments here are not with your education, but with your ignorance of your own shortcomings. But, in the words of another poster, I am embarking on a lost cause.

As for me, I have learned a little bit about Pannekoek, Ms. Luxemburg, and council communism.  I think Adam is a young man.  There is a reason he can't point to a socialist or communist nation with a "small" governtment".  And I freely admit that I am NOT an expert on everything.  Which is OK.  Learning is a constant part of the journey.

[Adam W]

Yes, I am referring to the domestic policies early in Hitler's career.  That's why I said that Germany sank quickly into totalitarianism.  And I agree with you, that this occurred around 1934. 

I am aware that your post secondary education seems to be quite the privacy issue with you.  As is your right.  You lead a very public life and yet are quite coy about that education.  You are obviously an intelligent guy, but your practice of debate is....immature. 

I have stated before that the smartest and wisest man I have ever known did not have a high school diploma.  Heck, he never saw the inside of a high school.  But he was well read, worked and socialized with the brightest and most successful people, and educated himself when he needed information.  This was before the internet when self education was much more difficult.  So the fault with your arguments here are not with your education, but with your ignorance of your own shortcomings. But, in the words of another poster, I am embarking on a lost cause.

As for me, I have learned a little bit about Pannekoek, Ms. Luxemburg, and council communism.  I think Adam is a young man.  There is a reason he can't point to a socialist or communist nation with a "small" governtment".  And I freely admit that I am NOT an expert on everything.  Which is OK.  Learning is a constant part of the journey.

I'm 40. I don't know if you consider that old or young. I used to consider it old...

[Adam W]

There is a reason he can't point to a socialist or communist nation with a "small" governtment".

And that reason, in large part, has to do with Comintern, Comecon, the Warsaw Pact (and Soviet hegemony in general). That's not to say the West didn't play its part, too.

[NotNow]

Yes, I am referring to the domestic policies early in Hitler's career.  That's why I said that Germany sank quickly into totalitarianism.  And I agree with you, that this occurred around 1934. 

I am aware that your post secondary education seems to be quite the privacy issue with you.  As is your right.  You lead a very public life and yet are quite coy about that education.  You are obviously an intelligent guy, but your practice of debate is....immature. 

I have stated before that the smartest and wisest man I have ever known did not have a high school diploma.  Heck, he never saw the inside of a high school.  But he was well read, worked and socialized with the brightest and most successful people, and educated himself when he needed information.  This was before the internet when self education was much more difficult.  So the fault with your arguments here are not with your education, but with your ignorance of your own shortcomings. But, in the words of another poster, I am embarking on a lost cause.

As for me, I have learned a little bit about Pannekoek, Ms. Luxemburg, and council communism.  I think Adam is a young man.  There is a reason he can't point to a socialist or communist nation with a "small" governtment".  And I freely admit that I am NOT an expert on everything.  Which is OK.  Learning is a constant part of the journey.

I'm 40. I don't know if you consider that old or young. I used to consider it old...

Older than I thought.  And you really believe that "council communism" could exist for any appreciable time in the real world?  And work?

[Adam W]

Older than I thought.  And you really believe that "council communism" could exist for any appreciable time in the real world?  And work?

I don't know. I think it might but that would really depend. I tend to favour a more 'blended' approach. I don't have any issue with nationalised industry. I prefer workers co-ops for smaller businesses. I like the idea of democratic decision making at all levels of society.

I'm not a council communist, but I think it has just as much a chance of working as anything else. Capitalism, for all of its strengths (and I think there are many) apparently is not compatible with representative democracy (or republicanism or whatever you want to call it).

[NotNow]

Yes, I am referring to the domestic policies early in Hitler's career.  That's why I said that Germany sank quickly into totalitarianism.  And I agree with you, that this occurred around 1934. 

I am aware that your post secondary education seems to be quite the privacy issue with you.  As is your right.  You lead a very public life and yet are quite coy about that education.  You are obviously an intelligent guy, but your practice of debate is....immature. 

I have stated before that the smartest and wisest man I have ever known did not have a high school diploma.  Heck, he never saw the inside of a high school.  But he was well read, worked and socialized with the brightest and most successful people, and educated himself when he needed information.  This was before the internet when self education was much more difficult.  So the fault with your arguments here are not with your education, but with your ignorance of your own shortcomings. But, in the words of another poster, I am embarking on a lost cause.

As for me, I have learned a little bit about Pannekoek, Ms. Luxemburg, and council communism.  I think Adam is a young man.  There is a reason he can't point to a socialist or communist nation with a "small" governtment".  And I freely admit that I am NOT an expert on everything.  Which is OK.  Learning is a constant part of the journey.

Actually not now, you and I have never debated, as you have never allowed that to happen.

Lake and I have debated constantly since we met.  Ock and I debate constantly as well.  Stjr and tacachale are also wonderful debaters.

You rarely debate.  You simply argue.  At least with me.

Our exchanges usually streak down to you simply disagreeing to basic word definitions, and whether or not you think I'm qualified to have an opinion.

This is not debate, nor is it even very adult.

Debate is an exploration of the available material with the option open that either side might be either right or wrong.

You have never once opened a conversation with me on this basis, so please....while I thank you for your opinion, I have never debated anything with you.

Hmm...based on actual history, it is you who has crashed into several recent conversations (threads) claiming that it was me who had no right to offer an opinion.

I have never questioned your right to an opinion, I have simply pointed out those instances where you have no training, education, or experience.  That is simply ignorance, and we all suffer from that malady. 

Last I checked, debate does not involve name calling or demeaning others, which you may have been involved in a few times here in the past. 

[NotNow]

It is also impossible to point to a true democracy anywhere amongst the nations of earth.  This doesn't mean that democracy is actually a police state.

There are small communist and socialist nations including scores of them here in the United States.

You really have to look no further than many native American tribes.

Which tribe would you hold forth as the best example of a small socialist or communist example?

[NotNow]

They seem to be capitalist...

http://careers.choctawnation.com/

with a remarkably representative democratic governance...

http://thorpe.ou.edu/constitution/choctaw/index.html

[NotNow]

OK, I can see where you get "socialism" out of the commonly owned property.  What throws me is the unequal return.  But I suppose the control of the "state" over the profit is a common denominator.