Germany is the primary source of Socialist thought. Marx, Engels, Kant, Hegel...while there are others who defined the essential philosophy, Like Prudhomme, Rousseu and Plekhanov and Lenin, there is no question that Germany is the fount of Socialist ideas. As far back as 1881, Bismark was referring to Staatssocializmus, State Socialism. Marx of course laid out the "scientific" basis of the philosophy and the pamphlet writers went from there.

 

The word Socialism is derived from the latin Sociare, which means to share.

 

So, to distill the Philosophy of Socialism to its kernel (and be shamed for a mixed metaphor): Community and Sharing. To each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The workers owning the means of production, etc. All of the intellectual masturbation in boring treatises in German and Russian  are all just variations of the same theme: How it will start, who will participate, what are the details, how it will work. But because it is "scientific" the final result will be the withering away of the state leading to the workers and peasants owning the land and means of production and sharing labor and the results of labor.

 

Is there anyone here who disputes the foregoing. I am not talking about economics yet.

That's the same as saying Socialism is Nazism.  Not even.

 

Hey thanks for your response, clearly you dont think for yourself.

 

But tell us, if you can, in your words, where my Opening Post is in error.

 

Looks like the Socialists have run and hid. Cant compete in the arena of ideas.

On 12/12/2024 at 8:46 AM, Yagoda said:

Germany is the primary source of Socialist thought. Marx, Engels, Kant, Hegel...while there are others who defined the essential philosophy, Like Prudhomme, Rousseu and Plekhanov and Lenin, there is no question that Germany is the fount of Socialist ideas. As far back as 1881, Bismark was referring to Staatssocializmus, State Socialism. Marx of course laid out the "scientific" basis of the philosophy and the pamphlet writers went from there.

 

The word Socialism is derived from the latin Sociare, which means to share.

 

So, to distill the Philosophy of Socialism to its kernel (and be shamed for a mixed metaphor): Community and Sharing. To each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The workers owning the means of production, etc. All of the intellectual masturbation in boring treatises in German and Russian  are all just variations of the same theme: How it will start, who will participate, what are the details, how it will work. But because it is "scientific" the final result will be the withering away of the state leading to the workers and peasants owning the land and means of production and sharing labor and the results of labor.

 

Is there anyone here who disputes the foregoing. I am not talking about economics yet.

I'm a far-left "woke" (a.k.a. "visionary") liberal who firmly supports socialism as a goal for any nation. I do think above you are talking about the economy and not the type of government. And I think one of your sentences is a misquote. It should be "FROM each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Besides that, I do not dispute anything you've said above, except socialist thought existed long before Germany became a country, but that's just nit-picking, so I'll be interested to see where you go from here.

The USA had many socialist entities (where people think socialism means taking your money through taxes and using it for the common good, e.g. fire services, police, FEMA etc. )

Doesn't mean it is a fully socialist state yet.

On 12/12/2024 at 8:46 AM, Yagoda said:

Germany is the primary source of Socialist thought. Marx, Engels, Kant, Hegel...while there are others who defined the essential philosophy, Like Prudhomme, Rousseu and Plekhanov and Lenin, there is no question that Germany is the fount of Socialist ideas. As far back as 1881, Bismark was referring to Staatssocializmus, State Socialism. Marx of course laid out the "scientific" basis of the philosophy and the pamphlet writers went from there.

 

The word Socialism is derived from the latin Sociare, which means to share.

 

So, to distill the Philosophy of Socialism to its kernel (and be shamed for a mixed metaphor): Community and Sharing. To each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The workers owning the means of production, etc. All of the intellectual masturbation in boring treatises in German and Russian  are all just variations of the same theme: How it will start, who will participate, what are the details, how it will work. But because it is "scientific" the final result will be the withering away of the state leading to the workers and peasants owning the land and means of production and sharing labor and the results of labor.

 

Is there anyone here who disputes the foregoing. I am not talking about economics yet.

 

The full name for the party was, NSDAP....... National Socialist Democratic Workers Party.

 

It sought to appeal to Socialists and Communists......that's why they stuck "Socialist" in the Party name.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

"The renaming of the German Worker's Party (DAP) to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) was partially driven by a desire to draw upon both left-wing and right-wing ideals, with "Socialist" and "Workers'" appealing to the left, and "National" and "German" appealing to the right.^"

 

See F A Hayeks book "The Road to Serfdom" for his analysis of the mutual "Collectivism" of the German parties of the left and right that made them so attractive to a particular segment of the population.

 

The naming of the Party was all about votes.......nothing more.

 

It was neither "Socialist" nor "Democratic".

 

This is what it actually practised:

 

"The strength of the National Socialist State lies in the fact that it is [ruled] from top to bottom and in every atom of its existence ruled and permeated with the concept of leadership [Führertum]. This principle [of leadership], which made the movement strong, must be carried through systematically, both in the administration of the State and in the various spheres of self-government, naturally taking into account the [ideologic] modifications required by the particular area in question. But it would not be permissible for any important area of public life to operate independently from the Führer concept"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Führerprinzip

 

It's what your guy hopes to make of the USA.

 

You voted for it........you are the "National Socialist".

 

 

 

On 12/12/2024 at 8:46 AM, Yagoda said:

Germany is the primary source of Socialist thought. Marx, Engels, Kant, Hegel...while there are others who defined the essential philosophy, Like Prudhomme, Rousseu and Plekhanov and Lenin, there is no question that Germany is the fount of Socialist ideas. As far back as 1881, Bismark was referring to Staatssocializmus, State Socialism. Marx of course laid out the "scientific" basis of the philosophy and the pamphlet writers went from there.

 

The word Socialism is derived from the latin Sociare, which means to share.

 

So, to distill the Philosophy of Socialism to its kernel (and be shamed for a mixed metaphor): Community and Sharing. To each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The workers owning the means of production, etc. All of the intellectual masturbation in boring treatises in German and Russian  are all just variations of the same theme: How it will start, who will participate, what are the details, how it will work. But because it is "scientific" the final result will be the withering away of the state leading to the workers and peasants owning the land and means of production and sharing labor and the results of labor.

 

Is there anyone here who disputes the foregoing. I am not talking about economics yet.

 

Thanks for your post, I like the content you have shared, in fact 'sharing' is the key word my parents used to explain it to me when i was a kid.

 

I used the same key word in my efforts to make my Thai son (now in his early 40's) more aware of the subject (which he has strongly embraced, but his siblings and more especially his Thai wife's siblings are not on board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A socialist; someone that doesn't have anything and wants to share it with everyone else 

 

 

25 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

 

A socialist; someone that doesn't have anything and wants to share it with everyone else 

 

 

A socialist: someone who will share whatever they have with everyone else. 

A capitalist: someone who will only share a small amount of what they have, and then only if it will produce a profit.

6 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

A socialist: someone who will share whatever they have with everyone else.

 

But I already have all the misery, poverty and idiocy I need, the rest I hire.

2 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

The full name for the party was, NSDAP....... National Socialist Democratic Workers Party.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The party's name in German was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist German Workers' Party in English. 

 

Not much democratic about it.

56 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

 

A socialist; someone that doesn't have anything and wants to share it with everyone else 

 

 

 

An American GOP follower. 

So any disagreement as to the fact that Socialism is a policy of sharing.?

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

A socialist: someone who will share whatever they have with everyone else. 

A capitalist: someone who will only share a small amount of what they have, and then only if it will produce a profit.

 

4 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

The full name for the party was, NSDAP....... National Socialist Democratic Workers Party.

 

It sought to appeal to Socialists and Communists......that's why they stuck "Socialist" in the Party name.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

"The renaming of the German Worker's Party (DAP) to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) was partially driven by a desire to draw upon both left-wing and right-wing ideals, with "Socialist" and "Workers'" appealing to the left, and "National" and "German" appealing to the right.^"

 

See F A Hayeks book "The Road to Serfdom" for his analysis of the mutual "Collectivism" of the German parties of the left and right that made them so attractive to a particular segment of the population.

 

The naming of the Party was all about votes.......nothing more.

 

It was neither "Socialist" nor "Democratic".

 

This is what it actually practised:

 

"The strength of the National Socialist State lies in the fact that it is [ruled] from top to bottom and in every atom of its existence ruled and permeated with the concept of leadership [Führertum]. This principle [of leadership], which made the movement strong, must be carried through systematically, both in the administration of the State and in the various spheres of self-government, naturally taking into account the [ideologic] modifications required by the particular area in question. But it would not be permissible for any important area of public life to operate independently from the Führer concept"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Führerprinzip

 

It's what your guy hopes to make of the USA.

 

You voted for it........you are the "National Socialist".

 

 

 

Well right now we are talking about pure Socialism. Sharing right?

 

As to the bolded portion of your Trump obsessed diatribe, pleazse tell us what Hayek says about National Socialist "collectivism" and a source for your bold assertion that the renaming of the party was soley about votes.

8 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

So any disagreement as to the fact that Socialism is a policy of sharing.?

 

No, not from me...

14 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

No, not from me...

 

Sharing yes, but more than sharing, supporting each other...

1 minute ago, scorecard said:

 

Sharing yes, but more than sharing, supporting each other...

Yes, socialism is sharing everything, and that includes supporting each other in all aspects of life.

Germany is the primary source of Socialist thought. Marx, Engels, Kant, Hegel..

 

Forget him not.

Head of the State Socialism German Workers' Party.

1921-1945

 

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

A socialist: someone who will share whatever they have with everyone else. 

 

Socialism has failed miserably everywhere it has been tried. It promises prosperity, security, and equality, but instead delivers poverty and a tyranny of misery.

 

The only way in which it achieves equality is by dragging everyone down to the lowest possible level, thus making everyone equally poor and miserable.

 

Socialism is a repressive, retrogressive system, and its only function in the modern world is to allow the left-wing nut-jobs that promote it to feel more virtuous, sanctimonious, and morally superior to everyone else; so no surprise to see you promoting it as the holy grail.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Socialism has failed miserably everywhere it has been tried. It promises prosperity, security, and equality, but instead delivers poverty and a tyranny of misery.

 

The only way in which it achieves equality is by dragging everyone down to the lowest possible level, thus making everyone equally poor and miserable.

 

Socialism is a repressive, retrogressive system, and its only function in the modern world is to allow the left-wing nut-jobs that promote it to feel more virtuous, sanctimonious, and morally superior to everyone else; so no surprise to see you promoting it as the holy grail.

 

 

 

I disagree with everything you say.

7 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

I disagree with everything you say.

 

Truly wonderful news. I would be distraught if someone like you agreed with me.

 

That notwithstanding, just to take the first point I made, which you obviously disagree with; please tell me somewhere, anywhere, where Socialism has been a great success.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Socialism has failed miserably everywhere it has been tried. It promises prosperity, security, and equality, but instead delivers poverty and a tyranny of misery.

 

The only way in which it achieves equality is by dragging everyone down to the lowest possible level, thus making everyone equally poor and miserable.

 

Socialism is a repressive, retrogressive system, and its only function in the modern world is to allow the left-wing nut-jobs that promote it to feel more virtuous, sanctimonious, and morally superior to everyone else; so no surprise to see you promoting it as the holy grail.

 

 

 

As a matter of fact, those socialist states were modern day feudal society.

After toppling an old monarch, just another took it over.

Most class divided in the world.

Contrast of the State owns everything, and the mass of people has nothing.

When they are bit smarter and more cunning, they also use capitalist method to accumulate the wealth for the Red Aristocrat(as demonstrated in China today).

10 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Socialism has failed miserably everywhere it has been tried. It promises prosperity, security, and equality, but instead delivers poverty and a tyranny of misery.

 

The only way in which it achieves equality is by dragging everyone down to the lowest possible level, thus making everyone equally poor and miserable.

 

Socialism is a repressive, retrogressive system, and its only function in the modern world is to allow the left-wing nut-jobs that promote it to feel more virtuous, sanctimonious, and morally superior to everyone else; so no surprise to see you promoting it as the holy grail.

 

 

Actually, socialism hasn't "failed miserably everywhere." One example is American Indian tribes, and there are many more historical examples.

Socialism does not achieve equality by "dragging everyone down to the lowest level possible." Sharing lowers the level of some and raises the level of others. The result is a level somewhere in the middle.

Socialism would only seem repressive and retrogressive to those who want to feel superior and live on a level higher than others. Another name for "left-wing nut-jobs" like me is "woke," or even better, "visionary." We do feel more virtuous than those on the right, but not sanctimonious or morally superior. Socialism is not the "holy grail." Communism is the final goal. 

10 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Actually, socialism hasn't "failed miserably everywhere." One example is American Indian tribes, and there are many more historical examples.

 

So the most recent example of Socialism being successful that you can cite, is the Cheyenne and Arapaho sharing a buffalo carcass equally more than 150 years ago …. cosmic ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

 

A pseudo-intellectual circle jerk.

Yawn emoji please.

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

 

I disagree with everything you say.

But i agree with everything he said.

Socialism is for dreamers.

In national socialism the workers do not own the means of production 

Let’s call this what it is: a rhetorical bait-and-switch.

 

You start with pseudo-academic musings on socialism, twist history to falsely equate it with Nazism, and then, in Part 2, smear Democrats by association.

 

Meanwhile, the right-wing figure you’re shielding—Trump—embodies the very authoritarian traits of Nazism you’re projecting onto the left.

Yes as you say in op:the essence of socialism is the workers owning the means of production. As stated in this link:https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch28.htm     And in particular:

 

However National Socialism/Nazism does not give the workers that ownership: