The differences between Socialism and National Socialism

[poiuytrewq0987]

There are several differences that can be noted between those two political philosophies. Socialism itself focuses on helping everyone, it is a globalist ideal that everyone should be uplifted at the expense of the indigenous people. While National Socialism focuses on uplifting its own people, its own ethnic group sometimes at the expense of others (territorial expansion = the losers lose territory meanwhile the winners gain territory, see Poland). Socialism focuses on getting money to the people whether they've done anything or not. While National Socialism seems to focus on helping people get back to work, and reward them for having large families and being productive citizens, et cetera. Care to note any more?

[Tabiti]

The main and most obvious difference is adjective "National" in front of Socialism;)

Socialism focuses on getting money to the people whether they've done anything or not.
I don't agree here on 100%. Low class workers were one of the most "rewarded" societies here. The image of worker was accepted as an ideal.
P.S. I'm not quite aware of the modern socialists promises, but don't think they'd encourage "laziness". The main focus is helping people who CAN'T work - children, old people and invalids. Jobs "would" be offered to the rest.

[skyhawk]

The main and most obvious difference is adjective "National" in front of Socialism;)

I agree Tabiti........and if the whole world economic system was built around socialism as it is with capitalism today...........how far would a country get if it tried to initiate National Capitalism ?
It is noteworthy to comment that ANY country that swings to the Left today ( and in the past truth be known ) is met with a tremendous reactionary venom that seeks to undermine it at every opportunity , even creating the opportunities if needs dictate it.............Cuba is as good of an example as any..............the old myth that Cuba was punished because it was a " soviet satellite " was well and truly exposed by the Helms-Burton act( and other subsequent acts ) which increased the severity of the sanctions even though the soviet union had already ceased to be. :rolleyes:



I don't agree here on 100%. Low class workers were one of the most "rewarded" societies here. The image of worker was accepted as an ideal.
P.S. I'm not quite aware of the modern socialists promises, but don't think they'd encourage "laziness". The main focus is helping people who CAN'T work - children, old people and invalids. Jobs "would" be offered to the rest.

That's right too...........the framers of the welfare system understood well that parasitism was not just confined to the rich .............as the saying goes " from each according to their ability , to each according to their needs "...............that wording to me doesn't even attempt to encourage laziness.......and it is somewhat of a stretch to believe it does .

I also don't think that internationalism is based on the uplifting of all at the expense of the indigenous populations...........the import of cheap/migrant labour is far more likely to achieve this and is a feature of capitalist economic preferences IE cheap imported labour to assist in higher profits for employers and a driving down of wages for the natives.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Skyhawk, try to cut down on ellipses, it makes your post super-annoying to read. Yes, I agree that it doesn't make sense that the USA continue to place sanctions and various embargoes against Cuba today. Just because it's a "Communist" country isn't an excuse good enough. Did you know that 60% of the total Cuba population is still European? That may be the primary motivator behind the hostile actions of the USA, you never know. ;)

[Nationalitist]

National socialism is not socialism. To bad it is.

[poiuytrewq0987]

The main and most obvious difference is adjective "National" in front of Socialism;)

I don't agree here on 100%. Low class workers were one of the most "rewarded" societies here. The image of worker was accepted as an ideal.
P.S. I'm not quite aware of the modern socialists promises, but don't think they'd encourage "laziness". The main focus is helping people who CAN'T work - children, old people and invalids. Jobs "would" be offered to the rest.

Well, I get your point. America today is partly a socialist country because it provides welfare handouts without question and even to the illegals in some cases. America doesn't care if it accepts another 100 million third worlders as long the back of the indigenous people are being broken to help enrich third worlders' lives. That's going to happen to Bulgaria too once it's on the same level as the Netherlands or France. That's the worst form of Socialism. The only form of Socialism that will have positive effects for the indigenous people is National Socialism because the political ideology focuses on helping her own people instead of everyone.

[skyhawk]

Skyhawk, try to cut down on ellipses, it makes your post super-annoying to read.

I like constructive criticism cheers..............I'll try my best to brake the habit.:)



Yes, I agree that it doesn't make sense that the USA continue to place sanctions and various embargoes against Cuba today. Just because it's a "Communist" country isn't an excuse good enough.

I think the reason is fear of a good example IE if a socialist state like Cuba seems to be doing quite well for a third world nation..........then it must be strangled to death so others don't get the same idea or see it as a role model .



Did you know that 60% of the total Cuba population is still European? That may be the primary motivator behind the hostile actions of the USA, you never know. ;)

That's not true my friend.........the most populous ethnic group is the Mulattos at 51%........the white population is around 37%........black population is around 11%.

As I said earlier in this post I think the reason for the US hostility towards Cuba is down to its socialism , the fact that the US likes to have total control of its own backyard and the annoyance to it of Cuban resistance.

The fear of a good example of socialism is still rabidly fought against by the US and others.........some things never change eh?

Did you know the EU complained at the World Trade Organisation WTO about the continuation of the embargo on the grounds it was in violation of the WTO policies ?

America is virtually isolated on the subject...............maybe with the exception of Israel................no surprises there really :rolleyes:

[Peachy Carnahan]

I always understood that socialists wanted a workers paradise whilst National socialists just want paradise.

[Austin]

In the U.S. education system one is taught that Hitler was a leftist but a different type of leftist from the Soviets. If you ask most people in the U.S., even most educated people with the best of degrees they will tell you that Hitler was a national socialist but what they do not understand due to indoctrination is what a national socialist even is.

Most people think in the U.S. that Hitler was just another arm of communism but a worse one, they have no comprehension or understanding of the nationalist or what a nationalist even is, in the U.S. nationalism is very much a foreign term to most Americans, with most thinking it means some form of communism.




In the U.S. this is what these stand for to most people...

Liberal=leftist
Conservative=right
Libertarian=far right with mix of left, although many see it as far right
Green=? and or nonexistent
Nationalist=? and or nonexistent
Independent= moderate between right and left although tend to lean more right

One should always understand that America is very much so a default right-leaning country, which must always be taken into account... this is why there is really only one real form of left in the U.S. and that is the moderate democrats and or liberals.

It is interesting because in Europe a liberal is a moderate yes? In the U.S. a liberal is a leftist to the max, not a moderate.

[skyhawk]

In the U.S. education system one is taught that Hitler was a leftist but a different type of leftist from the Soviets. If you ask most people in the U.S., even most educated people with the best of degrees they will tell you that Hitler was a national socialist but what they do not understand due to indoctrination is what a national socialist even is.

To be honest Austin I don't think most Americans have a clue what Socialism is about........... although some of the best leftist writers come from/reside in the US.
Not surprising really considering that the US set itself up as the global destroyer of the spread of Communism/Socialism for so many years



Most people think in the U.S. that Hitler was just another arm of communism but a worse one, they have no comprehension or understanding of the nationalist or what a nationalist even is, in the U.S. nationalism is very much a foreign term to most Americans, with most thinking it means some form of communism.

I think that the people of the US usually use the term patriot instead of nationalist

[Austin]

Yes I know, in school in the U.S. when Hitler is mentioned all that is basically said is that he was an anti-capitalist national socialist who tried to kill all the wonderful poor Jews. They never tell or explain what a national socialist is, and since kids in America know that socialism=evil communism or so they have been taught, they look at the word national socialist and with no further explanation being given they assume it is something akin to some form of super communist or something, completely misunderstanding its true nature and ideology.

[The Ripper]

Yes I know, in school in the U.S. when Hitler is mentioned all that is basically said is that he was an anti-capitalist national socialist who tried to kill all the wonderful poor Jews. They never tell or explain what a national socialist is, and since kids in America know that socialism=evil communism or so they have been taught, they look at the word national socialist and with no further explanation being given they assume it is something akin to some form of super communist or something, completely misunderstanding its true nature and ideology.

I'm surprised they call him an "anti-capitalist". But I suppose that simply shows that a Marxist perspective never influenced American politics as strongly as it did in Europe. From what I understand, many leftists see Nazism and Fascism as "allies of capitalism". Here "anti-capitalist" has some positive connotations, unlike the US, I suppose?

[Austin]

I'm surprised they call him an "anti-capitalist". But I suppose that simply shows that a Marxist perspective never influenced American politics as strongly as it did in Europe. From what I understand, many leftists see Nazism and Fascism as "allies of capitalism". Here "anti-capitalist" has some positive connotations, unlike the US, I suppose?


Oh ya here in the U.S. especially in the South, but really all over, anti-capitalist is like the equivalent of saying you hate America to most people, even people who claim to be more left leaning will never say they are anti-capitalist, only the most hardcore will say that here.

See that's the interesting part most in the US don't have a good understanding of what Nazism and Fascism really ever were, most people would tell you that they are a form of communism but a harsher one, that's what they have largely been taught and or understood to be the case.

Yes America never had any marxist perspective heh to be affiliated with that name in any sense here is to be an evil leftist of the worst order

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Communism: I have 2 bikes and must give 1 to my neighbor
Socialism:I have 1 bike with a flat tire and ask my neighbor to fix free of charge.
National Socialism:I have a European bike and must trade it in for an American
Capitalism:I steal my neighbors bike
European Socialism: I ride a ladies bike and my widgy makes it a man's bike to give a woman a lift.
Fascism:I ride my bike over my neighbor.
Liberalism:I ride my bike right past a white and offer a lift to black.
Feminism:My female bike rides malestream
Apriciteism:I preserve my bike for my children
:cool::eek:

[Bari]

National-Socialism was originally a bit to the left on the political scale in the beginning, especially people like Ernst Röhm and people in the SA represented the left-wing of the National-Socialists that put as much emphasis on Socialism as Nationalism. They wanted to higher taxes for the rich, more control by the state of production and welfare goods. Basically a socialist system with a nationalist twist to it. Hitler however(who was a Socialist in his younger years) started softening up the policy in order to gain support from the wealthy and after the removal of the left-wings in the party it was only Socialist by name, ending up like right-wing militant fascists. I believe they kept Socialism in the name in order to attract the voters. Combining two popular ideologies at the time.

[Partizan]

The problem is not with "National" part of National Socialism(!). Socialism can be Nationalist, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_nationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_communism

The problem is, National Socialism(!) is not even economically Socialist. It had a corporatist economic model, see how Hitler fattened Krupp and Siemens. It is State Capitalism/Corporatism, not Socialism.

[Caismeachd]

Hitlers national socialism was just catch all blanket phrase trying to take the most progressive and revolutionary political ideologies of those days to appeal to the masses. In reality it was just a totalitarian regime. Not true socialism or nationalism.

[RussiaPrussia]

you cant be socialist without being nationalistic and protection this kind of system. Look at communism, they just shut themselfs down comecon countries didnt even wanted to trade with other comecon countries. Communist countries also had no immigration thats why eastern europe has so less immigrants in comparison to the west. Communism wasnt that much different to nazism tough nazism was still a capitalist system.

[Anglojew]

The main difference is in land ownership and the private sector.