Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Socialist regimes have been te most suppressive in peoples history. Think about Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, etc…

Socialism kills [0]. Or a more eloquent and less extreme read would be "The Road to Serfdom" by F. A. Hayek

---

[0]: http://jim.com/killingfields.html




We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10690035 and marked it off-topic.


>Hitler

>Socialist

Just because the Nazis called themselves National Socialists doesn't make them socialists. Communists and socialists were the first the Nazis sent to concentration camps.


Some of the Nazi party's 25 tenets:

Abolishing capital income, confiscation of war profits, nationalization of all trusts, a generous increase in old age pensions, communalization of large stores, nationalization and redistribution of farmland and nationalization of schools.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points....

Whether this meets your definition of "socialism" is mainly a function of how narrowly you define the word. But they were certainly a very economically left wing party.


I think that argument is pretty weak. Many of the millions that the Soviets sent to the gulags were socialists and communists, but that action doesn't make the Soviets or those they imprisoned and murdered not-communist or not-socialist.

Communists and socialists have a long histories of bloody internecine conflicts.


Countries have long histories of bloody conflicts, regardless of ideology.


Why are you getting downvoted for this?

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

You'd have to be somewhat detached from the historical record to seriously suggest that all of these, or even a majority, were the result of socialism.


Getting rid of your competition is a pretty standard tactic when you are taking over. The National Socialists were socialists.


>The National Socialists were socialists

Proof?


well, I cannot discount the name, but this speech https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitle... would indicate such


So essentially Hitler considered himself to be/pretended in his speeches to be a socialist, although not a Marxist socialist, but one who rejects big banking (read: DEM JEWS!1!).

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism:

>Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production

Given that the Nazis privatized a lot of publicly owned companies such as the Deutsche Bank and the Deutsche Reichsbahn, I don't think the Nazis were socialists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany has more on Hitler's economic views.


The socialist component in the Nazi ideology was almost entirely economical and not social. Nazis on social issues were as nationalistic and minorities-hating as any far-right group if not worse.

It's just that some RW people love to distort the reality to score cheap political points.


This is not extreme left, it's center-left. The distinction is important, otherwise we'd reduce everything to communism and fascism.


What's terrible is that we only put politicians on a single axis.


I used to like the Nolan chart too, but recently I've been thinking that even 2 axes is overfitting.

Politics is so complicated that only a very simple model has predictive value, even with huge variance. I think a single axis order-disorder is the best we can do to talk in general terms.


IIRC at the convention that wrote the constitution there were about 5 axis involved. I can't remember what they were though. Any insight on it would be appreciated.


It's in our nature to simplify things. Even using 2 axes like Political Compass is a simplification.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: