Book of Mormon Socialism

[Loran Howard Blood]

Have you any idea how that name came to be? Let me explain it to you. Germany had a strong communist and social democratic movement. Hitler, no dummy, decided to change the name of the party from German Workers Party to the National Socialist German Workers Party. The German Workers Party was a right wing party. In fact, Hitler was hired by the German Army to spy on it because they thought that it may be socialist but Hitler found it harmless. But they did send Hitler a membership card. And the rest is history. Hitler named the party the way he did because he wanted communist votes. He thought that with a red flag and a socialist name, he would get support from rank and file workers.

Hitler hated the communists and the social democrats.

This is pure revisionist mythology straight from the old Popular Front. Adolph Hitler was a socialist and a leftist, and his movement was a phenomena, across a number of dimensions, of the Left. A cursory glance at the 25 point Nazi Party platform will disabuse anyone of the silly WWII eara Popular Front propaganda (which was able to go down in western received wisdom as "history," thanks primarily to the cravenness and sympathy of all too many western intellectuals) that Nazism and socialism were oppositional philosophies. They were sibling militant secular gnostic religions battling for supremacy within the same territory, as all totalist systems always do. They are both members of a family of leftist ideologies and sentiments reaching all the way back to the French Revolution (revolutionary Marxian socialism and National Socialism are more properly understood, as the distinguished Richard Pipes has said, as "heresies" of socialism. They are sibling sects or factions of a core ideology and philosophical outlook).

The Nazis, however, though beating up and killing each other for domination of Germany, had no problem ganging up on social democrats and true liberals, and many Nazis, socialists, communists and fascists (another form or school of socialism with its own unique features) found little trouble, depending on how the winds were blowing, moving between the various parties and movements (as Hayek points out in The Road to Serfdom).

[WalkerW]

right wing party

Right wing on what political spectrum? You can't just throw out "right wing." Fascism and socialism have more in common than fascism and capitalism (and capitalism does not equal cronyism).

Nonetheless, I ultimately find

[WalkerW]

Have you, by any chance, read The Dragons of Expectation?

I haven't. The last one I read by him was Reflections on a Ravaged Century.

Something nice to have sitting next to Paul Johnson's The Intellectuals and Sowell's The Intellectuals and Society.

I admit to never having read one of Johnson's book. Slightly embarrassing. There are a number of his on my to-read list. Sowell's book(s) is/are brilliant.

[why me]

This is pure revisionist mythology straight from the old Popular Front. Adolph Hitler was a socialist and a leftist, and his movement was a phenomena, across a number of dimensions, of the Left.

Hitler received his support from business and bankers and the rich. They saw him as being anticommunist. In no way, was hitler socialist since his greatest hatred outside the jews were the communists and social democrats. Read Mein Kampf.

[why me]

Right wing on what political spectrum? You can't just throw out "right wing." Fascism and socialism have more in common than fascism and capitalism (and capitalism does not equal cronyism).

Hitler received his support and money from german big business, bankers and the rich. They saw him a the only way to defeat communism and socialism in germany. Benito Mussolini was a socialist in his early days but he left the socialist party and formed a fascist party. Big money gave him support.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Have you any idea how that name came to be? Let me explain it to you. Germany had a strong communist and social democratic movement. Hitler, no dummy, decided to change the name of the party from German Workers Party to the National Socialist German Workers Party. The German Workers Party was a right wing party. In fact, Hitler was hired by the German Army to spy on it because they thought that it may be socialist but Hitler found it harmless. But they did send Hitler a membership card. And the rest is history. Hitler named the party the way he did because he wanted communist votes. He thought that with a red flag and a socialist name, he would get support from rank and file workers.

Hitler hated the communists and the social democrats.

I am well familiar with it. I need not say much more as other on this thread have addressed the "right wing" thing plenty.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Right wing on what political spectrum? You can't just throw out "right wing." Fascism and socialism have more in common than fascism and capitalism (and capitalism does not equal cronyism).

Nonetheless, I ultimately find

[Senator]

So then, if we are free to enslave ourselves and each other, and we choose to do so, that justifies the slavery? Do we have the right to give away our free agency in this manner, and if we do, have we not assented to Lucifer's original counter-plan of salvation?

Seriously??

You actually extracted a meaning from my statement that places it in correlation with slavery and Lucifer's plan?

By the way, could you justify your use of the term "collective" using the D&C or any statements of the Lord's servants in our day as sources?

Feel free to glaze with imagination and make use of the word as loosely as needed in order to get it agreeable with you paradigm.

[zelder]

Hitler received his support from business and bankers and the rich. They saw him as being anticommunist. In no way, was hitler socialist since his greatest hatred outside the jews were the communists and social democrats. Read Mein Kampf.

I'll let you in on a little secret. The Bolshevik revolution recieved financing from big business players in New York. Trotsky was hanging out with the big boys in New York. Rockefeller said he wanted to own nothing and control everything. The goal of the elite is to merge big business with big government and contol the whole of it. It appears that the elite were playing both sides of the game during WWII.

[elguanteloko]

1. find yourself a serious source other than Wiki please.

2. As to Chomsky, for heaven's sake find yourself an intellectually serious source!

But let's begin with the Wiki definition just for the sake of argument.

^{I said wikipedia is a primer that serves the purpose. how you are using socialism is so out of tone that pretty much any source would do.... but, however, sources are not what seems to be the problem since you will dismiss them as not being intellectually serious.}

^{Save for small cottage industries and the underground markets, the Soviet Government owned all resources and means of production in the country.}

^{Which says NOTHING of the WORKERS owning the means of production through free association.}

^{They were the sole employer in all major industries, and "the people," as Marx said, were understood to be the owners of all the means of production through the intermediary of the state, which is the mediating agency of the dictatorship of the proletariat. All the means of production (capital and capital resources) were publicly owned - owned by the state.}

^{"understood to be" does NOT mean anything here. We are talking about actual control. Were the workers able to freely move through different markets when they wanted to? No. The workers were not the owners but the State. "Publicly owned" is NOT "workers' control", which is at the very heart of the Socialist idea.}

Here's the problem. This is pure academic theory, and the pure theory has never worked when attempt has been made to apply it to actual governance. Never. Ever. I think it philosophically slipshod to apply pure, abstract theoretical speculations (and you are not the only one to do this. This is logo's specialty) to the actual consistent failures of socialism in practice, and, finding nothing but a historical pattern of failure and calamity, claim that "socialism has never really been tried" because the theory and the practice diverge.

You can't really say this when you can't seem to bring up ONE case of socialist organization. There are several but I want you to find them first.

It never dawns on true believers in this form of secular gnostic mysticism that it may not be that "true" socialism has never been tried, but that the theory itself is fatally flawed and hence, cannot be tried without producing the actual empirical and historical failures. The theory, in other words, must and always will produce what appear to be corruptions and bastardizations of the theory, because those corruptions and bastardizations are necessary features of the actual implementation the theory's concepts and prescriptions in the real world (just as people like Lenin. Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Winnie Mandela, Robert Mugabe, and Adolph Hitler are both produced by and inherently attracted to socialist ideas and the requirements of their application).

Perhaps, in other words, socialism has, indeed been tried, over and over again, but that the necessary means required to implement it demonstrate the theory, from which those means derive, to be in deep error. All attempts at full implementation of socialism's utopian ideals have created the same kinds of societies, after all, not just a few here and there

How do you expect me to take you seriously at any level when you can't even grasp the concept right?

[why me]

The Nazis, however, though beating up and killing each other for domination of Germany, had no problem ganging up on social democrats and true liberals, and many Nazis, socialists, communists and fascists (another form or school of socialism with its own unique features) found little trouble, depending on how the winds were blowing, moving between the various parties and movements (as Hayek points out in The Road to Serfdom).

The leaders of the social democrats and communists were sent into the camps. The rank and file may float here and there, as they do today, but in no way were the Nazis socialist. Big business had no trouble in giving hitler big money to stop the socialist and communist threat in germany. And big business was capitalist.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hitler received his support and money from german big business, bankers and the rich. They saw him a the only way to defeat communism and socialism in germany. Benito Mussolini was a socialist in his early days but he left the socialist party and formed a fascist party. Big money gave him support.

This appears to be an attempt at diversion. It matters not were Hitler got his support. It is what he did and what he was for when he was in power that matters.

If we look at the spectrum of right vs left we see that Left of the spectrum is total government and right of the spectrum is no government or anarchy.

If we look at what Hitler did, the government under his control had total power. Now does that look like the left or the right to you?

Modern revisionist attempt to paint a different picture. The old "Hitler was on the right" is as false as anything I else I have ever heard. Lets look at teh claims. Stalin and Lennon were on the left. The wanted and had total control of the peopel through the government. Hitler also had total control over the poeple through the goverment. Yet for some reason people argue in vein that one group was on the left and the other was on the right when both groups looks very similar.

[WalkerW]

Hitler received his support and money from german big business, bankers and the rich. They saw him a the only way to defeat communism and socialism in germany. Benito Mussolini was a socialist in his early days but he left the socialist party and formed a fascist party. Big money gave him support.

And Matt Damon was a huge supporter of Obama and is now disappointed with him. And?

I know the term "Big Business" is a common American catchphrase for evil, malicious, right-winger fat cat CEOs, but just because one is a businessman doesn't make one in favor of free market principles.

Plenty of big businesses favored government intervention in the early 20th century in order to suppress competition.

[why me]

I'll let you in on a little secret. The Bolshevik revolution recieved financing from big business players in New York. Trotsky was hanging out with the big boys in New York. Rockefeller said he wanted to own nothing and control everything. The goal of the elite is to merge big business with big government and contol the whole of it. It appears that the elite were playing both sides of the game during WWII.

The bolsheviks received their money from bank heists throughout Russia. In no way did they receive money from big business when they were in opposition to the Tzar. Trotsky came to the Bolshviks late in the game. He was a menshivik.

[WalkerW]

And big business was capitalist

Not necessarily. If a business supports more government regulations because it knows that it can afford the costs, but that its smaller competitors can't, then it is using government to suppress competition and further monopolization.

There is nothing in that action or attitude that is market-oriented or "capitalist." It is cronyism.

[why me]

And Matt Damon was a huge supporter of Obama and is now disappointed with him. And?

I know the term "Big Business" is a common American catchphrase for evil, malicious, right-winger fat cat CEOs, but just because one is a businessman doesn't make one in favor of free market principles.

Plenty of big businesses favored government intervention in the early 20th century in order to suppress competition.

Most big businessmen are capitalists. Both the republican party and the democratic party are supporting the capitalist system. Both support the capitalist system. And business gives to both parties.

[WalkerW]

Jonah Goldberg does a fine job in covering the "right wing" claim of Hitler in his Liberal Fascism (Doubleday, 2007).

I avoided the book for a couple years due to the title, the polemical way it is written, and the fact that Goldberg is journalist for the National Review. But after reading Ronald Pestritto's review as well as one by Thomas Sowell (two authors I highly respect), I decided to pick it up.

I was pleasantly surprised. It's flawed, but good.

Before one recoils, take into consideration Sowell's opening lines:

"Those who put a high value on words may recoil at the title of Jonah Goldberg

[Loran Howard Blood]

Hitler received his support and money from german big business, bankers and the rich. They saw him a the only way to defeat communism and socialism in germany. Benito Mussolini was a socialist in his early days but he left the socialist party and formed a fascist party. Big money gave him support.

The Germans had a substantial hand in assisting and funding the Bolshevik revolution WM, including helping him return to Russia from exile. You also seem to forget the Molotov -- Ribbentrop Pact, and the massive amount of raw materials shipped between the two countries in preparation for their joint wars of conquest upon Western and Eastern Europe respectively.

You also seem to forget that after the October Revolution and the Russian Civil War, America fell all over itself helping the Soviet Union create much of its industrial infrastructure. The entire history of the post WWII west is one long miasma of America and the NATO countries keeping the Soviet Union afloat with hard currency, credits, and technology transfers.

With people like Armand Hammer on their side, how could the Soviets lose?

In any case, the fact that "big money" as you call it, backed Hitler or Mussolini only works for your argument if you have already swallowed, at the outset, the Marxist class struggle view of history

That particular falsification of history is long past its natural lifespan.

Oh, and by the way, Mussolini proudly made clear that he was a socialist and always would be. He was expelled from the Italian socialist party and founded his own socialist party, which he termed the Fascist party (bundle of sticks -- a national collective). Fascism is, again, a sibling socialist variant.

[zelder]

The bolsheviks received their money from bank heists throughout Russia. In no way did they receive money from big business when they were in opposition to the Tzar. Trotsky came to the Bolshviks late in the game. He was a menshivik.

I don't think New York was in control of the situation but they did send $1,000,000 and had some people working over there under the false banner of the red cross.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Hitler received his support from business and bankers and the rich. They saw him as being anticommunist. In no way, was hitler socialist since his greatest hatred outside the jews were the communists and social democrats. Read Mein Kampf.

One and all points logically irrelevant. Bankers and "the rich" have funded, supported, lauded, and lionized socialism, communism, Castro, Che, Mao, and "revolution" from the early 20the century to the present time, with a major upsurge of this kind of behavior among the west's financial elites just since the late sixties - early seventies era.

The "green" movement would collapse overnight as a major political and legal force were it not for "the rich" among the Left (as substantial portion of it, I might add, very patently is) who fund its activities through its PACs, 501c3s, 527s. foundations and through direct donations.

Hitler was anti-communist, if for no other reason than both systems are totalitarian and cannot possible share power with each other. But note the following statements by Hitler himself:

"The party is all-embracing. It rules our lives in all their breadth and depth. We must therefore develop branches of the party in which the whole of individual life will be reflected. Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism--not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production."

"Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper...."

"Private property" as conceived under the liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private property" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard for the nation."

"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun.... I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order."

Its interesting (very) to note a couple of things here (not the least of which is how the third paragraph sounds the stuff that commonly comes from WhyMe, logo, and others, save for the small trifle of replacing the term "nation" with the term "people."), but most especially that Hitler considers himself a real socialist revolutionary, not the "peddlers and pen pushers" of Marxism.

Lenin would strongly disagree (and the "Red Terror" bore him out), but clearly, all of these systems were syncretistic variations of a core theme.

[Loran Howard Blood]

I avoided the book for a couple years due to the title, the polemical way it is written, and the fact that Goldberg is journalist for the National Review. But after reading Ronald Pestritto's review as well as one by Thomas Sowell (two authors I highly respect), I decided to pick it up.

Liberal Fascism is a bit polemical yes (but there is a place for polemics in political philosophy. Some things, after all, at some point, just need to be denounced), but excellently researched and argued. Its an education in itself.

Just interested, but what do you find objectionable about National Review, the flagship intellectual periodical of the modern conservative/classical liberal renaissance in post WWII America?

[David Bokovoy]

And yet again, this is a mischaraterization of what actually happened and what the D&C elucidates is the central premise of the entire system.

It's not a mischaracterization, Loran. I would invite you to visit the display in the Church History museum and read the contracts for yourself. If this is too difficult, try to access the Levi Jackman contracts featured on pages 28-29 of the book Building the City of God.

Note the following:

"Be it known that I, Levi Jackman of the church of Christ... do of my own free will and accord having first paid my just debts, grant and hereby give unto Edward Partridge of Jackson county, and state of Missouri, bishop of said church the following described property, viz sundry articles of furniture valued thrity seven dollars, also two beds, bedding and feathers valued forty four dollars fifty cents, also three acres and other tools valued eleven dollars and twenty five cents.

"For the purpose of purchaing lands and building up the New Jerusalem, even Zion, and for reliving the wants of the poor and needy. For which I the said Levi Jackman do covenant and bind myself and my heirs forever, to release all my right to the above described property, unto him, the said Edward Partridge."

As Bishop, Edward Partridge then turned around immediately and signed a contract to "lease" to Levi Jackman the exact same "sundry articles of furniture valued thrity seven dollars, also two beds, bedding and feathers valued forty four dollars fifty cents, also three acres and other tools valued eleven dollars and twenty five cents."

I am pleased to see that you have made some major changes to your position and have accepted the fact that private stewardship rather than private property exists under the United Order.

I'm not being sarcastic when I say that this is incredible!

Well done!

[Obiwan]

Also

[Obiwan]

Liberal Fascism is a bit polemical yes (but there is a place for polemics in political philosophy. Some things, after all, at some point, just need to be denounced), but excellently researched and argued. Its an education in itself.

Definately.... The book Liberal Fascism is a MUST READ. In one fail swoop it corrects all the liberal revisionist history telling the full facts of what Liberalism and it's manifestations are, who Hitler actually was etc. Liberals keep trying to tell me Hitler was "right wing", and that is simply entirely and completely false. Also, the book only has some small parts and statements that are polemical. The book is written almost entirely in a completely objective and deep historical scholarship. People shouldn't be fooled by the name to think it's simply polemical, cause it's not at all. It's a book with such depth that it should be required reading in College or High School classes. I almost wish it wasn't named what it was because of that. Of course, it likely wouldn't have sold as many books if it was named something else. But, it is about Liberal Fascism, so it was also correctly named. Liberalism IS Fascism.... Conservatism is not.

[LeSellers]

the ebook example would show I understand quite well, competition came in and prices went up.

In the short run, perhaps: we do not know the final situation. There are always more than just a single input to the supply