Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 509:
Line 509: + + + + + + + + + + + +
We really need to settle this.
This leaves me wondering how [[William Blake]] might fit into the picture? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (EDT)
This leaves me wondering how [[William Blake]] might fit into the picture? --[[User:Timber2|Timber2]] ([[User talk:Timber2|talk]]) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (EDT)
==Debate needs a summary==
Proponents of socialism like to claim that the [[National Socialism]] of Nazi Germany was by no means socialist. Why do they do that? (What's their motivation?) And are they right? Or are they pulling the wool over our eyes?
Snopes asserts that
:Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, totalitarian power.
But the same may be said for '''every Communist movement''' of the 20th century. No Communist Party ever "achieved communism" or "true socialism" because that was never their goal. Their aim was always total control, and the excuse they used was that they were "building socialism". So claiming the Nazis weren't socialists because they didn't actually fulfill [[socialist ideals]] is a red herring. That's like saying the Communists weren't really Communists.
The problem with analyzing socialism is that there are so many lies involved. The Communists of China and Russia and Cuba and so on claimed to be working toward socialism (the [[classless society]] of a communist utopia) but like The Party in ''[[1984]]'' they really wanted one thing more than anything else: power. Fascism and Communism are "totalitarian twins".
Let's get to the bottom of this and settle this debate once and for all. Perhaps we can take a look at Dinesh D'Souza or PragerU for further details. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:39, 19 May 2020 (EDT)