Can somebody explain why national-socialism has such a bad name while communism is more accepted by most people. Communists like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot have killed millions and millions of people. Much more then national-socialists during WW II. Another question is this: can it be possible that national-socialism can be acceptable in (near) future if the crimes during the war are recognised by new national-socialists and just want to express there political ideas on a peaceful way?
Because people associate it too much with the Nazis were as with Communism there are examples like the Paris communes and whatnot. Also because of who won the war. In answer to your other question, yes.
It's an ideological thing. People don't feel so bad if millions of people die to benefit others in the country (mostly in the cities). It's a similar feeling to how as a classical liberal I don't consider deaths caused by drug overdose are relevant to the success/failure of a society. Not the same, and I think that these deaths are ethically equivalent to murders, but that just goes to explain their feelings a little bit.
National Socialism is deemed a dangerous ideology which unapologetically legitimises "the extermination of the unfit" based on social Darwinism, leading up to the Holocaust in the 1940s, while Communism does not promote anti-Semitism and other forms of racialist thinking. Communism is slightly more respectable than National Socialism because the Soviets internationalised the movement to oppose imperialism and they incorporated the Third World, which helped the former European colonies to stand on their own.
Several factors. First, the western powers allied with the Soviets during the war. Remember the book Animal Farm? The publisher initially refused to print it because the USSR was then an allie of necessessity. After the war however, the soviets were seen as evil, at least by many Americans. And they were certainly seen as an impending threat by western europe. But the Soviets had not been defeated so no one really knew exactly what attrocities were going on behind soviet lines. Even after the fall of the soviet union, because of all the censorship many of the attrocities had been forgotten. It was only in the more recent times that mass graves have been uncovered in Poland, in which the evidence does not point to the nazis. Certainly there are accounts of the horrors of the Siberian gulags, and many accounts in Latvia of all the "dissappearances". People dissappeared and were never heard from again. Unlike in nazi germany which quickly fell in just a few years, the USSR was around for long enough to cover up all its attrocities and prison camps. Besides, the soviet government began to become less oppressive towards the end, so people are less inclined to remember the Stalin era. During the second world war, there were both those in America who sided with the nazis and the communists. However, the ones who sided with the nazis quickly went quiet as America went to war and anti-german sentiment spread. In contrast, although there was plenty of anti-soviet sentiment during the postwar tensions between the USA and soviet union, it was not actually a full out declared war. So while the communists did suffer some degree of persecution, for the greater part they were tolerated. One factor here that cannot be ignored is the disproportionate jewish presence in the American media. The american public was never allowed to forget the treatment the jews suffered under the nazis, even many decades later. In contrast, the interesting thing in russia is that russian people to this day do not seem to hold much resentment against Stalin. Although they generally recognise him as being oppressive, they also see him as somewhat of a heroic leader, who defended russia against nazi invassion and helped bring the country into the modern industrial age. Another factor here is that a people are less inclined to be resentful if the oppression is coming from "one of their own". Just like in America. Blacks shoot eachother all the time, but when a hispanic or white shoots a Black, there is an outcry and demand for vengeance. The Stalinist government was seen as a russian one, whereas the jews suffered under a german government.
The german public, for the most part, never saw the nazis as evil, at least not until their country was occupied by the allies and they were told that their former government was evil. Even then, it took a long time for public attitudes about the past to change. German public opinion about the past did not really begin to change so much until the ones who had actually lived during nazi times gradually began to die off, and the next generation was brought up, who had no memories of the past and only knew what they were taught in school or saw on TV or in movies.
I think it has to do with genocide being part of your public policy, whereas with the soviets, it was a side effect.
Nazism as a form of National Socialism was indeed racially fueled. National Socialism itself is not always so. Certainly not Nazism. One state can be 'nationalist socialist', fueled by the NATIONALITY and not race.
Communism and fascism might receive strongly unfavorable reputations in the United States on account of propaganda associating the former term exclusively with variants of Leninism, and the latter with national socialism. The way people in the States teach history tends to stress the most negative consequences of those ideologies put in practice without counter-weighting them with certain, arguably positive cultural achievements in those very same countries. It seems most Americans do not really understand what any of these marginalized ideologies prescribe for society - just that they are vaguely evil, authoritarian, collectivist, and incompatible with their traditional values. National socialism gets the worse reputation between the two of them because of its innately racist tendencies - if we're talking about the Nazi's perspective, that is to say - and also promotes the primacy of state power and national success relative to essentially everything else. This is so alien to someone immersed in American culture that I reckon virtually no redeeming qualities for the ideology can be easily recognized. In contrast, even if one does not believe communism can work in practice, at least it provides a vision in which one can identify some beauty. I.e. if communism turned out ideally well, most would be inclined to describe it as utopian; what would they call national socialism if it went off without a hitch? Aside from my agreement with a few of Anders Hoveland's points, I would further add that for the first couple decades of the Cold War the West's lack of quality intelligence on what was going on in the Soviet Union helped that country project an aura of mystery and awe abroad - with its propaganda including frequent demonstrations of seemingly impressive technological, economic, and military capabilities. Seeing a poorly developed, agrarian country so quickly catapult itself into superpower status may have sowed some seeds of fear and doubt into people in the West as to whether communism may be a more rational system on a trajectory to best capitalism. Hell, Einstein felt planned economies were the future! It's only really with the benefit of hindsight that we so confidently recognize so many of the Leninist / Stalinist / Maoist / etc. countries' critical weaknesses and shortcomings as making theirs ideologies that tend not to deliver high-quality results, ya? I reckon this meshes fairly well with your statement regarding our initial lack of knowledge concerning purges and other adversities of life in the Second World which came to appall even many a Western socialist.
Sure, a socialist economy might create more beneficial consequences (I'm not an economist: still divided on that question), but it's wrong regardless because it coerces individuals. Socialists should set up a consensually socialist community and I'd have no problem with it. The problem is the initiation of force.
Aye - I concur, though perhaps an excellent work ethic and having an economic model compatible with mainstream social values is essential to unlocking the best of those benefits, if they are indeed to be realized in practice. For me it is justification enough if the people elect representatives who openly campaigned on a platform of installing such a system, however, with the election of said leaders implying consent of the governed for an economic paradigm change - at least so long as the country's constitution is first amended to make doing so legal. Well... hypothetically, of course. I do not think a state-planned economy, abolition of currency, democratic centralism, class struggle, a complete end to private property, and a handful of other orthodox Marxisant goals are wise to pursue!
I disagree that amending the constitution is sufficient. You need to actually get consent from every individual. This could easily be done with gated communities and private communes. Cool ideas though, definitely on the good side
I believe the difference is a very subtle one. But I think it is helpful to look at whose lives it is that the government is attempting to better, that might be one of the central differences.
In my view the communism and fascism are just two forms of totalitarianism. Commies and nazis had been deceiving their ppl with all these dreams / crap like radiant future, communist paradise or racial superiority but they never came true. And it must be admitted that commies and nazisre pretty good brainwashers.
Marxism-Leninism (like Nazism) was bad from the beginning: Lenin Paints Himself Black With His Own Words Communists killed far more than the Nazis: The Black Book of Communism Communists were as guilty as the Nazis in starting WW II: Time to Face the Truth About World War II Communism lasted longer and constituted a greater threat. More facts about Communist atrocities: Mao's Great Leap to Famine Yet the corporate media can't stop talking about Hitler. Their intention is to conceal the truth.
Because the propaganda caused this attitude in millions (wrong attitude, because they have caused people to pick a side between two evils) The abbriviaition 'nazi' sounds hard, the term 'communism' doesn't. The problem is that people stick these political labels to their mind and think they are a 'national socialist' or 'communist', 'liberal' 'socialist', etc. Every time it does the same damage, takes over the free mind (if there are still really free minds in this world of propaganda and mass media, most people are influenced in some way) No, because you already told that 'national socialists' have also murdered millions. But you cannot say that everybody was a 'national socialist' or 'communist', or 'maoist', or 'stalinist', because these political phrases/terms are labels that they gave millions of people (and today millions still use these labels, this shows you how powerful) Problem the world has is that since 9/11 'national socialism' is on the rise again (if you want to give the current system that label, because it is always the same type of system, empire), because it is this system that is using the same propaganda, economics, politics and psywar. Continuesly using red-white and black in its propaganda, and politicians use the worsen or sustaining or gaining economies to gain popularity (look at Europe how the flanks in politics in many countries are growing, this should be the historical warning) They have already did the damage to the minds of millions over the last twelve years (mass/mainstream media and the 'alternative' or 'new' media like infowars as well) The only media that is still free is the internet (if you are not using google, youtube or any of the big systems or read news from online newsmedia)
Because stalinism and maoism aren't communism. The term you're looking for is marxism-leninism. It's possible. But if they are elected into power, the peace ends there I'm afraid. Unless they start propagating liberal eugenics, but that is highly unlikely.
Yes, it is. Racial and ethnic supremacy are an inseparable part of Nazism, because Nazism is defined as Fascism with an added element of racial supremacy in addition to the nationalist supremacy. No, you can't. Because they already have a term for national socialism with the racial element removed, it's called Fascism.
The differences between National Socialism and Socialism can be tricky, because none of our historical models have really done them properly as intended. In pretty much every case, the idea was flavored and distorted by the personalities that tried to bring them into being. Indeed, not all National Socialism needs to be racist in execution. However, in most cases the very concept of the people being of a superior race tended to make that how it was enacted. The Nazi Party did not start out originally as a racist organization. In fact, there were several Jews in the original National Socialist Party, prior to it being taken over by Adolph Hitler. Italy is probably the closest we have had no a "non-racist National Socialist Government". However, both systems tend to follow the same general philosophies, in that the worker is a tool of the state, and that the state has the final say in anything that they do.
communism was well intentioned to eliminate poverty everywhere freeing the working man from oppression of the ruling classes but it was run by megalomaniacs and idiots...Nazism as you say was never well intentioned, the rest of the world was intended to serve the master race...
ideally there should be no force but that wasn't an option in places like Imperial/Republican China and Tsarist Russia, peaceful approaches would lead to prison, torture and even death...
Actually, that all depends on who it was that tried to enact it. The problem is that when most people hear "National Socialism", they think of Hitler and not Mussolini. Generally, National Socialism is really no different then "Vanilla Socialism". The only real difference is that the general philosophy is aimed at "Workers of XXXX" instead of "Workers of the world". That is really all. Think of it as Communism, with nation sized cells. Now National Socialism can have some good effects. Both Italy and Germany were pulled out of crippling depressions and inflation because of the policies enacted. And both were able to get their countries working together to achieve goals that were totally unexpected a decade earlier by most other nations. And do not think I am a poster child for this idea, I am not. However, I am a realist, and see that a lot of good can come from this type of political belief. The problem is that in the medium to long run, even more misery and pain can come from it. In fact, Taiwan (and before it the Nationalist Chinese) is a "National Socialist" government. And as far as I am aware, they never turned genocidal.
I don't mean consensual in the revolution (although I think violent revolutions are always unjustified), I mean they should make it consensual for the individuals within their commune. If socialists created a gated community on their own land and invited others to join it, while accepting the conditions of their socialist political system within that commune, then I would have no problem with it, but so far they've moved into already populated places (such as with the Paris commune, the Catalonia, etc) and asserted authority over the private property rights of those who already live there. This I cannot support. It's such a simple solution. Take all your syndicalist buddies, find a nice patch of land in New Hampshire or pioneer some seasteading, and build a community. Import in like minded individuals, make them sign a contract consenting to the sovereignty of the Socialist government as a condition of buying property, and you're away! You have a voluntary system of socialist interaction. Even when I was a socialist this always seemed to be the most attractive sort to me. I can't see why it's not for anyone else. The hardest part is getting the land, yet they've never had any problem with that. The USSR was free at any time to do this in rural Russia.
Where does Franco's Spain fit into the spectrum? Certainly Fascist, a vague term but malleable, and it remained 'neutral' through WW II, even though it had close ties to Hitler's wing of the NS. FDR' policies more resemble Fascism than 'liberalism' as it's perceived today as a term. Hitler, by the way, tossed the SA and the Strasserites under the bus when he cut the deal with Hugenberg and Hindenburg and the Kruppe controlled factions, so it's debatable whether Hitler himself was actually a National Socialist after the Party served his personal ambitions; his Germany became more of the ideal corporate state than something a true Third Positionist would implement.
