Right wing cultures in Star Trek

[Spot261]

Paris Hilton is a socialist isn't she?

There's also strong line of state owned or run things in Nazi Germany too...

As there always are in war economies. In fact in many ways a war economy looks much like a socialist state, except the roles of beneficiary and benefactor are largely reversed. Could be what's causing so much confusion.

 

[GabyBee]

The core ideology of socialism is empowering workers and holding corporations accountable. The Nazis literally subsidized corporations to use slave labor while conscripting workers to fight in foreign wars. That is antithetical to the central premise of socialism.

 

[GabyBee]

And while we're on this subject, as ridiculous as it is, Politifact has already ruled on the relationship of the Nazis with the label "socialist".

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...villalba-said-bernie-sanders-democratic-soci/

And they found associating the two groups to not only be false, but a "pants on fire" lie.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Like I said, the basic values are completely incompatible.

Class is not confined to nations, which is why socialism had such a strong internationalist trait.
The Nazis were all about race and nation on the other hand, and didn't care about class.

The very way both movements "constructed their realities" is incompatible. It's starts from completely different premises and ends with completely different conclusions about the world.

 

[jaime]

Not just communists. It was the Social-Democratic Party that opposed the Nazis. They were the only party to vote against the Enabling Act of 1933 (the Commies would have opposed it, too, but already got kicked out).
The Nazis hated Socialists.

Again I'm not sure why you would claim the Nazis were Socialists but not Capitalists or Conservatives? They borrowed policies from everybody but the core belief of the Nazi Party was something else, based on the ideas of Volk, race and antisemitism.
Those core beliefs have nothing to do with socialism so...

The core belief of socialism at the time was that everything is based on class, which is why it was inherently international. The core belief of Nazi ideology was that the Volk (nation/race) is all that matters, which is why it was inherently national.

It makes zero sense to equate the two even if a few policies are similar considering you will find similarities between all ideologies.

Short answer as duties calll..
Ah I see. Your argument is that they cannot be socialists because they were also other things, and you assume I am saying they are only socialist?
I am saying they are many things, including socialist, and that being other things as well does not preclude them from also being socialists. Even not getting with other socialists...as others have humourously and accurately pointed out, does not preclude them from being socialist (Galilean people's front etc...)
You are clearly well studied on it, but I feel your comments carry a bias, the Volk nationalist thing for instance...does nationalism automatically preclude socialism? Does nationalism automatically preclude class based division? What if a ruling or moneyed class can be seen as essentially a different nation? (This was part of the method used to stir hatred against the Jews after all, historically.....it's part of the class argument in Britain too, after all, it's still essentially a Norman aristocracy, even across Europe. Your average left wing Nationalist nutter will happily decry the queen for being German as he cries for revolution and republic and recompense. Magna Carta! Did she die in vain?) what is bringing the means of production into the ownership of the people, the great socialist or Marxist or something dream, if not almost identical to all of the Nazis various Volk industries. Volk just means 'the people' does it not?
Some socialists are evil nasty buggers. Not all evil nasty buggers are socialists. The same is true on the other end of the political spectrum, as others have said, it's the extremes you have to worry about...to which I would add, the phrase 'oh he couldn't! He's one of us...' has no doubt been uttered every time a group takes its eye off the ball and assumes their own ideology to be above reproach, and the phrase 'oh well..he wasn't really one us you know....' usually follows in short order after something nasty has reared its head.

 

[GabyBee]

Read Politifact's analysis of the claim. Or... I'll just quote it here:

We find this claim historically inaccurate and ridiculous. Pants on Fire!

Something, something, something... WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

 

[jaime]

And while we're on this subject, as ridiculous as it is, Politifact has already ruled on the relationship of the Nazis with the label "socialist".

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...villalba-said-bernie-sanders-democratic-soci/

And they found associating the two groups to not only be false, but a "pants on fire" lie.

Well, I am just going by my understanding of history and the fact they had it in their name. XD will peek at that later...though I won't lie, I am always disgusted by Nazis, whatever the flavour, and generally left leaning myself, so am disliking this odd feeling of sounding like I am defending the bastards...as opposed to trying to take an objective historical viewpoint, as much as possible.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Short answer as duties calll..
Ah I see. Your argument is that they cannot be socialists because they were also other things, and you assume I am saying they are only socialist?
I am saying they are many things, including socialist, and that being other things as well does not preclude them from also being socialists. Even not getting with other socialists...as others have humourously and accurately pointed out, does not preclude them from being socialist (Galilean people's front etc...)
You are clearly well studied on it, but I feel your comments carry a bias, the Volk nationalist thing for instance...does nationalism automatically preclude socialism? Does nationalism automatically preclude class based division? What if a ruling or moneyed class can be seen as essentially a different nation? (This was part of the method used to stir hatred against the Jews after all, historically.....it's part of the class argument in Britain too, after all, it's still essentially a Norman aristocracy, even across Europe. Your average left wing Nationalist nutter will happily decry the queen for being German as he cries for revolution and republic and recompense. Magna Carta! Did she die in vain?) what is bringing the means of production into the ownership of the people, the great socialist or Marxist or something dream, if not almost identical to all of the Nazis various Volk industries. Volk just means 'the people' does it not?
Some socialists are evil nasty buggers. Not all evil nasty buggers are socialists. The same is true on the other end of the political spectrum, as others have said, it's the extremes you have to worry about...to which I would add, the phrase 'oh he couldn't! He's one of us...' has no doubt been uttered every time a group takes its eye off the ball and assumes their own ideology to be above reproach, and the phrase 'oh well..he wasn't really one us you know....' usually follows in short order after something nasty has reared its head.

It's absurd to accuse me of bias and I find that insulting to be honest. I am giving you the scientific answer. I'm a historian (PhD) and political scientist. I have no agenda here.
You specifically said you're not an expert, so why not listen to experts instead of accusing them of bias when you don't like what they're saying?

I don't know how many times we have to explain this to you.
The Nazis borrowed ideas from many movements but their core beliefs were: Volk/Volksgemeinschaft (nation or race, there is no proper English word for it) and antisemitism. Read any scholarly work on Nazi ideology published in the last half-century.

Socialism on the other hand has completely different premises and thus ways to see/construct the world, based on class and materialistic arguments.

The Nazis borrowed some policies from other movements, including capitalism, socialism and conservatism. That does not make them capitalists, socialists and conservatives.

The very core beliefs and premises of Socialism in particular are incompatible with National Socialism, though.

 

[Spot261]

if not almost identical to all of the Nazis various Volk industries. Volk just means 'the people' does it not?

Again, necessity. A war economy almost by definition requires nationalisation of industry on an authoritarian basis. This is a far cry from socialism. Polar opposite in fact in that it is about taking power FROM the people, not giving it TO them.

Some socialists are evil nasty buggers.

Oh you've heard about me then?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Short answer as duties calll..
Ah I see. Your argument is that they cannot be socialists because they were also other things, and you assume I am saying they are only socialist?
I am saying they are many things, including socialist, and that being other things as well does not preclude them from also being socialists. Even not getting with other socialists...as others have humourously and accurately pointed out, does not preclude them from being socialist (Galilean people's front etc...)
You are clearly well studied on it, but I feel your comments carry a bias, the Volk nationalist thing for instance...does nationalism automatically preclude socialism? Does nationalism automatically preclude class based division? What if a ruling or moneyed class can be seen as essentially a different nation? (This was part of the method used to stir hatred against the Jews after all, historically.....it's part of the class argument in Britain too, after all, it's still essentially a Norman aristocracy, even across Europe. Your average left wing Nationalist nutter will happily decry the queen for being German as he cries for revolution and republic and recompense. Magna Carta! Did she die in vain?) what is bringing the means of production into the ownership of the people, the great socialist or Marxist or something dream, if not almost identical to all of the Nazis various Volk industries. Volk just means 'the people' does it not?
Some socialists are evil nasty buggers. Not all evil nasty buggers are socialists. The same is true on the other end of the political spectrum, as others have said, it's the extremes you have to worry about...to which I would add, the phrase 'oh he couldn't! He's one of us...' has no doubt been uttered every time a group takes its eye off the ball and assumes their own ideology to be above reproach, and the phrase 'oh well..he wasn't really one us you know....' usually follows in short order after something nasty has reared its head.

It's times like these that I wish God was real because then I could hope there's a better place than this.

 

[Thestral]

...it's part of the class argument in Britain too, after all, it's still essentially a Norman aristocracy, even across Europe.

I'm sorry, I know this isn't the point of this whole line of discussion by any means but I just have to ask - do what now?

 

[GabyBee]

Well, since the topic is on the table, and it's kind of tangentially relevant... the British royal family is actually German by origin, so....... Yeah, that's awkward.

 

[jaime]

It's absurd to accuse me of bias and I find that insulting to be honest. I am giving you the scientific answer. I'm a historian (PhD) and political scientist. I have no agenda here.
You specifically said you're not an expert, so why not listen to experts instead of accusing them of bias when you don't like what they're saying?

I don't know how many times we have to explain this to you.
The Nazis borrowed ideas from many movements but their core beliefs were: Volk/Volksgemeinschaft (nation or race, there is no proper English word for it) and antisemitism. Read any scholarly work on Nazi ideology published in the last half-century.

Socialism on the other hand has completely different premises and thus ways to see/construct the world, based on class and materialistic arguments.

The Nazis borrowed some policies from other movements, including capitalism, socialism and conservatism. That does not make them capitalists, socialists and conservatives.

The very core beliefs and premises of Socialism in particular are incompatible with National Socialism, though.

Well, then I stand corrected, and state that based on my looking at it, from a not very in depth position, I didn't, and to an extent, still don't see how one precludes the other. And I am only going by your comments in here..which never really said why Nazis are incompatible with Socialism (until now) just that they are. Which I interpreted as bias (largely because it's the same bias I would try to ignore in myself...I am mostly left wing, and therefore don't fancy having historical socialist nasty buggers sharing any of my ideology...even though that is impossible to avoid, as sooner or later someone will somewhere. Trump probably likes Star Trek. We share head space with Trump.)
It seems a particularly confusing case, considering their genesis and the ground result of their rule...which others have pointed out may be because a war economy and a socialist economy share many similarities. That's something I might look into.

I don't think class does transcend national boundaries though...the markers for class division or oppression are far to dissimilar between states, the idea of some global class markers doesn't seem to make any sense. Beyond the basic haves and have-nots, which even then won't match...which again leads to something you raise...Nazi Germany not caring about class....I am curious what you meant by that, especially in relation to how they to my inexpert eye, much of their society is indistinguishable from other allegedly socialist states (aside from their obsession with aristicratic titles xD)
Bring that back to Trek, it is often argued that it is socialist utopian, and of course in patterns of force we see a Federation scientist having that ideal being perverted straight back into literal Nazisim....so what is it that makes Trek socialist do you think?

Edit...got caught up in my first paragraph, and intended to apologise for causing offense. XD as I said, I saw the same bias I would have had. Not wanting to have any ideological similarity to a Nazi, since they are basically the antithesis to my own beliefs.

 

[E-DUB]

The crux of the problem is that there is a strong tendency among many on the right to view, or at least portray, any authoritarian regime as leftist in nature. This is for two reasons. The first being that they don't want the "brakes" that would follow from being compared to such regimes. The other is to propagate that myth so that the general electorate wouldn't see them coming.

Authoritarianism isn't a philosophy however, it is a tactic. A tactic which can be utilized by leftist regimes, rightist regimes, or regimes which have no real underlying political philosophy as we would understand such. This would include theocratic tyrannies or the "thugocracy" style of regime so prevalent in the Middle East where any political veneer exists solely to give the regime a support base amongst elements of the populace.

 

[jaime]

Well, since the topic is on the table, and it's kind of tangentially relevant... the British royal family is actually German by origin, so....... Yeah, that's awkward.

Yup. It was so awkward they changed their name in The Great War.

 

[jaime]

I'm sorry, I know this isn't the point of this whole line of discussion by any means but I just have to ask - do what now?

The ruling families of Britain, going back a thousand years, are basically Norman in origin...then all the ruling houses of Europe are usually related somewhere along the line, unless they stopped bothering with Monarchy's. Even then, you will find some families are still very much in power. The Us and Them in the UK, is still seen on national lines, sometimes buried, but it all stems from an invasion a thousand years ago that put one group in power, and despite various transmutations and falling and rising in favour, they are still there, for the most part.

 

[jaime]

The crux of the problem is that there is a strong tendency among many on the right to view, or at least portray, any authoritarian regime as leftist in nature. This is for two reasons. The first being that they don't want the "brakes" that would follow from being compared to such regimes. The other is to propagate that myth so that the general electorate wouldn't see them coming.

Authoritarianism isn't a philosophy however, it is a tactic. A tactic which can be utilized by leftist regimes, rightist regimes, or regimes which have no real underlying political philosophy as we would understand such. This would include theocratic tyrannies or the "thugocracy" style of regime so prevalent in the Middle East where any political veneer exists solely to give the regime a support base amongst elements of the populace.

Which is all pretty much what I said no? So far right it's coming left again etc?

 

[jaime]

Again, necessity. A war economy almost by definition requires nationalisation of industry on an authoritarian basis. This is a far cry from socialism. Polar opposite in fact in that it is about taking power FROM the people, not giving it TO them.



Oh you've heard about me then?

That's interesting...had never really thought of a war economy simply looking similar to a socialist state economy. Possibly because of the Cold War...the USSR was a socialist state, but then arguably was also a war state...so is the way that society functions a result of the socialism as it is being practiced, or the war economy as it is being practiced. Hmm.

 

[Spot261]

In the case of Nazi Germany it was, I'm pretty sure, about the war economy, precisely because of the differences that have been pointed out. Nationalisation was a practicality which allowed workforces to better service the state economy. It occurred because it allowed the state to strip them of their rights and take direct control of manufacture.

This is quite the opposite of the goal of socialism, which uses nationalisation (or in it's lesser forms regulation) as a means to empower the workforce, recognising the state as the aggregate of the people and nationalisation by proxy giving those people control of that industry.

As I said, the key difference is the identities of benefactor and beneficiary in the relationship.

 

[jaime]

In the case of Nazi Germany it was, I'm pretty sure, about the war economy, precisely because of the differences that have been pointed out. Nationalisation was a practicality which allowed workforces to better service the state economy. It occurred because it allowed the state to strip them of their rights and take direct control of manufacture.

This is quite the opposite of the goal of socialism, which uses nationalisation (or in it's lesser forms regulation) as a means to empower the workforce, recognising the state as the aggregate of the people and nationalisation by proxy giving those people control of that industry.

As I said, the key difference is the identities of benefactor and beneficiary in the relationship.

So, when we're the various nationalisation programs put into effect? I know some prominent industrialist were already close to the party, even before they became the de facto state.