29 Jan 2024 7:36 am
(PART II) I wrote, "Moreover, the phrase 'National Socialism' is a contradiction, for nationalism is a rejection of socialism, and socialism is a rejection of nationalism."
In response, Cannonpointer wrote, "That seems preposterous on its face. Tribal societies cannot be socialist? I think I am going to need you to define socialism because the more you talk about it, the confuseder I get." If "tribal societies" pertain to homogenous societies with distinct languages, customs, cultures, etc., then "tribal" societies can be socialist societies.
But I don't understand what could be preposterous about saying, "'National Socialism' is a contradiction, for nationalism is a rejection of socialism, and socialism is a rejection of nationalism." In brief, nationalism represents the interests of a single nation-state, while socialism's orientation is international. "Workers of the world, unite." I wrote, "...FDR didn't use "socialist methods" to end the then-current depression, appease the working class, and thus save capitalism. As I wrote in this thread's parent post, "The progressive achievements won by Soviet workers pressured the US capitalist state to concede reforms for American workers." Hence, New Deal "reforms" can be likened to an army's defensive fortifications erected in the face of an advancing opponent."
Cannonpointer's retort: "You just said that the methods weren't socialist, and then you said socialist successes forced the methods. That is rather confusing. If the state using the workers' capital to build good things for the workers is not socialism, what is it? It's not capitalism - capitalism is rapine. Or it could be capitalism - alleviate rapine to avoid the pitchforks.
A better way for me to have explained it would have been to write, "Although the American capitalist state didn't wish to allow for reforms concerning homeownership, desegregation, investments in education, public healthcare, etc., it was compelled to do so in the face of the success of the Bolshevik Revolution that American workers took notice of."
As I previously stated, these capitalist "reforms" were likened to defensive fortifications erected by an army in response to an advancing enemy army. Although the US government/capitalist state would have preferred not to give an inch, it was forced to in light of that battle for hearts and minds and because of the strong demand for socialism by American workers at the time.
Toward a more complete understanding of that phenomenon, it's vital to understand the derivation of such "reforms." Germany, under Otto Von Bismark during the 1880s, was the first capitalist state to foster social reforms. In the 1870s, the German state passed several anti-socialist laws to thwart the then-burgeoning demand for socialism within Germany's working class. But those laws failed their intent. So, during the 1880s, the German capitalist state enacted social "reforms," e.g., unemployment insurance and old age pensions, intended to appease German workers, thereby lessening the demand for socialism. It worked like a proverbial charm. Within a few years, once-vibrant socialist parties were dissolved or rendered irrelevant.
IOW, Germnay's capitalist class was confronted with the genuine possibility of losing everything by way of a socialist revolution or losing a little by allowing for reforms that would quash the desire for a socialist society. It chose the former and prevailed in the process. And the same can be said of the American capitalist class during the interwar period of 1918-1939.
(END OF PART II)