Comments by "Kamper Foelie" (@TheKamperfoelie) on "The Other Goebbels - The Story of Dr. Goebbels' Brother" video.

  1. John Turley well there are different kind of socialism, or better, the word socialism is used in different ways. You have socialism as in for example the soviet/maoistic/cuban sort. Thats indeed where everything is more or less state owned/governed. In europe we actually call that communism, though even that does not do it justice. True communism would supposed to be a workers paradise, where everyone is paid the same and power is shared through democracy. It is obvious that soviet/maoism/north Korea etc have thoroughly perverted that. These were/are in fact oligarchies and enormous repressive police states. Dictatorships where the people have no power at all. Americans have been using the word socialism to adress this kind of state forms, however elsewhere, for example in europe and south america the term socialism is used to describe left wing politics and movements. True, they are opposite what you could call capitalism and free market ideology, but also not at all nationalistic. However, the socialism in europe (for example called, socialist democrats) is more a moderation an limitless free market ideology, they stand for ideologies where the poor and without work are supported, the rich are actually taxed (as well as everyone, but in more succesfull cases a bit more) and free market is a bit reigned in. Think Social securities like public health care, affordable housing, an attempt at equal opportunities in areas as schooling etc. The fact that aforementioned states as the ussr for example call themselves socialist does not mean they’re actually socialist, and the same is true for nazi germany. It does indeed just sounds good, ‘all oppressed workers rally on me!’. At the time the nazi’s where vying for power, the world was in pretty big turmoil politically speaking. Great upheaval where monarchies toppled and new ways to keep functioning/govern where finding its way. Socialism arose as one of many movements, but again, it is perverted by the states which put it in their name. You can actually be pretty sure that if a country calls itself ‘democratic’ or ‘socialistic’, it is most certainly not that.
    2
  2. yohannbiimu well, that’s one way to view things, that’s for certain. You present socialism as a slipperly slope that ends up in a repressive regime. Frankly, that’s not true. As far as i know, all western Europe countries have and have had socialist parties (actually i think the whole of the western world apart from the US) of which most if not all have at some point have governed due to election victories. In many cases on their own, not in a coalition. And some for extended times. In the netherlands, socialist parties have been part of government for perhaps half the time since the 2nd world war. In scandinavia as well. Labour has gorverned in the UK. All examples of pretty civilized societies where socialism is simply a part of the political landscape (conservatives/liberals, socialists, green parties, nationalists/populists). A power among other powers. Off course the pure socialistic ideal is an ideal. Yes. The same is true for any movement. But it is absurd to equate socialism (the movement/ideal) to an inevitable slide into a totalitarian regime. Total nonsense. There isnt any proof for that. The ussr, China, north korea, all the soviet satellite states, cuba, so called socialist states in south america, they are all simply dictatorships, most if not all of them brought about by a coup. There was nothing democratic in the forging of them. The (idealistic) influence of socialism, where socialism came to power in true democracies, has not in any case brought about a totalitarian regime. You might be brainwashed that everything that is not pure capitalism or free market is going to end up totalitarian, it is just not true. In fact, take a good long look at pure unbridled capitalism and tell me if that isn’t totalitarian in nature. Social securities are partly responsible for the high living standards in western european countries. In fact the average happiness is largest in scandinavian countries and for example the netherlands. All countries where socialist movement has been part of power, and has had a big impact on society.
    2
  3. John Turley depends on your definition of socialism. We call social democrats a socialist movement. Are they evil? In your book corporates must be saints
    1
  4. John Turley thats a dystopian communist state you are describing. Because the ussr, china and north korea called themselves socialists, doesnt make them so
    1
  5. John Turley sounds more like communism to me but thats semantics. And what you describe is a state working like hard set rules. The only ones that work like that are revolt born dictatorships like the ussr. Anyway, I think there is a big difference between how socialism is looked at and defined in the USA vs for example europe. Socialism here is a normal part in the forces of politics. It’s not a foul word in europe. It’s a movement that seeks to uplift the poor, get access to education, housing and healthcare for everyone. It’s more or less a counterpart against conservatism, borne in the industrial revolution, where the average person was overworked and severely underpaid. Think labor unions, not where they are a hindrance, but where they were a bare necessity to get people some fundamental rights. I suppose the US and europe have had very different developments. Perhaps this is why there is so differently looked at socialism. Dont be assuming that anyone in europe is looking forward to a system like the ussr and north korea and still is saying socialism is not bad.
    1