First
Who was the Nazi party initially formed in response to? What similar trend are we seeing in America right now? Socialists introduce a game and once the rules of that game are accepted by the opposite party you get a war, in Germany the difference between it and the USSR and China was the socialists lost their own game.
What do you mean, "who was it formed in response to"? It was formed in part in response to the First World War and opposition to armistice, though it also grew from existing nationalist, militarist, and racist sentiments.
I don't really know what you're talking about with a "game". The Nazi party was formed by avowed nationalists, and was violently hostile to workers' parties such as the SPD & KPD from the outset.
Second
Irrelevant. I only care about capitalism in so much as it's better than the other systems offered. Further, capitalist systems have not been shown to inevitably lead to dictatorships like socialism has.
Once again: you've shown examples of
one extreme form of socialism leading to dictatorship. Non-dictatorial democratic socialist countries exist around the world.
Third
Point me to a system that's tried any other form of group ownership that hasn't fallen apart and no the Scandinavian countries aren't socialist.
How can I accomplish this, if you're just going to dismiss whatever examples I provide without explanation?
You should be questioning what is widely accepted or acknowledged. Why can't something be right-wing and socialist? "Because the definitions say right-wing is against socialism" isn't a good answer, and dilutes any unique meaning of left and right wing as political descriptions.Left-wing doesn't mean socialism. Right-wing doesn't mean capitalism.
I'm not really interested in redefining a political term that's already widely used and understood. I don't see the problem with the existing definition as understood by political theorists and historians already, and it seems to me that you only really want to redefine these terms so you can say the Nazis are left-wing.
I do wonder why people consider Scandinavia socialist... Or to be more precise why Scandinavia specifically? What makes it so different from France, Belgium, Italy, Spain,...? All I see are Social Liberal (Capitalistic) countries with different degrees of taxation, social welfare, etc. But they are all very similar and have pretty much the same core guiding principles. I mean France has the highest Taxes to GDP ratio of all OECD countries, it has universal healthcare, accessible higher education and many more left wing social liberal characteristics, so why Scandinavia? Am I missing something?
PS: Social Democracy (Democratic Socialism?) sounds like left wing social liberalism and something a lot of socialists would consider fake socialism as it still accepts Capitalism...
Socialism is not entirely incompatible with capitalism. Countries such as France and Norway have
some areas under communal/public ownership (which is a hallmark of socialism) and
other areas under private ownership (as expected in a capitalist country). They are not purely one thing or the other.
You're right to point out that loads of Western European countries have elements of communal ownership (such as nationalised industries or utilities). The difference is a matter of scale: the large welfare state, wide unionisation, free higher education & medicine, and exceptionally high level of public-sector employment set Scandinavian countries apart to an extent. It goes beyond what is usually understood when we talk about the mixed market capitalism of Western Europe.
