Marines posed with Nazi SS symbol in Afghanistan

[Superbeast]

Ok, I concede that point, It takes more study for someone to realize that the Nazis were socialists.

I've studied them quite extensively during both my schooling and my own attraction to the Second World War; yet I have not seen them academically described as socialists at all.

The Nazis were most definitely socialist by everyone's definition in the 1930s, and I would argue it is the same right now. Read literature on socialism from the 1930s. There were two main branches, Communism and the newly founded and much favored by the UK and France's respective intelligentsia Fascism.

"Nazism, the common short form name of National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus) was the ideology and practice of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (otherwise known as the Nazi Party) and of Nazi Germany. It is a unique variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.[5] Nazism was founded out of elements of the far-right racist völkisch German nationalist movement and the violent anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the uprisings of communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Ok, can you recommend me some 30s literature on the subject? As I said above I have not seen anything that legitimately describes the Nazis as socialists.

The closest you can get is:

"Initially Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, though such aspects were later downplayed in the 1930s to gain the support from industrial owners for the Nazis; focus was shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Though as you can see, by the 1930s the "socialist" elements of the ideology had been dropped, as as we see from the handling of Germany after Hitler's rise to power, they were very much not Socialists.

In fact, fascism is almost diametrically opposed to socialism in many respects. Here's some quotes from the Wikipedia page on Fascism:

"Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism ? communism and social democracy."

"Fascists reject the conventional form of democracy?majoritarian democracy that assumes human equality, and instead claim that fascism represents an organized and centralized authoritarian democracy.[13] This fascist form of democracy advocates the rule of the most qualified, rather than rule by a majority of numbers.[14] Fascists reject majoritarian democracies as being based on quantitative and egalitarian evaluation of individuals and their opinions rather than on qualities."

"There is a running dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides. Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but Italian Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s. Benito Mussolini in 1919 described fascism as a syncretic movement that would strike "against the backwardness of the right and the destructiveness of the left". Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century." They also, however, officially declared that although they were "sitting on the right" they were generally indifferent to their position on the left-right spectrum, as being a conclusion of their combination of views rather than an objective, and considering it insignificant to the basis of their views, which they claimed could just as easily be associated with "the mountain of the center" as with the right. Major elements of fascism have been deemed as clearly far right, such as its goals of the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements; and in the case of Nazism, genocide of people deemed to be inferior."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

From wikipedia: Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system.

That is exactly what I said (I even checked my definition by referring to that same Wikipedia page).

Communism is a system(not yet achieved on this earth) wherein there is no money, no classes, no state and everyone shares in the ownership of everything. Socialism may have had a different definition before(Much in the same way the term liberal slowly evolved to become libertarian, while conversely the anti-federalists became the democratic-republican party became the democrat party who are somehow liberals despite being only tentatively in favor of the original ideas of liberalism,) but we have to go on how socialist governments are actually run and not theory.

Indeed we do - but that theory of what Socialism is has not changed dramatically (well, except for in America where it seems that everything the Democrats propose is decried as Socialist); unlike for example the major political shifts of the Democrats and Republicans in American history. It is very different from Communism, I am not sure why you brought that up, as I've not been talking about Communism at all, but Socialism.

Although again I have to question your definitions - the lack of money is not a sole aspect of Communism:

"often entailing the end of capitalistic economic categories such as rent, interest, profit and money."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism is and has always been a government control of the economy. Under a socialist system the idea is that the social ownership and control of the economy is effected through the government that is elected by the people. Thus if the people control the government then the people control the management of the economy.

No, it is not. Government control of the economy can be an element of Socialism, but the very difinition of Socialism typically excludes government control. As quoted above, Socialism entails the social ownership of the economy.

Social ownership:

"may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

None of those terms refer to government management of the economy. The closest you can get is the "autonomous state enterprises", but that is still wildly different (and were only employed in Germany when individual private enterprises were failing or too inefficient for the government, rather than being an economy-wide action adopted for the entirety of the German economy).

?The ownership of the means of production can be based on direct ownership by the users of the productive property through worker cooperative; or commonly owned by all of society with management and control delegated to those who operate/use the means of production; or public ownership by a state apparatus. Public ownership may refer to the creation of state-owned enterprises, nationalisation or municipalisation. The fundamental feature of a socialist economy is that publicly owned, worker-run institutions produce goods and services in at least the commanding heights of the economy. Management and control over the activities of enterprises is based on self-management and self-governance, with equal power-relations in the workplace to maximize occupational autonomy. A socialist form of organization would eliminate controlling hierarchies so that only a hierarchy based on technical knowledge in the workplace remains. Every member would have decision-making power in the firm and would be able to participate in establishing its overall policy objectives. The policies/goals would be carried out by the technical specialists that form the coordinating hierarchy of the firm, who would establish plans or directives for the work community to accomplish these goals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

So yes, there can be government-controlled socialist economies, but the way and form that the government control takes is wildly different to anything done in Nazi Germany.

The one-party statism is simply a by-product of most socialist systems. Both Hitler and the Nazi party were elected by popular support: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932 and controlled the economy through popular support.

Actually, it is a product of Fascism itself; rather than being something unique to Socialism. You cannot cite the fact that the Nazi party were elected as being proof of Socialism. A Fascist party can still have popular support (and indeed did, in the case of Germany).

"Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Look at other governments that are declared socialist and widely accepted socialist governments now. Unless of course you think they aren't socialist governments either(at which point it becomes a bankrupted term because communism already fills the slot you're trying to put it in.) The USSR, was democratically elected both before and after they took power.

Your earlier interpretation of Socialism would mean that any democratic nation on Earth is a "socialist government" (because the Government controls the national economy, and the Government is elected by the people, therefore the people control the economy - which surely shows you the flaw in your interpretation of Socialism?). Please state which Socialist governments in particular you would like me to look at and how they relate to Nazism.

After they were elected they controlled the economy entirely directly, through political commissars.

Not seen that before, have you a source? Also, as detailed above, government control of the economy is not something inherent to Socialism (or only attributable to Socialism). The economic policies of the Nazis are also very much not-Socialist:

"Nazism promoted an economic system that supported a stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent while rejecting universal egalitarianism, retaining private property, freedom of contract, and promoted the creation of national solidarity that would transcend class distinction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

That's what socialism is, government controlled economy(for increased understanding: communism is stateless by definition and thus no government actually controls the economy, however communism has never actually existed in practice, even the soviets freely admitted they were just socialists who hoped one day to be communists.)

As I explained above, that is not what Socialism is. Please refer back to the paragraph.

Now look at Germany, the government was formed in the same way as the socialist governments, with the same economic controls. The German government told the private business owners exactly what to build, how much of it to build, and the Nazis took whatever they wanted from those businesses economically as well as paying for the costs of those businesses continued livelihood.

No, it was not. Fascism and Socialism share some elements (notably a proletariat nation opposed to the bourgeois), but it had very different economic controls and pursued very different styles of economy. Hitler can be described as an "anti-Capitalist", but he was also an "anti-Socialist". As such you are going to see some cross-over with Socialism (in its anti-Capitalist propaganda and reasoning), yet you cannot claim that what the Nazis pursued is a Socialist economy.

Hitler wanted a strong, dictated-by-the-government (regardless of the will of the people) economy:

"Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation"

"I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners."

"However, Hitler had little tolerance for Goebbels insistence upon adherence to socialist ideas and alliance with leftist and socialist parties as Hitler had abandoned them by the time the party rose to power. In correspondence Goebbels tried to convince Hitler the Nazis and the left share a common enemy in capitalists, however, Hitler disagreed and adamantly stated that capitalists are not the enemy of Nazis."

"A number of other Nazis held strong revolutionary socialist and anti-capitalist beliefs, most prominently Ernst Röhm...Hitler saw Röhm's independent actions as violating and possibly threatening his leadership, as well as jeopardizing the regime by alienating the conservative President Paul von Hindenburg and the conservative-oriented German army. This resulted in Hitler purging Röhm and other radical members of the SA."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Economics

To put it in a different perspective it would be like saying "I own this house" and having the title in your name. But you don't pay the bills on it, the government does. The government gets to choose what furniture is in your house, if you don't like it they can kick you out, you have to do whatever they say whenever you are inside 'your' house. They have the right to burn down your house, knock out walls, take away anything you have inside. Do you really own the house?

Again, there are similarities to Socialism in the Nazi's actions (see: the Junkers aeroplane factory), yet the overall economic policy was not Socialist. Hell, the level of state-control is even questionable:

"To the proposition that businesses were private property in name but not in substance, in The Journal of Economic History article "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry", Christoph Buchheim and Jonas Scherner counter that despite state control, business had much production and investment planning freedom ? while the economy was still to a larger degree politically controlled it "does not necessarily mean that private property of enterprises was not of any significance [...] For despite extensive regulatory activity by an interventionist public administration, firms preserved a good deal of their autonomy even under the Nazi regime"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Economics

This is a video game forum so I'm assuming you're familiar with 'the sims'. Who is in charge of what happens in that game? Is it the sims because they are the main characters of the game and appear to be in charge? Or is it the player sitting back and pulling all the strings making every real decision?

A very bad example - again, it would make every single country in the world Socialist, which shows that it cannot be accurate.

Saying that the Nazis were capitalists is like saying a slaughterhouse is run by the cows because the meat is really theirs.

The Nazis were not capitalists? Really? Yes, they had anti-capitalist rhetoric early on, but if you look at the economic policies, the support of for-profit companies and so on, despite this rhetoric the economy under the Nazis was still very much Capitalist.

An apt article on the reasons why Nazism is Socialism is http://mises.org/daily/1937

An article that begins with the argument relating to the full name of the Nazi party - I already explained why that is a stupid argument (and it does not give me faith in the article), but still I shall read on and let you know what I think!

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

And as demonstrated earlier, other academics question the level of control the government actually exuded over private companies (see: Christoph Buchheim (27Jun2006). "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry". The Journal of Economic History: 390?416); and as such I call into question his entire driving point (and associated points, such as his belief that if the State owned a person then the property owned by the person was owned by the state)

Wage controls? Inflation? Those are used in many non-Socialist governments too. To a much lesser extent, so are price controls.

I disagree with nearly the entire article, though it pains me that I don't have time to attack it in-depth.

There is a lot of very good, very academic work that puts the Nazis as a right-wing Fascist group, none of which this article has attempted to counter. It has been long established that despite being a firmly right-wing party the Nazis did absorb some left-wing policies (to help further their goals and to ensure the support of the Aryan people). I explained earlier that state-ownership is not Socialism in and of itself - it can exist under both Capitalist and Socialist economies, and Socialism most certainly does not require government control of the economy either. Totalitarianism is also not the sole ground of Socialism, and conflating the two in order to make the Nazis appear Socialist is not terribly fair for rigorous academic works.

Then about half-way down the article it turns into a paranoid anti-Socialism rant, and that rant completely skips over the fact that the German people (provided they were Aryan) were well provided for by the Nazi state, and had seen major improvements to their quality of life post-depression. It then takes great pride in further (still!) conflating totalitarianism and socialism, which is simply wrong.

However, the main failing is to refer purely to the Nazis economic policies and then label the whole party as Socialist. Whilst Socialism is indeed a system of economics, it also has a lot of inherent political ideology, which the Nazis did not share (and I have already talked about the economic system above).

It then goes on to talk about how the US is moving towards Fascism, that Freedom of Speech and so forth are under threat from the government, is from an instituted devoted to Austrian economics (as was Mises' views) and hails Ayn Rand and the need to defend the Free Market. That doesn't do wonders for its credibility; and it colours the entire article as seeming an attempt to link the Nazis irrevocably with Socialism to prove why (any) government regulation of the (American) economy is a bad thing.

As such I think this shows there is good reason that:

"apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state".

 

[Comrade_Beric]

There are only two possibilities here. Either the guys knew what it meant and used it anyway or the guys only encountered it visually before and didn't know what they were using. This means we either have a marine corps staffed by people who want to be associated with the most racist right-wing political organization on earth, or we have a marine corps that is staffed by people who are so ignorant of history that they can't recognize the symbol for the most racist right-wing political organization on earth. Either way this is flatly unacceptable.

As a point of honesty, however, a friend of mine used to be in the US Army signals intelligence serving in northern Japan at the end of the cold war and he said that they had a Nazi battle flag [http://bootsnallonline.co.nz/images/ww2nazi%20Battle.jpg] hung on the wall of their work center which they took down only for inspections. I think US military has had a long standing problem of attracting neo-nazi wannabes and this is only just now revealing that fact to the public.

 

[Natasha_LB]

Okay I don't have time to wade through 11 pages of posts, so perhaps this point has already been made, but here's my opinion on the whole thing. Ignorance is no excuse for what they did, and I find it highly un-lightly that they were ignorant to the true meaning of the symbol... If the US military are that uneducated, it enforces many negative stereotypes about the US, and makes me lose almost all respect for the Marines.

The men involved should be court marshalled. They must have know what SS meant (If they didn't I believe they still deserve to be court marshalled for ignorance - how can you trust someone with a weapon if they lack basic knowledge about the world?) and they must have known how offensive it would be, even if they see it differently the rest of the world does not, and I fail to see how they could not have known that.

To these "soldiers" (And calling them that greatly devalues the word). Screw you!! Oh and by the way, I believe that "Screw you" means "you're doing a great job keep it up!" Still offended by it? Of course you are, because your logic is flawed. It fails in this example, and it fails as a defense for you. You're all either stupid, or racist, and either way you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Oh and to those defending these guys, and the use of the symbol: WTF? Seriously, take a good hard look at yourselves, reanalyze your viewpoint, and then try and tell me that it's not offensive, or that you're not supporting racism (Even if the support is incidental rather than purposeful). If find this sort of thing okay then you might want to make sure there are no magnets near you, as something is clearly messing with your moral compass.

 

[Do4600]

What do you think about this?

I can only see two possibilities here, take your pick:

1. They are blindingly stupid and unaware of 20th century history.
2. They are Nazis.

I don't know which one would be worse, but it has to be one or the other.

 

[Sarge034]

Okay I don't have time to wade through 11 pages of posts, so perhaps this point has already been made, but here's my opinion on the whole thing. Ignorance is no excuse for what they did, and I find it highly un-lightly that they were ignorant to the true meaning of the symbol... If the US military are that uneducated, it enforces many negative stereotypes about the US, and makes me lose almost all respect for the Marines.

Er.... because every Marine EVER was holding the flag? You know I think a guy murdered another guy a while ago. All humans are murderers.

Spoiler: Also no one had a problem when the band KISS did it... CLICK ON ME, I'm A SPOILER BOX!!!

The men involved should be court marshalled. They must have know what SS meant (If they didn't I believe they still deserve to be court marshalled for ignorance - how can you trust someone with a weapon if they lack basic knowledge about the world?) and they must have known how offensive it would be, even if they see it differently the rest of the world does not, and I fail to see how they could not have known that.

SS = Schutzstaffel = Protection Squadron or defense corps

Wow.... I actually had no idea what SS meant, and I have a feeling you didn't either. Now, I believe you are trying to say that they should have known what the "SS" represented. Well, the swastika is either a symbol of peace or the symbol used by the Nazis. A symbol can represent many different things. I believe that if you knew anything about what snipers regularly do that it would make sense why Scout Snipers who routinely provide over watch, or otherwise act as a Protection Squadron, would choose to put "SS" on their flag.

As for the men being court marshaled for ignorance. I believe you should be jailed for being uninformed on the true meaning of "SS" but still trying to build an argument on it. Both arguments have the same amount of validity. None.

To these "soldiers" (And calling them that greatly devalues the word).

Why yes, yes it does. "Soldiers" are in the Army, "Marines" are in the Marines, "Sailors" are in the Navy, and "Airmen" are in the Air Force.

Screw you!! Oh and by the way, I believe that "Screw you" means "you're doing a great job keep it up!" Still offended by it? Of course you are, because your logic is flawed. It fails in this example, and it fails as a defense for you. You're all either stupid, or racist, and either way you should be ashamed of yourselves.

So "screw you" has multiple possible meanings, and some of those meanings are not derogatory or insulting right?

Here is a better example; I give you a "thumbs up". In "western" society it means "good job" or "I approve". In "middle eastern" society it means that you think so little of them that you wish to violate them in the rear with your thumb. No joke.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16335_7-innocent-gestures-that-can-get-you-killed-overseas.html

Oh and to those defending these guys, and the use of the symbol: WTF? Seriously, take a good hard look at yourselves, reanalyze your viewpoint...

I would look at myself, but the closest mirror is in the bathroom and that is soooooo far away. I did reanalyze my viewpoint however, and came to the same conclusion. Inconclusive. I don't know these men, their intentions, or why they were posing for a picture. I know that I don't have enough information to pass judgment on them. I know that automatically saying they are "ignorant", "uneducated", "deserving of a court martial", "stupid", "racist", and "logically flawed" just because they used a multi-meaning symbol on their flag is wrong though.

..., and then try and tell me that it's not offensive, or that you're not supporting racism (Even if the support is incidental rather than purposeful)...

The flag is not offensive to me because they could be using it for legitimate reasons. The initials for Scout Sniper is "SS". They act as protectors which is what the initials "SS" stand for in German. I do not support racism in any way, shape, or form.

...If find this sort of thing okay then you might want to make sure there are no magnets near you, as something is clearly messing with your moral compass.

That was uncalled for. You can disagree with people, defend your point of view, and have a discussion, but personal attacks are uncalled for.

I believe my moral compass to be in good standing. I believe rape, murder, racism, stealing, inhumane treatment of others, Justin Beiber, Rebecca Black's "Friday", and prejudice to be bad things. So is my compass in good standing, or are these things actually good?


Now I would like to have a civilized discussion with you so please present you opions and facts in a clam, colected manner that does not make any personal attacks. Thank you.