Is Marxism a form of Socialism imposed by violence?

[Sothis]

I ask if Marxism is a form of Socialism imposed by violence because I am currently debating someone who seems to A: insist that Marxist regimes have always been imposed through violence and that B: if a Socialist regime is imposed by violence, it automatically becomes Marxist in nature.

[Peregrin Toker]

Well, a Marxist supports violent revolution by definition.

But the term "Marxist" implies that the socialist described draws his primary political inspiration from Karl Marx, and technically it is possible for a socialist to support violent revolution without being inspired by Marx.

[Sothis]

But what is it that means a Marxist supports violent revolution by definition, and a bog-standard Socialist who uses violence to support his aims is transformed into a Marxist by doing so?

[Joe]

Well, all socialism is imposed by violence. So is all republicanism, all democracy, all monarchism, and all fascism. You can't have government without the threat of violent force; not that that's a bad thing or unnecessary, that's just how it is. A socialist is government is Marxist if it follows Marxist doctrine and procedure, not solely on the basis of how violent it is.

[MarkIX]

If you don't have a system that rewards personal effort you have to apply force to motivate people to achieve. hence the preponderance of violence, it is the simplist form of force application.

[Stuart Mackey]

I ask if Marxism is a form of Socialism imposed by violence because I am currently debating someone who seems to A: insist that Marxist regimes have always been imposed through violence and that B: if a Socialist regime is imposed by violence, it automatically becomes Marxist in nature.

Define socialism first.

[AdmiralKanos]

I ask if Marxism is a form of Socialism imposed by violence because I am currently debating someone who seems to A: insist that Marxist regimes have always been imposed through violence and that B: if a Socialist regime is imposed by violence, it automatically becomes Marxist in nature.

Marxism is already well-defined, and it is not defined as "socialism imposed by violence" (which I interpret to be actual violence rather than the mere threat of violence as per Durran Korr's definition, under which all governments impose all laws by violence).

Marx advocated the overthrow of the so-called bourgeoisie and the dictatorship of the proletariat (apparently, he was not introspective enough to recognize that he himself was actually bourgeoisie rather than proletariat, by virtue of not working an honest day in his life and living off royalties from Engels' publishing firm), as well as a number of other specific requirements, chief among which was the total abolition of private capital.

Socialism does not advocate the abolition of private capital; it only seeks to bring a large proportion of economic activity under the umbrella of the state. This may seem like hair-splitting but it's not. In a socialist state, you can still have capital investments, albeit heavily taxed ones. In a Marxist state, you cannot.

However, a Marxist state need not be achieved through violent revolution; that was merely what Marx saw as naturally inevitable; it was not one of the requirements of a Marxist state.

[Coyote]

Another boiled-down way to look at it is that Marxism, ie Communism, is supposed to be the abscence of State control, while Socialism is total or near-total state control of resources and infrastructure.

Communism also assumes as doctrine that a bloody revolution between the classes is inevitable, and in fact you cannot have Marxism without bloodshed. Other interpretations of Marx state that the 'revolutionary' steps are gradual and take place over generations, leading to a peaceful assumption of Communit existance.

But you can easily have Socialism without 'bloody revolution' violence (just the garden-variety threat of force all gov't's rely on to maintain order). Sweden is Socialist but hardly bloody. And murderous Socialist regimes are usually Socialist mostly in name-- they are generally Dictatorships, such as Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR.

The lure of Socialism is that it brings all of a nations resources under one centralized authority for fair distribution. Used peacefully and with wisdom it is a great system, but with human beings in charge it tends to become yet another blunt instrument of power.

[Joe]

And murderous Socialist regimes are usually Socialist mostly in name-- they are generally Dictatorships, such as Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR.

Nope, they were both pretty socialist (Nazi Germany less so, obviously).

[Coyote]

And murderous Socialist regimes are usually Socialist mostly in name-- they are generally Dictatorships, such as Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR.

Nope, they were both pretty socialist (Nazi Germany less so, obviously).

Technically, yes, they were socialist in that they conglomerated the resources of the nations involved-- but definitely not for the benefit of the people. The resources were gathered or dominated and made to serve the leader and his cabal of elites, not just the inner circle of individuals but the organizations that propped up the regime (SS, KGB). Whoever joined respective "Partys" got benefits also, other were left out in the cold.

It was done to serve the Dictators' desires for security, empire, dominance, adoration, etc... so yes it was Socialism but to a selfish end rather than social benefit.

[Hamel]

Before WWII, fascism was referred to as corporatism. Hitler's regime wasn't actually socialist. The effort to label it as such was started by Fredrick von Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom in an effort to distance the hard right from the Nazis. Hayek's book is basically one long argument from assertion, and has said that only communism and liberalism would lead to totalitarian systems, so this gives you a hint of how little he really knew.

The workers certainly didn't control production or distribution of goods; they remained in private hands; the Nazi economy relied on private ownership of industry.

On 5/2/33, Hitler's party occupied all trade union HQs. Funds were confiscated, unions busted, and the leaders beaten and arrested. Communists and social dems had been arrested. On the Knight of Long Knives, the socialists were purged from the Nazi party. Yeah, some leftists

To sum up Hitler's views on Marxism:

"Just as in 1918 we paid with our blood for the fact that in 1914 and 1915 we did not proceed to trample the head of Marxist serpent once and for all, we would have to pay most catastrophically if in the spring of 1923 we did not avail ourselves of the opportunity to halt the activity of the Marist traitors and murders of the nation for good" Mein Kampf, p678.

"As regards the possibility of putting these ideas into practice, I beg you not to forget that the parliamentary principle of democratic majority rule has by no means always dominated mankind, but to the contrary is to be found only in brief periods of history, which are always epochs of decay of peoples and states." Mein Kampf, p651

"The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence.

But as in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves,…" Mein Kampf, p449.

No wonder why Ford and other uber capitalists liked this guy.

[Joe]

Oh, certainly, Hitler busted unions in opposition to him. But the Nazi party was called the National Socialist Party for a reason; it drew much of its power from lower-class labor.

As for Hitler being pro-capitalist, I guess this is so, if forcing industrial magnates to sign on with you is pro-capitalist. Also, it wasn't just "the Jews" that Hitler went after, it was the rich, greedy, usurious Jews that had stabbed Germany in the bank. Jealousy and hatred of the Jews has historically been at least partially motivated by their wealth, and Nazi Germany was no exception.

There's also this, from Mein Kampf.

[M]oney became more and more of a God whom all had to serve and bow down to. Heavenly Gods became more and more old-fashioned and were laid away in the corners to make room for the worship of mammon. And thus began a period of utter degeneration which became specially pernicious because it set in at a time when the nation was more than ever in need of an exalted idea, for a critical hour was threatening. Germany should have been prepared to protect with the sword her efforts to win her own daily bread in a peaceful way. Unfortunately, the predominance of money received support and sanction in the very quarter which ought to have been opposed to it.? In practice, however, all ideal virtues became secondary considerations to those of money, for it was clear that having once taken this road, the nobility of the sword would very soon rank second to that of finance.? A serious state of economic disruption was being brought about by the slow elimination of the personal control of vested interests and the gradual transference of the whole economic structure into the hands of joint stock companies?. In this way labour became degraded into an object of speculation in the hands of unscrupulous exploiters. The de-personalization of property ownership increased on a vast scale. Financial exchange circles began to triumph and made slow but sure progress in assuming control of the whole of national life.? The best evidence of how far this ?commercialization? of the German nation was able to go can be plainly seen in the fact that when the War was over one of the leading captains of German industry and commerce gave it as his opinion that commerce as such was the only force which could put Germany on its feet again.

Emphasis mine. Sound familiar?

He also nationalized healthcare, starting in 1939, despite speaking negatively about it and other social programs in Mein Kampf. As Mike said, socialism does not inherently try to abolish capital, it simply attempts to bring a good deal of economic activity under the control of the state. And that is a perfect assessment of Nazi Germany.

Hitler was no doubt a right-wing conservative on social issues and on warfare, but like many crazy right-wing social conservatives, he held his share of leftist positions on economic issues. It is perfectly fair to call him a corporatist, for that he was, and he no doubt hated Marxism, but he was a socialist as well.

[Hamel]

Oh, certainly, Hitler busted unions in opposition to him. But the Nazi party was called the National Socialist Party for a reason; it drew much of its power from lower-class labor.

Hitler did appeal to socialist ideals before he gained absolute power. But after he became dictator, his National Socialism turned into a misnomer. Hitler busted the unions and replaced them with industrialist-controlled organizations; these are probably the pro-Hitler "unions" you were hinting at.

As for Hitler being pro-capitalist, I guess this is so, if forcing industrial magnates to sign on with you is pro-capitalist. Also, it wasn't just "the Jews" that Hitler went after, it was the rich, greedy, usurious Jews that had stabbed Germany in the bank. Jealousy and hatred of the Jews has historically been at least partially motivated by their wealth, and Nazi Germany was no exception.

There's also this, from Mein Kampf.

[M]oney became more and more of a God whom all had to serve and bow down to. Heavenly Gods became more and more old-fashioned and were laid away in the corners to make room for the worship of mammon. And thus began a period of utter degeneration which became specially pernicious because it set in at a time when the nation was more than ever in need of an exalted idea, for a critical hour was threatening. Germany should have been prepared to protect with the sword her efforts to win her own daily bread in a peaceful way. Unfortunately, the predominance of money received support and sanction in the very quarter which ought to have been opposed to it.? In practice, however, all ideal virtues became secondary considerations to those of money, for it was clear that having once taken this road, the nobility of the sword would very soon rank second to that of finance.? A serious state of economic disruption was being brought about by the slow elimination of the personal control of vested interests and the gradual transference of the whole economic structure into the hands of joint stock companies?. In this way labour became degraded into an object of speculation in the hands of unscrupulous exploiters. The de-personalization of property ownership increased on a vast scale. Financial exchange circles began to triumph and made slow but sure progress in assuming control of the whole of national life.? The best evidence of how far this ?commercialization? of the German nation was able to go can be plainly seen in the fact that when the War was over one of the leading captains of German industry and commerce gave it as his opinion that commerce as such was the only force which could put Germany on its feet again.

This doesn't sound much different from capitalist conservative Christians, who lecture about greed and whatnot but then turn around and support a completely free market economy.

He also nationalized healthcare, starting in 1939, despite speaking negatively about it and other social programs in Mein Kampf. As Mike said, socialism does not inherently try to abolish capital, it simply attempts to bring a good deal of economic activity under the control of the state. And that is a perfect assessment of Nazi Germany.

Hitler did not force American corporations to do business with him, nor did he require it of many of the German national industries. Electric utilities, for example, were privatized. No decrees were needed to gather or coerce support for the regime, since the businesses lined up, sometimes literally around the death camps, to take advantage of the slave labor.

In other examples of Facist non-socialism, Mussolini privatized the insurance system in 1923, the telephone system in 1925, and many of the public systems.

In any case, it would still be that workers did not own the means of
production: quite a hurdle that must be cleared before you hit real socialism.

Hitler was no doubt a right-wing conservative on social issues and on warfare, but like many crazy right-wing social conservatives, he held his share of leftist positions on economic issues. It is perfectly fair to call him a corporatist, for that he was, and he no doubt hated Marxism, but he was a socialist as well.

Most of his socialist tendencies were done away with after he became dictator, and there is far too much capitalist idealogy amoung his administration, too much private ownership, and rejection of socialist/commie influences to safely call him a socialist imo.

[Joe]

Hitler did appeal to socialist ideals before he gained absolute power. But after he became dictator, his National Socialism turned into a misnomer. Hitler busted the unions and replaced them with industrialist-controlled organizations; these are probably the pro-Hitler "unions" you were hinting at.

Nope. Hitler became more socialist as the years rolled by, not less so. In his early years in power he spoke out against socialist policies like national healthcare, compulsory insurance, and such, but later changed his position.

And the fact that he busted labor unions still doesn't change the fact that he rose to power by appealing to lower-class labor, though not specifically labor unions, and remained that way by doing the same. That he appealed to big business as well doesn't make a difference, either. Hitler was undeniably a populist.

This doesn't sound much different from capitalist conservative Christians, who lecture about greed and whatnot but then turn around and support a completely free market economy.

Red herring. And actually, he sounds more like Pat Buchanan, certainly no friend of capitalism but a hardcore conservative nonetheless, with the "money is supplanting religion" tripe.

Hitler did not force American corporations to do business with him, nor did he require it of many of the German national industries. Electric utilities, for example, were privatized. No decrees were needed to gather or coerce support for the regime, since the businesses lined up, sometimes literally around the death camps, to take advantage of the slave labor.

Of course he didn't force American corporations to do business with him; it wasn't within his power to do so, given that American corporations not once fell under his jurisdiction.

That some industries were allowed more freedom than others doesn't make Nazi Germany capitalistic. Nazi Germany was characterized by central planning, with the government intervening heavily in the economy. John Maynard Keynes admired the Nazi model, to his discredit. Hitler was protectionist as hell, he created jobs programs, national unemployment insurance, price controls, supported family planning.

In other examples of Facist non-socialism, Mussolini privatized the insurance system in 1923, the telephone system in 1925, and many of the public systems.

Not really relevant, given the topic at hand is Nazism.

n any case, it would still be that workers did not own the means of
production: quite a hurdle that must be cleared before you hit real socialism.

Black/white fallacy. That he didn't reach pure socialism doesn't mean that his policies were not socialistic.

[Peregrin Toker]

In other examples of Facist non-socialism, Mussolini privatized the insurance system in 1923, the telephone system in 1925, and many of the public systems.

actually, Mussolini was leader of the Italian Socialist Party until 1914 and apparently only left it because the ISP was too internationalist for his liking - there are strong evidence that Mussolini's primary source of inspiration was none other than Vladimir Lenin.

[Coyote]

In naming the Nazi Party the "National Socialist Party" Hitler was trying to play all sides of the fence. Bear in mind it was the "National Socialist German Worker's Party", and each word was chosen to ring in the ears of certain demographics.

IN William F. Shirer's landmark book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", he remarks that "National" and "German" were there to stir the old nationalists and Junkers and add an air of patriotism; while "Socialist" appealed to the urban classes while "Worker's Party" was there to catch the attention of the working class, and wean scores of Communist fence-sitters away from the siren call of Marxism/Communism. There were a lot of Communists in Germany at the time and there had to be some way to appeal to their numbers.

Hitler seemed pretty good to big business, but again, only to his selfish ends. Bear in mind what he was inheriting-- the wreckage of post-war Germany in a worldwide Depression. Isolating German industry and economy was probably the best thing anyone could have done. As things picked up, though, it became evident that his posturing about protecting business, the workers, the Junker nobility-- it was all smoke and mirrors to get the NSDAP elected and get him past President Hindenburg. The factories became his-- the Reich's-- and served his purposes. Any money the corporations made and any job security the people had was incidental.

[Peregrin Toker]

In naming the Nazi Party the "National Socialist Party" Hitler was trying to play all sides of the fence. Bear in mind it was the "National Socialist German Worker's Party", and each word was chosen to ring in the ears of certain demographics.

A bit like there's a danish party called the Conservative People's Party. (seems rather ironic since conservatives per definition are elitarian)