Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[Tehon]

Obviously the heart surgeon commands more money.

Are you being serious?

ROFL. I thought all labor was equal.

It is, quantitatively. But you think it is meaningless.

Meaning 5 hours is 5 hours. You're great at posting tautologies.

The question here is if they have the same value. What does Marx say about that?

He sees it as generalized labor. An hour of labor is equal to an hour of labor. It is quantitatively the same, qualitatively different.

The reason the heart surgeon commands more money is due to the accumulated labor in acquiring the skills necessary to perform heart surgery. It increases the value of his commodity, which is his labor. The total accumulated value in performing heart surgery is greater than that of pulling weeds.


Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One
Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.

We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]

Marx is weaseling around the concept of the market price. That's all he means by "the amount of labour socially necessary." There are so many flaws in his rationalization that I wouldn't waste my time debunking it. Many economists have already done that. The bottom line is that the above is pure bunk.

It seems to be correct to begin with the real and the concrete, with the real precondition, thus to begin, in economics, with e.g. the population, which is the foundation and the subject of the entire social act of production. However, on closer examination this proves false. The population is an abstraction if I leave out, for example, the classes of which it is composed. These classes in turn are an empty phrase if I am not familiar with the elements on which they rest. E.g. wage labour, capital, etc. These latter in turn presuppose exchange, division of labour, prices, etc. For example, capital is nothing without wage labour, without value, money, price etc. Thus, if I were to begin with the population, this would be a chaotic conception [Vorstellung] of the whole, and I would then, by means of further determination, move analytically towards ever more simple concepts [Begriff], from the imagined concrete towards ever thinner abstractions until I had arrived at the simplest determinations. From there the journey would have to be retraced until I had finally arrived at the population again, but this time not as the chaotic conception of a whole, but as a rich totality of many determinations and relations. The former is the path historically followed by economics at the time of its origins. The economists of the seventeenth century, e.g., always begin with the living whole, with population, nation, state, several states, etc.; but they always conclude by discovering through analysis a small number of determinant, abstract, general relations such as division of labour, money, value, etc. As soon as these individual moments had been more or less firmly established and abstracted, there began the economic systems, which ascended from the simple relations, such as labour, division of labour, need, exchange value, to the level of the state, exchange between nations and the world market. The latter is obviously the scientifically correct method..........
Grundrisse 01

 

[deanrd]

Republicans don't care what socialism is.

It's all about stripping everything out of the country they can. Greed is their guide.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL. I thought all labor was equal.

It is, quantitatively. But you think it is meaningless.

Meaning 5 hours is 5 hours. You're great at posting tautologies.

The question here is if they have the same value. What does Marx say about that?

He sees it as generalized labor. An hour of labor is equal to an hour of labor. It is quantitatively the same, qualitatively different.

The reason the heart surgeon commands more money is due to the accumulated labor in acquiring the skills necessary to perform heart surgery. It increases the value of his commodity, which is his labor. The total accumulated value in performing heart surgery is greater than that of pulling weeds.


Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One
Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.

We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]

Marx is weaseling around the concept of the market price. That's all he means by "the amount of labour socially necessary." There are so many flaws in his rationalization that I wouldn't waste my time debunking it. Many economists have already done that. The bottom line is that the above is pure bunk.

It seems to be correct to begin with the real and the concrete, with the real precondition, thus to begin, in economics, with e.g. the population, which is the foundation and the subject of the entire social act of production. However, on closer examination this proves false. The population is an abstraction if I leave out, for example, the classes of which it is composed. These classes in turn are an empty phrase if I am not familiar with the elements on which they rest. E.g. wage labour, capital, etc. These latter in turn presuppose exchange, division of labour, prices, etc. For example, capital is nothing without wage labour, without value, money, price etc. Thus, if I were to begin with the population, this would be a chaotic conception [Vorstellung] of the whole, and I would then, by means of further determination, move analytically towards ever more simple concepts [Begriff], from the imagined concrete towards ever thinner abstractions until I had arrived at the simplest determinations. From there the journey would have to be retraced until I had finally arrived at the population again, but this time not as the chaotic conception of a whole, but as a rich totality of many determinations and relations. The former is the path historically followed by economics at the time of its origins. The economists of the seventeenth century, e.g., always begin with the living whole, with population, nation, state, several states, etc.; but they always conclude by discovering through analysis a small number of determinant, abstract, general relations such as division of labour, money, value, etc. As soon as these individual moments had been more or less firmly established and abstracted, there began the economic systems, which ascended from the simple relations, such as labour, division of labour, need, exchange value, to the level of the state, exchange between nations and the world market. The latter is obviously the scientifically correct method..........
Grundrisse 01

Blubber blubber blubber, yaba daba doo, abracadabra!

 

[bripat9643]

Republicans don't care what socialism is.

It's all about stripping everything out of the country they can. Greed is their guide.

That's what socialism does, fool.

 

[deanrd]

It is, quantitatively. But you think it is meaningless.

Meaning 5 hours is 5 hours. You're great at posting tautologies.

The question here is if they have the same value. What does Marx say about that?

He sees it as generalized labor. An hour of labor is equal to an hour of labor. It is quantitatively the same, qualitatively different.

The reason the heart surgeon commands more money is due to the accumulated labor in acquiring the skills necessary to perform heart surgery. It increases the value of his commodity, which is his labor. The total accumulated value in performing heart surgery is greater than that of pulling weeds.


Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One
Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.

We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]

Marx is weaseling around the concept of the market price. That's all he means by "the amount of labour socially necessary." There are so many flaws in his rationalization that I wouldn't waste my time debunking it. Many economists have already done that. The bottom line is that the above is pure bunk.

It seems to be correct to begin with the real and the concrete, with the real precondition, thus to begin, in economics, with e.g. the population, which is the foundation and the subject of the entire social act of production. However, on closer examination this proves false. The population is an abstraction if I leave out, for example, the classes of which it is composed. These classes in turn are an empty phrase if I am not familiar with the elements on which they rest. E.g. wage labour, capital, etc. These latter in turn presuppose exchange, division of labour, prices, etc. For example, capital is nothing without wage labour, without value, money, price etc. Thus, if I were to begin with the population, this would be a chaotic conception [Vorstellung] of the whole, and I would then, by means of further determination, move analytically towards ever more simple concepts [Begriff], from the imagined concrete towards ever thinner abstractions until I had arrived at the simplest determinations. From there the journey would have to be retraced until I had finally arrived at the population again, but this time not as the chaotic conception of a whole, but as a rich totality of many determinations and relations. The former is the path historically followed by economics at the time of its origins. The economists of the seventeenth century, e.g., always begin with the living whole, with population, nation, state, several states, etc.; but they always conclude by discovering through analysis a small number of determinant, abstract, general relations such as division of labour, money, value, etc. As soon as these individual moments had been more or less firmly established and abstracted, there began the economic systems, which ascended from the simple relations, such as labour, division of labour, need, exchange value, to the level of the state, exchange between nations and the world market. The latter is obviously the scientifically correct method..........
Grundrisse 01

Blubber blubber blubber, yaba daba doo, abracadabra!

You're having a Triumpertantrum.

 

[deanrd]

Republicans don't care what socialism is.

It's all about stripping everything out of the country they can. Greed is their guide.

That's what socialism does, fool.

You think greed kills school lunches for poor children and then you call me a fool?
Hilarious!

 

[Tehon]

It is, quantitatively. But you think it is meaningless.

Meaning 5 hours is 5 hours. You're great at posting tautologies.

The question here is if they have the same value. What does Marx say about that?

He sees it as generalized labor. An hour of labor is equal to an hour of labor. It is quantitatively the same, qualitatively different.

The reason the heart surgeon commands more money is due to the accumulated labor in acquiring the skills necessary to perform heart surgery. It increases the value of his commodity, which is his labor. The total accumulated value in performing heart surgery is greater than that of pulling weeds.


Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One
Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.

We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]

Marx is weaseling around the concept of the market price. That's all he means by "the amount of labour socially necessary." There are so many flaws in his rationalization that I wouldn't waste my time debunking it. Many economists have already done that. The bottom line is that the above is pure bunk.

It seems to be correct to begin with the real and the concrete, with the real precondition, thus to begin, in economics, with e.g. the population, which is the foundation and the subject of the entire social act of production. However, on closer examination this proves false. The population is an abstraction if I leave out, for example, the classes of which it is composed. These classes in turn are an empty phrase if I am not familiar with the elements on which they rest. E.g. wage labour, capital, etc. These latter in turn presuppose exchange, division of labour, prices, etc. For example, capital is nothing without wage labour, without value, money, price etc. Thus, if I were to begin with the population, this would be a chaotic conception [Vorstellung] of the whole, and I would then, by means of further determination, move analytically towards ever more simple concepts [Begriff], from the imagined concrete towards ever thinner abstractions until I had arrived at the simplest determinations. From there the journey would have to be retraced until I had finally arrived at the population again, but this time not as the chaotic conception of a whole, but as a rich totality of many determinations and relations. The former is the path historically followed by economics at the time of its origins. The economists of the seventeenth century, e.g., always begin with the living whole, with population, nation, state, several states, etc.; but they always conclude by discovering through analysis a small number of determinant, abstract, general relations such as division of labour, money, value, etc. As soon as these individual moments had been more or less firmly established and abstracted, there began the economic systems, which ascended from the simple relations, such as labour, division of labour, need, exchange value, to the level of the state, exchange between nations and the world market. The latter is obviously the scientifically correct method..........
Grundrisse 01

Blubber blubber blubber, yaba daba doo, abracadabra!

 

[bripat9643]

Republicans don't care what socialism is.

It's all about stripping everything out of the country they can. Greed is their guide.

That's what socialism does, fool.

You think greed kills school lunches for poor children and then you call me a fool?
Hilarious!

Apparently yout thought that sentence made sense.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Socialism.......is.....

Communism.......with the first 6 letters deceptively smothered in propaganda, the same as a bitter pill is sugar coated.

It's a "first step" slight of hand trick, equivalent to the false notion that "Gun Control" is about public safety.

Wherever there's Socialism, Communism is laying in wait.....waiting for the wrong person to grab power.
Hugo Chavez was a Socialist. Today Venezuela is a Dictatorship.

Those demanding Socialism are the same ones secretly enamored with Communism. These people believe that all power and all life decisions should rest firmly with an authoritarian state as they believe people cannot be trusted to run their own lives. If you think about it, it's exactly why they do not want common citizens to own guns because it potentially threatens the iron grip on power of the authoritarian state.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Republicans don't care what socialism is.
It's all about stripping everything out of the country they can. Greed is their guide.

lol !
You're so ignorant you proudly wear it on your sleeves.

Do a little RESEARCH into Socialist countries.....see which ones are and which ones take better care of their children, then you can come back, head down, and apologize for your stupidity.

 

[danielpalos]

...because they really don't care as long as they can appeal to ignorance and emotion.

 

[dudmuck]

Socialism.......is.....

Communism.......with the first 6 letters deceptively smothered in propaganda, the same as a bitter pill is sugar coated.

It's a "first step" slight of hand trick, equivalent to the false notion that "Gun Control" is about public safety.

Wherever there's Socialism, Communism is laying in wait.....waiting for the wrong person to grab power.
Hugo Chavez was a Socialist. Today Venezuela is a Dictatorship.

Those demanding Socialism are the same ones secretly enamored with Communism. These people believe that all power and all life decisions should rest firmly with an authoritarian state as they believe people cannot be trusted to run their own lives. If you think about it, it's exactly why they do not want common citizens to own guns because it potentially threatens the iron grip on power of the authoritarian state.

Socialism isnt just one thing. Its a variety. But they all have the goal of reducing inequality.
Socialism only exists when there is democracy. If all the rules are dictated by the top in charge, its not socialism. There are still classes in society, and still could be private ownership, but shared ownership.
Communism differs in that it attempts to completely eliminate inequality, which hasnt worked in practice. It attempts to create a classless society without money or the state, which hasnt really ever been implemented on a large scale.
Much of what has been labelled communism or socialism is really just state capitalism, where all the rules are dictated by government leaders and workers have no say in anything. It can be identified simply by the absence of democracy, especially in the workplace.

 

[Tehon]

There are still classes in society, and still could be private ownership, but shared ownership.

The corporation is private ownership that is shared.

 

[Doc1]

Guys you MUST realize that ANYONE who doesn't agree with the "Left" in every little detail is simply stupid.

 

[Doc1]

Socialism.......is.....

Communism.......with the first 6 letters deceptively smothered in propaganda, the same as a bitter pill is sugar coated.

It's a "first step" slight of hand trick, equivalent to the false notion that "Gun Control" is about public safety.

Wherever there's Socialism, Communism is laying in wait.....waiting for the wrong person to grab power.
Hugo Chavez was a Socialist. Today Venezuela is a Dictatorship.

Those demanding Socialism are the same ones secretly enamored with Communism. These people believe that all power and all life decisions should rest firmly with an authoritarian state as they believe people cannot be trusted to run their own lives. If you think about it, it's exactly why they do not want common citizens to own guns because it potentially threatens the iron grip on power of the authoritarian state.

Socialism isnt just one thing. Its a variety. But they all have the goal of reducing inequality.
Socialism only exists when there is democracy. If all the rules are dictated by the top in charge, its not socialism. There are still classes in society, and still could be private ownership, but shared ownership.
Communism differs in that it attempts to completely eliminate inequality, which hasnt worked in practice. It attempts to create a classless society without money or the state, which hasnt really ever been implemented on a large scale.
Much of what has been labelled communism or socialism is really just state capitalism, where all the rules are dictated by government leaders and workers have no say in anything. It can be identified simply by the absence of democracy, especially in the workplace.

"Socialism isnt just one thing"

That's true of ALL the "isms". They are all tools of whatever particular Government is in place at the time. Yes, the Nazi's were indeed both "Socialist" AND "Fascist". They used Socialism to gain the support of the people, the Treaty of Versailles made that entire episode of history possible.

 

[Two Thumbs]

No they aren't the richest.

and all of that is modern socialism and or communism.

oh and, Scandinavia goes tits up if you enforce your green energy on them.

I said we are the richest country but we have so much inequality and so few benefits of citizenship like good pay good vacations good day care good health care paid parental leave cheap College. You GOP dupes are obsessed with immigrants and guns and abortion I suppose which the GOP will never solve because they're bought off d u h, dupe.

I love listening to you lie about America.

You act like you hate it here, and have acted that way since I've known you, but you refuse to leave.

walk that talk bitch

I'm afraid you can't leave and after a while I don't want to. It's my country it's the GOP that sucks and it's stupid dupes like you brainwashed functional moron. How How a about those UB Bulls? Good night

but its' the dems that HATE America.

fool

Do you notice how liberals never actually say that?

no.

More than a few have said those very words.

but you knew that

 

[Two Thumbs]

I said we are the richest country but we have so much inequality and so few benefits of citizenship like good pay good vacations good day care good health care paid parental leave cheap College. You GOP dupes are obsessed with immigrants and guns and abortion I suppose which the GOP will never solve because they're bought off d u h, dupe.

I love listening to you lie about America.

You act like you hate it here, and have acted that way since I've known you, but you refuse to leave.

walk that talk bitch

I'm afraid you can't leave and after a while I don't want to. It's my country it's the GOP that sucks and it's stupid dupes like you brainwashed functional moron. How How a about those UB Bulls? Good night

but its' the dems that HATE America.

fool

Do you notice how liberals never actually say that?

It is ridiculous to say so... GOP hater Dupes!

ok

Tell me what you love about America.

 

[francoHFW]

I love listening to you lie about America.

You act like you hate it here, and have acted that way since I've known you, but you refuse to leave.

walk that talk bitch

I'm afraid you can't leave and after a while I don't want to. It's my country it's the GOP that sucks and it's stupid dupes like you brainwashed functional moron. How How a about those UB Bulls? Good night

but its' the dems that HATE America.

fool

Do you notice how liberals never actually say that?

It is ridiculous to say so... GOP hater Dupes!

ok

Tell me what you love about America.

Everything but the lying cheating deceiving thieving new BS GOP.

 

[francoHFW]

Socialism.......is.....

Communism.......with the first 6 letters deceptively smothered in propaganda, the same as a bitter pill is sugar coated.

It's a "first step" slight of hand trick, equivalent to the false notion that "Gun Control" is about public safety.

Wherever there's Socialism, Communism is laying in wait.....waiting for the wrong person to grab power.
Hugo Chavez was a Socialist. Today Venezuela is a Dictatorship.

Those demanding Socialism are the same ones secretly enamored with Communism. These people believe that all power and all life decisions should rest firmly with an authoritarian state as they believe people cannot be trusted to run their own lives. If you think about it, it's exactly why they do not want common citizens to own guns because it potentially threatens the iron grip on power of the authoritarian state.

Socialism isnt just one thing. Its a variety. But they all have the goal of reducing inequality.
Socialism only exists when there is democracy. If all the rules are dictated by the top in charge, its not socialism. There are still classes in society, and still could be private ownership, but shared ownership.
Communism differs in that it attempts to completely eliminate inequality, which hasnt worked in practice. It attempts to create a classless society without money or the state, which hasnt really ever been implemented on a large scale.
Much of what has been labelled communism or socialism is really just state capitalism, where all the rules are dictated by government leaders and workers have no say in anything. It can be identified simply by the absence of democracy, especially in the workplace.

"Socialism isnt just one thing"

That's true of ALL the "isms". They are all tools of whatever particular Government is in place at the time. Yes, the Nazi's were indeed both "Socialist" AND "Fascist". They used Socialism to gain the support of the people, the Treaty of Versailles made that entire episode of history possible.

There is a huge difference everywhere but terminally confused GOP Dupe world... Actually what made it all possible was the GOP keeping us out of the League of Nations and Wrecking the world economy in 1929. A disaster is always...

 

[dudmuck]

Socialism.......is.....

Communism.......with the first 6 letters deceptively smothered in propaganda, the same as a bitter pill is sugar coated.

It's a "first step" slight of hand trick, equivalent to the false notion that "Gun Control" is about public safety.

Wherever there's Socialism, Communism is laying in wait.....waiting for the wrong person to grab power.
Hugo Chavez was a Socialist. Today Venezuela is a Dictatorship.

Those demanding Socialism are the same ones secretly enamored with Communism. These people believe that all power and all life decisions should rest firmly with an authoritarian state as they believe people cannot be trusted to run their own lives. If you think about it, it's exactly why they do not want common citizens to own guns because it potentially threatens the iron grip on power of the authoritarian state.

Socialism isnt just one thing. Its a variety. But they all have the goal of reducing inequality.
Socialism only exists when there is democracy. If all the rules are dictated by the top in charge, its not socialism. There are still classes in society, and still could be private ownership, but shared ownership.
Communism differs in that it attempts to completely eliminate inequality, which hasnt worked in practice. It attempts to create a classless society without money or the state, which hasnt really ever been implemented on a large scale.
Much of what has been labelled communism or socialism is really just state capitalism, where all the rules are dictated by government leaders and workers have no say in anything. It can be identified simply by the absence of democracy, especially in the workplace.

"Socialism isnt just one thing"

That's true of ALL the "isms". They are all tools of whatever particular Government is in place at the time. Yes, the Nazi's were indeed both "Socialist" AND "Fascist". They used Socialism to gain the support of the people, the Treaty of Versailles made that entire episode of history possible.

As far as NAZI is concerned, its a nationalist's redefinition of socialism. It can only be called "national socialism", but never socialism by itself. Because national socialism is only socialism for the aryan race.