The current Socialist Party isn't Socialist at all (see how absurd it is lol). There are different currents inside this party and the one dominating (represented by Prime Minister Manuel Valls) currently is clearly antisocial and pro-liberal.

We could actually compare the current French PS with Neo Labour of Tony Blair. They should clearly change their name "Parti Socialiste" means nothing at all.

Hmmm, I'd say socialism itself got corrupted over time. The french socialist party hardly can call itself socialism in this days lol... Even though I have to say I agree with it's actual position.

And yea, you can stop at socialism if you want, many "communists" that took power couldn't move or didn't want to move to anything past that.

For a lot of socialists, communism is not and never was the goal. Case in point; Hitler, who absolutely hated communism.

Like I said, Marxism is a very specific type of socialism, one which intends to implement communism.

Still, the USSR wasn't communist, but socialist. If he hated the URSS it was for two reasons, the first he hated the socialism it implemented aka everyone is equal, and the second is that he thought the russian as inferiors.

Both this thoughts would make him non elegible to be a socialist...

Socialism doesn't entail thinking of everyone as equals, but rather the minimum required to define an ideology as socialist in nature is, as we've previously established, Some form of social ownership, which is definitely present in the NSDAP party platform.

Still, the USSR wasn't communist, but socialist.

It was communist. The meanings of the words have changed over time, now the kind of communism you are talking about as anarchic communism or maybe Marxism.

The specific type of Fascism applied in germany during the 30's and 40's was called "National Socialism". It entailed an opposition to the free market because "All these nasty jews are exploiting it to oppress germans"; So yeah, definitely socialist in nature.

"Nazi" is just an abbreviation of the much less catchy term "Nationalsozialismus".

That it has socialist in the name doesnt mean its socialist, north korea has democratic in the name, is north korea democratic.
Was hitler for redistribution of the wealth? no,
was he for workers owning the means of production? no
was he socialist? no

Actually, he was for a lot of that stuff. Here are some highlights from the NSDAP party platform adopted by Hitler:

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.


11. Abolition of unearned incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.


13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries


14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.


15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.


16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.


17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.


20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

(http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm)

Everybody knows that a Wikipedia article is not really relevant at all since anyone can post things, this is why providing a trustworthy author (like the Che's biography by Anderson) to back up your points is clearly something better. I also provided you arguments (that you can find everywhere else in history books) that you chose to ignore, not my fault if you are unable to read properly.
ill have to disagree here, the big wikipedia pages are locked by wikipedia and can only be edited by specially appointed people and have been checked over and over by these specially appointed people. by all means stay away from the small ones but the big ones are generally locked

kreto already showed you a link showing that he wasnt for them

He posted a link in german that isn't relevant. As I've already said, the Strasserites were kicked out for being too sympathetic to the USSR, not for being socialists.

Actually, the topic was Ernesto Rafael Guevara de la Serna, and not socialism-communism compared nor was it to discuss if nationalsocialism is socialist, so please stick to the topic guys.


And now: I agree to a few points of you, mainly made by Team Guns.
Che Guevara may have murdered a thousand men and women, but for every one he has, the pro-USA dictatorships did the very same like in South Vietnam and the Battista regime at Cuba.
Battista had a secret police force and etc, too, like Hitler had one. In the 1930´s right winged / nationalist (like communist ones in the post-WW2-era) dictatorships were widespread and apart from all the differences there are a lot of commonalities:

1. Undermining the previous regime to rise to power.
2. A men, tall and not very large.
3. His party supports and spreads extremist world views or at least very closed ones.
4. The party becomes the everyday topic and the party is bearing the entire country.
5. Widespread, network-like organizations for almost everything.
6. Do anything which will or is minimizing the power of the regime and you´ll get lliquidated.

Political threads eventually derail, you should have known and expected it Prussian unless you are new here. As for the points made about Che, I think you were referring to the points I made not Teamguns's, since he only participated here to describe communism and socialism, not about the actual topic.

Oh, well, it were the very two of you which I can detect myself to be favouring with.

I never thought anyone could think Che is a good person.

Che might not be "the saviour" but at least I never denied him to be a good person which in my very own and very prejudiced opinion he indeed is.

never thought anyone could think Che is a good person.

Klaus Barbie and Cia agents know best.

lol

But... but... but his clothes! Surely you aren't saying that his clothing line doesn't make up for it all!?

+2 for da binks

Edited 4/22/2016 18:40:57

Binks, you´ve made it. You won the discussion.