Hitler used socialism as a means to an end and all of the political actions he took to gain power were legal under the Weimar constitution.
National Socialism has the same problem as Democratic Socialism and Social Democrats. You have a name which includes both a means and an end. If socialism is not good for the nation, what will the National Socialist choose? This conflict was one of the reasons for the abolition of the SA and the Night of the Long Knives.
What does a Democratic Socialist DO when he can’t GET socialism through democracy?

Paul1405

The snag's jokes are ok with the moderator, I am not surprised.

The Labor government took the centrist role and pushed the conservatives further to the right. Now the neo-cons and libertarians are confused about fascism ... the irony.

In any discussion like this, the lines between politics and policy will inevitably become blurred.

The election of a Party that describes itself as Socialist will never guarantee that the policies they introduce will contain a skerrick of Socialism.

Similarly, a government elected under a right-wing banner will not ensure that true-blue policies will be adopted.

Politics today is all about expedience.

Nothing more, nothing less. Rudd is providing a classic example of this with his selection of battleground on which to fight the next election. Hence the dumping of the ETS, and the jettisoning of anything that looks contentious.

It also explains Abbot's attack-dog position on resource super tax. He thinks it might win him votes.

But it will not necessarily translate into post-election action. He might simply say, as so many in-comers have in the past - "now I see the numbers (which are shocking) I will have to delay that plank of my platform."

Incidentally, Chris Lewis...

>>Just vote for another party as many in Britain just did with liberal democrats.<<

Despite the massive pre-election hype, the Lib-Dems only increased their popular vote by 1% this time around. And actually lost six seats in Parliament.

We are simply playing with labels here. Socialism, and whatever we might select as the antithesis of Socialism, has been unofficially dead for decades.

It just hasn't been given a proper burial, because we can't bear to face the reality that our democracy these days only elects politicians, not a government.

I'm under the impression that Australia is a mixed society, embracing some of the tenants of socialism (public ownership) with a mix of capitalism (private ownership). I think its unfair to point to Nazi Germany or Communist Russia as examples of failed socialism, no more that its fair to point to the US of 1930 as failed capitalism. In a social democracy such as Australia should be, reform of capitalism has to be done through the democratic process while at the same time safeguarding the virtues of socialism

Pericles

True, but the outcome for liberal democrats in the UK was seats, enough to be part of coalition government.

Paul1405 said "I'm under the impression that Australia is a mixed society, embracing some of the tenants of socialism (public ownership) with a mix of capitalism (private ownership)."

Totally agree Paul. Australians have for some time been unhappy about their assetts being sold off to pay for the mismanagement of some governments. This tendency to see all facets of society as Left or Right is wasted time and gets us nowhere.

People are basically good, but temptation is there for exploitation or for loopholes to disadvantage others, that is why Australians like the balance and tend to sit in the middle ground for the most part.

Hence, why both major parties gravitated to the middle ground some time ago as well as due to global influences; until recently where the Coalition looks like veering off again - as demonstrated with WC.

Getting the balance right within this mix comes from within a much shorter ideological range than it did 30 years ago. Which is why it is funny that we still witness the reds under the beds mentality.