LYCANOX: On socialist germany and rise of nazism

[Beatnik Bob]

Again, read up history. It is common fact.

Even that movie Hitler the rise of evil addressed Hitlers hatred for socialism.
If it’s such a fact, then how come every time for the past few posts, when I have requested a LINK you did not deliver. The only link you did deliver was one that had nothing to do with your position.

And now you cite a movie as proof that hitler hated socialism, while I have cited a reputable book on socialistic economics and 1930 Germany proving definitively that Germany was socialistic.
And I also gave prime examples of his economic structure as well as an example where Hitler was essentially the CEO of every major business, which is socialism.
In case you have forgotten what socialism is, here is the definition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism


FROM LINK: 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

1930s Germany fits those two descriptions exactly.

Concerning your unfounded statement that hitler hated socialism: (whether or not that is the case, you need to still provide a link). If you do not provide a credible LINK to prove your unfounded beliefs, then what you say is not true based on your zero evidence.


Even capitalist countries regulate their prizes by either controlling inflation. Or taxing or supporting industries.
That is a different type of price regulation. Inflation and taxing are issues directly associated with the government, not private businesses. Private businesses neither receive state taxes, or print money, so inflation or taxation do not relate to them at all.
And in capitalist countries the president does not have unlimited say on price regulation. Go read up on what socialism actually is.


And the government setting the prises to a mandatory level is common in war time situation. The allies did this as well.
Please read basic economics. Even before the war Hitler was commander in chief of all businesses. In capitalistic societies, prices are set with the cost of labor etc. in mind, socialistic price setting policies are often indifferent to such things.
Also, as a matter of peace time policy, the prices of goods are not set by the president. Whereas socialistic economies rely on setting prices, even in a time of normalcy.
You can refer back to the M-W definition of “socialism,” where it describes the lack of private ownership in socialism.
You and I both know germany was socialist. A capitalistic nation would have never been able to do what hitler achieved. His nationalization of the banks is what helped end the german depression, and “legally” default on owed debt.


And as I have demonstrated, that is incorrect.
You failed to demonstrate any such thing. Germany lacked both the funds and the support to suppress the Nazis within their country.


But if the government had banned the nazies in an very early moment.
They would very likely prevented the party from becoming meaningfull.
They weren’t banned earlier on because they weren’t a threat, not to mention it would be illegal. It is the complete antithesis of a democracy to BAN a political party.
Political parties express the will of the people, suppressing the will of the people is fascistic and in the very least, undemocratic.

So a recap of why the Nazis could not be stopped:

-It’s illegal and undemocratic. The only way in which the Nazis could have been stopped is by counter-campaigns and military action.

-Those measures weren’t taken because Germany lacked the funds and support.

-Many high ranking individuals in the german government were national socialists. Banning the national socialist party would not have been approved in a democratic institution, because there was too much dissenting opinion.

-Going after officials in your government who were socialists would cause political turmoil, chaos or even a regime change.


Actually there were plenty of other socialist parties active in the country at that time.
To my knowledge, there was only one German NAtional soZIalist party.

[GamerGal]

Hitler was a Conservative. The NAZIs were the Conservative Party in Germany in response too the SOCIALIST Parties, and the Communist Parties, and other LIBERAL parties. It's why Republicans like Prescott Bush and Disney thought Hitler was a good guy and funded him. Nazi's were ultra-nationalist ultra-conservatives, who were like the GOP of America while the socialists/Commies/liberals were on the other side.

No I am not saying GOP are NAZI I'm just explaining that NAZIs were the conservative party in Germany, like the GOP is the conservative party in America. Ok so the republican party supported Hitler and planned a military coup and overthrow FDR so they could join Hitler but they aren't actually NAZIs

[Beatnik Bob]

Hitler was a Conservative. The NAZIs were the Conservative Party in Germany in response too the SOCIALIST Parties, That's a common misconception.
The only national socialist party in germany, to my knowledge, was the nazi party.
They were not conservative, if by conservative you mean capitalistic.

If by conservative you mean they advocated "nativism," then you are correct.

[JenaS62]

Hitler was indeed a socialist.

"Let us start by considering political party programmes or "platforms" of Hitler's day:

Take this description of a political programme:

A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists".

And this description of a political movement as having a 'revolutionary creative will' which had 'no fixed aim, no permanency, only eternal change'

And this policy manifesto:
9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.


So who put that manifesto forward and who was responsible for the summary quotes given before that? Was it the US Democrats, the British Labour Party, the Canadian Liberals, some European Social Democratic party? No. The manifesto is an extract from the (February 25th., 1920) 25 point plan of the National Socialist German Workers Party and was written by the leader of that party: Adolf Hitler. And the preceding summary quotes were also from him (See Vol. 2 Chap. 5 of Mein Kampf and O'Sullivan, 1983. p. 138).

Taken from this website:

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

[iulian28ti]

If it’s such a fact, then how come every time for the past few posts, when I have requested a LINK you did not deliver. The only link you did deliver was one that had nothing to do with your position.
...........................


Well, one thing is clear. Hitler took power from sick and senile Hindenburg, he merged the chancellery and presidency, he was never voted into power. Well, some 30% or so voted him, LOL !

[lycanox]

Hitler was indeed a socialist.

"Let us start by considering political party programmes or "platforms" of Hitler's day:

Take this description of a political programme:

A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists".

And this description of a political movement as having a 'revolutionary creative will' which had 'no fixed aim, no permanency, only eternal change'

And this policy manifesto:
9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.


So who put that manifesto forward and who was responsible for the summary quotes given before that? Was it the US Democrats, the British Labour Party, the Canadian Liberals, some European Social Democratic party? No. The manifesto is an extract from the (February 25th., 1920) 25 point plan of the National Socialist German Workers Party and was written by the leader of that party: Adolf Hitler. And the preceding summary quotes were also from him (See Vol. 2 Chap. 5 of Mein Kampf and O'Sullivan, 1983. p. 138).

Taken from this website:

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html
Sharing some ideas with socialism does not make a group a socialist group.
Even America follows some socialist ideas.

Lots of ideas on this list are even used in capitalistic countries and even the US as well.




If it’s such a fact, then how come every time for the past few posts, when I have requested a LINK you did not deliver. The only link you did deliver was one that had nothing to do with your position.
Because unlike, you I actually read books. And not drag all my information from the Internet.

And now you cite a movie as proof that hitler hated socialism, while I have cited a reputable book on socialistic economics and 1930 Germany proving definitively that Germany was socialistic.
And I also gave prime examples of his economic structure as well as an example where Hitler was essentially the CEO of every major business, which is socialism.
In case you have forgotten what socialism is, here is the definition:[/QUOTE]
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dachau.nl%2Fhet_kamp% 2Fhistorisch%2Findex.html&sl=nl&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fbrabosh.com%2F2009%2F03%2F07%2Fde-mythe-van-hitlers-socialisme-we-are-socialists1-mei-1927%2F

Socialism was regarded a Jewish plot by the Nazies. And thus socialists were prosecuted. And were as announced by Himmler on 30 march 1933 deported to Dachau.
His hatred of socialism is also what fueled his irrational invasion of Barbarossa.

I also provided quotes from Goebels dairy. One of the most important party member of the nazies. Regarding Hitless opposal to socialism.
And thus a key witness.

Claims that Hitler is pro socialism are just as absurd as claims that Hitler was a Jew. And should be regarded as right wing propaganda.
After all, why would Hitler prosecute them if he was one himself.





http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism


1930s Germany fits those two descriptions exactly.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not as Germany at that time still has private property.
Nor was the entire economy state run.


Concerning your unfounded statement that hitler hated socialism: (whether or not that is the case, you need to still provide a link). If you do not provide a credible LINK to prove your unfounded beliefs, then what you say is not true based on your zero evidence.
You did not provide evidence that he wasn't, Only that he borrowed some ideas.



That is a different type of price regulation. Inflation and taxing are issues directly associated with the government, not private businesses. Private businesses neither receive state taxes, or print money, so inflation or taxation do not relate to them at all.
And in capitalist countries the president does not have unlimited say on price regulation. Go read up on what socialism actually is.


[QUOTE]Please read basic economics. Even before the war Hitler was commander in chief of all businesses. In capitalistic societies, prices are set with the cost of labor etc. in mind, socialistic price setting policies are often indifferent to such things.
Also, as a matter of peace time policy, the prices of goods are not set by the president. Whereas socialistic economies rely on setting prices, even in a time of normalcy.
You can refer back to the M-W definition of “socialism,” where it describes the lack of private ownership in socialism.
You and I both know germany was socialist. A capitalistic nation would have never been able to do what hitler achieved. His nationalization of the banks is what helped end the german depression, and “legally” default on owed debt.
Again, they do have unlimited say about it. Especially during a conflict.
Like world war 2 was.

The US en england regulated prices back then aswell.



You failed to demonstrate any such thing. Germany lacked both the funds and the support to suppress the Nazis within their country.
Again bullshit.

Stop thinking about times when the Nazis already had lots of power.
But just a small group of people preaching in bars and restaurants.




They weren’t banned earlier on because they weren’t a threat, not to mention it would be illegal. It is the complete antithesis of a democracy to BAN a political party.
Political parties express the will of the people, suppressing the will of the people is fascistic and in the very least, undemocratic.

The nazies were not a important political party in the beginning and could thus easily be banned.
And the NSDAP was already on a watch list for being a problem even before Hitler joined.

As for the will of the people.
Do you really believe that if the will of the people was a genocide. It would be wrong to stop them?



So a recap of why the Nazis could not be stopped:

-It’s illegal and undemocratic. The only way in which the Nazis could have been stopped is by counter-campaigns and military action.
Democracy and freedom of speech should have its limits.

The rights of his 6 million victims are more important than the right of one small political party to speech and exist.

What you are doing is opposing every logical way genocides and such can be prevented.





-Those measures weren’t taken because Germany lacked the funds and support.
Nonsense. As they did prosecute Hitler later for his failed revolution.
Showing clearly the ability to prosecute them.


-Many high ranking individuals in the german government were national socialists. Banning the national socialist party would not have been approved in a democratic institution, because there was too much dissenting opinion.

-Going after officials in your government who were socialists would cause political turmoil, chaos or even a regime change.
Wrong again, as it was possible to stop the Nazies before they gained that much control.



To my knowledge, there was only one German NAtional soZIalist party.
Than your knowledge is dead wrong, as Germany was littered with thousands of different little parties varying from communist to corporatist. Small riots were even common back then between such parties.

[JenaS62]

Sharing some ideas with socialism does not make a group a socialist group.
Even America follows some socialist ideas.

Lots of ideas on this list are even used in capitalistic countries and even the US as well. .


Spend some time on that website I provided. What I posted is just a small fraction of it.


Claims that Hitler is pro socialism are just as absurd as claims that Hitler was a Jew. And should be regarded as right wing propaganda.


Actually claims that Hitler was right wing is left wing propaganda. Hitler had far more in common with the left wing than the right including eugenics, the philosophy of working for the betterment of all, hatred of capitalism and on and on.

[lycanox]

Actually claims that Hitler was right wing is left wing propaganda. Hitler had far more in common with the left wing than the right including eugenics, the philosophy of working for the betterment of all, hatred of capitalism and on and on.
Nazism was an separate ideology on its own. Which placed itself in a position between socialism and capitalism, where it borrowed from and hated both.

Which is why both parties can find ample arguments for blaming the other.

[Beatnik Bob]

Sharing some ideas with socialism does not make a group a socialist group.
Even America follows some socialist ideas.
If America nationalized its banks and did away with the majority of its free market ideals, and nationalized a good deal of private property, I would call America socialist.

So far though, America has not adopted the economic or political system of 1930s germany.


Because unlike, you I actually read books. And not drag all my information from the Internet.
I wish that were true.

If it is true, then please CITE these mysterious books you read, like I did, instead of just citing wikipedia articles, or articles with little scholarly merit.

The following articles you provided do not prove that germany wasn't socialist.


http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dachau.nl%2Fhet_kamp% 2Fhistorisch%2Findex.html&sl=nl&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fbrabosh.com%2F2009%2F03%2F07%2Fde-mythe-van-hitlers-socialisme-we-are-socialists1-mei-1927%2F
Those links do not prove that Germany wasn't socialist. Nor do they prove that Goebbels was at odds with Hitler due to socialistic beliefs.

The only things they prove, is that it is possible many germans were in denial that they lived in a socialistic society.

But saying you aren't socialist, and being socialist are indipendent things.
You can say you're not socialist, and still have a socialistic economy, as Germany had in the 1930s.

Again, if you want a SCHOLARLY BOOK on the issue, read "Socialism and Marginalism in Economics,"


Socialism was regarded a Jewish plot by the Nazies. And thus socialists were prosecuted. And were as announced by Himmler on 30 march 1933 deported to Dachau.
Did you think I wouldn't actually read the links lycanox?

Because I did. And nowhere does it suggest socialists were sent to Dachau.
Among the types of criminal prisoners sent to Dachau, only communists were.
(Socialism and communism are not the same thing).


I also provided quotes from Goebels dairy. One of the most important party member of the nazies. Regarding Hitless opposal to socialism.
And thus a key witness.
I don't accept wikipedia articles as scholarly sources.


After all, why would Hitler prosecute them if he was one himself. Yeah, he wasn't a jew. But the above piece of "reasoning" makes no sense.
You have an odd sense of logic...sometimes.
Stalin being a russian didn't stop him from killing 23 million russians in arguably the worse genocide in the 20th century...



Absolutely not as Germany at that time still has private property.
Nor was the entire economy state run.
Then explain the nationalized banks and the Volkswagen example I gave. And explain hitler's policy of price setting before the war.

Also explain why, if Germany wasn't socialist, why all factories and businesses answered to hitler and the nazi cause.


The US en england regulated prices back then aswell.
IN WARTIME. NOT AS A TYPICAL ECONOMIC POLICY.

I am too familiar with this debate style of yours. In the future, if you bring up a point that has already been answered, I'll just ignore it, to save time and space.


Stop thinking about times when the Nazis already had lots of power.
But just a small group of people preaching in bars and restaurants.
You mentioned that already earlier in your circular argument.

The nazis weren't a threat then.

They were...just a bunch of people preaching in bars and restaurants.


The nazies were not a important political party in the beginning and could thus easily be banned.
Theoretically, yes.
But they weren't really a threat then. By the time they were a threat, and nazis were being jailed, they were already too powerful to ban or destroy.

Right now you are attempting to do your usual circular argument. If I say the nazis were too powerful to ban, you suggest that when they were a small local power in Nuremberg, they could be banned. When I remind you that they weren't a national threat then, you cite the jailing of nazis later on.

But you are confusing two time periods in nazi development. In its early years, the nazi was neither a threat, nor was it overly powerful. When it was finally a distinguishable threat, it was too powerful to stop, due to lack of funds, support, and other factors that have been before-mentioned.


And the NSDAP was already on a watch list for being a problem even before Hitler joined.
Yes, but again. THEY LACKED THE FUNDS AND SUPPORT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
C'mon, lyc...

Instead of going into a circular argument on my points, why can't you just rebut/refute them based on evidence instead of debating using arguments that have already been disproved.


As for the will of the people.
Do you really believe that if the will of the people was a genocide. It would be wrong to stop them?
I wasn't presenting the information (on why the nazi rise to power was unpreventable) from a standpoint of whether or not it was moral, I was presenting the information from a factual standpoint only.

Whether or not I morally believe the will of the people should have been suppressed in that instance, still doesn't affect the facts.
The reason you couldn't ban the nazi party, is because such an act would be illegal.

I don't agree with banning parties, true, but even if I did believe in banning the nazi party, it wouldn't change anything.


The rights of his 6 million victims are more important than the right of one small political party to speech and exist.
12 million people actually.

But more importantly, the nazis did not run on a platform of genocide. They ran on an anti-jewish/communist/etc. platform of hate and ethnocentrism, but they never, as a matter of policy openly stated that they wanted to extinguish jews via murder.

That's what they ended up doing, but it isn't something their party platform consisted of.
Which is an important factor in why the nazi party wasn't banned. Nobody foresaw it killing 6 million jews and millions of others.


Before you respond to that, with more wikipedia garbage please read the following taken from the book "The Atlas of Jewish History" by Martin Gilbert.

I already know you are going to try to prove that everyone in the world thought nazis were going to kill jews, but I am about to lay that myth to rest, with this passage:

Madagascar:

"1940 Germans envisage the settlement 4,000,000 European Jews with local autonomy under a German Mandate. Eichmann in charge of plans which were abandoned in 1941."


Many people, not just you, have trouble grasping the fact that the nazis did not consider killing jews as their first option. They just wanted to get them out of Europe. Initially, they had plans to relocate 4 million jews to Madagascar, where they could set up a form of self government under the German Empire.

The german government actually had wanted to send the jews to Palestine. But they couldn't, because it was still under British rule.

But because funds had to be focused elsewhere, they got rid of the jews in the most fiscally reasonable way they could think of.


What you are doing is opposing every logical way genocides and such can be prevented.
I'm not opposing many of those strategies. They just wouldn't work.

If germany could have brought down the nazi party, great.


Nonsense. As they did prosecute Hitler later for his failed revolution.
Showing clearly the ability to prosecute them.
Then obviously prosecution didn't work.

I am also talking about much more drastic measures being taken. Stopping hitler at that point wouldn't have stopped the momentum of the naxi party.



Wrong again, as it was possible to stop the Nazies before they gained that much control.
You have yet to provide any convincing evidence as to how that could be done.


Than your knowledge is dead wrong, as Germany was littered with thousands of different little parties varying from communist to corporatist. Small riots were even common back then between such parties.
Apparently you didn't understand what I just said. I said there was only one national socialist party, and you have not proved that statement false.


Nazism was an separate ideology on its own. Which placed itself in a position between socialism and capitalism, where it borrowed from and hated both.
Even IF that were true (and you have yet to provide any evidence that supports that position [your links do not support your position]),I believe jena is suggesting that political balances are always tilting to one sector. In the case of the germans (correct me if I misinterpreted you, jena), they were more socialistic and fascist than anything else.

[Freddy]

Here is an article on the Nazi economy.

"It was common in those days, as it is in ours, to identify the Communists as leftist and the Nazis as rightists, as if they stood on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. But Mises knew differently. They both sported the same ideological pedigree of socialism. "The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer's goods for his consumption."

The difference between the systems, wrote Mises, is that the German pattern "maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets." But in fact the government directs production decisions, curbs entrepreneurship and the labor market, and determines wages and interest rates by central authority. "Market exchange," says Mises, "is only a sham."

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=54&sortorder=articledate

[iulian28ti]

Nice find Freddy. In fact, in Mein Kampf Hitler states that : "Thus, the task of the state toward capital was comparatively simple and clear: it only had to make certain that capital remain the handmaiden of the state and not fancy itself the mistress of the nation. This point of view could then be defined between two restrictive limits: preservation of a solvent, national, and independent economy on the one hand, assurance of the social rights of the workers on the other.
Previously I had been unable to recognize with the desired clarity the difference between this pure capital as the end result of productive labor and a capital whose existence and essence rests exclusively on speculation. For this I lacked the initial inspiration, which had simply not come my way.
But now this was provided most amply by one of the various gentlemen lecturing in the above-mentioned course: Gottfried Feder.
For the first time in my life I heard a principled discussion of international stock exchange and loan capital.
Right after listening to Feder's first lecture, the thought ran through my head that I had now found the way to one of the most essential premises for the foundation of a new party."

[lycanox]

If America nationalized its banks and did away with the majority of its free market ideals, and nationalized a good deal of private property, I would call America socialist.
Than in your opinion, capitalism does not exist.


So far though, America has not adopted the economic or political system of 1930s germany.

Neither did Hitler adopt the political system of Marxism or communism.


I wish that were true.

If it is true, then please CITE these mysterious books you read, like I did, instead of just citing wikipedia articles, or articles with little scholarly merit.
Books

Lekturamas. tweede wereld oorlog series.
Hitlers Handlangers
World war 2.
7000 jaar geschiedenis in beeld. De tweede wereld oorlog.

Documentaries.
Het duits archief tijdens de tweede wereldoorlog.
Het polygoon journaal in de tweede wereldoorlog.
Mein Kampf.
Nuremberg
The occuld history of the third reigh.
The nazies a warning from history.

And various conversations with people that actually lived in germany back then.


The following articles you provided do not prove that germany wasn't socialist.
You however failed to prove they were a socialist country.
Which is understandable as they weren't.



Those links do not prove that Germany wasn't socialist. Nor do they prove that Goebbels was at odds with Hitler due to socialistic beliefs.
Again, Goebbels himself said so in his dairy.



The only things they prove, is that it is possible many germans were in denial that they lived in a socialistic society.
What you have proved that you have no idea of the political situation 80 years ago.


But saying you aren't socialist, and being socialist are indipendent things.
You can say you're not socialist, and still have a socialistic economy, as Germany had in the 1930s.
They had no socialist economy. But a corporatistic economy.
Companies and possessions of arriers were not state owned back then.



Again, if you want a SCHOLARLY BOOK on the issue, read "Socialism and Marginalism in Economics,"


Did you think I wouldn't actually read the links lycanox?

Because I did. And nowhere does it suggest socialists were sent to Dachau.
The article literally said that socialists were send to Dachau.


Among the types of criminal prisoners sent to Dachau, only communists were.
(Socialism and communism are not the same thing).
Than please read again.

Message in the Munich Neue Nachrichten Sten: "A concentration camp for political prisoners at Dachau. In this camp, with a capacity of 5,000 people, all communists and socialists that the security of the state at risk, are brought together."





I don't accept wikipedia articles as scholarly sources.

Yeah, he wasn't a jew. But the above piece of "reasoning" makes no sense.
You have an odd sense of logic...sometimes.
Stalin being a russian didn't stop him from killing 23 million russians in arguably the worse genocide in the 20th century...
Not really.

Stalin did not target his victims for being russian. Hitler did however kill people for being socialist.



Then explain the nationalized banks and the Volkswagen example I gave. And explain hitler's policy of price setting before the war.
Than please explain the nationalized banks in the US. And the setting of solid prizes in the allied countries.

What you are confusing with socialism is in reality just a normal occurrence during a mayor conflict or financial turmoil .


Also explain why, if Germany wasn't socialist, why all factories and businesses answered to hitler and the nazi cause.

They didn't.


IN WARTIME. NOT AS A TYPICAL ECONOMIC POLICY.

I am too familiar with this debate style of yours. In the future, if you bring up a point that has already been answered, I'll just ignore it, to save time and space.

If you did not constantly made the same arguments. I wouldn't have to repeat myself.



You mentioned that already earlier in your circular argument.

The nazis weren't a threat then.

They were...just a bunch of people preaching in bars and restaurants.

They were already considered a problem before Hitler joined.
And the government send undercover agents in to keep an eye on them.


Theoretically, yes.
But they weren't really a threat then. By the time they were a threat, and nazis were being jailed, they were already too powerful to ban or destroy.
Which is why it is important to ban them when they are still little.


Right now you are attempting to do your usual circular argument. If I say the nazis were too powerful to ban, you suggest that when they were a small local power in Nuremberg, they could be banned. When I remind you that they weren't a national threat then, you cite the jailing of nazis later on.
That is because the idea that the nazies weren't considered a thread is simply wrong.


But you are confusing two time periods in nazi development. In its early years, the nazi was neither a threat, nor was it overly powerful. When it was finally a distinguishable threat, it was too powerful to stop, due to lack of funds, support, and other factors that have been before-mentioned.
But to repeat myself again.
The Nazies were already considered a problem before Hitler even joined.

And had the government pressed harder after his arrest.
He would have been stopped.



Yes, but again. THEY LACKED THE FUNDS AND SUPPORT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
C'mon, lyc...
Yet then please explain how they managed to trail and convict them.

And please provide evidence that the German government was forced to let criminals roam free due a lack of funds.


Instead of going into a circular argument on my points, why can't you just rebut/refute them based on evidence instead of debating using arguments that have already been disproved.


I wasn't presenting the information (on why the nazi rise to power was unpreventable) from a standpoint of whether or not it was moral, I was presenting the information from a factual standpoint only.
I offered some well documented key moments where they could have been stopped.

You on the other hand have provided no evidence.


Whether or not I morally believe the will of the people should have been suppressed in that instance, still doesn't affect the facts.
The reason you couldn't ban the nazi party, is because such an act would be illegal.
Then preventing the holocaust would be illegal.
Meaning that all those heroes that fought the nazies back then, were criminals.

What do you prefer. Allowing democracy to be ruind and 6 million people to be gassed so a couple of people can have their freedom of speech and democracy.

Or suppressing some racist fascist and make the world a better place by preventing it.



I don't agree with banning parties, true, but even if I did believe in banning the nazi party, it wouldn't change anything.


12 million people actually.

But more importantly, the nazis did not run on a platform of genocide. They ran on an anti-jewish/communist/etc. platform of hate and ethnocentrism, but they never, as a matter of policy openly stated that they wanted to extinguish jews via murder.

That's what they ended up doing, but it isn't something their party platform consisted of.
Which is an important factor in why the nazi party wasn't banned. Nobody foresaw it killing 6 million jews and millions of others.

Even calling for deportation and castration of groups is considered ethnic cleansing. And with the racist propaganda they have been spewing. Problems should be expected.
And not waved of in a misplaced trust in humanity.


Before you respond to that, with more wikipedia garbage please read the following taken from the book "The Atlas of Jewish History" by Martin Gilbert.

I already know you are going to try to prove that everyone in the world thought nazis were going to kill jews, but I am about to lay that myth to rest, with this passage:

Madagascar:



Many people, not just you, have trouble grasping the fact that the nazis did not consider killing jews as their first option. They just wanted to get them out of Europe. Initially, they had plans to relocate 4 million jews to Madagascar, where they could set up a form of self government under the German Empire.

The german government actually had wanted to send the jews to Palestine. But they couldn't, because it was still under British rule.

But because funds had to be focused elsewhere, they got rid of the jews in the most fiscally reasonable way they could think of.
I am aware of the Israel option.
But mass deportation is still considered ethnic cleansing and highly immoral.



I'm not opposing many of those strategies. They just wouldn't work.

If germany could have brought down the nazi party, great.


Then obviously prosecution didn't work.
The problem is that they have been way to lacks about it.




I am also talking about much more drastic measures being taken. Stopping hitler at that point wouldn't have stopped the momentum of the naxi party.
Banning the entire Nazi party and revivals however would have done the trick.




You have yet to provide any convincing evidence as to how that could be done.


Apparently you didn't understand what I just said. I said there was only one national socialist party, and you have not proved that statement false.
There was also the "German Völkisch Freedom Party" and the "Volkisch social bloc"
Not to mention the various other parties to chose from.


Even IF that were true (and you have yet to provide any evidence that supports that position [your links do not support your position]),I believe jena is suggesting that political balances are always tilting to one sector. In the case of the germans (correct me if I misinterpreted you, jena), they were more socialistic and fascist than anything else.
They are fascist. There is no reason to doubt that label.

[Mezurashi]

for all those who think that Hitler was a Socialist please read a history of the Thule Gesselschaft and it's influence on the ruling body of the Nazi Party.

and as I said in a previous thread, nether Socialism, Communism or Capitalism works in a Dictatorship - what you get when that happens is a Dictatorship with ribbons and ruffles so to label them as anything but Dictatorships is clutching at straws (Jena you should know better already).

If America were a Dictatorship (as per definition and not assumption) would you still call it a Capitalist Nation?

if not, then why call the USSR Communist or Nazi Germany Socialist? unless you're just looking for something, anything, bad to say ...

oh, right, never mind ...

[Cartesiantheater]

Spend some time on that website I provided. What I posted is just a small fraction of it.




Actually claims that Hitler was right wing is left wing propaganda. Hitler had far more in common with the left wing than the right including eugenics, the philosophy of working for the betterment of all, hatred of capitalism and on and on.

Go back and look at the political quiz.

Here are two images on the political quiz website superimposed together.

What you find is that out of Obama, McCain, Huckabee and Clinton, it is HITLERY Clinton that is the FARTHEST AWAY from Hitler! How's that for irony? (and Obama is farther from Hitler than both McCain and Huckabee).


http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4570/distancetohitler.png (http://img195.imageshack.us/i/distancetohitler.png/)

As a whole, both Democrats and Republicans are about an equal net distance away from Hitler politically (although there are farther out outlying Democrats, but since these are anomalies, they can be disregarded. Of all politicians in the last Presidential race, Ralph Nader and Mike Gravel are just about equally the farthest away from Hitler. Ron Paul is the farthest Republican away from Hitler, and Gravel is the farthest Democrat, with Dennis Kucinich right on his tail).






The fallacy in this thread is that Hitler was EITHER left wing OR right wing, and that you are EITHER socialist OR capitalist.

Neither are true. These are FALSE DICHOTOMIES so characteristic of American thinking (and at least in my personal experience, I see it all the time among the "Rush Limbaugh" variety conservative).



In SOME WAYS Nazi Germany was socialist and in some ways it wasn't. In someways it was Left-wing and in some ways it was Right-wing.


Nazi Germany was against democratic socialism, it was against liberalism, it was against communism, against social liberalism, and it was against capitalism.

In other words, Nazi Germany was against BOTH extremes of American politics (which are a lot closer together on the bigger, international picture, mind you), yet for some reason both of these two sides are trying to claim that the other is like Nazism.


"Stop thinking in one dimension" would be the implication.

[iulian28ti]

The fallacy in this thread is that Hitler was EITHER left wing OR right wing, and that you are EITHER socialist OR capitalist.

Neither are true. These are FALSE DICHOTOMIES so characteristic of American thinking (and at least in my personal experience, I see it all the time among the "Rush Limbaugh" variety conservative).
I agree...

[James Random]

While he was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, he was quintessentially a Totalitarian. It amazes me to see how little people know about Hitler in this day and age despite the fact he's one of the most important figures in History for multiple reasons - good and bad.

The began as a socialist delivering mail on a pushbike in WW1 to the trenches. Somewhere between there and taking leadership of the National Socialist German Workers Party, he became a progressive where he made many fantastic changes to Germany that secured it's place as a economic competitor even here in the 21st century.

Sometime between there and the start of WW2 he became a totalitarian and allowed his totalitarian beliefs to fuel WW2. The holocaust had very little to do with the war proper, it was just a sideline desire to see a single master race and had it not been for his focus on this particular sideline, he may very well have won the war.

It's not generally known for certain what made him a totalitarian, but it's believed his hatred of Jews was inherent.

[Cherisa]

How com it's always Hitler? Stalin killed more, but Hitler is most discussed?
Why?

[lycanox]

You cant really compare evil by just looking at the number of victims.
History is littered with people that would have ranked higher scores than Hitler of Stalin. But failed because their civilization was not developed enough to kill lots of people. Or simply because there weren't enough people around back then.

So while Stalin killed more people. It had more to do with mismanagement, a results no matter the cost and aggressive mentality. And the fact that he had a vast amount of people in his control for a much longer time.
Which is in my opinion a degree less evil than Hitlers cold blooded systematic extermination approach.

As for this topic.
Stalin got his power in revolutions against other despots and dictators and removing the right rival party members.
While Hitler got his power democratically in what already was a a normal democratic free country.

Making Hitler a lot more relative to the debate of modern fascism in the modern western world. Than Stalin is.

[lycanox]

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4570/distancetohitler.png

As a whole, both Democrats and Republicans are about an equal net distance away from Hitler politically (although there are farther out outlying Democrats, but since these are anomalies, they can be disregarded. Of all politicians in the last Presidential race, Ralph Nader and Mike Gravel are just about equally the farthest away from Hitler. Ron Paul is the farthest Republican away from Hitler, and Gravel is the farthest Democrat, with Dennis Kucinich right on his tail).
I think you are reading the chart a bit wrong.

Qua economic policies, the republicans the furthest away from Hitler.
But the problem with Hitler was however not his economic system. But his political totalitarian system. And looking at that scale, the Republicans are a lot closer to Hitler than the democrats are. With some politicians even at roughly the same level.

[James Random]

How com it's always Hitler? Stalin killed more, but Hitler is most discussed?
Why?


Cause, for some reason, Lycanox is obsessed with the Nazi's.

[Cherisa]

But Hitler is the most brought up. I guess I'll go start a thread about Stalin..

[JenaS62]

But Hitler is the most brought up. I guess I'll go start a thread about Stalin..


I started the Ukrainian holocaust thread but Lycanox refused to believe that Stalin intended genocide. He blamed it on a scientist and bad planning. You'd be wasting your time.

[MaximumPain]

Stalin's purges are well documented. I don't think his were as ethnically motivated as Hitlers while he did target some minorities (including Jews) a lot of the killing he did was just to insure he kept power. Another thing is that with the Nazis they had their racial hatred right in their platform and propaganda.

Remember that Stalin was our ally and his nation really did the heavy lifting against the Nazi threat due to facing at least 70% of the German army and taking by far the most casualties military and civilian (in the west its still not clear how many Chinese the Imperial Japanese army killed and we will never know). At the end of the war it was politically expedient to go after the Nazis and ignore what the soviets did the world so wanted peace by then that they ignored the crimes of war.

[lycanox]

I started the Ukrainian holocaust thread but Lycanox refused to believe that Stalin intended genocide. He blamed it on a scientist and bad planning. You'd be wasting your time.

Mostly because no evidence has ever surfaced that Stalin deliberately intended to cause massive famines with the purpose of killing ukrainians.
And if the famines were only supposed to target the Ukrainians. It makes very little to no historical sense that similar but unrelated famines occurred in Russian populated areas and even allied foreign countries as well.

That a man killed millions of people does not mean that every person that died in his country died because he wanted to kill him.

[James Random]

Mostly because no evidence has ever surfaced that Stalin deliberately intended to cause massive famines with the purpose of killing ukrainians.
And if the famines were only supposed to target the Ukrainians. It makes very little to no historical sense that similar but unrelated famines occurred in Russian populated areas and even allied foreign countries as well.

That a man killed millions of people does not mean that every person that died in his country died because he wanted to kill him.

I'm sorry but you seem to know as much about history as you do microbiology, which is not very much. The Stalinist holocaust is well documented. You'd be wise to open up a real history book rather than just googling for nonsense.

[MaximumPain]

I'm sorry but you seem to know as much about history as you do microbiology, which is not very much. The Stalinist holocaust is well documented. You'd be wise to open up a real history book rather than just googling for nonsense.

Cmon James you've been here long enough to know that Lycanox is NEVER wrong... EVER not even one time. Well once he was wrong but it was because he thought he was wrong but found out later that he couldn't have been wrong because hes always right.

Seriously Lycanox its ok to admit your wrong once and a while and let someone else win an argument. Try it you might find it uniquely refreshing.

[James Random]

Cmon James you've been here long enough to know that Lycanox is NEVER wrong... EVER not even one time. Well once he was wrong but it was because he thought he was wrong but found out later that he couldn't have been wrong because hes always right.

Seriously Lycanox its ok to admit your wrong once and a while and let someone else win an argument. Try it you might find it uniquely refreshing.

Lol. Epic post. :bondage:

[lycanox]

I am not claiming Stalin did not kill millions of people.
I just don't consider the Ukrainian famine as a genocide but as a crime against humanity. Just like the vast majority of countries on this planet.

And unless some document shows up in which Stalin orders the artificial creation of a huge famine with the purpose to kill only Ukrainians. I doubt this classification is gonna change anytime soon.

[James Random]

I am not claiming Stalin did not kill millions of people.
I just don't consider the Ukrainian famine as a genocide but as a crime against humanity. Just like the vast majority of countries on this planet.

And unless some document shows up in which Stalin orders the artificial creation of a huge famine with the purpose to kill only Ukrainians. I doubt this classification is gonna change anytime soon.


If you engineer anything - famine or not - to kill tens of millions of people, then that is genocide. It doesn't necessarily require military action. You're not very bright.

[JenaS62]

I am not claiming Stalin did not kill millions of people.
I just don't consider the Ukrainian famine as a genocide but as a crime against humanity. Just like the vast majority of countries on this planet.

And unless some document shows up in which Stalin orders the artificial creation of a huge famine with the purpose to kill only Ukrainians. I doubt this classification is gonna change anytime soon.



Lycanox - I posted this in the Ukraine Holocaust thread. Clearly shows intent. Not good enough?

Addendum to the minutes of Politburo [meeting] No. 93.

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S COMMISSARS OF THE UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC AND OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIK) OF UKRAINE ON BLACKLISTING VILLAGES THAT MALICIOUSLY SABOTAGE THE COLLECTION OF GRAIN.

In view of the shameful collapse of grain collection in the more remote regions of Ukraine, the Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee call upon the oblast executive committees and the oblast [party] committees as well as the raion executive committees and the raion [party] committees: to break up the sabotage of grain collection, which has been organized by kulak and counterrevolutionary elements; to liquidate the resistance of some of the rural communists, who in fact have become the leaders of the sabotage; to eliminate the passivity and complacency toward the saboteurs, incompatible with being a party member; and to ensure, with maximum speed, full and absolute compliance with the plan for grain collection.

The Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee resolve:

To place the following villages on the black list for overt disruption of the grain collection plan and for malicious sabotage, organized by kulak and counterrevolutionary elements:

1. village of Verbka in Pavlograd raion, Dnepropetrovsk oblast.

...

5. village of Sviatotroitskoe in Troitsk raion, Odessa oblast.

6. village of Peski in Bashtan raion, Odessa oblast.

The following measures should be undertaken with respect to these villages :


Immediate cessation of delivery of goods, complete suspension of cooperative and state trade in the villages, and removal of all available goods from cooperative and state stores.

Full prohibition of collective farm trade for both collective farms and collective farmers, and for private farmers.

Cessation of any sort of credit and demand for early repayment of credit and other financial obligations.

Investigation and purge of all sorts of foreign and hostile elements from cooperative and state institutions, to be carried out by organs of the Workers and Peasants Inspectorate.

Investigation and purge of collective farms in these villages, with removal of counterrevolutionary elements and organizers of grain collection disruption.

The Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee call upon all collective and private farmers who are honest and dedicated to Soviet rule to organize all their efforts for a merciless struggle against kulaks and their accomplices in order to: defeat in their villages the kulak sabotage of grain collection; fulfill honestly and conscientiously their grain collection obligations to the Soviet authorities; and strengthen collective farms.

CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S
COMMISSARS OF THE UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLIC - V. CHUBAR'.

SECRETARY OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIK) OF UKRAINE - S. KOSIOR.

6 December 1932.

True copy

[lycanox]

If you engineer anything - famine or not - to kill tens of millions of people, then that is genocide. It doesn't necessarily require military action. You're not very bright.

Not really. As the definition of genocide is.


: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

The famine was the result of poor decisions to increase food production, distribution, disaster response and propaganda. Not a deliberate decision to start a famine to kill people.

The history of the soviet union and communist china is riddled with famines that killed millions that started in nearly exactly the same way. But hit large groups of Russians, Chinese and other groups that were not specifically targeted by the authorities. The famines were thus killing indiscriminately and not targeting an specific group.

The famine can thus not considered genocide. And is thus at best a man made disaster that happened to occur in a location occupied by a minority.

The way the soviet regime however dealt with the famine, both in response as learning lesions. For example the decision to cover up the event. The lack of aid being send and the refusal to change the agricultural and food distribution policies responsible for the disaster after the famine. Are enough to class it as a crime against humanity.


: atrocity (as extermination or enslavement) that is directed especially against an entire population or part of a population on specious grounds and without regard to individual guilt or responsibility even on such grounds

[JenaS62]

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, here we go 'round the mulberry bush so early in the mornin'.

[MaximumPain]

Lycanox - I posted this in the Ukraine Holocaust thread. Clearly shows intent. Not good enough?

Addendum to the minutes of Politburo [meeting] No. 93.

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S COMMISSARS OF THE UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC AND OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIK) OF UKRAINE ON BLACKLISTING VILLAGES THAT MALICIOUSLY SABOTAGE THE COLLECTION OF GRAIN.

In view of the shameful collapse of grain collection in the more remote regions of Ukraine, the Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee call upon the oblast executive committees and the oblast [party] committees as well as the raion executive committees and the raion [party] committees: to break up the sabotage of grain collection, which has been organized by kulak and counterrevolutionary elements; to liquidate the resistance of some of the rural communists, who in fact have become the leaders of the sabotage; to eliminate the passivity and complacency toward the saboteurs, incompatible with being a party member; and to ensure, with maximum speed, full and absolute compliance with the plan for grain collection.

The Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee resolve:

To place the following villages on the black list for overt disruption of the grain collection plan and for malicious sabotage, organized by kulak and counterrevolutionary elements:

1. village of Verbka in Pavlograd raion, Dnepropetrovsk oblast.

...

5. village of Sviatotroitskoe in Troitsk raion, Odessa oblast.

6. village of Peski in Bashtan raion, Odessa oblast.

The following measures should be undertaken with respect to these villages :


Immediate cessation of delivery of goods, complete suspension of cooperative and state trade in the villages, and removal of all available goods from cooperative and state stores.

Full prohibition of collective farm trade for both collective farms and collective farmers, and for private farmers.

Cessation of any sort of credit and demand for early repayment of credit and other financial obligations.

Investigation and purge of all sorts of foreign and hostile elements from cooperative and state institutions, to be carried out by organs of the Workers and Peasants Inspectorate.

Investigation and purge of collective farms in these villages, with removal of counterrevolutionary elements and organizers of grain collection disruption.

The Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee call upon all collective and private farmers who are honest and dedicated to Soviet rule to organize all their efforts for a merciless struggle against kulaks and their accomplices in order to: defeat in their villages the kulak sabotage of grain collection; fulfill honestly and conscientiously their grain collection obligations to the Soviet authorities; and strengthen collective farms.

CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S
COMMISSARS OF THE UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLIC - V. CHUBAR'.

SECRETARY OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIK) OF UKRAINE - S. KOSIOR.

6 December 1932.

True copy

Damn Jena! Nice work. :bondage: I already gave you rep once today so I'll get you a pos rep for this post later.

[lycanox]

Lycanox - I posted this in the Ukraine Holocaust thread. Clearly shows intent. Not good enough?

Addendum to the minutes of Politburo [meeting] No. 93.

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S COMMISSARS OF THE UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC AND OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIK) OF UKRAINE ON BLACKLISTING VILLAGES THAT MALICIOUSLY SABOTAGE THE COLLECTION OF GRAIN.

In view of the shameful collapse of grain collection in the more remote regions of Ukraine, the Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee call upon the oblast executive committees and the oblast [party] committees as well as the raion executive committees and the raion [party] committees: to break up the sabotage of grain collection, which has been organized by kulak and counterrevolutionary elements; to liquidate the resistance of some of the rural communists, who in fact have become the leaders of the sabotage; to eliminate the passivity and complacency toward the saboteurs, incompatible with being a party member; and to ensure, with maximum speed, full and absolute compliance with the plan for grain collection.

The Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee resolve:

To place the following villages on the black list for overt disruption of the grain collection plan and for malicious sabotage, organized by kulak and counterrevolutionary elements:

1. village of Verbka in Pavlograd raion, Dnepropetrovsk oblast.

...

5. village of Sviatotroitskoe in Troitsk raion, Odessa oblast.

6. village of Peski in Bashtan raion, Odessa oblast.

The following measures should be undertaken with respect to these villages :


Immediate cessation of delivery of goods, complete suspension of cooperative and state trade in the villages, and removal of all available goods from cooperative and state stores.

Full prohibition of collective farm trade for both collective farms and collective farmers, and for private farmers.

Cessation of any sort of credit and demand for early repayment of credit and other financial obligations.

Investigation and purge of all sorts of foreign and hostile elements from cooperative and state institutions, to be carried out by organs of the Workers and Peasants Inspectorate.

Investigation and purge of collective farms in these villages, with removal of counterrevolutionary elements and organizers of grain collection disruption.

The Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee call upon all collective and private farmers who are honest and dedicated to Soviet rule to organize all their efforts for a merciless struggle against kulaks and their accomplices in order to: defeat in their villages the kulak sabotage of grain collection; fulfill honestly and conscientiously their grain collection obligations to the Soviet authorities; and strengthen collective farms.

CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S
COMMISSARS OF THE UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLIC - V. CHUBAR'.

SECRETARY OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIK) OF UKRAINE - S. KOSIOR.

6 December 1932.

True copy
That letter only show the poor handling of the crisis.
Which shows that the government blames the collapse on terrorist.
Followed with their usual response to such accusations.

It however reveils nothing about the cause of the crisis.

[JenaS62]

Damn Jena! Nice work. :bondage: I already gave you rep once today so I'll get you a pos rep for this post later.


Yes you did MP. Thanks so much for that!


Lycanox always demands proof and then dismisses it. He tried to say this document was manufactured after the fact. :noevl:

[MaximumPain]

That letter only show the poor handling of the crisis.
Which shows that the government blames the collapse on terrorist.
Followed with their usual response to such accusations.

It however reveils nothing about the cause of the crisis.

Umm did you read it?



Immediate cessation of delivery of goods, complete suspension of cooperative and state trade in the villages, and removal of all available goods from cooperative and state stores.

Full prohibition of collective farm trade for both collective farms and collective farmers, and for private farmers.

Cessation of any sort of credit and demand for early repayment of credit and other financial obligations.

Investigation and purge of all sorts of foreign and hostile elements from cooperative and state institutions, to be carried out by organs of the Workers and Peasants Inspectorate.

Investigation and purge of collective farms in these villages, with removal of counterrevolutionary elements and organizers of grain collection disruption.

The Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee call upon all collective and private farmers who are honest and dedicated to Soviet rule to organize all their efforts for a merciless struggle against kulaks and their accomplices in order to: defeat in their villages the kulak sabotage of grain collection; fulfill honestly and conscientiously their grain collection obligations to the Soviet authorities; and strengthen collective farms.


Seriously that shows intent and targets an ethnic group the Kulaks.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm
Are you high or just the most stubborn person on the forums?

Edit ~ Changed the quote I cited to the one I wanted.

[JenaS62]

That letter only show the poor handling of the crisis.
Which shows that the government blames the collapse on terrorist.
Followed with their usual response to such accusations.

It however reveils nothing about the cause of the crisis.


So you did not read that the government was going to withhold grain, terminate credit and call in loans for those so called terrorist?

[lycanox]

Umm did you read it?



Seriously that shows intent. Are you high or just the most stubborn person on the forums?


So you did not read that the government was going to withhold grain, terminate credit and call in loans for those so called terrorist?
It is a well known fact that the Soviet and Chinese government used terrorists as a scapegoat excuse to cover up that the system is not working. And were ruthless enough to actually prosecute people for it.
And as the memo itself states. The famine was already occurring at the time of the memo. So it offers no clue at the cause of the famine.

And it definitely does not provide evidence that the famines discriminated between Ukrainians and Native Russians.

[MaximumPain]

Arguing with Lyconox.

:doh::wallbash::hdex:

[James Random]

Arguing with Lyconox.

:doh::wallbash::hdex:


Quoted for truth. I expect this is why he works at the danish version of wal-mart.

[JenaS62]

And as the memo itself states. The famine was already occurring at the time of the memo. So it offers no clue at the cause of the famine.



Actually it does:

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S COMMISSARS OF THE UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC AND OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIK) OF UKRAINE ON BLACKLISTING VILLAGES THAT MALICIOUSLY SABOTAGE THE COLLECTION OF GRAIN.

So it appears that some villages sabotaged the collection of grain in a attempt to stop collectivism and they were therefore starved to death by their government. Is it a language thing with you or what?

[lycanox]

No they were used as a scapegoat to prevent the people outside the affected areas from finding out that Stalin planned economy made another big error.

There never was any large scale grain sabotage. And if there was, it would only prove that that the government was somewhat correct in blaming terrorist for the famine. As it would surely have added to the shortages the area was experiencing.

And again, this is a memo from the mid of the famine. Thus is no evidence value about the beginning of the famine. Only that the soviets worsened the famine.
If you really want to provide evidence for genocide.

If you want to prove genocide. You would have to provide evidence that this famine was different from the ones in the soviet union and China and was deliberately planned prior to the famine as a tool to wipe out Ukrainians.

[James Random]

Everytime I speak all you hear is this (http://www.slinkycity.com/audio/sheep.wav)

Fixed it for you.

[lycanox]

Sounds like someone is acting childish again because they cant win the argument.

[MaximumPain]

Actually you are a big man Lycanox you seem to keep your composure no matter how pedantic the comments get. However you are wrong on this one the evidance has been shown that a specific ethnic group in this case the Kulak's was targeted by the Soviets who were lead by Comrade Stalin. What else is needed to prove genocide? You seem to be arguing intent or that it didnt start out as a genocide. While it may not have started as one the fact that they produced a policy that targeted the Kulaks for starvation is basically the definition of genocide.

[MaximumPain]

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. Individuals only, not states, can be charged for genocide according to the UN Genocide Convention.

Here is the definition of genocide per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
so do you disagree with it? Would you like a chance to post your own definition?

Also Id like your opinion on whether what Mao did in China to the intellectuals was genocide?

[lycanox]

Actually you are a big man Lycanox you seem to keep your composure no matter how pedantic the comments get. However you are wrong on this one the evidance has been shown that a specific ethnic group in this case the Kulak's was targeted by the Soviets who were lead by Comrade Stalin.

What else is needed to prove genocide? You seem to be arguing intent or that it didnt start out as a genocide. While it may not have started as one the fact that they produced a policy that targeted the Kulaks for starvation is basically the definition of genocide.
I am not denying that certain groups were targeted during Stalins reign.
However that the kulaks were targeted as scapegoats for the famine during the famine does not mean the famine itself is a an act of genocide.


Here is the definition of genocide per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
so do you disagree with it? Would you like a chance to post your own definition?
I am aware of the definition and explained why Ukraine does not fit in earlier.


Also Id like your opinion on whether what Mao did in China to the intellectuals was genocide?
The extermination of intelectuals yes. The famines that plagued the country not.

[JenaS62]

The extermination of intelectuals yes.


So intellectuals fit "racial, cultural or ethnic group" you defined? How so?

[MaximumPain]

I am not denying that certain groups were targeted during Stalins reign.
However that the kulaks were targeted as scapegoats for the famine during the famine does not mean the famine itself is a an act of genocide.

Ok here is the communication breakdown (great Led Zeppelin song by the way). You are speaking specifically of the famine and everyone else is talking about the genocide it self and not making a distinction between methods of killing.



I am aware of the definition and explained why Ukraine does not fit in earlier. Just checking that we were on the same page on that.



The extermination of intellectuals yes. The famines that plagued the country not.
Good because the Kuluks are not really an ethnic group but more of a social class and I think attacking a specific class is also genocide.

[kadunk]

while were on the nazi topc somthing i want to know
at one time hitler created what was calld the solution to the jewih people
then came the death camps.. the Holocaust . what was the reason of why it was a solution to kill all those jews..

[lycanox]

The Nazis believed that at one point of history, there was a race of superior people. That had nearly superpower like abilities. But that those abilities deteriorated and disappeared due to inbreeding with inferior groups of people. Which supposedly were out to conquer and ruin the world.
Through selective breeding and the forcefully removal of bad influences on the gene pool. The nazies hoped to restore the superior race to its former glory.

However the early measures to remove them like deportation and execution proved to be to slow and inefficient for the nazis. And drained to much of the war resources. So they switched to the work/dead camp approach.

[kadunk]

man thats bad. sick to
now im sick

[iulian28ti]

It's BS and it's bad for ya !

not my words...

[Beatnik Bob]

while were on the nazi topc somthing i want to know
at one time hitler created what was calld the solution to the jewih people
then came the death camps.. the Holocaust . what was the reason of why it was a solution to kill all those jews..
It was cheaper to work jews to death in camps, than it was to send them out of Europe to either Palestine or Madagascar.

Which was the nazi's original plan: to relocate the jews out of europe to their own nation.


and as I said in a previous thread, nether Socialism, Communism or Capitalism works in a Dictatorship
I think the point was the conduciveness of either government type with each economic system.

For example, free market or capitalistic systems are rarely conducive with despotism. But on the other hand, because Hitler ran on a platform of nationalization, it means that it would make the most sense for him to become a dictator..


If America were a Dictatorship (as per definition and not assumption) would you still call it a Capitalist Nation?
It’s possible. It depends if the dictator only controls all legislation and justice, but, by his total power, allows business to continue unabated. Meaning a dictator could preside over a free market system. It is a possibility.
What’s more, it is indeed possible that a dictator could preside over a country that valued private property.

In SOME WAYS Nazi Germany was socialist and in some ways it wasn't. In someways it was Left-wing and in some ways it was Right-wing. If you looked at it in a government aspect, in the way Germany was run economically, it was socialist.

Obviously, as I said, if you can consider “nativism” to be right-wing, then he was right wing in that respect. Much of his legislation was “right-wing,” but nearly all of his economic policies as well as his positions on infrastructure, were socialistic.
Meaning all property belonged to hitler and the nazi party, essentially. This policy of “nationalized” infrastructure gave the gestapo more power over the people. Or at least, an excuse for that power.


The fallacy in this thread is that Hitler was EITHER left wing OR right wing, and that you are EITHER socialist OR capitalist.

Neither are true. These are FALSE DICHOTOMIES so characteristic of American thinking (and at least in my personal experience, I see it all the time among the "Rush Limbaugh" variety conservative).



In SOME WAYS Nazi Germany was socialist and in some ways it wasn't. In someways it was Left-wing and in some ways it was Right-wing.
False conceptions, such as the one above, suggest that “socialist is to capitalist as right-wing is to left-wing.”
You have wrongly drawn a parallel where one didn’t necessarily exist. Whether hitler was right-wing or left-wing is fairly relative. What we can agree on though, is that under his supervision, germany was a socialistic country.

Mises: is that the German pattern "maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets." But in fact the government directs production decisions, curbs entrepreneurship and the labor market, and determines wages and interest rates by central authority.

Yet, I wonder. Many of the German factories were privately owned (such as Volkswagen), but when hitler told them how much they should sell their product for (indiscriminate of labor costs etc.) or that they had to manufacture a new product, the businessmen obeyed. Or, no doubt, their assets would be seized.
Which is why “private ownership of the means of production” doesn’t seem to always be historically accurate. Or at least, that ownership was a guise.


Banning the entire Nazi party and revivals however would have done the trick.

Again, it would have been illegal to ban such a party. And by the time banning would have ever been considered, the nazi party was too powerful to ban.
And prior to its rise in national popularity, it was not a threat, so there was no reason to ban it. (Not to mention undemocratic to ban them…)
What are you even suggesting? That hitler should have been executed? You see, there’s a problem with that…

It isn’t legal to execute someone who has not commited a crime worthy of the death penalty. Prior to hitler’s rise to power, he had commited no real crimes. If you can catagorize disenfranchizement as worthy of the death penalty, then you are looking at killing many others, not just hitler.
There was a large amount of civil unrest.


There was also the "German Völkisch Freedom Party" and the "Volkisch social bloc"
Not to mention the various other parties to chose from.

Those parties lacked charisma. To give you an example, nazism was more than a political party, it was nearly a religion.
The swastika, as you know, is a Sun symbol, and it had various spiritual connotations for germans.

To give you an idea, it would be like a political party emerging in america that used a giant cross and incorporated the right of christians to rule the world.
Nazism is to the crusades is to the jihad. In the sense that each rely on a system of “theocratic” hegemony, in the case of nazism, it was more spiritual than orthodox.


You however failed to prove they were a socialist country.
Which is understandable as they weren't.
What were they then? A country with a nationalized economy that had a system of…what? Free market? :Llol:

http://www.ghi-dc.org/publications/ghipubs/bu/031/19.pdf

[lycanox]

It’s possible. It depends if the dictator only controls all legislation and justice, but, by his total power, allows business to continue unabated. Meaning a dictator could preside over a free market system. It is a possibility.
Which happened with all non war essential industry.
Hitler for example did not control the toilet paper industry like Stalin did.




What’s more, it is indeed possible that a dictator could preside over a country that valued private property.
If you looked at it in a government aspect, in the way Germany was run economically, it was socialist.
Actually there was just as much private property in Nazi Germany as we would have today if WW3 broke out.



Obviously, as I said, if you can consider “nativism” to be right-wing, then he was right wing in that respect. Much of his legislation was “right-wing,” but nearly all of his economic policies as well as his positions on infrastructure, were socialistic.
Meaning all property belonged to hitler and the nazi party, essentially. This policy of “nationalized” infrastructure gave the gestapo more power over the people. Or at least, an excuse for that power.

Actually Socialism does not mean that the state owns everything.
You are confusing it with communism. Which is something completely different.


False conceptions, such as the one above, suggest that “socialist is to capitalist as right-wing is to left-wing.”

You have wrongly drawn a parallel where one didn’t necessarily exist. Whether hitler was right-wing or left-wing is fairly relative. What we can agree on though, is that under his supervision, germany was a socialistic country.
No it was a country with a couple of socialist laws. Just like America and nearly every country have some socialist laws.
And having some socialist laws does not make a country a left wing socialist country. Just as much as believing in a free market makes not someone a right wing capitalist.

At best Hitler and his ideology and policies can be classed somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
Making him neither a socialist or a hard core capitalist.


Yet, I wonder. Many of the German factories were privately owned (such as Volkswagen), but when hitler told them how much they should sell their product for (indiscriminate of labor costs etc.) or that they had to manufacture a new product, the businessmen obeyed. Or, no doubt, their assets would be seized.
Which is why “private ownership of the means of production” doesn’t seem to always be historically accurate. Or at least, that ownership was a guise.



Again, it would have been illegal to ban such a party. And by the time banning would have ever been considered, the nazi party was too powerful to ban.

And prior to its rise in national popularity, it was not a threat, so there was no reason to ban it. (Not to mention undemocratic to ban them…)
What are you even suggesting? That hitler should have been executed? You see, there’s a problem with that…

Again, your statement is historically incorrect and even causes an historical paradox.

The government considered the party a problem big enough to send in spies in to monitor their activities even before Hitler joined.
Had they banned it then. There would have been no Nazi party.

And they did actually banned the Nazi party once and blocked Hitlers freedom of speech by throwing him in jail. Proving that they had the power and tools to stop him. Unlike what you are suggesting.

If only they continued the pressure on the nazies. Instead of easing down. Hitler and his gang would never be able to gain power.

So I don't know why you keep insisting that the Nazis were an unstoppable force from day one. When History clearly proves you wrong on this matter.



It isn’t legal to execute someone who has not commited a crime worthy of the death penalty. Prior to hitler’s rise to power, he had commited no real crimes. If you can catagorize disenfranchizement as worthy of the death penalty, then you are looking at killing many others, not just hitler.
There was a large amount of civil unrest.
Nobody is talking about killing Hitler for saying bad stuff. (Aldo starting a revolution is considered bad enough for a death sentence in lots of places. So it would definitely be an open option)

Just about Jailing and censuring him until he either gives up or dies of natural causes.


Those parties lacked charisma. To give you an example, nazism was more than a political party, it was nearly a religion.
The swastika, as you know, is a Sun symbol, and it had various spiritual connotations for germans.

To give you an idea, it would be like a political party emerging in america that used a giant cross and incorporated the right of christians to rule the world.
Nazism is to the crusades is to the jihad. In the sense that each rely on a system of “theocratic” hegemony, in the case of nazism, it was more spiritual than orthodox.
We have already such group in the US. The KKK. The only problem they have is that their extreme level of racism is not rampant in the US.
As the extreme level of antisemitism was in the world back then.

However, if they were slowly rising to power in the US. Would you want them to succeed and start deporting black people. Or want to ban them and prevent another genocide.


What were they then? A country with a nationalized economy that had a system of…what? Free market? :Llol:

http://www.ghi-dc.org/publications/ghipubs/bu/031/19.pdf
They had a free market as long the war allowed them too.

Stuff were sold on markets based on need and demand by fluctuation in resources as in any capitalist countries. And companies were started or went broke without any forced government influence.

Only when the country started to ran out of several resources like oil and weapons. The government stepped in and rationed the resource. Or forced companies to increase production.

But those are emergency measures. Not government policy.
If the US were to run out of an oil in the next couple of weeks. The government would step in and force companies with the correct
tools to produce replacements. Or force other companies to slow down or stop production. And if the US were to ran out of tanks in a huge war faster than the current Tank company can replace them. They too would force factories to switch production.

And again, if Hitler was a socialist. Why did he prosecute them?

[Cartesiantheater]

[...]
If you looked at it in a government aspect, in the way Germany was run economically, it was socialist.



Whether hitler was right-wing or left-wing is fairly relative.

The same can be said about whether or not Hitler was "socialist."

There was certainly a few aspects of a free market in Nazi Germany, on the small scale. There was also many aspects of socialism. But more than anything I believe that if you're going to use the word "socialism" to describe Germany, you need to qualify it with the word "fascist." Because socialism is not about the state owning everything, it is about the community owning everything.

Socialism is very liberal by nature. Everyone has some control or say over the economy in a true socialist economy. Socialism is very collectivist. It is not a centralist economic theory. The only way you get a socialist economy that is is if that economy is also fascist (and in that sense you've already betrayed the "soul" of socialism). As Marx said,"Democracy is the road to socialism."



So, you should take care in throwing around such words and classifications.



Obviously, as I said, if you can consider “nativism” to be right-wing, then he was right wing in that respect. Much of his legislation was “right-wing,” but nearly all of his economic policies as well as his positions on infrastructure, were socialistic.
Meaning all property belonged to hitler and the nazi party, essentially. This policy of “nationalized” infrastructure gave the gestapo more power over the people. Or at least, an excuse for that power.

That is not what socialism means. Socialism CAN be administered that way, but socialism as an economic policy implies property is owned "socially"- i.e. collectively.



Further, whether we classify Germany's economy as having socialist elements or capitalist elements depends on both the economic good being considered and the size of the company in the case of private business. While there were certainly socialist leanings, these were fascist socialist leanings where the ultimate goal of control is power to the state, whereas pure socialism implies community ownership and planning of all things economic.




False conceptions, such as the one above, suggest that “socialist is to capitalist as right-wing is to left-wing.”

What do you mean here? Socialist is a direction on an axis, and capitalism is as well, and on the extremes they are opposites (well, can be), in terms of how much "anarchy" is allowed in the market. Likewise, right-wing and left-wing politics are also at the extremes opposites, this time in terms of radical changes to government structure versus the exclusion of changes to government structure. However, the words "socialist" or "capitalist" and "right-wing" or "left-wing" are woefully insufficient to describe any real economy or government.





You have wrongly drawn a parallel where one didn’t necessarily exist. Whether hitler was right-wing or left-wing is fairly relative. What we can agree on though, is that under his supervision, germany was a socialistic country.

No we cannot. It was a fascist country, which employed elements of socialism, but even more so an economy influenced by Keynesian ideas, which are more of a degree than the extreme "socialism."

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4401913

^^ gives an interesting discussion.



Yet, I wonder. Many of the German factories were privately owned (such as Volkswagen), but when hitler told them how much they should sell their product for (indiscriminate of labor costs etc.) or that they had to manufacture a new product, the businessmen obeyed. Or, no doubt, their assets would be seized.


Yes. I would call that fascism, not socialism. Socialism does not require a government planning or controlling anything.


Further, I would say that pure socialism is significantly more to the left than Hitler's economic policies, and sites like Political compass make the same classification.

In fact, I would, again, say that Hitler's economic policies were rather Keynesian. His efforts to cure unemployment utilized very Keynesian ideas, like government funded infrastructure, etc (but of course, military spending was the big one here)- which would be more of a medium degree than the farther edges of pure socialism.

[Beatnik Bob]

There was certainly a few aspects of a free market in Nazi Germany, on the small scale. There was also many aspects of socialism. But more than anything I believe that if you're going to use the word "socialism" to describe Germany, you need to qualify it with the word "fascist." Because socialism is not about the state owning everything, it is about the community owning everything.
Yes, the community...

But the state is the community, in large scale socialism.

Communal distribution (in socialism) is in almost every case under the guidance of a faction or regime...like the nazi party.

You are talking about theoretical socialism. But theory and actuality are very different. For one, socialism only works on a small scale. The moment you blow it up to the size of a country (like the size of germany) it immediately loses much of its community-minded characteristics.

So to be fair, a socialistic nation is rarely, if ever, going to fit the definition you have for a socialistic economy. Because it is impossible to ever achieve a well-working socialistic economy on a large scale.


Socialism is very liberal by nature. Everyone has some control or say over the economy in a true socialist economy. Socialism is very collectivist.
Yes.
I have experienced socialism firsthand.
Kibbutzim are socialistic communes.

And you don't really have a say over the economy. To cite the kibbutz experience, you do what you have to do, and you get food, board and communal amenities.

There isn't even an economy to speak of. There's no booming trade. It's not merchant-class geared.

It is not a centralist economic theory. The only way you get a socialist economy that is is if that economy is also fascist (and in that sense you've already betrayed the "soul" of socialism). As Marx said,"Democracy is the road to socialism."[/Quote]
Just because Marx said that, doesn't make it reasonable.

Having a socialistic economy tends to lead towards tptalitarianism. At least, in the economic sector.

Because socialism is a cap on trade. If you applied the ideas of freedom to economics, you would arrive at a system of capitalism or free market, not socialism.

Even if you look at perfect forms of socialism. The small-scale communes, like kibbutzim, you can easily tell that trade is restricted. There is no trade, actually. You don't make a profit.
The only profit the kubbutzim ever make, is the profit they make off of capitalistic systems. If kibbutzim never did business with capitalists, they'd never make money.
In other words, if everyone lived in a kibbutz, they would be fairly poor. Because even when they export, they need a capitalist to buy it in a certain quantity, indifferent to communal ownership.

This goes for agricultural kibbutzim as well, not just the industrial ones (the glaring example of the weaknesses of socialism).

You can discuss theory all day long, but unless you have been in it, you may not know.


So, you should take care in throwing around such words and classifications.
If you nationalize something on a large scale, it is immediately suggestive of, if not the catalyst (if it is done as a matter of general policy), for a fascist or totalitarian system.


That is not what socialism means. Socialism CAN be administered that way, but socialism as an economic policy implies property is owned "socially"- i.e. collectively.
Further, whether we classify Germany's economy as having socialist elements or capitalist elements depends on both the economic good being considered and the size of the company in the case of private business. While there were certainly socialist leanings, these were fascist socialist leanings where the ultimate goal of control is power to the state, whereas pure socialism implies community ownership and planning of all things economic.
Again, your concept of socialism is not in congruence with the actual form of socialism enacted today.

Germany isn't a little community. When a nation of a certain size becomes socialized, there's usually only one way in which they do it. And it isn't democratically.

There's never going to be such a thing as a democracy that is purely commune-socialism.
At least, if it exists someday in the future, it will never survive in that state.


There's more to democracy than voting on leaders and representatives.


Yes. I would call that fascism, not socialism. Socialism does not require a government planning or controlling anything.
No, it doesn't require it.

But that is how you run a socialistic nation.

Again, a good example of this is Volkswagen. Even before WWII, hitler told porsche how much to sell volkswagen cars for.

Even though porsche owned volkswagen, hitler nationalized the auto industry and dictated to porsche how much the car should cost.

And this was for the benefit of the community.
(Socialism=Fascism)


In fact, I would, again, say that Hitler's economic policies were rather Keynesian.
Hardly a difference.

Look, you can call it whatever you want to call it (keynesianism or socialism) and be anal over the term applied to it, even though it doesn't matter, but the fact is that germany had:

-A nationalized banks and business

-Nationalized government infrastructure

-Social government functions

-Prices that disregard capitalistic ideas (such as the cost of manufacture and labor)

And you can call that whatever you want to. You can call it Keynesianism. Socialism. Bolshevism. Collectivism. Fabianism.

You can choose any synonym you want to apply to it. I call it socialism.


His efforts to cure unemployment utilized very Keynesian ideas, like government funded infrastructure, etc (but of course, military spending was the big one here)- which would be more of a medium degree than the farther edges of pure socialism.
Well, most economic systems are hybrids, yeah.

[lycanox]

Yes, the community...

But the state is the community, in large scale socialism.
Wrong, in socialism, the community is the state.

It appears you are severly confusing socialism with communism.



Communal distribution (in socialism) is in almost every case under the guidance of a faction or regime...like the nazi party.
Communal distribution is not limited to socialism alone. Especially not during conflicts.



You are talking about theoretical socialism. But theory and actuality are very different. For one, socialism only works on a small scale. The moment you blow it up to the size of a country (like the size of germany) it immediately loses much of its community-minded characteristics.
Not necessary. Socialism does not limit itself to larger groups.
It would only take an different form to work when working on different scales.


So to be fair, a socialistic nation is rarely, if ever, going to fit the definition you have for a socialistic economy. Because it is impossible to ever achieve a well-working socialistic economy on a large scale.
And yet, nearly the entire world pulls it of perfectly.



Yes.
I have experienced socialism firsthand.
Kibbutzim are socialistic communes.


And you don't really have a say over the economy. To cite the kibbutz experience, you do what you have to do, and you get food, board and communal amenities.

There isn't even an economy to speak of. There's no booming trade. It's not merchant-class geared.
Obviously you are confusing things again.


It is not a centralist economic theory. The only way you get a socialist economy that is is if that economy is also fascist (and in that sense you've already betrayed the "soul" of socialism). As Marx said,"Democracy is the road to socialism."
Just because Marx said that, doesn't make it reasonable.
Again most of the world already lives under socialism without any problems.

And since Hitler was a fascist. He was definitely not a socialist like you claim. As socialism and fascisms or despotism contradict each other.


Having a socialistic economy tends to lead towards tptalitarianism. At least, in the economic sector.

Because socialism is a cap on trade. If you applied the ideas of freedom to economics, you would arrive at a system of capitalism or free market, not socialism.

Even if you look at perfect forms of socialism. The small-scale communes, like kibbutzim, you can easily tell that trade is restricted. There is no trade, actually. You don't make a profit.
The only profit the kubbutzim ever make, is the profit they make off of capitalistic systems. If kibbutzim never did business with capitalists, they'd never make money.
In other words, if everyone lived in a kibbutz, they would be fairly poor. Because even when they export, they need a capitalist to buy it in a certain quantity, indifferent to communal ownership.

This goes for agricultural kibbutzim as well, not just the industrial ones (the glaring example of the weaknesses of socialism).

You can discuss theory all day long, but unless you have been in it, you may not know.


If you nationalize something on a large scale, it is immediately suggestive of, if not the catalyst (if it is done as a matter of general policy), for a fascist or totalitarian system.


Again, your concept of socialism is not in congruence with the actual form of socialism enacted today.

Germany isn't a little community. When a nation of a certain size becomes socialized, there's usually only one way in which they do it. And it isn't democratically.
Living in a socialist country myself. Surrounded with countless of other successful socialist countries. I can honestly say you are wrong in claiming that it does not work or eventually leads to fascism.


There's never going to be such a thing as a democracy that is purely commune-socialism.
At least, if it exists someday in the future, it will never survive in that state.
Socialism is a lot more than commune-socialism.



There's more to democracy than voting on leaders and representatives.
There is also far more to socialism to having a government mingle around a bit in the economy.


No, it doesn't require it.

But that is how you run a socialistic nation.
Nope. There are plenty of socialist countries with a capitalistic economic system.


Again, a good example of this is Volkswagen. Even before WWII, hitler told porsche how much to sell volkswagen cars for.

Even though porsche owned volkswagen, hitler nationalized the auto industry and dictated to porsche how much the car should cost.

And this was for the benefit of the community.
That does not make a country socialism. As as I repeat myself.
Socialism is a lot more than just the government mingling in the economy.


(Socialism=Fascism)

Since the two completely contradict each other.
That claim is as silly as claiming Communism=Capitalism.

Besides, since the US and Europe are socialist countries. It would mean the entire western world is in a fascist state. Which is hardly the case.


Hardly a difference.

Look, you can call it whatever you want to call it (keynesianism or socialism) and be anal over the term applied to it, even though it doesn't matter, but the fact is that germany had:

-A nationalized banks and business

So does the US after the economic crisis.


-Nationalized government infrastructure
So does the US to some level.


-Social government functions
Again, so does the US.


-Prices that disregard capitalistic ideas (such as the cost of manufacture and labor)

So did the US.


And you can call that whatever you want to. You can call it Keynesianism. Socialism. Bolshevism. Collectivism. Fabianism.

You can choose any synonym you want to apply to it. I call it socialism.
Then again, you display a complete lack of knowledge of what socialism is. As Socialism is a lot more than just an economic system.
As most of socialism deals with civil rights more power for the people.
Nazi Germany, as any fascist system is excluded from that label.



Well, most economic systems are hybrids, yeah.
Unless you live in a country where the old and weak are left to die.
And companies are allowed to agree with each other that they will all collectively rise the price for a leaf of bread to 10 dollar.

Yes.

[Beatnik Bob]

Wrong, in socialism, the community is the state.
That's what I just said. God.

Not necessary. Socialism does not limit itself to larger groups.
It would only take an different form to work when working on different scales.



And yet, nearly the entire world pulls it of perfectly.
I wouldn't describe a handful of countries as "nearly the entire world." What is wrong with you?

Scratch that.

I challenge you to name only ONE country that uses socialism perfectly, the way it was supposed to be, in theory.
A truly socialist country.


Obviously you are confusing things again.
Don't be handicapped, please.


Again most of the world already lives under socialism without any problems.
You are mentally retarded.

Statements like the above, don't even deserve a logical response.

If you give me an illogical, unreasonable, unproved, or stupid response, I will reply to it with an equally trite response.


And since Hitler was a fascist. He was definitely not a socialist like you claim. As socialism and fascisms or despotism contradict each other.
Apparently not.

If that were the case, hitler would not have a socialistic economy.

I've already gone over this, so I'm not going to beat a dead horse with you. Especially when it's a concept as simple as nationalization and collectivism being implemented in 1930s germany.

Hitler was a fascist, yes, but he used socialism for his country. Fascism isn't an economic system.
Which is to say, I am trying to maintain socialism as autonomous of fascism, even though in many ways the two systems go hand in hand.


Living in a socialist country myself. Surrounded with countless of other successful socialist countries. I can honestly say you are wrong in claiming that it does not work or eventually leads to fascism.[/Quote]
It doesn't work.

Netherlands isn't even that socialist. You obviously own your own home, you receive a decent wage, and you compete for wages.

And pay is based on ethic and labor.

And profit exists as a key element.

The netherlands is far from ever being a socialist country. They still have a competition/profit based system for the most part.


Socialism is a lot more than commune-socialism.
Commune socialism is the only type of socialism that works. Socialism is incapable of existing on a large scale.


Nope. There are plenty of socialist countries with a capitalistic economic system.
I'm referring to socialism in the economy of 1930s germany. Please stay on topic.


That does not make a country socialism. As as I repeat myself.
Socialism is a lot more than just the government mingling in the economy.
Then quit being vague and exasperating and expound on that.


Since the two completely contradict each other.
That claim is as silly as claiming Communism=Capitalism.
Instead of just saying shit, it would be nice if you could back your shit up with evidence. Instead of just stirring shit around with a stick. :D

Shit...


Besides, since the US and Europe are socialist countries. It would mean the entire western world is in a fascist state. Which is hardly the case.
Europe isn't a country.

Also, neither the U.S. or Europe are socialistic. They are first and foremost capitalistic.

Profit and economic growth are emphasized.

Profit is not a socialistic idea, and nearly every country in the world (even China) run on profit.



So does the US after the economic crisis.

So does the US to some level.

Again, so does the US.

So did the US.
Can you please stay on topic?

Instead of saying "so does the U.S." when I am pointing out the state of 1930s germany, could you please actually argue the point?

This discussion isn't about the U.S., the E.U. or China or whatever, it's about germany in a specific frame of time.


Then again, you display a complete lack of knowledge of what socialism is. As Socialism is a lot more than just an economic system.
It would be nice if you could read in context and stay on topic at the same time. I am only referring to the role of socialism in economics.

Go start a new thread if you want to discuss the merits of socialism in general.


As most of socialism deals with civil rights more power for the people.
Nazi Germany, as any fascist system is excluded from that label.
Which is why I have not been referring to that aspect of socialism...


And companies are allowed to agree with each other that they will all collectively rise the price for a leaf of bread to 10 dollar.
It is illegal for companies to do that in the U.S. It was illegal for them to do so before Marx ever wrote his manifesto, too.

[lycanox]

That's what I just said. God.
Not really.




I wouldn't describe a handful of countries as "nearly the entire world." What is wrong with you?
Europe alone is already more than an handfull of countries.


Scratch that.

I challenge you to name only ONE country that uses socialism perfectly, the way it was supposed to be, in theory.
A truly socialist country.

How about the US, netherlands, Germany, belgium. Canada and so on?


Don't be handicapped, please.


You are mentally retarded.

Statements like the above, don't even deserve a logical response.


If you give me an illogical, unreasonable, unproved, or stupid response, I will reply to it with an equally trite response.



Apparently not.
They do.


If that were the case, hitler would not have a socialistic economy.
The economy is only a small part of socialism. And it wasnt even that socialist as the majority of the economic infrastructure was based on capitalistic free market systems.


I've already gone over this, so I'm not going to beat a dead horse with you. Especially when it's a concept as simple as nationalization and collectivism being implemented in 1930s germany.


Hitler was a fascist, yes, but he used socialism for his country. Fascism isn't an economic system.
Which is to say, I am trying to maintain socialism as autonomous of fascism, even though in many ways the two systems go hand in hand.

Socialism isn't an economic system either.

And again, socialism is the believe that the population has the higher power. And that the state is nothing more than a way for the population to organize civil services and protect civil rights. Controlled by the people often in elections.

In fascism. The population falls under the state. The population has little or no control and serve merely as a tool for the state. And has yet to see if the great leader is kind enough to throw them a bone.

As a matter of fact. Socialism formed in Europe and America as a response to the bad leadership of the monarchy. Which was more interested in enriching themselves than taking care of the population.

And since Hitler was a fascist. It is thus impossible for him to be a socialist.


It doesn't work.

Netherlands isn't even that socialist. You obviously own your own home, you receive a decent wage, and you compete for wages.

And pay is based on ethic and labor.

And profit exists as a key element.

The netherlands is far from ever being a socialist country. They still have a competition/profit based system for the most part.

And again you are confusing socialism with Communism.

Our country has a strong constitution that guarantees peoples right. A very good welfare system for the poor, sick and elderly. And elects it leaders. Which are strong socialist ideals.


Commune socialism is the only type of socialism that works. Socialism is incapable of existing on a large scale.
Again, the world proves you wrong.



I'm referring to socialism in the economy of 1930s germany. Please stay on topic.


Then quit being vague and exasperating and expound on that.

In that case you are just branding something without proper investigation.


Instead of just saying shit, it would be nice if you could back your shit up with evidence. Instead of just stirring shit around with a stick. :D
How about History.

Socialism was the drive behind both the American, France and Russian revolution. Two of those predate the existence of communism with decades.





Europe isn't a country.

Also, neither the U.S. or Europe are socialistic. They are first and foremost capitalistic.

Again, socialism is more than just economy.

They are socialist countries that just happen to have a free market.


Profit and economic growth are emphasized.

Profit is not a socialistic idea, and nearly every country in the world (even China) run on profit.
Yet we do punish those countries that abuse their workers. And raise taxes to take care of the community. Have costly elections every couple of years. And have human rights that simply can not be suppressed by companies with profit as an excuse.

In short, we hold the community above the companies profits.





Can you please stay on topic?

Instead of saying "so does the U.S." when I am pointing out the state of 1930s germany, could you please actually argue the point?
Well, the US did for instance, ration steel and oil during the war.


This discussion isn't about the U.S., the E.U. or China or whatever, it's about germany in a specific frame of time.


It would be nice if you could read in context and stay on topic at the same time. I am only referring to the role of socialism in economics.

Go start a new thread if you want to discuss the merits of socialism in general.


Which is why I have not been referring to that aspect of socialism...

The question was, was Hitler an socialist. Not whether or not his economic system was socialist.



It is illegal for companies to do that in the U.S. It was illegal for them to do so before Marx ever wrote his manifesto, too.
Exactly, so we have socialistic ideas in our capitalistic economy.

Nor was Marx the inventor of Socialism. he invented Marxism.
Socialism was at that time already widespread.

[JenaS62]

How about the US, netherlands, Germany, belgium. Canada and so on?



None of those are socialist countries. The US? No way - we are capitalistic pigs remember?

From Wiki Answers:

Cuba: Cuba is one of the most Socialist nations, as it has a mostly state-run economy, universal healthcare, government-paid education at all levels, and a number of of social programs. It does not have a stock exchange.

North Korea: The same is true of North Korea, which has an almost entirely state-run economy, as well as the same social programs mentioned for Cuba. Like Cuba, North Korea does not have a stock exchange.

Venezuela: Economy has more private ownership, but the government social programs are quite extensive and the foreign policy is very left-wing. Cuban doctors and teachers have been brought to Venezuela to provide some medical and educational services.

China: A substantial part of the economy is still state-run, although there are not as many social programs as there once were and universal healthcare has been eliminated. Still has a Socialist-type foreign policy, for the most part.

Vietnam: A significant part of the economy is state-run. Close ties with Cuba, Venezuela, and Belarus.

Syria: Although not commonly referred to as Socialist in the West, Syria has a mostly state-run economy and universal healthcare, along with a left-wing foreign policy.

Belarus: Much of the Belarussian economy is state-run and some govt. social programs are available. Belarus has close ties with Venezuela, China, and other Socialist countries.

Laos: A large part of the economy is state-run, and the government has close ties with most other Socialist countries.

Zambia: Some elements of the economy are state-run, including most of the media. Universal healthcare and primary education are available. Zambia has a left-wing foreign policy and is friendly with China and North Korea.

Turkmenistan: Mostly state-run economy, various free and subsidized services are provided by the government. Housing and transportation are subsidized, natural gas and electricity are provided to citizens free of charge.

[James Random]

Oh loardy! Is this still going on?

round and round and round and round and round.

You wont win, Jena. Lycanox is too dense to realise he's wrong. It's not that he wont admit to being wrong, it's just that he's too dumb to know that his information is wrong.

[JenaS62]

Oh loardy! Is this still going on?

round and round and round and round and round.

You wont win, Jena. Lycanox is too dense to realise he's wrong. It's not that he wont admit to being wrong, it's just that he's too dumb to know that his information is wrong.



You're right. I don't know why I bother. I just snapped when I saw him type that the US is an example of a truly socialist country. Where does that even come from?

[JLEE]

Jena: It's too bad such an interesting topic gets twisted up & confused like this. I actually had to leave the computer for a couple of hours 'cause I was so baffled at going over the same crap repeatedly. My mind went blank. This is a serious thread. It should be treated as such. And that's all I ahve to say about that. Bitching done. :confused:

[JenaS62]

Jena: It's too bad such an interesting topic gets twisted up & confused like this. I actually had to leave the computer for a couple of hours 'cause I was so baffled at going over the same crap repeatedly. My mind went blank. This is a serious thread. It should be treated as such. And that's all I ahve to say about that. Bitching done. :confused:



Welcome to the world according to Lycanox. Quicksand and brick walls around every corner.

[JLEE]

What were we talking about again? I'm lost. I've got loads of info. to share.

[lycanox]

None of those are socialist countries. The US? No way - we are capitalistic pigs remember?

From Wiki Answers:

Cuba: Cuba is one of the most Socialist nations, as it has a mostly state-run economy, universal healthcare, government-paid education at all levels, and a number of of social programs. It does not have a stock exchange.

North Korea: The same is true of North Korea, which has an almost entirely state-run economy, as well as the same social programs mentioned for Cuba. Like Cuba, North Korea does not have a stock exchange.

Venezuela: Economy has more private ownership, but the government social programs are quite extensive and the foreign policy is very left-wing. Cuban doctors and teachers have been brought to Venezuela to provide some medical and educational services.

China: A substantial part of the economy is still state-run, although there are not as many social programs as there once were and universal healthcare has been eliminated. Still has a Socialist-type foreign policy, for the most part.

Vietnam: A significant part of the economy is state-run. Close ties with Cuba, Venezuela, and Belarus.

Syria: Although not commonly referred to as Socialist in the West, Syria has a mostly state-run economy and universal healthcare, along with a left-wing foreign policy.

Belarus: Much of the Belarussian economy is state-run and some govt. social programs are available. Belarus has close ties with Venezuela, China, and other Socialist countries.

Laos: A large part of the economy is state-run, and the government has close ties with most other Socialist countries.

Zambia: Some elements of the economy are state-run, including most of the media. Universal healthcare and primary education are available. Zambia has a left-wing foreign policy and is friendly with China and North Korea.

Turkmenistan: Mostly state-run economy, various free and subsidized services are provided by the government. Housing and transportation are subsidized, natural gas and electricity are provided to citizens free of charge.
The countries you list have a very socialist economic system.

However contrary to popular believe, socialism is a lot broader than just economics.
And on non economic fields It does not exclude the US or other countries.


Oh loardy! Is this still going on?

round and round and round and round and round.

You wont win, Jena. Lycanox is too dense to realise he's wrong. It's not that he wont admit to being wrong, it's just that he's too dumb to know that his information is wrong.

I thought you made a dramatic exit a while ago becouse I refused to ban people for acting like you?

[JenaS62]

The countries you list have a very socialist economic system.

However contrary to popular believe, socialism is a lot broader than just economics.
And on non economic fields It does not exclude the US or other countries.


You were asked by Bob to provide an example of even one truly socialist country - economic, social - the whole ball of yarn. You wrote - the US, Canada, Germany and Belgium. Do explain how those countries are truly socialist countries. I live in the US and this is a capitalist country. You know that it is. You just make shit up as you go along.

[Grutzez]

tell me at least one of you has read mein kampf.

[lycanox]

Again, socialism is a such broad term. That a country does not need to enforce economic socialism to be a socialist ideological country.


First we have the 2 most important systems.

Socialism.
The idea that the people control the government, and the only function of the government is to serve the people. Often accomplished with the aid of elections and constitutions detailing the rights of the people the government has to abide.
Formed as a response to power abuse of monarchism.

Monarchism, Despotism and Fascism.
Governments ruled by people that got their power in non democratic ways.
The people only exist to serve the state. And have no power.

Out of these systems spawned the following ideas regarding the economic system a country follows.


Capitalism.
Free market that respects socialistic ideas like human rights and democracy.
Corporations are not allowed to dump waste in towns. Or create inhumane working conditions. Predates as economic system even socialism. But the state does not control them. Or force unreasonable huge taxes on them purely for the sake of giving the profit to the people. Lacks a clear ideological view aside economics and thus wont make statements regarding how the country should be run in other aspects than economics. (Countries like the US and Europe)

Economic socialism.
Economic system completely based on the ideas of socialism proposed as an replacement for capitalism.
Companies are not only forced to respect human rights and democracy and such.
But are not allowed to make huge profit and have to share everything with the community. (Often in the form of Taxes to pay for the huge social projects such countries attempt.) (Countries like Cuba etc.)

Communism.
State run economy. The difference between the state and the economy are practically gone. highly prone to abuse from the government if corrupted.
(Formerly the Soviet union and China.)

Corporatism.
Free market system that does not follow socialistic ideas. Corporations are allowed to practically use slave labor or other clear violations of human rights to accomplish their goals. And control the government. (Corrupt government doom scenario. Sometimes seen in fascist countries.)


The sole reason that we mostly refer to economic socialism with socialism is because the non economic aspects have become so standard and accepted over the decades. And are shared in both systems.
So the only big issue left open for discussion is the economic aspect. Resulting in the big fight between capitalism and economic socialism.
And later on communism.

[JenaS62]

Quit babbling and just answer the question that was asked.

I say, I said (ala Foghorn Leghorn)

"Do explain how those countries are truly socialist countries."

[JLEE]

What the hell is the question again? Oh yeah.... Which country has a socialist economy. If I had an answer I'd end this right now. Oooh I gotta good one. How about Vatican City? lol :bondage:

[Beatnik Bob]

Socialism.
The idea that the people control the government, and the only function of the government is to serve the people. Often accomplished with the aid of elections and constitutions detailing the rights of the people the government has to abide.
Formed as a response to power abuse of monarchism.
The result of fierce (and false) E.U. propaganda no doubt. ^

That's actually the definition of democracy. Democracy, not socialism, was invented as a solution to monarchies, and it keeps the interests of the people closest. It historically maintains the value of a strong free market, as opposed to the oppressive nature of socialistic economies (on a large scale).
The theory of democracy existed thousands of years before socialism. Though both have existed in practice for a very long time.

Democracy means rule by the people, socialism means a limit on individualism and a cap on profit and trade.

Obviously thee are some key differences between socialism and democracy.


THIS IS THE REAL DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM. PLEASE STUDY IT. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)


AND THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy)



Not really.

Europe alone is already more than an handfull of countries.

How about the US, netherlands, Germany, belgium. Canada and so on?
You disturb me with your irrationality.


The economy is only a small part of socialism. And it wasnt even that socialist as the majority of the economic infrastructure was based on capitalistic free market systems.
Well, if you want to look at it that way, of course.

Like I said, even the most fundamental ideas of socialism use capitalism.

How? Well, every socialist country uses a currency of some sort. Currencies are a completely capitalistic idea. If socialism had no capitalism in it, nobody would be paid via a medium.

But that's not what is being talked about here. Nobody questions that economic systems can be hybrids. We question the fundamental characteristics of that system.
Like, I would not call a socialist nation capitalistic, simply because they utilized market/profit concepts to have a currency (which is of course, the ultimate scam inherent in socialism).


Socialism isn't an economic system either.
Give me reasons why I should take anything you say with more than a grain of salt?
When you say things like that?

Go click on the definition of socialism, instead of inventing the definition by yourself, as you go along.


And again, socialism is the believe that the population has the higher power.
No.

It's the belief that there is no such distinction as a "population," because everyone is the same. There are no classes in a TRUE socialistic nation.

Thus the concept that the "population would have the higher power" is completely moot. Because there isn't another group of people for which to contrast "population" to.
There are no elites.
At least, there aren't supposed to be elites.


Which is why I asked you to name a single truly socialistic nation on this planet earth. Name ONE. UNO. UN. EINS. EEN.


In fascism. The population falls under the state. The population has little or no control and serve merely as a tool for the state. And has yet to see if the great leader is kind enough to throw them a bone.
Which is why socialism works much better under a fascist regime than free market does...


And since Hitler was a fascist. It is thus impossible for him to be a socialist.
Since when is it a totalitarian can't use socialism? Don't you yourself describe your location as being "Nazi NETHERLANDS." And then say the netherlands are socialist?

Am I the only person noticing this dichotomy?

I mean, just look at cuba, china (to some extent), and north korea.

They use pseudo forms of socialism, and are fascists as well.

Being a fascist doesn't prevent you from being a socialist.


And again you are confusing socialism with Communism.
Communism isn't an economic system.

Communism USES socialism.

And you have to admit, they have a ton in common. :vbroll:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism


COMMUNISM: 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed


SOCIALISM: 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state


Our country has a strong constitution that guarantees peoples right. A very good welfare system for the poor, sick and elderly. And elects it leaders. Which are strong socialist ideals.
Still doesn't make a nation a socialist nation.

I'm looking for a bit more than OPTIONAL well-fare. In a truly socialistic country, well-fare would be the norm.

In western nations, socialism is never ever taken as a substitute for capitalistic and free-market values in the workplace.


Again, the world proves you wrong.
Go start a hit stand-up series. I'm sure you will be popular.


How about History.


Socialism was the drive behind both the American, France and Russian revolution. Two of those predate the existence of communism with decades.
Bullshit you in-educate!

Sorry, but I will NOT let you say that. It is actually painful for me to read ignorance. It hurts. On the lower left side of my abdomen. :D

The U.S. revolution was motivated by a desire for freedom and a DISLIKE of taxation.
TAXATION is a type of collectivism. The more socialist you are, the more taxes there are. That's just a fact.

So in actuality, the american revolution was the COMPLETE ANTITHESIS of socialism.

Also, in the U.S. constitution life, liberty and PROPERTY are guaranteed.

I can say it again....PROPERTY!

There's nothing socialist about that.

(Oh yeah, and the french revolution was inspired by the American one, and it also had nothing to do with socialism).


Well, the US did for instance, ration steel and oil during the war.
That doesn't make the U.S. a socialist country.


The question was, was Hitler an socialist. Not whether or not his economic system was socialist.
The question, I thought, was blatantly evident in the title of this thread.

The question was, was germany socialistic. Not hitler.

Obviously, this has some to do with hitler, to a degree, but for the most part, not really.

Because even if hitler disliked socialists, as you maintain, it doesn't change the fact that he lived in a socialistic nation.

[Beatnik Bob]

What the hell is the question again? Oh yeah.... Which country has a socialist economy. If I had an answer I'd end this right now. Oooh I gotta good one. How about Vatican City? lol :bondage:
Vatican city has too many classes to be socialistic.

Everyone there is not equal.

The pope has much more than the average joe on the street.

(And such is the reason why I said there is no such thing as a socialistic country on this planet).

Giving america as an example (a socialist nation according to lycanox), the strongest part of the economy is the middle class, who are called such because they make more than the people living at or under poverty level, but they are not millionaires. They are mainly influential because they are the upper working class (and a large part of the employment base)--which runs much of the economy.

Castro himself famously criticized america for having a "pyrimid-like" distribution of wealth. (Elites at the top, middle class in the middle, and the poor splayed out across the bottom).
Wealth distribution to the extent of class eradication is the most salient example of socialism.

[lycanox]

The result of fierce (and false) E.U. propaganda no doubt. ^


That's actually the definition of democracy. Democracy, not socialism, was invented as a solution to monarchies, and it keeps the interests of the people closest. It historically maintains the value of a strong free market, as opposed to the oppressive nature of socialistic economies (on a large scale).
The theory of democracy existed thousands of years before socialism. Though both have existed in practice for a very long time.
Democracy is just one part of socialism.
And socialism leans from ideas that are very old.



Democracy means rule by the people, socialism means a limit on individualism and a cap on profit and trade.

Wrong, socialism does not cap profit and trade.
Capitalism has no problem operating under socialism.

Obviously thee are some key differences between socialism and democracy.



THIS IS THE REAL DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM. PLEASE STUDY IT. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)


AND THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy)
Those are the most recent definitions. Not the original ones.

We are talking about events that took place over a period of hundreds of years. The French revolution for instance, was not fought because the French wanted to enact an different economic system.

Marx did after all, not invent the ideology from nothing. But leaned on those old sentiments against the governments oppression back then.




You disturb me with your irrationality.
Claims the person that claims the person that killed thousands of people for being socialist. Of being a socialist.



Well, if you want to look at it that way, of course.

Like I said, even the most fundamental ideas of socialism use capitalism.

How? Well, every socialist country uses a currency of some sort. Currencies are a completely capitalistic idea. If socialism had no capitalism in it, nobody would be paid via a medium.

But that's not what is being talked about here. Nobody questions that economic systems can be hybrids. We question the fundamental characteristics of that system.
Like, I would not call a socialist nation capitalistic, simply because they utilized market/profit concepts to have a currency (which is of course, the ultimate scam inherent in socialism).
Yet the mayoralty of countries with strong socialist ideals have a capitalistic economy.


You are literally jumping to the extremes if it comes to this ideology.
While completely ignoring the more moderate changes.
The whole state run economy thing is simply not necessary to fulfill modern day socialist ideals and dropped in most places. As they learned on how to fit their ideals in a free market.

Heck, if you want state run economies. You would have to search for the die hard communist parties. As few socialist parties today actually follow marx and such.



Give me reasons why I should take anything you say with more than a grain of salt?
When you say things like that?

Go click on the definition of socialism, instead of inventing the definition by yourself, as you go along.



[QUOTE]No.

It's the belief that there is no such distinction as a "population," because everyone is the same. There are no classes in a TRUE socialistic nation.
Actually the idea was to limit the difference between them as much as possible. Completely removing them is impossible.

And doesn't the laws in the west regard everybody as equal as much as possible either?


Thus the concept that the "population would have the higher power" is completely moot. Because there isn't another group of people for which to contrast "population" to.
There are no elites.
At least, there aren't supposed to be elites.
Naturally, as the power lies in the population. Not in the elites.
And everybody is equal.
There is thus no monarch, religious or dear leader they have to answer to.

You have to remember that back then the monarchy still had considerable amount of power in Europe.



Which is why I asked you to name a single truly socialistic nation on this planet earth. Name ONE. UNO. UN. EINS. EEN.
And I repeat. The Netherlands. As we have a strong social system to take care of the sick, weak and elder etc.


Which is why socialism works much better under a fascist regime than free market does...
Nope, as you have now reversed the definition again.


Since when is it a totalitarian can't use socialism? Don't you yourself describe your location as being "Nazi NETHERLANDS." And then say the netherlands are socialist?
That is because unlike communism, the principles of socialism go directly against the idea of fascism.

And the reason why I have Nazi in that sigh is in protest against certain political parties in my country. That want to remove civil rights.



Am I the only person noticing this dichotomy?

I mean, just look at cuba, china (to some extent), and north korea.

They use pseudo forms of socialism, and are fascists as well.
And again staring yourself blind on the economic aspect. But not on the entire picture.

You dont need to adapt socialist economic ideas to be an socialist.
Only the principle of the state taking care of the weak.


Being a fascist doesn't prevent you from being a socialist.
In the large context yes.



Communism isn't an economic system.

Communism USES socialism.

Communism is an economic system. And Is a split off of socialism.


And you have to admit, they have a ton in common. :vbroll:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
Again, read a bit deeper in the subject than just a dictionary.
There are socialist systems that use free market ideas.



Still doesn't make a nation a socialist nation.
Then why would it make the Nazis socialist.


I'm looking for a bit more than OPTIONAL well-fare. In a truly socialistic country, well-fare would be the norm.
And surprise or not. In Holland it is.



In western nations, socialism is never ever taken as a substitute for capitalistic and free-market values in the workplace.
As an economic system not. But ideology they have merged socialism and capitalism.

In the end, the whole economic aspect of socialism is finding the funds for the programs. And there is no reason to believe that countries cant succeed in that in a capitalistic environment.








Bullshit you in-educate!

Sorry, but I will NOT let you say that. It is actually painful for me to read ignorance. It hurts. On the lower left side of my abdomen. :D

The U.S. revolution was motivated by a desire for freedom and a DISLIKE of taxation.
TAXATION is a type of collectivism. The more socialist you are, the more taxes there are. That's just a fact.

So in actuality, the american revolution was the COMPLETE ANTITHESIS of socialism.

Also, in the U.S. constitution life, liberty and PROPERTY are guaranteed.

I can say it again....PROPERTY!

There's nothing socialist about that.

(Oh yeah, and the french revolution was inspired by the American one, and it also had nothing to do with socialism).
Actually America was directly supported by socialistic groups in Europe.

Besides. There is no rule that in socialist countries everybody bravely accepts every taxes the government comes up with. Or cheers for every bizarre plan the government makes up.
And despite the popularity of the ideas. The whole state owns all never got of the ground.



That doesn't make the U.S. a socialist country.
Does the government spend money on welfare and public services.
If so yes.

It may be not as much as in Europe. But the US does have very minimalistic socialist ideas in it.



The question, I thought, was blatantly evident in the title of this thread.

The question was, was germany socialistic. Not hitler.

Obviously, this has some to do with hitler, to a degree, but for the most part, not really.
Hitler basically was the one in charge. And controlled nearly every aspect of Germany. If something clashed with his ideas. It very unlikely it would still be there the next morning.


Because even if hitler disliked socialists, as you maintain, it doesn't change the fact that he lived in a socialistic nation.
Socialist only in very minimal aspects. Its still vastly dominated with fascism and capitalism in economics.

After all, with the whole exterminate the weak program he ran. He completely destroyed the point behind being one.
Its like shooting koalas while claiming to be an animal lover.

[JLEE]

[QUOTE=Beatnik Bob;344231]Vatican city has too many classes to be socialistic.=[QUOTE] I'm aware of that. Just trying to make a point of the redundancy in this poor beaten down thread. I was just kidding.:deadhorse: I'll leave now.

Everyone there is not equal.

The pope has much more than the average joe on the street.

(And such is the reason why I said there is no such thing as a socialistic country on this planet).

Giving america as an example (a socialist nation according to lycanox), the strongest part of the economy is the middle class, who are called such because they make more than the people living at or under poverty level, but they are not millionaires. They are mainly influential because they are the upper working class (and a large part of the employment base)--which runs much of the economy.

Castro himself famously criticized america for having a "pyrimid-like" distribution of wealth. (Elites at the top, middle class in the middle, and the poor splayed out across the bottom).
Wealth distribution to the extent of class eradication is the most salient example of socialism.

[JenaS62]

It may be not as much as in Europe. But the US does have very minimalistic socialist ideas in it.




Then it's not a good example of a country that uses socialism perfectly now is it? In fact, you've not been able to do what Bob requested at all because you can't.

Move along folks, nothing more to see here....:ohmy:

[James Random]

Democracy is just one part of socialism.
And socialism leans from ideas that are very old.



Wrong, socialism does not cap profit and trade.
Capitalism has no problem operating under socialism.

Obviously thee are some key differences between socialism and democracy.


Those are the most recent definitions. Not the original ones.

We are talking about events that took place over a period of hundreds of years. The French revolution for instance, was not fought because the French wanted to enact an different economic system.

Marx did after all, not invent the ideology from nothing. But leaned on those old sentiments against the governments oppression back then.



Claims the person that claims the person that killed thousands of people for being socialist. Of being a socialist.



Yet the mayoralty of countries with strong socialist ideals have a capitalistic economy.


You are literally jumping to the extremes if it comes to this ideology.
While completely ignoring the more moderate changes.
The whole state run economy thing is simply not necessary to fulfill modern day socialist ideals and dropped in most places. As they learned on how to fit their ideals in a free market.

Heck, if you want state run economies. You would have to search for the die hard communist parties. As few socialist parties today actually follow marx and such.


[QUOTE]Give me reasons why I should take anything you say with more than a grain of salt?
When you say things like that?

Go click on the definition of socialism, instead of inventing the definition by yourself, as you go along.




Actually the idea was to limit the difference between them as much as possible. Completely removing them is impossible.

And doesn't the laws in the west regard everybody as equal as much as possible either?


Naturally, as the power lies in the population. Not in the elites.
And everybody is equal.
There is thus no monarch, religious or dear leader they have to answer to.

You have to remember that back then the monarchy still had considerable amount of power in Europe.


And I repeat. The Netherlands. As we have a strong social system to take care of the sick, weak and elder etc.


Nope, as you have now reversed the definition again.


That is because unlike communism, the principles of socialism go directly against the idea of fascism.

And the reason why I have Nazi in that sigh is in protest against certain political parties in my country. That want to remove civil rights.


And again staring yourself blind on the economic aspect. But not on the entire picture.

You dont need to adapt socialist economic ideas to be an socialist.
Only the principle of the state taking care of the weak.


In the large context yes.



Communism is an economic system. And Is a split off of socialism.


Again, read a bit deeper in the subject than just a dictionary.
There are socialist systems that use free market ideas.


Then why would it make the Nazis socialist.


And surprise or not. In Holland it is.


As an economic system not. But ideology they have merged socialism and capitalism.

In the end, the whole economic aspect of socialism is finding the funds for the programs. And there is no reason to believe that countries cant succeed in that in a capitalistic environment.







Actually America was directly supported by socialistic groups in Europe.

Besides. There is no rule that in socialist countries everybody bravely accepts every taxes the government comes up with. Or cheers for every bizarre plan the government makes up.
And despite the popularity of the ideas. The whole state owns all never got of the ground.



Does the government spend money on welfare and public services.
If so yes.

It may be not as much as in Europe. But the US does have very minimalistic socialist ideas in it.



Hitler basically was the one in charge. And controlled nearly every aspect of Germany. If something clashed with his ideas. It very unlikely it would still be there the next morning.


Socialist only in very minimal aspects. Its still vastly dominated with fascism and capitalism in economics.

After all, with the whole exterminate the weak program he ran. He completely destroyed the point behind being one.
Its like shooting koalas while claiming to be an animal lover.

You know. It's really too bad people can't put you on ignore. You're a waste of bandwidth.

[TC]

I live in a country that at one time (60s) was the model of the so called socialist state, (Sweden) where the taxed income base is distributed to health care, child daycare, medicine, family support, and unlimited sick leave.

it still only costs 150sk (20 bucks) for any surgery needed, as well as hospitable recovery time.

Sick leave is paid the first week by the employer, then the state picks up the costs.

Each family receives around 150 bucks a month per child till age 18

pre school and day care centers exist in every district

Medicine is subvention-ed by the state

and most insurances for the home are covered by union dues, even travel

any working person receives 32 paid days a year vacation time

and you get back 30% on your taxes for any interest paid out on credit use.

So the social system is still intact, even if it adheres to a free market. The average person pays around 28% income tax which finances the above, and this is a graduated scale based on income. (albeit large private capital income is kept undeclared outside the country....)


Is there a true social state in this world? no.

It doesn't matter which flag you choose to live under, it ALL has to be financed by taxable income revenue, and you don't cut the throat of the cow that provides this by spending these funds elsewhere...( large military) its returned to the tax payer in the form of support. Which in turn creates a strong middle income consumer base.

Its capitalism with a social structure network.

[lycanox]

Then it's not a good example of a country that uses socialism perfectly now is it? In fact, you've not been able to do what Bob requested at all because you can't.

Move along folks, nothing more to see here....:ohmy:
There are just as much countries that are completely socialist , as there are countries that are completely capitalistic. None

Nearly every country, especially the ones in the west practice a ideology that lies somewhere in the middle.

You would essentially have to completely leave the sick, old or elderly to die on the streets alone if they cant afford help anymore, to have a country completely void of socialism.
While helping out those that cant help themselves. Are ideals strongly held in the west.

[Beatnik Bob]

There are just as much countries that are completely socialist , as there are countries that are completely capitalistic. None.
Then why did you say that almost all of the world's nations were socialist?

Why?

As for your other post, it was merely a bit of comedy, not an intellectual sentiment. You even said socialism wasn't an economic system, and that the U.S. revolution was inspired by socialism.
I can't, in good faith, take you seriously now.

So I'm not going to bother. And I'm as tired as the dead horse that I'm having to beat when it comes to quoting even the fundamental "step-one" definition of socialism with you.
Use your own definition if you want to, but if you invent it, I am not obligated to take it seriously.

[lycanox]

Then why did you say that almost all of the world's nations were socialist?

Why?
I said that majority of the world nations strongly believe in Socialist ideals. And thus follows a socialist ideology.
Which is still correct. Not that the entire world employs and socialist economic system.


As for your other post, it was merely a bit of comedy, not an intellectual sentiment. You even said socialism wasn't an economic system, and that the U.S. revolution was inspired by socialism.
I can't, in good faith, take you seriously now.
If you look at the end results of the revolution. The constitution, the self control of the colonies. And getting rid of the influence of the English crone. Its not hard to see socialistic ideals emerging in the revolution.

And it is a known fact that the rest of the world considered the revolution socialist enough to help the US.



So I'm not going to bother. And I'm as tired as the dead horse that I'm having to beat when it comes to quoting even the fundamental "step-one" definition of socialism with you.
Use your own definition if you want to, but if you invent it, I am not obligated to take it seriously.
The key of understanding an ideology is to investigate the reasoning and ideals behind them. How they evolved over history and influenced or were influenced by other ideologies. The idea of a "step one" of socialism is as ridiculous as believing that you can completely understand Christianity by just reading the definition in the dictionary.

So I am just as keen on not taking you seriously because you refuse to look deeper in an ideology than quoting dictionaries.

[JenaS62]

I said that majority of the world nations strongly believe in Socialist ideals. And thus follows a socialist ideology.
Which is still correct. Not that the entire world employs and socialist economic system.


No you didn't.

This is what you said:

"Again most of the world already lives under socialism without any problems."

You see - you said nothing about strongly believing in socialist ideas or following a socialist ideaology. :vbroll:

[Beatnik Bob]

I said that majority of the world nations strongly believe in Socialist ideals. And thus follows a socialist ideology.
You said the majority of the world was socialist.


Again most of the world already lives under socialism without any problems.


And it is a known fact that the rest of the world considered the revolution socialist enough to help the US.
Only the french helped the U.S., and they did so to get back at the british for past confrontations.


So I am just as keen on not taking you seriously because you refuse to look deeper in an ideology than quoting dictionaries.
You also invent history.

[lycanox]

You said the majority of the world was socialist.
Which contradicts my previous remark, because?





Only the french helped the U.S., and they did so to get back at the british for past confrontations.

You also invent history.
Actually the US received help from various European countries.
The English even went to war with the Dutch again because of it.

[Beatnik Bob]

Which contradicts my previous remark, because?
Because you havn't named a single socialist country.

You instead decided to say there are no truly socialist countries, only hybrids. Thus you have failed to provide a single truly socialist country on the planet, and that was my point all along. That there are no truly socialist countries, only hybrids.

So after you beat around the bush and remained obstinate, you finally agree with me in the end...

Why don't you just do it in the first place? Since you knew you were wrong from post one...


Actually the US received help from various European countries.
The English even went to war with the Dutch again because of it.
Proof.

[Beatnik Bob]

Here are some of the contradictions you have made in this thread alone:



I challenge you to name only ONE country that uses socialism perfectly, the way it was supposed to be, in theory.
A truly socialist country.


How about the US, netherlands, Germany, belgium. Canada and so on?


And yet, nearly the entire world pulls it (*socialism) of perfectly.


There are just as much countries that are completely socialist , as there are countries that are completely capitalistic. None


Living in a socialist country myself. Surrounded with countless of other successful socialist countries. I can honestly say you are wrong in claiming that it does not work or eventually leads to fascism.

[lycanox]

Because you havn't named a single socialist country.

You instead decided to say there are no truly socialist countries, only hybrids. Thus you have failed to provide a single truly socialist country on the planet, and that was my point all along. That there are no truly socialist countries, only hybrids.

So after you beat around the bush and remained obstinate, you finally agree with me in the end...

Why don't you just do it in the first place? Since you knew you were wrong from post one...


Proof.
I have named plenty of countries. The only reason why you don't accept that is because you don't know a rats ass about socialism.

If you had payed any attention in the discussion, you would have known that i was referring to countries with strong socialistic ideals.
And not countries with a socialistic economy. And that economics is not a mandatory part of socialism.

So if you want to make a claim that all those countries do not follow the ideals of socialism.
Then please provide evidence that the US gases the elderly. That the Netherlands let the poor rot on the streets. That Germany leaves very sick people to die just because they can not pay for treatment. Etcetera.

Only if you can prove that, then you can claim that those countries are not socialist in nature.

[Beatnik Bob]

If you had payed any attention in the discussion, you would have known that i was referring to countries with strong socialistic ideals.
If that is what you were doing, then you werent staying on topic or writting in the context of this thread.

So why didn't you stay on topic? This discussion wasn't about socialistic ideals, this discussion was about socialist germany, not based on ideals, but in how germany was run.

Which, was on a platform of socialism and state ownership. Which is to say, as an economic policy, germany (as a fascist state) used socialism.

[lycanox]

How can you discus how to label something without discussing what exactly defines the label?