But but but billionaires! waaahhhhhhhh

[Farmer Br0wn]

If you are fooled by that the Nazis called themselves socialists, and had some socialist ideas mixed in early on, then you're one of those that just listen to what politicians say and don't actually look what they do. The actual inspiration for the Nazis were Italy's fascists. Ideals about national/racial superiority, rearmament and expansion, and consolidation of capital. They started with some socialist economic policies but eventually going over to a corporate cartel base.

Judging by your analysis of the Nazis I'd fully expect you to think that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy.

No, I call the Nazis a socialist government, because they implemented explicitly socialist policies (ex: nationalizing the entire iron ore industry).

 

[steveflynn]

No, you're just missing (perhaps on purpose) the part where the Nazis refer to their own government as a socialist government. Then they proceeded to implement entirely socialist programs, like nationalizing entire industries.

Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.

The kind of socialism that the Nazis (and others of that same period) advocated for was not at all like the socialism of current times. And, again, every single country and political movement throughout history has advocated for and implement social welfare programs thus, judging by your logic, every country on earth and all movements throughout time have been socialist/leftists (which is utterly absurd and inconceivable).

 

[Falsedawn]

No, you're just missing (perhaps on purpose) the part where the Nazis refer to their own government as a socialist government. Then they proceeded to implement entirely socialist programs, like nationalizing entire industries.

Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea

"B-b-but they call themselves democratic!!!!"

<puh-lease75>

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

The kind of socialism that the Nazis (and others of that same period) advocated for was not at all like the socialism of current times. And, again, every single country and political movement throughout history has advocated for and implement social welfare programs thus, judging by your logic, every country on earth and all movements throughout time have been socialist/leftists (which is utterly absurd and inconceivable).

No. Nationalizing an entire industry is explicitly socialist.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Democratic People's Republic of Korea

"B-b-but they call themselves democratic!!!!"

<puh-lease75>

Just to give you an example, the Nazis nationalized the entire iron ore industry.

That program is explicitly socialist. No amount of sophistry or apologetics can avoid that basic fact.

 

[steveflynn]

No. Nationalizing an entire industry is explicitly socialist.

So, you ignore all the right wing aspects of Nazism (the ultranationalism, extreme patriotism, idolization of the military, thinking certain persons are superior to others thus have the right to pillage and conquer them, extreme antipathy to internationalism/international organizations, murder and purging of actual communists, social democrats, unions and other worker collectives, etc. ) and deduce that National Socialism was left wing because, during war time, they nationalized certain industries? This is laughable. If they were so to the left politically and economically, why did they never abolish personal property and make all property communal ? Or why did they not have the government control all means of production?

 

[Falsedawn]

Just to give you an example, the Nazis nationalized the entire iron ore industry.

That program is explicitly socialist. No amount of sophistry or apologetics can avoid that basic fact.

So the US is a socialist country? I mean social security is explicitly socialist, no amount of sophistry or apologetics can avoid that basic fact.

Airtight logic there.

 

[steveflynn]

Just to give you an example, the Nazis nationalized the entire iron ore industry.

That program is explicitly socialist. No amount of sophistry or apologetics can avoid that basic fact.

Every single country on earth has socialistic aspects of economic policy. This does not make them all socialists! How can you not differentiate this ?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

So the US is a socialist country? I mean social security is explicitly socialist, no amount of sophistry or apologetics can avoid that basic fact.

Airtight logic there.

Sadly, the United States has far too many socialist measures implemented.

Unfortunately, I would agree with a portion of this analysis.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Interesting beginning attemp to dehumanize. The wealthy are just as much "normal humans" as anyone else. Your attempt to classify them as anything but "normal humans" is quite telling.

I point this out because groups that are initially dehumanized by another group, typically have violence initiated against them at a later time.

Laughable, and facile attempt by you. The hyper rich are humans, they're just pieces of shit. Jamie Dimon is certainly a human, and a piece of shit human as well.

Nice try, though, ma'am

 

[hillelslovak87]

Clearly that meme went over your head...

Nope. It was a shit meme that displayed his MAGtardation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think the two are inextricably linked. Natural rights define who we are as humans in a political sense, and government is created to defend those rights as a primary function. That's why we value things like the common defense, a court system to settle disputes, etc. We don't kneel before them as the creator of our property rights, as those things already exist without the advent of government.

It's not about kneeling, and there's no "them." And, no, property rights don't exist without gov't. I've used the example of enclosures before (and @Limbo Pete could add to this, using some earlier examples). You have peasants farming on common land, and the gov't closes it off and gives or sells it to individuals. Now the peasants have no way to survive except by working for someone who owns property (and helping that along, vagrancy is made a crime-- punishable by death in some cases). That's how we get wage workers (and the Industrial Revolution) and property. The mechanisms aren't always the same, but something like that is where property comes from. You bring up Locke in support of your own position, but he recognized the issue:

Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.

Basically, as long as others have access to land of equal value, there's no issue with enclosing some of it. But in modern societies, it's all enclosed. That is a gov't-imposed restriction on the freedom of people. On the other hand, the system that enclosures led to produced great wealth continues to. So we don't necessarily want to go back. But it's small consolation to the masses if the system (that entails forcibly keeping them from using land) produces great wealth that doesn't benefit them. The only moral solutions from that perspective are either stop maintaining property rights or redistribute the benefits of the system. And the first of those, while morally defensible, is terrible from a practical standpoint.

I absolutely believe in the lawful transference of property rights, which is what income is at a fundamental level. I help you build a house, and you compensate me with a good or service that I agree upon. A common currency merely assists us in equating value along a common standard and gives us an outlet other than an equivalent good or service. If I help you build a home, I don't want to be paid in 800,000 apples, haha. But in exchange for assisting you with your property, you can pay me in dollars, which I now own. As someone who is free to do what I want with those dollars, I can invest them. And all investing is, at a fundamental level, is buying ownership in a stake of a business in exchange for the business having my money to expand the business.

Note that "ownership" of a business in that sense is a gov't-granted ability to take the product of the labor of others. As with land ownership, it can be defended on the grounds that it leads to more wealth creation, but that defense only matters if the benefits of that additional wealth creation are broadly enjoyed.

It's become a little more complicated with the advent of brokerage firms, but the principle remains unchanged. So how is that like any other form of income? It's all fundamentally how we decide to utilize and risk our own property? The input of labor isn't really relevant to the conversation, IMO.

If you don't value human freedom, then, yes, labor is irrelevant. Just an "input" into a mechanical process that deserves no more consideration than a rock. But if you see human well-being (with freedom an essential part of that) as the object of policy, labor (the activity of humans) is fundamentally different.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Seriously? Do you even know how much people like Bill Gates gives away to charity?

What a messed up, bitter attitude.

Bill Gates is a rare one, and sadly the Waltons are the type that adhere to the rule of thumb.

 

[Falsedawn]

Sadly, the United States has far too many socialist measures implemented.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't agree with a portion of this analysis.

That's the logic you're using to say the Nazis were left wing socialist, that they nationalized the iron industry. Ignore that they literally purged the leftists in Germany, left wing because Iron.

If you don't agree with that analysis, it's because the logic you're using is ass.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Every single country on earth has socialistic aspects of economic policy. This does not make them all socialists! How can you not differentiate this ?

I agree.

The only problem is that the Nazis were explicitly socialist, in both name and deed.

Also to correct you from earlier, the Nazis nationalized iron ore and steel Works Industries in 1937. This was years before the War began, and also contradicts your assertion that the Nazis only nationalize Industries during wartime.

 

[Greoric]

The kind of socialism that the Nazis (and others of that same period) advocated for was not at all like the socialism of current times. And, again, every single country and political movement throughout history has advocated for and implement social welfare programs thus, judging by your logic, every country on earth and all movements throughout time have been socialist/leftists (which is utterly absurd and inconceivable).

There's always a different flavor of socialism dude. The common denominator, however is that they all destroy lives, wealth, and freedom.

 

[bobgeese]

Nope. It was a shit meme that displayed his MAGtardation.

Or, it’s a picture of the president enjoying a sweet treat, asking how with all the available flavors, including the sweet one he’s enjoying, you choose salty.


Now, if you’d like me to explain anything else, fuck off

 

[Jack V Savage]

I agree.

The only problem is that the Nazis were explicitly socialist, in both name and deed.

The spectrum refers to positions on equality and hierarchy. Are you saying that Nazis believed in total equality of man and opposed hierarchical institutions? Obviously not. You're just playing word games.

 

[Greoric]

That's the logic you're using to say the Nazis were left wing socialist, that they nationalized the iron industry. Ignore that they literally purged the leftists in Germany, left wing because Iron.

If you don't agree with that analysis, it's because the logic you're using is ass.

The distinction that makes them conventionally "right" was their nationalism. They were socialist, however, like every other governance that committed mass genocide.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

That's the logic you're using to say the Nazis were left wing socialist, that they nationalized the iron industry. Ignore that they literally purged the leftists in Germany, left wing because Iron.

If you don't agree with that analysis, it's because the logic you're using is ass.

My talk-to-text added an "n't" at the end of "would" for some reason. I ment to say:

"Unfortunately, I would agree with a portion of this analysis."

To quote my second favorite movie of all time, Spaceballs:

"Even in the future nothing works!"