Salon.com: "America is Ready for Socialism!" (Didn't we fight against Socialism in WW II?)

[danielpalos]

These are the scum that Joe McCarthy talked about in the early 1950's!

The Social Memo ^
Salon.com believes that the United States is "ready for socialism" and Bernie Sanders is "speaking to America's soul." In an article published today, titled "America is ready for socialism! Massive majorities back Bernie Sanders on the issues — and disdain Donald Trump," Salon made the case that most Americans want socialist policies in place. "Sanders speaks to America's soul — and our values," the article's author, Paul Rosenberg, claims. Rosenberg also writes for Al Jazeera. It continues, "Sanders is right to think that Scandanavian socialism would be popular here in the U.S., if only people knew more about it. And...

BTW, I hope all you THINKING people spotted the TIE IN between Socialism. and Al Jazeera the propaganda arm of ISIS!

al jeezera is an international news station you fool



republicans have made people hate capitalism

Any examples of policies that have made people hate capitalism?

Hooverville comes to mind.

 

[Socialist]

Socialism is simply the re-invigoration of Feudalism. It is placing all capital in the hands of a ruling elite to distribute as they see fit. All capital, including human capital, is the exclusive property of the state, to be disposed of as the state sees fit.

Socialism, as discussed by almost all socialists/people who don't spew baseless bullshit, refers to democratic control of the means of production. You're describing state capitalism.

You're describing the dictatorship off the majority.

Better then a dictatorship of the minority.

Um, no. A dictatorship is bad. No matter who it is.

Dictatorship is often better than democracy. Egypt proved that. So did Libya, Syria and Iraq. So did Chile.

The majority is often just a mob if ignorant, bloodthirsty savages.

A dictatorship of the ruling elites in the interest of the elites is not a good "dictatorship."
A dictatorship of working people, however, that I would recommend. How, exactly, did chile do dictatorship well? Pinochet was a horrid monster.

 

[Socialist]

Socialism, progressivim, it's all euphemisms for one thing: Communism.

We fought it for 44 years. We fought Communism in Korea and Vietnam, and indirectly, we are still fighting Communism today.

Where do you think the majority those weapons used to kill American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were manufactured? Places like Africa, Asia, South America, and the Middle East are bristling with weapons, guess where the majority of them were manufactured?

Let's see if anyone knows the answer to this question.

Nothing wrong with communism, and vietnam was a joke, we had no right to go in there and fuck with a nations right to self determination. We knew the majority of people in vietnam wanted the communists in the north to win, due to the broken southern government and the constant imperial forces that had been exploiting them/pushing down on them for decades.

 

[Socialist]

El Chapo and Socialist Corruption
July 14, 2015

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The New York Post today has a picture: El Chapo drinking a beer in the copilot seat of his private airplane taken by his son and sent to the American media. He is taunting us! El Chapo is saying, "Look at me! I have beer. I'm in my airplane. I'm flying to freedom. I have girls awaiting me upon my arrival. (Raspberry) you!" By the way, there's an author out there folks by the name of Don Winslow. He's a novelist.

He has written a lot of novels about the Mexican drug cartels and the DEA and the US war on drugs. His latest is called The Cartel, and it's about El Chapo. Winslow had a piece published in, of all places, CNN yesterday (an op-ed piece), in which he doesn't believe this tunnel business at all. I mean, he thinks the tunnel is there, and he acknowledges the tunnel was built. But he thinks tunnel is just there to be used as an excuse by Mexican prison and government officials.

He thinks that El Chapo actually walked out the front door of the place. He thinks that the Mexican prison system and the Mexican government have been corrupted by the drug cartels because they have got all the money. You know, when I read his piece there is something that struck me.

Socialism is widely spread in Mexico. Socialism is widely spread all over the world. What is one of the hard, cold realities of socialism? The only people that have any money are criminals and governments.

Average, ordinary citizens don't have any money. They do not create wealth. It's impossible for it to happen in socialism. All the money gets taxed and then redistributed in socialism. So you have the super wealthy -- until you confiscate their money. You can tax and tax and tax them. Until you confiscate their wealth, they're always gonna have money. But the middle class ceases to exist as an upwardly mobile economic entity.

With socialism every, what does it breed? Socialism breeds corruption because nobody has any money, except criminals. So here's a big drug criminal in El Chapo, and he's a multibillionaire. He can pay off government officials and prison officials with more money than they will ever earn in their lifetimes administering the law, and one of the reasons is socialism. Nobody earns anything!

There isn't any upward mobility. There's no moving up in the middle class to the upper middle class, any of that, everything's static. It just struck me, of all the things you can construct as arguments to oppose socialism, that's another one. It breeds corruption because the only people that have any -- when you don't have any money, and here comes somebody offering you more than you will ever earn in your life, to just let me have filet mignon every night in my jail cell and bring me some prostitutes while you're at it and make sure I get my Viagra, and then in a year and a half let's engineer my escape and I'll really take care of you, and it happens.

And this is in many ways the story of the of the Mexican drug cartels' relationship with governments and prisons, and Winslow, again, he thinks that that tunnel, they built it, but it just is there as an excuse, prison officials to say, "Look at how brilliant this prisoner is. Right under our noses, this guy builds a mile-long tunnel and is able to get out this thing by going in the shower. Wow, what a brilliant criminal." And everybody marvels at what a great criminal El Chapo is it, when the theory is he just walked out the door, by prison officials being paid off.

And when you look at Greece, you look at all of Western Europe, look at all of these countries that feature socialism, and we clearly have enough of our economy that's become socialistic that there is no upward mobility in our Millennial class. They don't even dream of any. It just opens the door for all kinds of chicanery, corruption, you name it, because money is what makes the world go round. Everybody wants more than they have. And when you can't work hard and earn more, when you can't be creative as an entrepreneur and earn more, what are you gonna do?

Which is what socialism does. Socialism shuts down entrepreneurism and creativity and brilliance. It shuts down economic growth. It shuts down what most people want, which is a ongoing improvement in their standard of living. Now, the left would have you to believe they don't care about money; they're interested humanitarian things. But don't believe 'em. They hoard their money when they get it and they don't give much of it away. Their charitable donations are pitiful.

They want more money as much as anybody else does. What they've done is put themselves in positions of power where all the money is, Washington, DC. They get their hands on it before it gets redistributed. So, anyway, here's El Chapo and he's running around, but here's another thing about El Chapo. He ordered his young wife, whose name is Emma Coronel, who is a US citizen, she's the daughter of another Mexican drug lord, El Chapo ordered his wife to give birth in California so that his kids will have US citizenship. Anchor babies.

Now, if El Chapo ordered his own wife to do this, you can bet that he ordered others in his organization to do the same thing. And of course the mothers don't even have to be US citizens. All they have to do is be here when they give birth. As his kids become US citizens as a result of being born here, it's gonna allow his gang to get themselves under Obama's generous and humane family reunification plan. You know how that works. Why do you think all these minors are being sent alone to the United States of America from Central America, El Salvador and so forth?

Would you put your kid on a train for days, 28 days, unchaperoned, fingers crossed that your kid gets to America? Why would you do that? Because you know that the American president's gonna bring you in to reunite you with your kid, if he gets there, and that's how you're gonna beat immigration law. That's why all the minors are floating across the border. That's why all the parents of these minors are risking letting them go, while at the time we're told that it's war torn and economically ravaged and it's an act of love and compassion, these parents, knowing their lives are over, but they want the dream for their kids.

So they put them on the trains and they send 'em north and they hope they get into America. It's all about Obama's family reunification plan, which El Chapo, he's gonna become a US citizen before all is said and done. He's gonna be reunited with his children that his wife is giving birth to in the United States. And according to reports, El Chapo has at least four spouses and at least 10 children. Imagine what a sales force this clown's building up.

By the way, Don Winslow also says, do not think of this guy as a funny, chubby little cartoon character. He is a brutal and ruthless, murdering, maiming drug lord who has been responsible for who knows how many deaths. There's nothing lovable about El Chapo. And he's got a point.

El Chapo and Socialist Corruption - The Rush Limbaugh Show

How is Mexico more Socialist than the US? Do they have more building and safety codes than the US.

Simply bribing someone with Capital is Capitalism, not socialism.

Socialism usually involves Social Justice, not the Capital Justice a Capitalist may afford.

When the government does it, it's socialism. Mexico has a state owned oil industry, for one thing. You can't do anything in Mexico without government permission.

That is not true, at all, all socialist intellectuals throughout history would never agree with that, socialism is collective ownership of production, although proponents of marxism-leninism call for a vanguard party to lead a state protecting the revolution of the proletariat to push towards socialism, I find flaws in it, but the more I dig through the history of various states and the writings of various revolutionaries, I'm intrigued. Of course, this means not having a bias and being willing to actually do research.

 

[Socialist]

Socialism, as discussed by almost all socialists/people who don't spew baseless bullshit, refers to democratic control of the means of production. You're describing state capitalism.

Democratic in the hands of a socialist is a euphemism for the state. Nothing more. You advocate for all assets to be owned by the state (on behalf of "the people" donchaknow.)

I don't personally advocate for this, although It does depend on the present conditions. You're referring to marxist-leninists and all extensions of that line of thought, more so, the idea of a vanguard party.

 

[Socialist]

My God, the Right will do anything to distance themselves from Nazis.

Actually it's the other way round. There are only two types of government systems. Collectivist and individualist. Fascist, Socialist, Communist, are all the same house. They are merely painted slightly different colors. Individualist government in its extreme form is anarchy in other words no government.

Your claim that nazis are right wingers and socialists are left wingers but as any thinking person can tell you that is simply not true. That is a propaganda construct created by the Fabian Socialists to try and distance themselves from the wanton murder of the political systems they helped devise.

For someone who claims to be a "political junky" you sure don't know much about political systems.

Fascism and socialism/communism are not at all related, it's pathetic to try to relate them, considering hitler invaded the soviet union and broke with the "socialist" message after acquiring power.

Sure they are. They both place government control over that of the individual. They both assume that when the individual is no longer of value to the State they are superfluous and can be got rid of.
They both take the majority of the workers money because they assume that the people aren't capable of caring for themselves and use that money to buy whatever votes they need to remain in power.

When you look at how the Nazi's and the Soviets treated their citizens there is virtually no difference.
One other thing that is similar to both is that when they go to war the individual is EXPECTED to die for the country, variously called the "The Fatherland", or in Soviet parlance "The Motherland", whereas in a "free" society we are grateful for the individuals sacrifice.

There is no question that fascism and socialism are related. Only brainwashed drones think otherwise.

You're referring to the actions carried out by the soviet union/germany during world war 2 as your basis for labeling the ideological views of all socialists/communists, and heck, even fascists, which is sad, truly, I pity you. They assume people aren't capable of caring for themselves? Yes, I'd love for you to back that up, along with the "buying votes claim." Wait, hold on, wasn't the soviet union an authoritarian dictatorship? Make up your mind. No difference? NO DIFFERENCE? LOOOOOOOOL. They are not related, at all, theirs a reason hitler killed socialists/communists.

Tell us the difference between the two then. By all means educate us poor folks! Yes Hitler killed his opponents. You still haven't shown us how they were different. BTW Christians kill Christians all the time so your belief that socialists don't kill socialists is laughable.

Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist Debunking a Historical Myth

 

[Socialist]

Child labor rampantly occurs in all capitalist societies without regulation, as it did in america, 80 hour work weeks? Tell me more about america before regulations or any modern capitalist state without regulations.

No, child labor occurs in economies which are transitioning from agrarian to industrial, as it did in the Soviet Union and Communist China (and continues) as well as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.

Child prostitution is rampant in socialist states - does that make it a feature of the economic system, or is it simply a matter of criminality. Again, your arguments are absurd, childish and without merit.

Child labor occurred until the state stepped in with regulations, and unfortunately, still does occur illegally in modern capitalist states, which is unfortunate. Child prostitution is rampant? Back that up, and please, for the love of god, don't claim china is trying to achieve socialism anymore, deng's reformism ended that.

 

[danielpalos]

Simply bribing someone with Capital is Capitalism, not socialism.

Socialism usually involves Social Justice, not the Capital Justice a Capitalist may afford.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism, as discussed by almost all socialists/people who don't spew baseless bullshit, refers to democratic control of the means of production. You're describing state capitalism.

You're describing the dictatorship off the majority.

Better then a dictatorship of the minority.

Um, no. A dictatorship is bad. No matter who it is.

Dictatorship is often better than democracy. Egypt proved that. So did Libya, Syria and Iraq. So did Chile.

The majority is often just a mob if ignorant, bloodthirsty savages.

A dictatorship of the ruling elites in the interest of the elites is not a good "dictatorship."
A dictatorship of working people, however, that I would recommend. How, exactly, did chile do dictatorship well? Pinochet was a horrid monster.

It's better than mob rule by a gang of brutal bloodthirsty savages.

Chile is the most prosperous country in Latin America thanks to Pinochet. It's also the freest.

 

[dblack]

You're describing the dictatorship off the majority.

Better then a dictatorship of the minority.

Um, no. A dictatorship is bad. No matter who it is.

Dictatorship is often better than democracy. Egypt proved that. So did Libya, Syria and Iraq. So did Chile.

The majority is often just a mob if ignorant, bloodthirsty savages.

A dictatorship of the ruling elites in the interest of the elites is not a good "dictatorship."
A dictatorship of working people, however, that I would recommend. How, exactly, did chile do dictatorship well? Pinochet was a horrid monster.

It's better than mob rule by a gang of brutal bloodthirsty savages.

Chile is the most prosperous country in Latin America thanks to Pinochet. It's also the freest.

We should never accept a dictatorship, regardless of who is running it.

 

[bripat9643]

Better then a dictatorship of the minority.

Um, no. A dictatorship is bad. No matter who it is.

Dictatorship is often better than democracy. Egypt proved that. So did Libya, Syria and Iraq. So did Chile.

The majority is often just a mob if ignorant, bloodthirsty savages.

A dictatorship of the ruling elites in the interest of the elites is not a good "dictatorship."
A dictatorship of working people, however, that I would recommend. How, exactly, did chile do dictatorship well? Pinochet was a horrid monster.

It's better than mob rule by a gang of brutal bloodthirsty savages.

Chile is the most prosperous country in Latin America thanks to Pinochet. It's also the freest.

We should never accept a dictatorship, regardless of who is running it.

We accept one right now.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

These are the scum that Joe McCarthy talked about in the early 1950's!

The Social Memo ^
Salon.com believes that the United States is "ready for socialism" and Bernie Sanders is "speaking to America's soul." In an article published today, titled "America is ready for socialism! Massive majorities back Bernie Sanders on the issues — and disdain Donald Trump," Salon made the case that most Americans want socialist policies in place. "Sanders speaks to America's soul — and our values," the article's author, Paul Rosenberg, claims. Rosenberg also writes for Al Jazeera. It continues, "Sanders is right to think that Scandanavian socialism would be popular here in the U.S., if only people knew more about it. And...

BTW, I hope all you THINKING people spotted the TIE IN between Socialism. and Al Jazeera the propaganda arm of ISIS!

Indeed, that is exactly what Joe McCarthy warned our fathers about.

Yes. IT ... shouldn't be long now.

 

[regent]

Um, no. A dictatorship is bad. No matter who it is.

Dictatorship is often better than democracy. Egypt proved that. So did Libya, Syria and Iraq. So did Chile.

The majority is often just a mob if ignorant, bloodthirsty savages.

A dictatorship of the ruling elites in the interest of the elites is not a good "dictatorship."
A dictatorship of working people, however, that I would recommend. How, exactly, did chile do dictatorship well? Pinochet was a horrid monster.

It's better than mob rule by a gang of brutal bloodthirsty savages.

Chile is the most prosperous country in Latin America thanks to Pinochet. It's also the freest.

We should never accept a dictatorship, regardless of who is running it.

We accept one right now.

So since the Republicans have a majority of the House and Senate how did we end up with a dictatorship? Did all those Republicans give up already, or are they really Democrats?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Dictatorship is often better than democracy. Egypt proved that. So did Libya, Syria and Iraq. So did Chile.

The majority is often just a mob if ignorant, bloodthirsty savages.

A dictatorship of the ruling elites in the interest of the elites is not a good "dictatorship."
A dictatorship of working people, however, that I would recommend. How, exactly, did chile do dictatorship well? Pinochet was a horrid monster.

It's better than mob rule by a gang of brutal bloodthirsty savages.

Chile is the most prosperous country in Latin America thanks to Pinochet. It's also the freest.

We should never accept a dictatorship, regardless of who is running it.

We accept one right now.

So since the Republicans have a majority of the House and Senate how did we end up with a dictatorship? Did all those Republicans give up already, or are they really Democrats?

The Majority is irrelevant... as the US Culture is today, quite mad.

 

[westwall]

Actually it's the other way round. There are only two types of government systems. Collectivist and individualist. Fascist, Socialist, Communist, are all the same house. They are merely painted slightly different colors. Individualist government in its extreme form is anarchy in other words no government.

Your claim that nazis are right wingers and socialists are left wingers but as any thinking person can tell you that is simply not true. That is a propaganda construct created by the Fabian Socialists to try and distance themselves from the wanton murder of the political systems they helped devise.

For someone who claims to be a "political junky" you sure don't know much about political systems.

Fascism and socialism/communism are not at all related, it's pathetic to try to relate them, considering hitler invaded the soviet union and broke with the "socialist" message after acquiring power.

Sure they are. They both place government control over that of the individual. They both assume that when the individual is no longer of value to the State they are superfluous and can be got rid of.
They both take the majority of the workers money because they assume that the people aren't capable of caring for themselves and use that money to buy whatever votes they need to remain in power.

When you look at how the Nazi's and the Soviets treated their citizens there is virtually no difference.
One other thing that is similar to both is that when they go to war the individual is EXPECTED to die for the country, variously called the "The Fatherland", or in Soviet parlance "The Motherland", whereas in a "free" society we are grateful for the individuals sacrifice.

There is no question that fascism and socialism are related. Only brainwashed drones think otherwise.

You're referring to the actions carried out by the soviet union/germany during world war 2 as your basis for labeling the ideological views of all socialists/communists, and heck, even fascists, which is sad, truly, I pity you. They assume people aren't capable of caring for themselves? Yes, I'd love for you to back that up, along with the "buying votes claim." Wait, hold on, wasn't the soviet union an authoritarian dictatorship? Make up your mind. No difference? NO DIFFERENCE? LOOOOOOOOL. They are not related, at all, theirs a reason hitler killed socialists/communists.

Tell us the difference between the two then. By all means educate us poor folks! Yes Hitler killed his opponents. You still haven't shown us how they were different. BTW Christians kill Christians all the time so your belief that socialists don't kill socialists is laughable.

Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist Debunking a Historical Myth

Cute link. Doesn't address the fact that there is no fundamental difference in how the citizens of Germany and the Soviet Union were treated. Also doesn't address the fact that BOTH societies were collectivist in nature. Like I said, fascism, socialism, communism (as it is practiced) are all the same house. The only difference is the color of the paint.

 

[dblack]

Um, no. A dictatorship is bad. No matter who it is.

Dictatorship is often better than democracy. Egypt proved that. So did Libya, Syria and Iraq. So did Chile.

The majority is often just a mob if ignorant, bloodthirsty savages.

A dictatorship of the ruling elites in the interest of the elites is not a good "dictatorship."
A dictatorship of working people, however, that I would recommend. How, exactly, did chile do dictatorship well? Pinochet was a horrid monster.

It's better than mob rule by a gang of brutal bloodthirsty savages.

Chile is the most prosperous country in Latin America thanks to Pinochet. It's also the freest.

We should never accept a dictatorship, regardless of who is running it.

We accept one right now.

And we should stop.

 

[bripat9643]

Dictatorship is often better than democracy. Egypt proved that. So did Libya, Syria and Iraq. So did Chile.

The majority is often just a mob if ignorant, bloodthirsty savages.

A dictatorship of the ruling elites in the interest of the elites is not a good "dictatorship."
A dictatorship of working people, however, that I would recommend. How, exactly, did chile do dictatorship well? Pinochet was a horrid monster.

It's better than mob rule by a gang of brutal bloodthirsty savages.

Chile is the most prosperous country in Latin America thanks to Pinochet. It's also the freest.

We should never accept a dictatorship, regardless of who is running it.

We accept one right now.

So since the Republicans have a majority of the House and Senate how did we end up with a dictatorship? Did all those Republicans give up already, or are they really Democrats?

The Republicans are spineless. That's how.

 

[JGalt]

You're describing the dictatorship off the majority.

Better then a dictatorship of the minority.

Um, no. A dictatorship is bad. No matter who it is.

Dictatorship is often better than democracy. Egypt proved that. So did Libya, Syria and Iraq. So did Chile.

The majority is often just a mob if ignorant, bloodthirsty savages.

A dictatorship of the ruling elites in the interest of the elites is not a good "dictatorship."
A dictatorship of working people, however, that I would recommend. How, exactly, did chile do dictatorship well? Pinochet was a horrid monster.

It's better than mob rule by a gang of brutal bloodthirsty savages.

Chile is the most prosperous country in Latin America thanks to Pinochet. It's also the freest.

The entire "radical Islamic" movement could have been avoided if Jimmy Carter had had a set of balls and gave military aid to the Shah, instead of sanctuary. He could have used the full force of the US military but being the pacifist puke he was, he opted not to.

Sadly, we as a country don't have the balls to win wars anymore. This started happening around the Korean War, throughout the Vietnam War, and continues to this very day. I blame the cancerous spread of Communism for this. Communism, Socialism, liberalism,and the "progressive" movement, which has infiltrated this country even to the office of the Presidency. That's exactly what they (Stalin, Lenin, Marx, etc.) had planned so as to spread their toxic ideology worldwide.

What the left doesn't understand is that the only way to really defeat an enemy is to make them want to fight no more. We did this with the Imperialist Japanese and Nazi Germany. You kill them, their wives, their children, their aunts and uncles, and their grandparents. You kill their livestock , burn down their houses, you salt their land and plow it all under.

 

[Socialist]

Fascism and socialism/communism are not at all related, it's pathetic to try to relate them, considering hitler invaded the soviet union and broke with the "socialist" message after acquiring power.

Sure they are. They both place government control over that of the individual. They both assume that when the individual is no longer of value to the State they are superfluous and can be got rid of.
They both take the majority of the workers money because they assume that the people aren't capable of caring for themselves and use that money to buy whatever votes they need to remain in power.

When you look at how the Nazi's and the Soviets treated their citizens there is virtually no difference.
One other thing that is similar to both is that when they go to war the individual is EXPECTED to die for the country, variously called the "The Fatherland", or in Soviet parlance "The Motherland", whereas in a "free" society we are grateful for the individuals sacrifice.

There is no question that fascism and socialism are related. Only brainwashed drones think otherwise.

You're referring to the actions carried out by the soviet union/germany during world war 2 as your basis for labeling the ideological views of all socialists/communists, and heck, even fascists, which is sad, truly, I pity you. They assume people aren't capable of caring for themselves? Yes, I'd love for you to back that up, along with the "buying votes claim." Wait, hold on, wasn't the soviet union an authoritarian dictatorship? Make up your mind. No difference? NO DIFFERENCE? LOOOOOOOOL. They are not related, at all, theirs a reason hitler killed socialists/communists.

Tell us the difference between the two then. By all means educate us poor folks! Yes Hitler killed his opponents. You still haven't shown us how they were different. BTW Christians kill Christians all the time so your belief that socialists don't kill socialists is laughable.

Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist Debunking a Historical Myth

Cute link. Doesn't address the fact that there is no fundamental difference in how the citizens of Germany and the Soviet Union were treated. Also doesn't address the fact that BOTH societies were collectivist in nature. Like I said, fascism, socialism, communism (as it is practiced) are all the same house. The only difference is the color of the paint.

They were treated differently, did the soviet union set up purposeful death camps for jewish people? Attempt to create a superior race?

 

[westwall]

Sure they are. They both place government control over that of the individual. They both assume that when the individual is no longer of value to the State they are superfluous and can be got rid of.
They both take the majority of the workers money because they assume that the people aren't capable of caring for themselves and use that money to buy whatever votes they need to remain in power.

When you look at how the Nazi's and the Soviets treated their citizens there is virtually no difference.
One other thing that is similar to both is that when they go to war the individual is EXPECTED to die for the country, variously called the "The Fatherland", or in Soviet parlance "The Motherland", whereas in a "free" society we are grateful for the individuals sacrifice.

There is no question that fascism and socialism are related. Only brainwashed drones think otherwise.

You're referring to the actions carried out by the soviet union/germany during world war 2 as your basis for labeling the ideological views of all socialists/communists, and heck, even fascists, which is sad, truly, I pity you. They assume people aren't capable of caring for themselves? Yes, I'd love for you to back that up, along with the "buying votes claim." Wait, hold on, wasn't the soviet union an authoritarian dictatorship? Make up your mind. No difference? NO DIFFERENCE? LOOOOOOOOL. They are not related, at all, theirs a reason hitler killed socialists/communists.

Tell us the difference between the two then. By all means educate us poor folks! Yes Hitler killed his opponents. You still haven't shown us how they were different. BTW Christians kill Christians all the time so your belief that socialists don't kill socialists is laughable.

Was Adolf Hitler a Socialist Debunking a Historical Myth

Cute link. Doesn't address the fact that there is no fundamental difference in how the citizens of Germany and the Soviet Union were treated. Also doesn't address the fact that BOTH societies were collectivist in nature. Like I said, fascism, socialism, communism (as it is practiced) are all the same house. The only difference is the color of the paint.

They were treated differently, did the soviet union set up purposeful death camps for jewish people? Attempt to create a superior race?

How was the Gulag different from the concentration camp? Other than killing way more than the Nazi's did of course.