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

[Socialist]

Most Americans support Medicare, Social Security, the VA, Medicaid, the public education system.

All are socialist. They are not 'liberal' programs; they are mainstream American programs.

Public education is socailist - NONE of the others mentioned are.

I disagree. The VA is obviously socialists. It's even more socialist than public education. Any program government manages is socialist.

Then you're a fucking moron, socialism is democratic control/collective ownership of the means of production, government programs in a capitalist system aren't socialist..

 

[Socialist]

We fought socialism in world war 2? Really? We fought with the USSR against the fascist pigs. In the words of a fascist: "Fascism is a mix of corporate and state power"

Yep

That's like saying there's a difference between a dog and a Saint Bernard.

There is no difference, moron.

Jesus christ, you really are a special kind of stupid.

Disputing your idiocies isn't evidence of stupidity. It's evidence of intelligence.

Could say the same about you, national socialism/nazism is not related in anyway to socialism, idiot.
Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.
"
Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p. 173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’.More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create.


Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.

The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, or Nazi Party, and the early presence of socialists in it.

The National Socialist German Worker’s Party
While it does look like a very socialist name, the problem is that ‘National Socialism’ is not socialism, but a different, fascist ideology. Hitler had originally joined when the party was called the German Worker’s Party, and he was there as a spy to keep an eye on it. It was not, as the name suggested, a devotedly left wing group, but one Hitler thought had potential, and as Hitler’s oratory became popular the party grew and Hitler became a leading figure.

At this point ‘National Socialism’ was a confused mishmash of ideas with multiple proponents, arguing for nationalism, anti-Semitism, and yes, some socialism. The party records don’t record the name change, but it’s generally believed a decision was taken to rename the party to attract people, and partly to forge links with other ‘national socialist’ parties. The meetings began to be advertised on red banners and posters, hoping for socialists to come in and then be confronted, sometimes violently: the party was aiming to attract as much attention and notoriety as possible. But the name was not Socialism, but National Socialism and as the 20s and 30s progressed, this became an ideology Hitler would expound upon at length.

‘National Socialism’ and Nazism
Hitler’s National Socialism, and quickly the only National Socialism which mattered, wished to promote those of ‘pure’ German blood, removing citizenship for Jews and aliens, and promoted eugenics, including the execution of the disabled and mentally ill. National Socialism did promote equality among Germans who passed their racist criteria, and submitted the individual to the will of the state, but did so as a right-wing racial movement which sought a nation of healthy Aryans living in a thousand year Reich, which would be achieved through war. In Nazi theory, a new, unified class was to be formed instead of religious, political and class divides, but this was to be done by rejecting ideologies such as liberalism, capitalism and socialism, and instead pursue a different idea, of the Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community), built on war and race, ‘blood and soil’, and German heritage.

Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.

It’s worth pointing out that all aspects of Nazism had forerunners in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and Hitler tended to cobble his ideology together from them; some historians think that ‘ideology’ gives Hitler too much credit for something which can be hard to pin down. He knew how to take things which made the socialists popular and apply them to give his party a boost. But historian Neil Gregor, in his introduction to a discussion of Nazism which includes many experts, says:

“As with other fascist ideologies and movements it subscribed to an ideology of national renewal, rebirth, and rejuvenation manifesting itself in extreme populist radical nationalism, militarism, and – in contradistinction to many other forms of fascism, extreme biological racism…the movement understood itself to be, and indeed was, a new form of political movement…the anti-Socialist, anti-liberal, and radical nationalist tenets of Nazi ideology applied particularly to the sentiments of a middle class disorientated by the domestic and international upheavals in the inter-war period.” (Neil Gregor, Nazism, Oxford, 2000 p 4-5.)
"

 

[WelfareQueen]

Most Americans support Medicare, Social Security, the VA, Medicaid, the public education system.

All are socialist. They are not 'liberal' programs; they are mainstream American programs.

Public education is socailist - NONE of the others mentioned are.

I disagree. The VA is obviously socialists. It's even more socialist than public education. Any program government manages is socialist.

Then you're a fucking moron, socialism is democratic control/collective ownership of the means of production, government programs in a capitalist system aren't socialist..

Not according to Marx, Engels, or Lenin. As usual....you're talking out of your ass.

 

[bripat9643]

Most Americans support Medicare, Social Security, the VA, Medicaid, the public education system.

All are socialist. They are not 'liberal' programs; they are mainstream American programs.

Public education is socailist - NONE of the others mentioned are.

I disagree. The VA is obviously socialists. It's even more socialist than public education. Any program government manages is socialist.

Then you're a fucking moron, socialism is democratic control/collective ownership of the means of production, government programs in a capitalist system aren't socialist..

No economists says socialism requires democracy. In fact, in practice it can't work without abolishing democracy. In fact, socialism can't work period, but abolishing democracy is always one of the primary steps on the road to socialist oblivion.

Saying socialism requires democracy is like saying you can draw a triangle with four sides.

 

[Socialist]

Most Americans support Medicare, Social Security, the VA, Medicaid, the public education system.

All are socialist. They are not 'liberal' programs; they are mainstream American programs.

Public education is socailist - NONE of the others mentioned are.

I disagree. The VA is obviously socialists. It's even more socialist than public education. Any program government manages is socialist.

Then you're a fucking moron, socialism is democratic control/collective ownership of the means of production, government programs in a capitalist system aren't socialist..

Not according to Marx, Engels, or Lenin. As usual....you're talking out of your ass.

Try again:
"In Marxist theory, socialism, also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Production for use is coordinated through consciouseconomic planning, while distribution of economic output is based on the principle of To each according to his contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively owning the means of production and the means of their livelihood, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus accrues to the working class and society as a whole.[1]"

 

[bripat9643]

We fought socialism in world war 2? Really? We fought with the USSR against the fascist pigs. In the words of a fascist: "Fascism is a mix of corporate and state power"

Yep

That's like saying there's a difference between a dog and a Saint Bernard.

There is no difference, moron.

Jesus christ, you really are a special kind of stupid.

Disputing your idiocies isn't evidence of stupidity. It's evidence of intelligence.

Could say the same about you, national socialism/nazism is not related in anyway to socialism, idiot.
Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.
"
Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p. 173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’.More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create.


Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.

The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, or Nazi Party, and the early presence of socialists in it.

The National Socialist German Worker’s Party
While it does look like a very socialist name, the problem is that ‘National Socialism’ is not socialism, but a different, fascist ideology. Hitler had originally joined when the party was called the German Worker’s Party, and he was there as a spy to keep an eye on it. It was not, as the name suggested, a devotedly left wing group, but one Hitler thought had potential, and as Hitler’s oratory became popular the party grew and Hitler became a leading figure.

At this point ‘National Socialism’ was a confused mishmash of ideas with multiple proponents, arguing for nationalism, anti-Semitism, and yes, some socialism. The party records don’t record the name change, but it’s generally believed a decision was taken to rename the party to attract people, and partly to forge links with other ‘national socialist’ parties. The meetings began to be advertised on red banners and posters, hoping for socialists to come in and then be confronted, sometimes violently: the party was aiming to attract as much attention and notoriety as possible. But the name was not Socialism, but National Socialism and as the 20s and 30s progressed, this became an ideology Hitler would expound upon at length.

‘National Socialism’ and Nazism
Hitler’s National Socialism, and quickly the only National Socialism which mattered, wished to promote those of ‘pure’ German blood, removing citizenship for Jews and aliens, and promoted eugenics, including the execution of the disabled and mentally ill. National Socialism did promote equality among Germans who passed their racist criteria, and submitted the individual to the will of the state, but did so as a right-wing racial movement which sought a nation of healthy Aryans living in a thousand year Reich, which would be achieved through war. In Nazi theory, a new, unified class was to be formed instead of religious, political and class divides, but this was to be done by rejecting ideologies such as liberalism, capitalism and socialism, and instead pursue a different idea, of the Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community), built on war and race, ‘blood and soil’, and German heritage.

Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.

It’s worth pointing out that all aspects of Nazism had forerunners in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and Hitler tended to cobble his ideology together from them; some historians think that ‘ideology’ gives Hitler too much credit for something which can be hard to pin down. He knew how to take things which made the socialists popular and apply them to give his party a boost. But historian Neil Gregor, in his introduction to a discussion of Nazism which includes many experts, says:

“As with other fascist ideologies and movements it subscribed to an ideology of national renewal, rebirth, and rejuvenation manifesting itself in extreme populist radical nationalism, militarism, and – in contradistinction to many other forms of fascism, extreme biological racism…the movement understood itself to be, and indeed was, a new form of political movement…the anti-Socialist, anti-liberal, and radical nationalist tenets of Nazi ideology applied particularly to the sentiments of a middle class disorientated by the domestic and international upheavals in the inter-war period.” (Neil Gregor, Nazism, Oxford, 2000 p 4-5.)
"

That's communist propaganda. The issue of whether the Nazis were socialists has been debated in this forum for years, and the the side arguing they it wasn't has always proved itself to be populated by people who don't know the slightest thing about the Nazi economy.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Most Americans support Medicare, Social Security, the VA, Medicaid, the public education system.

All are socialist. They are not 'liberal' programs; they are mainstream American programs.

Public education is socailist - NONE of the others mentioned are.

I disagree. The VA is obviously socialists. It's even more socialist than public education. Any program government manages is socialist.

Then you're a fucking moron, socialism is democratic control/collective ownership of the means of production, government programs in a capitalist system aren't socialist..

Not according to Marx, Engels, or Lenin. As usual....you're talking out of your ass.

Try again:
"In Marxist theory, socialism, also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Production for use is coordinated through consciouseconomic planning, while distribution of economic output is based on the principle of To each according to his contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively owning the means of production and the means of their livelihood, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus accrues to the working class and society as a whole.[1]"

Well....it sure worked well for the old Soviet Union....didn't it? Socialism taking over the means of production. Yet another stupid idea thrown on the scrap heap of history.

 

[Socialist]

Most Americans support Medicare, Social Security, the VA, Medicaid, the public education system.

All are socialist. They are not 'liberal' programs; they are mainstream American programs.

Public education is socailist - NONE of the others mentioned are.

I disagree. The VA is obviously socialists. It's even more socialist than public education. Any program government manages is socialist.

Then you're a fucking moron, socialism is democratic control/collective ownership of the means of production, government programs in a capitalist system aren't socialist..

No economists says socialism requires democracy. In fact, in practice it can't work without abolishing democracy. In fact, socialism can't work period, but abolishing democracy is always one of the primary steps on the road to socialist oblivion.

Saying socialism requires democracy is like saying you can draw a triangle with four sides.

Almost all modern socialists call for this, although I talk to many leninists/maoists who believe utilizing the state is the key to push towards socialism, although we both obviously disagree with this. It can't work without abolishing democracy? Do you remember the anarchists in spain? The free territory in ukraine? Then again, I don't expect someone who thinks the WHO is a marxist organization to have a basic grasp of the history of something you don't understand, at all. Abolishing democracy? Yes, because capitalist "democracies" represent everyone, and don't favor the wealthy more then the common man...

 

[bripat9643]

Most Americans support Medicare, Social Security, the VA, Medicaid, the public education system.

All are socialist. They are not 'liberal' programs; they are mainstream American programs.

Public education is socailist - NONE of the others mentioned are.

I disagree. The VA is obviously socialists. It's even more socialist than public education. Any program government manages is socialist.

Then you're a fucking moron, socialism is democratic control/collective ownership of the means of production, government programs in a capitalist system aren't socialist..

Not according to Marx, Engels, or Lenin. As usual....you're talking out of your ass.

Try again:
"In Marxist theory, socialism, also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Production for use is coordinated through consciouseconomic planning, while distribution of economic output is based on the principle of To each according to his contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively owning the means of production and the means of their livelihood, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus accrues to the working class and society as a whole.[1]"

That's Marxist propaganda. Only fools like you believe it is credible in any way.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Yep

That's like saying there's a difference between a dog and a Saint Bernard.

There is no difference, moron.

Jesus christ, you really are a special kind of stupid.

Disputing your idiocies isn't evidence of stupidity. It's evidence of intelligence.

Could say the same about you, national socialism/nazism is not related in anyway to socialism, idiot.
Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.
"
Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p. 173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’.More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create.


Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.

The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, or Nazi Party, and the early presence of socialists in it.

The National Socialist German Worker’s Party
While it does look like a very socialist name, the problem is that ‘National Socialism’ is not socialism, but a different, fascist ideology. Hitler had originally joined when the party was called the German Worker’s Party, and he was there as a spy to keep an eye on it. It was not, as the name suggested, a devotedly left wing group, but one Hitler thought had potential, and as Hitler’s oratory became popular the party grew and Hitler became a leading figure.

At this point ‘National Socialism’ was a confused mishmash of ideas with multiple proponents, arguing for nationalism, anti-Semitism, and yes, some socialism. The party records don’t record the name change, but it’s generally believed a decision was taken to rename the party to attract people, and partly to forge links with other ‘national socialist’ parties. The meetings began to be advertised on red banners and posters, hoping for socialists to come in and then be confronted, sometimes violently: the party was aiming to attract as much attention and notoriety as possible. But the name was not Socialism, but National Socialism and as the 20s and 30s progressed, this became an ideology Hitler would expound upon at length.

‘National Socialism’ and Nazism
Hitler’s National Socialism, and quickly the only National Socialism which mattered, wished to promote those of ‘pure’ German blood, removing citizenship for Jews and aliens, and promoted eugenics, including the execution of the disabled and mentally ill. National Socialism did promote equality among Germans who passed their racist criteria, and submitted the individual to the will of the state, but did so as a right-wing racial movement which sought a nation of healthy Aryans living in a thousand year Reich, which would be achieved through war. In Nazi theory, a new, unified class was to be formed instead of religious, political and class divides, but this was to be done by rejecting ideologies such as liberalism, capitalism and socialism, and instead pursue a different idea, of the Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community), built on war and race, ‘blood and soil’, and German heritage.

Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.

It’s worth pointing out that all aspects of Nazism had forerunners in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and Hitler tended to cobble his ideology together from them; some historians think that ‘ideology’ gives Hitler too much credit for something which can be hard to pin down. He knew how to take things which made the socialists popular and apply them to give his party a boost. But historian Neil Gregor, in his introduction to a discussion of Nazism which includes many experts, says:

“As with other fascist ideologies and movements it subscribed to an ideology of national renewal, rebirth, and rejuvenation manifesting itself in extreme populist radical nationalism, militarism, and – in contradistinction to many other forms of fascism, extreme biological racism…the movement understood itself to be, and indeed was, a new form of political movement…the anti-Socialist, anti-liberal, and radical nationalist tenets of Nazi ideology applied particularly to the sentiments of a middle class disorientated by the domestic and international upheavals in the inter-war period.” (Neil Gregor, Nazism, Oxford, 2000 p 4-5.)
"

That's communist propaganda. The issue of whether the Nazis were socialists has been debated in this forum for years, and the the side arguing they it wasn't has always proved itself to be populated by people who don't know the slightest thing about the Nazi economy.

Nazism....like socialism took over the means of production from private enterprise. How is this remotely different from standard socialism?

The OP is an idiot.

 

[Socialist]

Public education is socailist - NONE of the others mentioned are.

I disagree. The VA is obviously socialists. It's even more socialist than public education. Any program government manages is socialist.

Then you're a fucking moron, socialism is democratic control/collective ownership of the means of production, government programs in a capitalist system aren't socialist..

Not according to Marx, Engels, or Lenin. As usual....you're talking out of your ass.

Try again:
"In Marxist theory, socialism, also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Production for use is coordinated through consciouseconomic planning, while distribution of economic output is based on the principle of To each according to his contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively owning the means of production and the means of their livelihood, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus accrues to the working class and society as a whole.[1]"

Well....it sure worked well for the old Soviet Union....didn't it? Socialism taking over the means of production. Yet another stupid idea thrown on the scrap heap of history.

The soviet union followed state capitalism, where the state owns the means of production, not the working class, many communists at the time criticized this when stalin came into power, since Lenin laid out the NEP and allowed some private ownership of production, which stalin crushed. Regardless, by what measure did the soviet union fail, apart from revisionists after stalin, not that I support the legacy of the USSR, but I love to examine its history.

 

[Vigilante]

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

 

[Socialist]

Public education is socailist - NONE of the others mentioned are.

I disagree. The VA is obviously socialists. It's even more socialist than public education. Any program government manages is socialist.

Then you're a fucking moron, socialism is democratic control/collective ownership of the means of production, government programs in a capitalist system aren't socialist..

Not according to Marx, Engels, or Lenin. As usual....you're talking out of your ass.

Try again:
"In Marxist theory, socialism, also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Production for use is coordinated through consciouseconomic planning, while distribution of economic output is based on the principle of To each according to his contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively owning the means of production and the means of their livelihood, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus accrues to the working class and society as a whole.[1]"

That's Marxist propaganda. Only fools like you believe it is credible in any way.

Marxist propaganda? How, exactly, is socialism, as you say, defined by marx, not what he/lenin/etc laid out? Are they simply made up historical figures now that are a part of marxist propaganda? Actually, hold on, I'm going to list out some organizations, by your standards, they're all marxist, I'm sure...
MSF USA Medical aid where it is needed most. Independent. Neutral. Impartial.
IMF -- International Monetary Fund Home Page
World Bank Group

 

[Socialist]

That's like saying there's a difference between a dog and a Saint Bernard.

There is no difference, moron.

Jesus christ, you really are a special kind of stupid.

Disputing your idiocies isn't evidence of stupidity. It's evidence of intelligence.

Could say the same about you, national socialism/nazism is not related in anyway to socialism, idiot.
Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.
"
Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p. 173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’.More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create.


Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.

The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, or Nazi Party, and the early presence of socialists in it.

The National Socialist German Worker’s Party
While it does look like a very socialist name, the problem is that ‘National Socialism’ is not socialism, but a different, fascist ideology. Hitler had originally joined when the party was called the German Worker’s Party, and he was there as a spy to keep an eye on it. It was not, as the name suggested, a devotedly left wing group, but one Hitler thought had potential, and as Hitler’s oratory became popular the party grew and Hitler became a leading figure.

At this point ‘National Socialism’ was a confused mishmash of ideas with multiple proponents, arguing for nationalism, anti-Semitism, and yes, some socialism. The party records don’t record the name change, but it’s generally believed a decision was taken to rename the party to attract people, and partly to forge links with other ‘national socialist’ parties. The meetings began to be advertised on red banners and posters, hoping for socialists to come in and then be confronted, sometimes violently: the party was aiming to attract as much attention and notoriety as possible. But the name was not Socialism, but National Socialism and as the 20s and 30s progressed, this became an ideology Hitler would expound upon at length.

‘National Socialism’ and Nazism
Hitler’s National Socialism, and quickly the only National Socialism which mattered, wished to promote those of ‘pure’ German blood, removing citizenship for Jews and aliens, and promoted eugenics, including the execution of the disabled and mentally ill. National Socialism did promote equality among Germans who passed their racist criteria, and submitted the individual to the will of the state, but did so as a right-wing racial movement which sought a nation of healthy Aryans living in a thousand year Reich, which would be achieved through war. In Nazi theory, a new, unified class was to be formed instead of religious, political and class divides, but this was to be done by rejecting ideologies such as liberalism, capitalism and socialism, and instead pursue a different idea, of the Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community), built on war and race, ‘blood and soil’, and German heritage.

Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.

It’s worth pointing out that all aspects of Nazism had forerunners in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and Hitler tended to cobble his ideology together from them; some historians think that ‘ideology’ gives Hitler too much credit for something which can be hard to pin down. He knew how to take things which made the socialists popular and apply them to give his party a boost. But historian Neil Gregor, in his introduction to a discussion of Nazism which includes many experts, says:

“As with other fascist ideologies and movements it subscribed to an ideology of national renewal, rebirth, and rejuvenation manifesting itself in extreme populist radical nationalism, militarism, and – in contradistinction to many other forms of fascism, extreme biological racism…the movement understood itself to be, and indeed was, a new form of political movement…the anti-Socialist, anti-liberal, and radical nationalist tenets of Nazi ideology applied particularly to the sentiments of a middle class disorientated by the domestic and international upheavals in the inter-war period.” (Neil Gregor, Nazism, Oxford, 2000 p 4-5.)
"

That's communist propaganda. The issue of whether the Nazis were socialists has been debated in this forum for years, and the the side arguing they it wasn't has always proved itself to be populated by people who don't know the slightest thing about the Nazi economy.

Nazism....like socialism took over the means of production from private enterprise. How is this remotely different from standard socialism?

The OP is an idiot.

Oh please, it's clear you didn't even bother to read the text I've posted.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I disagree. The VA is obviously socialists. It's even more socialist than public education. Any program government manages is socialist.

Then you're a fucking moron, socialism is democratic control/collective ownership of the means of production, government programs in a capitalist system aren't socialist..

Not according to Marx, Engels, or Lenin. As usual....you're talking out of your ass.

Try again:
"In Marxist theory, socialism, also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Production for use is coordinated through consciouseconomic planning, while distribution of economic output is based on the principle of To each according to his contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively owning the means of production and the means of their livelihood, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus accrues to the working class and society as a whole.[1]"

Well....it sure worked well for the old Soviet Union....didn't it? Socialism taking over the means of production. Yet another stupid idea thrown on the scrap heap of history.

The soviet union followed state capitalism, where the state owns the means of production, not the working class, many communists at the time criticized this when stalin came into power, since Lenin laid out the NEP and allowed some private ownership of production, which stalin crushed. Regardless, by what measure did the soviet union fail, apart from revisionists after stalin, not that I support the legacy of the USSR, but I love to examine its history.

Planned State economies have never worked. Ever. The USSR failed economically. How hard is that to understand?

Hence, the reason even China has gone to a hybrid capitalistic economic. Governments don't know shit about business or running the means of production efficiently.

Case in point: Amtrak and the Postal Services for two very specific examples.

Fed Ex and UPS make billions. CSX, Norfolk Southern and other rail make billions.

The Government....loses billions. Need I say more?

 

[Socialist]

Then you're a fucking moron, socialism is democratic control/collective ownership of the means of production, government programs in a capitalist system aren't socialist..

Not according to Marx, Engels, or Lenin. As usual....you're talking out of your ass.

Try again:
"In Marxist theory, socialism, also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Production for use is coordinated through consciouseconomic planning, while distribution of economic output is based on the principle of To each according to his contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively owning the means of production and the means of their livelihood, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus accrues to the working class and society as a whole.[1]"

Well....it sure worked well for the old Soviet Union....didn't it? Socialism taking over the means of production. Yet another stupid idea thrown on the scrap heap of history.

The soviet union followed state capitalism, where the state owns the means of production, not the working class, many communists at the time criticized this when stalin came into power, since Lenin laid out the NEP and allowed some private ownership of production, which stalin crushed. Regardless, by what measure did the soviet union fail, apart from revisionists after stalin, not that I support the legacy of the USSR, but I love to examine its history.

Planned State economies have never worked. Ever. The USSR failed economically. How hard is that to understand?

Hence, the reason even China has gone to a hybrid capitalistic economic. Governments don't know shit about business or running the means of production efficiently.

Case in point: Amtrak and the Postal Services for two very specific examples.

Fed Ex and UPS make billions. CSX, Norfolk Southern and other rail make billions.

The Government....loses billions.

It failed economically? By what measures? Here is the GDP per capita:

China went to capitalism after reformism took over, and Mao made many mistakes that led to this..

 

[Political Junky]

We fought socialism in world war 2? Really? We fought with the USSR against the fascist pigs. In the words of a fascist: "Fascism is a mix of corporate and state power"

We fought against collectivism, yes. Socialism is a form of collectivism. The National Socialist German Workers Party was most certainly an extreme form of socialism.

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

 

[danielpalos]

Then you're a fucking moron, socialism is democratic control/collective ownership of the means of production, government programs in a capitalist system aren't socialist..

Not according to Marx, Engels, or Lenin. As usual....you're talking out of your ass.

Try again:
"In Marxist theory, socialism, also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Production for use is coordinated through consciouseconomic planning, while distribution of economic output is based on the principle of To each according to his contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively owning the means of production and the means of their livelihood, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus accrues to the working class and society as a whole.[1]"

Well....it sure worked well for the old Soviet Union....didn't it? Socialism taking over the means of production. Yet another stupid idea thrown on the scrap heap of history.

The soviet union followed state capitalism, where the state owns the means of production, not the working class, many communists at the time criticized this when stalin came into power, since Lenin laid out the NEP and allowed some private ownership of production, which stalin crushed. Regardless, by what measure did the soviet union fail, apart from revisionists after stalin, not that I support the legacy of the USSR, but I love to examine its history.

Planned State economies have never worked. Ever. The USSR failed economically. How hard is that to understand?

Hence, the reason even China has gone to a hybrid capitalistic economic. Governments don't know shit about business or running the means of production efficiently.

Case in point: Amtrak and the Postal Services for two very specific examples.

Fed Ex and UPS make billions. CSX, Norfolk Southern and other rail make billions.

The Government....loses billions. Need I say more?

Most private sectors can't even function without the Socialism of Government.

 

[bripat9643]

Not according to Marx, Engels, or Lenin. As usual....you're talking out of your ass.

Try again:
"In Marxist theory, socialism, also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Production for use is coordinated through consciouseconomic planning, while distribution of economic output is based on the principle of To each according to his contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively owning the means of production and the means of their livelihood, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus accrues to the working class and society as a whole.[1]"

Well....it sure worked well for the old Soviet Union....didn't it? Socialism taking over the means of production. Yet another stupid idea thrown on the scrap heap of history.

The soviet union followed state capitalism, where the state owns the means of production, not the working class, many communists at the time criticized this when stalin came into power, since Lenin laid out the NEP and allowed some private ownership of production, which stalin crushed. Regardless, by what measure did the soviet union fail, apart from revisionists after stalin, not that I support the legacy of the USSR, but I love to examine its history.

Planned State economies have never worked. Ever. The USSR failed economically. How hard is that to understand?

Hence, the reason even China has gone to a hybrid capitalistic economic. Governments don't know shit about business or running the means of production efficiently.

Case in point: Amtrak and the Postal Services for two very specific examples.

Fed Ex and UPS make billions. CSX, Norfolk Southern and other rail make billions.

The Government....loses billions.

It failed economically? By what measures? Here is the GDP per capita:

China went to capitalism after reformism took over, and Mao made many mistakes that led to this..

Your graph is based on CIA data which the institution later admitted was totally inaccurate.

You're a sucker for propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

We fought socialism in world war 2? Really? We fought with the USSR against the fascist pigs. In the words of a fascist: "Fascism is a mix of corporate and state power"

We fought against collectivism, yes. Socialism is a form of collectivism. The National Socialist German Workers Party was most certainly an extreme form of socialism.

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

You mean the left will. That Nazis were socialists. The myth that they were "right wingers" was invented by commie professors who came here after the war from Germany. They paved the way for Hitler and fucked up their own country, and then they came here and started fucking up our country.