Will The Democrats Finally Admit They Are a Socialist Party?

[bripat9643]

He explained that fascism is just socialism in disguise.

If fascism was the same as socialism, we'd call it socialism, not fascism.

No we wouldn't, moron.

How about you list off for us the policies of the Nazis, not Italians or Japanese for now, that were Socialist? For instance, what part of banning abortion and keeping women barefoot and pregnant is socialist?

We've had thread after thread after thread on this subject. I refer you to them.

 

[bripat9643]

He explained that fascism is just socialism in disguise.

If fascism was the same as socialism, we'd call it socialism, not fascism.

No we wouldn't, moron.

bripat,
There is never a bar too low for you.

ROLF! You're actually using that to defend PMH, the guy who admitted that he believes Jews are scum and that he wants them to be eliminated?

Yet again, not Jews, Zionists...

There is no practical distinction between them. "Zionist" is a word anti-Semites invented so they could vent their disgusting opinions in public without being booed off the stage.

 

[BlackSand]

That is why Capitalism Rocks ... It doesn't care what you want to call it or what you think about it unless the crap gets done.

What crap would that be comrade, bombing the $hit out of brown people with lots of oil on the other side of the planet?

Was that the goal ... Either in reality or your perception?
Did it get done?

Can you think of any other establishment that achieve their goals in a more efficient and successful manner?
I mean once you figure that out ... then maybe you can figure out how to use it accomplish better goals.



.

 

[bripat9643]

Mises said fascism is a form of socialism.

Mises said fascism is a form of socialism.

citation?

"The German pattern differs from the Russian one in that it (seemingly and nominally) maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs but only shop managers(Betriebsfuhrer)...The government tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees to whom and under what terms the capitalists must entrust their funds and where and at what wages laborers must work...all the prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the central authority...The government, not the consumers, directs production. This is socialism in the outward guise of capitalism."(15)​

He is talking about the realization of socialism in that passage moron.
This is what he said about fascism.

“So much for the domestic policy of Fascism. That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one's own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone.

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error” (Mises 1978: 51).

He accepts fascism as a necessary evil to contain the spread European socialism.

He explained that fascism is just socialism in disguise. The rest of the passage didn't change the meaning of what I quoted.

Obviously, you're illiterate.

The passage that you quoted was from "Omnipotent Government" under the heading "Socialism in Russia and in Germany". He was not discussing fascism, you are making that up.

ROFL! People normally class Nazism as a form of fascism, numskull.

 

[bripat9643]

He explained that fascism is just socialism in disguise.

If fascism was the same as socialism, we'd call it socialism, not fascism.

No we wouldn't, moron.

bripat,
There is never a bar too low for you.

ROLF! You're actually using that to defend PMH, the guy who admitted that he believes Jews are scum and that he wants them to be eliminated?

Yet again, not Jews, Zionists...

You aren't fooling anyone, turd.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He explained that fascism is just socialism in disguise.

If fascism was the same as socialism, we'd call it socialism, not fascism.

No we wouldn't, moron.

How about you list off for us the policies of the Nazis, not Italians or Japanese for now, that were Socialist? For instance, what part of banning abortion and keeping women barefoot and pregnant is socialist?

We've had thread after thread after thread on this subject. I refer you to them.

I see, so you can, in no way, back up what you said? Usually, but not always, things have different names because they are,...............................................................................wait for it,.......................................................................................different.

 

[Tehon]

citation?

"The German pattern differs from the Russian one in that it (seemingly and nominally) maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs but only shop managers(Betriebsfuhrer)...The government tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees to whom and under what terms the capitalists must entrust their funds and where and at what wages laborers must work...all the prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the central authority...The government, not the consumers, directs production. This is socialism in the outward guise of capitalism."(15)​

He is talking about the realization of socialism in that passage moron.
This is what he said about fascism.

“So much for the domestic policy of Fascism. That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one's own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone.

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error” (Mises 1978: 51).

He accepts fascism as a necessary evil to contain the spread European socialism.

He explained that fascism is just socialism in disguise. The rest of the passage didn't change the meaning of what I quoted.

Obviously, you're illiterate.

The passage that you quoted was from "Omnipotent Government" under the heading "Socialism in Russia and in Germany". He was not discussing fascism, you are making that up.

ROFL! People normally class Nazism as a form of fascism, numskull.

We weren't talking about norms, you were specific in your accusations and you failed to back it up.

 

[bripat9643]

He explained that fascism is just socialism in disguise.

If fascism was the same as socialism, we'd call it socialism, not fascism.

No we wouldn't, moron.

How about you list off for us the policies of the Nazis, not Italians or Japanese for now, that were Socialist? For instance, what part of banning abortion and keeping women barefoot and pregnant is socialist?

We've had thread after thread after thread on this subject. I refer you to them.

I see, so you can, in no way, back up what you said? Usually, but not always, things have different names because they are,...............................................................................wait for it,.......................................................................................different.

Hmmm . . . wrong. English is full of things call "synonyms," different words that mean the same thing. However, as Mises explained, there is one difference: fascism is socialism in disguise.

 

[bripat9643]

"The German pattern differs from the Russian one in that it (seemingly and nominally) maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs but only shop managers(Betriebsfuhrer)...The government tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees to whom and under what terms the capitalists must entrust their funds and where and at what wages laborers must work...all the prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the central authority...The government, not the consumers, directs production. This is socialism in the outward guise of capitalism."(15)​

He is talking about the realization of socialism in that passage moron.
This is what he said about fascism.

“So much for the domestic policy of Fascism. That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one's own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone.

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error” (Mises 1978: 51).

He accepts fascism as a necessary evil to contain the spread European socialism.

He explained that fascism is just socialism in disguise. The rest of the passage didn't change the meaning of what I quoted.

Obviously, you're illiterate.

The passage that you quoted was from "Omnipotent Government" under the heading "Socialism in Russia and in Germany". He was not discussing fascism, you are making that up.

ROFL! People normally class Nazism as a form of fascism, numskull.

We weren't talking about norms, you were specific in your accusations and you failed to back it up.

Wrong . . . I did back it up. When Mises refers to "the German pattern" he means Nazism, i.e. fascism. He said in very plain language that it's just another form of socialism.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no practical distinction between them. "Zionist" is a word anti-Semites invented so they could vent their disgusting opinions in public without being booed off the stage.

You might want to discuss that with these Jews, who know better than you, obviously...

 

[Jantje_Smit]

It's doing nicely? The government owes $200 trillion, economic growth is on the decline, and unemployment is a chronic state of affairs. How is that "doing nicely?"

Eh no, you, as a taxpayer owe $200 trillion (if that's correct). The government itself is doing fine as a quick google easily proves.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...ers-of-congress-are-mostly-millionaires/?_r=0

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If fascism was the same as socialism, we'd call it socialism, not fascism.

No we wouldn't, moron.

How about you list off for us the policies of the Nazis, not Italians or Japanese for now, that were Socialist? For instance, what part of banning abortion and keeping women barefoot and pregnant is socialist?

We've had thread after thread after thread on this subject. I refer you to them.

I see, so you can, in no way, back up what you said? Usually, but not always, things have different names because they are,...............................................................................wait for it,.......................................................................................different.

Hmmm . . . wrong. English is full of things call "synonyms," different words that mean the same thing. However, as Mises explained, there is one difference: fascism is socialism in disguise.

If they are the same then tell us how they are the same? That should be easy enough for you unless of course, they aren't the same.

I'll even hep get you started: Fascism vs Socialism Difference between Fascism and Socialism

 

[bucs90]

It's funny watching DontTazeMeBro rip Democrats as socialists....when he spends half his time here campaigning on their #1 talking point of 2015. And closing threads that go against that talking point. Hmmmm.

 

[bucs90]

No we wouldn't, moron.

How about you list off for us the policies of the Nazis, not Italians or Japanese for now, that were Socialist? For instance, what part of banning abortion and keeping women barefoot and pregnant is socialist?

We've had thread after thread after thread on this subject. I refer you to them.

I see, so you can, in no way, back up what you said? Usually, but not always, things have different names because they are,...............................................................................wait for it,.......................................................................................different.

Hmmm . . . wrong. English is full of things call "synonyms," different words that mean the same thing. However, as Mises explained, there is one difference: fascism is socialism in disguise.

If they are the same then tell us how they are the same? That should be easy enough for you unless of course, they aren't the same...

Well....when a socialist is the party's hottest candidate.....

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Was that the goal ... Either in reality or your perception?
Did it get done?

I'm pretty sure I used a question mark, I asked you what "the crap" was.

Can you think of any other establishment that achieve their goals in a more efficient and successful manner?
I mean once you figure that out ... then maybe you can figure out how to use it accomplish better goals.



.

I'm pretty sure a truly democratic government could accomplish goals like single payer healthcare for everyone, free public education, a decent minimum wage etc.

But that can't be right, capitalism always does a better job.

 

[Tehon]

He is talking about the realization of socialism in that passage moron.
This is what he said about fascism.
He accepts fascism as a necessary evil to contain the spread European socialism.

He explained that fascism is just socialism in disguise. The rest of the passage didn't change the meaning of what I quoted.

Obviously, you're illiterate.

The passage that you quoted was from "Omnipotent Government" under the heading "Socialism in Russia and in Germany". He was not discussing fascism, you are making that up.

ROFL! People normally class Nazism as a form of fascism, numskull.

We weren't talking about norms, you were specific in your accusations and you failed to back it up.

Wrong . . . I did back it up. When Mises refers to "the German pattern" he means Nazism, i.e. fascism. He said in very plain language that it's just another form of socialism.

He used the term socialism , there is no ambiguity in that. I presented to you his words pertaining to fascism and there was no ambiguity in those either. He did not use the terms interchangeably.

 

[BlackSand]

Was that the goal ... Either in reality or your perception?
Did it get done?

I'm pretty sure I used a question mark, I asked you what "the crap" was.

Can you think of any other establishment that achieve their goals in a more efficient and successful manner?
I mean once you figure that out ... then maybe you can figure out how to use it accomplish better goals.



.

I'm pretty sure a truly democratic government could accomplish goals like single payer healthcare for everyone, free public education, a decent minimum wage etc.

But that can't be right, capitalism always does a better job.

Well if you need government to do the job ... I am not going to argue with that.
I mean why argue with Santa Clause ... Just wait by the fireplace for Ole St. Nick to come rolling down the chimney with a bag of toys for all the good little boys and girls in the world.

But ... That isn't what I posted ... And doesn't address "their goals" (in reference to Capitalism).
My point is whether or not Capitalism can accomplish "their goals" and how it would be more productive and efficient if and when Capitalists adjust "their goals" to meet greater needs.

It is really kind of funny when people bitch about Capitalists ... Because of what they can actually accomplish.



.

 

[bripat9643]

It's doing nicely? The government owes $200 trillion, economic growth is on the decline, and unemployment is a chronic state of affairs. How is that "doing nicely?"

Eh no, you, as a taxpayer owe $200 trillion (if that's correct). The government itself is doing fine as a quick google easily proves.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...ers-of-congress-are-mostly-millionaires/?_r=0

You make a distinction without a difference. The government owes, therefore we owe it collectively.

 

[bripat9643]

He explained that fascism is just socialism in disguise. The rest of the passage didn't change the meaning of what I quoted.

Obviously, you're illiterate.

The passage that you quoted was from "Omnipotent Government" under the heading "Socialism in Russia and in Germany". He was not discussing fascism, you are making that up.

ROFL! People normally class Nazism as a form of fascism, numskull.

We weren't talking about norms, you were specific in your accusations and you failed to back it up.

Wrong . . . I did back it up. When Mises refers to "the German pattern" he means Nazism, i.e. fascism. He said in very plain language that it's just another form of socialism.

He used the term socialism , there is no ambiguity in that. I presented to you his words pertaining to fascism and there was no ambiguity in those either. He did not use the terms interchangeably.

People can read the quote. Your explanation is obvious bullshit.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Whenever I think of Socialists, I always remember their love of big, happy, white families, just like Adolf...

Socialists always pay you to have four or more children right?