Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
9
-
7
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@abcjuniormilton Kuality Studios "I shot down your talking points"
Dude you didn't even address them. Once. You don't even seem to know who you're talking to. Let's keep this concise so that if you respond you can't go off on an unrelated tangent like you do everytime, alright?
1. Britain paying off slave owners with money from taxation isn't a good thing, it shows the moral bankruptcy of the nation to be willing to put literally centuries of labor into paying off slavery.
2. Even then, America had it worse by literally engaging in a bloody war to end slavery, which ended up further dividing the nation. Compared to the countries that did, it was roughly the tenth to abolish slavery. Still "one of" the first considering all nations, but it was one of the last developed nations to do so.
3. I literally never praised venezuela. Are you confusing me for another person? Socialism is defined as the workers having democratic control of the means of production, if they don't have that then it isn't socialism, that much is obvious. As I said before, venezuela's economy is 70% private, which is why i brought up Denmark. You are wrong on a few things, like the fact that they can only afford their welfare because we pay for the military (that's been debunked) but you are right in that they are capitalist. So why, if they have more businesses nationalized or under state jurisdiction, are they capitalist? Because Venezuela has less of a public economy and state control over industry. So why the hypocrisy. The collapse of the economy happened for a few reason, mostly US interventionism and basic economic principles that only apply under capitalist. You trying to deflect that blame onto socialism shows how little you actually know, or even care.
4. I say those driven out of cuba "hoarded wealth" because they literally were. You can decided independently whether it was justified or not, but that's why it happened. The fellow below you pointed it out well, some literally relied on modern day plantations, slavery, and monopolies. That's not great.
5. You say blaming the west for third world countries is just deflection when... no.
https://i1.wp.com/www.latinorebels.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/12774_10151260910786469_1258602601_n.jpeg?fit=640%2C960&ssl=1
Look at the image in this article, or even read the article if you want. the US has been interfering in foreign economies and countries for literally decades now, and ignoring that fact because you want to put all the blame on socialism really says a lot about you.
6. Mate communism is western
7. The old "communist schools" myth was debunked literally decades ago, and it's sad to see your folk try to bring it up against instead of just recognizing that people really do have reasons to be angry at capitalism. What's more likely - schools literally are full of communists, and the government has never noticed or cared, or people self-educate and find reasons to be angry at capitalism.
8. Now you're just making shit up. Dude, if you want to pretend "the west hates itself" while shitting all over western ideas and american citizens, you're the problem. Seriously. You are the part of the west that hates itself.
So now you see how you not only didn't shoot anything down, but didn't even address most of my points. Try harder, come on.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JNM578 Again, most of the components literally come from third world countries, or even china. Most computers aren't even manufactured in america, they're just shipped here, and then they wait on shelves for people to buy them. that's capitalism, alright, but not the kind I think you're a fan of. The problem with things being "mutual" under capitalism is that you don't really have a choice. Most jobs require skills with a computer, or owning some sort of internet enabled device, and most are put together in the same way. It doesn't matter if i don't buy from one company, because they're all doing it. And if the "private ownership of the means of production" leads to this, it isn't doing that well for itself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@myric1173 Hi, i'm guessing you're american? If so, I am as well, so I understand the perception. However, the thing is we have to consider not only the countries that do exist that use similar systems, but the whole political spectrum. There are countries around who do things very similar to the things we said, but even if there weren't, that wouldn't suddenly make this far left.. Basically, imagine the political "spectrum" is a point from 100 to -100, with 0 being the absolute center. -100 is as far right as you can go, so ancap, fascism, monarchism, ect. 100 on the graph is not things like "more taxes," at 100 you have anarchism, stateless/statist communism, communalism, egoism, ect. And as you work your way back from 100 to 0, you'll find there are so many other "far left" philosophies that what you're describing, depending on the country, is around 15-30. That's why I say they're moderate, because whether or not you agree with them they still fall explicitly within the range of capitalism and social democracy, which is moderate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@truth0077 You realize that the democrats in the USA during the slave trade days were right wing conservatives, right? You proved your own point wrong yet again!
Nazis were right wing... they said so themself.
you guys are really idiots, aren't you? For one, all of those things do not equate to socialism, many capitalist countries have them. For two, "defects and eugenics" have never been a left wing idea. Ever. We always go for kropotkin biology, not Darwin.
I say the second claim is true because that's what they admitted to themselves... not the people they were propoganzing.
But, if you want to see hitler quotes, let's see my reasoning, shall we?
"Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the (Capitalist-Libertarian) Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. "
In this quote, hitler quite easily shows his true colors. He likes "socialism," but his version of socialism is the opposite of everything Marx said it was - it is right wing. Better yet, it's also just capitalism. He quite literally says here that his ideology does not go against property rights or individualism, rather, it is in favor of them. He closes out by saying that if he had not chosen this name, he would have chosen a more accurate name. The remains of the party he discussed here are still around, and they're called the Freie Demokratische Partei... which is a right wing capitalist party.
This is what he had to say about entrepreneurs...
"They have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead."
Doesn't sound very "collectivist" to me, does it? Nope, it isn't. He's literally praising individuals, and their effort within private property. That's quite literally the opposite of collectivism. He echoed that sentiment in several other quotes, like
"I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself..."
"As National Socialists, our hearts are full with admiration and respect for the great achievements of the past, not only in our own people but also far beyond. We are happy to belong to an European cultural community that has so tremendously embossed today's world with a stamp of its mind. Bolshevism rejects this cultural achievement of mankind, claiming that has found the beginning of the real cultural and human history in the year of birth of Marxism. We, National Socialists, do not want to be of the same opinion as our church organizations in this or that organizational question. But we never want a lack of belief in religion or any faith, and do not wish that our churches become club-houses or cinemas. Bolshevism teaches the godlessness and acts accordingly. We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
In this quote, hitler admits that his ideology is one of patriotism, one that rejects the notions of pure atheism... and one that respects private property. All of these arguments are ones republicans still use to this day against any forms of leftism. And they learned them all from hitler. Oh, and here's a quote of him literally admitting his ideology is not left wing.
"'Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. ...Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false."
He uses the term "true socialism" as an oxymoron, here, but more importantly, we can now tell how he defines it. So now, whenever you hear hitler say "Socialism"... realize he defined socialism as a right wing ideology that was individualist and had nothing to do with actual socialist ideals.
And that's the key in all of this. Hitler called his ideals socialism despite hating any and all socialism for the same reasons republicans hate it today. He did this not because he was a socialist, but because he wanted to fool idiots into supporting his party. His first actions were quite literally to kill every socialist in his party, and every communist as well. When the capitalists like Ford or GM or Koch Sr. came, he welcomed them with open arms. Some of the greatest projects of nazi germany were built voluntarily by rich, right wing capitalists, who believed every word he said. Did you know that Ford wrote a book in which he praised not only hitler, but hitler's polcies when it came to individualism and private property? Hitler was so proud of this book that he had it be sold on every street corner, and a copy would often come with the purchase of a car in Nazi germany. People like Churchill, brash conservatives, would praise Hitler frequently. Even capitalists philosophers, like Mises and Friedman, would not only work for fascist economies but would praised the leadership of Hitler and Mussolini, calling them the perfect right-wing answer to the rise of communist though in europe. It's also important to mention that the founding text of fascism also placed the ideology on the right wing, saying ""We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century".Mussolini agreed with this, saying " "Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center ... These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don't give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words". As I said earlier, fascism was formed as a primarily right wing ideology. A man is often mentioned named Giovanni, in an attempted to call fascism left wing. He co-wrote the book that founded fascism... and called it right wing. Alongside that, several other founders of fascism, such as Julius Evola, called themselves both conservatives and fascists for the majority of their lives. As i said earlier, fascism was also founded with influence of other right wing figures, like the ruling of Naopleon the 3rd. Even talking about more than policy, the fascists were right wing. They had the biggest example of privatization in modern history (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x), were funded primarily by the private market and voluntary business association (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties) and believed in social darwinism. In case you didn't know, socialists hate social darwinism - they all subscribe to the Theory of Mutual Aid, put forth by kropotkin. The two ideas are quite literally opposite. In any case, aside from all this, hitler did frequently talk about other republican talking points, like the success of private property, his love for the traditional family, religion, the individual, and how much he loved western civilization.
That is the man you call a socialist. A self-described capitlalist individualist who admitted he had nothing to do with socialism.
And I hope that helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GreyWolfLeaderTW Yeah coming back to this now, it's still not right. Hitler never said his movement was far left, he admitted it was right wing. They believed in corporatist economics, which is again, right wing. They believed in nationalism, class, ect it just goes on.
particularly given that fascism was developed by a communist idealogue who was also a strong Italian nationalist named Giovanni Gentile"
You believe everything Prager U tells you, do you?
First off Giovanni Gentile was NEVER a communist, he was an idealist (in the philosophical sense). Second, you know that Giovanni Gentile was part of the RIGHT-WING parties before fascism? Also you know that fascism was already a thing even before Gentile joined it in 1922, right? Gentile was not by any means the "developer" of fascism. Fascism doesn't have a philosophical father, it's a mix of idealism, nationalism and whatever economic system benefits the state, it doesn't have a precise doctrine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@albertgreen8347 Albert Green Ok, first off, that just isn't true. He didn't choose that name, he literally joined a party of socialists that he murdered. All of them. Look up the night of the long knives. And he wasn't socialist because he refused to implement actual socialist policies, he just relied on capitlaist ones.
But next, just saying all of those things do not equate to socialism, many capitalist countries havedone similar. Alos, "defects and eugenics" have never been a left wing idea. Ever. We always go for kropotkin biology, not Darwin.
I say the second claim is true because that's what they admitted to themselves... not the people they were propagandizing.
But, if you want to see hitler quotes, let's see my reasoning, shall we?
"Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the (Capitalist-Libertarian) Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. "
In this quote, hitler quite easily shows his true colors. He likes "socialism," but his version of socialism is the opposite of everything Marx said it was - it is right wing. Better yet, it's also just capitalism. He quite literally says here that his ideology does not go against property rights or individualism, rather, it is in favor of them. He closes out by saying that if he had not chosen this name, he would have chosen a more accurate name. The remains of the party he discussed here are still around, and they're called the Freie Demokratische Partei... which is a right wing capitalist party.
This is what he had to say about entrepreneurs...
"They have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead."
Doesn't sound very "collectivist" to me, does it? Nope, it isn't. He's literally praising individuals, and their effort within private property. That's quite literally the opposite of collectivism. He echoed that sentiment in several other quotes, like
"I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself..."
"As National Socialists, our hearts are full with admiration and respect for the great achievements of the past, not only in our own people but also far beyond. We are happy to belong to an European cultural community that has so tremendously embossed today's world with a stamp of its mind. Bolshevism rejects this cultural achievement of mankind, claiming that has found the beginning of the real cultural and human history in the year of birth of Marxism. We, National Socialists, do not want to be of the same opinion as our church organizations in this or that organizational question. But we never want a lack of belief in religion or any faith, and do not wish that our churches become club-houses or cinemas. Bolshevism teaches the godlessness and acts accordingly. We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
In this quote, hitler admits that his ideology is one of patriotism, one that rejects the notions of pure atheism... and one that respects private property. All of these arguments are ones republicans still use to this day against any forms of leftism. And they learned them all from hitler. Oh, and here's a quote of him literally admitting his ideology is not left wing.
"'Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. ...Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false."
He uses the term "true socialism" as an oxymoron, here, but more importantly, we can now tell how he defines it. So now, whenever you hear hitler say "Socialism"... realize he defined socialism as a right wing ideology that was individualist and had nothing to do with actual socialist ideals.
And that's the key in all of this. Hitler called his ideals socialism despite hating any and all socialism for the same reasons republicans hate it today. He did this not because he was a socialist, but because he wanted to fool idiots into supporting his party. His first actions were quite literally to kill every socialist in his party, and every communist as well. When the capitalists like Ford or GM or Koch Sr. came, he welcomed them with open arms. Some of the greatest projects of nazi germany were built voluntarily by rich, right wing capitalists, who believed every word he said. Did you know that Ford wrote a book in which he praised not only hitler, but hitler's polcies when it came to individualism and private property? Hitler was so proud of this book that he had it be sold on every street corner, and a copy would often come with the purchase of a car in Nazi germany. People like Churchill, brash conservatives, would praise Hitler frequently. Even capitalists philosophers, like Mises and Friedman, would not only work for fascist economies but would praised the leadership of Hitler and Mussolini, calling them the perfect right-wing answer to the rise of communist though in europe. It's also important to mention that the founding text of fascism also placed the ideology on the right wing, saying ""We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century".Mussolini agreed with this, saying " "Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center ... These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don't give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words". As I said earlier, fascism was formed as a primarily right wing ideology. A man is often mentioned named Giovanni, in an attempted to call fascism left wing. He co-wrote the book that founded fascism... and called it right wing. ""We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century"." Alongside that, several other founders of fascism, such as Julius Evola, called themselves both conservatives and fascists for the majority of their lives. As i said earlier, fascism was also founded with influence of other right wing figures, like the ruling of Naopleon the 3rd. Even talking about more than policy, the fascists were right wing. They had the biggest example of privatization in modern history (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x), were funded primarily by the private market and voluntary business association (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties) and believed in social darwinism. In case you didn't know, socialists hate social darwinism - they all subscribe to the Theory of Mutual Aid, put forth by kropotkin. The two ideas are quite literally opposite. In any case, aside from all this, hitler did frequently talk about other republican talking points, like the success of private property, his love for the traditional family, religion, the individual, and how much he loved western civilization.
That is the man you call a socialist. A self-described capitlalist individualist who admitted he had nothing to do with socialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hochhaul Hey, fun fact. None of that addresses what I said. First off, the switch was of ideology, not individuals. That's why, even after the republicans had gained the south, the people were still voting for right wing policies. Those southern democrats you are referencing mostly died or were replaced over the next few years, with increasingly right-wing and republican friendly (or just plain republican) democrats. Does it not give you a cuase for question to wonder why the southerners voted together, and the northerners voted together, or that the north was still very liberal in those times, and the more liberal you were, the more likely you would be to vote for the CRA? As well as that... the dems wrote and signed that bill, mate. If you want to talk about openly racist politicians, we can talk about Goldwater, or Thurmond. However, like you have done, I would like to quote Martin Luther King Jr, on two issues. One, is his view of the republicans, specifically the 1964 Republican Convention. "The republican party geared it's appeal and program towards racism, reaction and extremism. All people of good will viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the cow palace of the KKK with the Radical Right." The second thing i'd like to quote from MLK was his own political ideology. "“I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic… [Capitalism] started out with a noble and high motive… but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness. [W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism. I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective – the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed matter: the guaranteed income… The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.” Now, about Byrd. The thing about him, is that he is the only dem the republicans can point to being in the KKK (when the KKK votes for them today) but he himself admitted that he only joined because he used to be a conservative. That was also, oh, 80 years ago. Speaking of zealous segregationists, I can introduce you to Henry Garret, a man who not only opposed, but testified against Brown v Board, and better yet, went on to found an organization that still calls for segregation and racism today. Oh, and he was a conservative. We already mentioned Goldwater, and how his campaign revolutionized the racist south, but you've perfectly touched on it. The south has always been racist, and always been right wing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrTassadarzo Mate literally none of those countries are socialist. You just keep lying don't you?
Where would you rather live?
Capitalist countries: Venezuela, North Korea, Nicaragua, Laos, Cuba, Vietnam, El Salvador, Bangladesh, Guyana, China, Ethiopia, Uruguay, Tanzania, United States of America, Japan, Germany, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, UK, Switzerland, South Korea, Australia, Ireland, Canada, Taiwan, Denmark, Iceland, Peru, Sweden, Chile, Netherlands.
Or nothing else
Capitalism hasn't granted freedom, it has destroyed it and left you with stockholm syndrome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrTassadarzo Ah more lies. The USSR was state capitalist, first, but you don't seem to realize that the usa stole that same technology.
The USSR achieved nearly every achievement in the pace race, and all americans did was put a man on the moon. You missed every hurdle put the last one. Most of your achievements listed are demonstrably false, and aside from that, did nothing to actually move technology forward.
And bud, you're wrong. Well, actually, they were better fed in some cases. This is backed up by a STUDY BY THE CIA, which I will link. Everything you've said so far is demonstrably false.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84B00274R000300150009-5.pdf
Oh, also, Cortez's new deal is capitalist. It's closer to capitalism than you would ever give it credit for. You're just jealous that she's found success in capitalism and you have not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tom Smith Ok then, ask yourself that. Why, in this society, we have an abundance of people who seem to hate the majority of their life, which they spend working to fund the parts they actually enjoy. People hate jobs because they seem useless, they can't see the benefit of what they do, nor can they see the downsides. There is no reason to have a society so based on things people hate doing, that often times don't even need to be done to help society function.
And those two examples were examples of some of the larger failures of capitalism. The Belgian Congo lived in a continuous genocide, limbs were cut off those that didn't work, children were stolen, entire ethnicities vanished,all in service of one of there first market economies. And the Bengal famine was a famine that happened under British (Churchill,specifically) rule of india, in which they withheld supplies leading to millions, if not tens of millions of deaths. It was so bad that they were beating out China at the same time. That's about the synopsis of the events, but you can look up more information if you like, they are well documented. The pictures associated might be a bit...graphic, though.
1
-
Tom Smith See, this is what i'm talking about. Conservatives don't know the first thing about responsibility, they blame everything they can on imaginary socialists and the democrats. It's sad, really, this is why I am no longer on the right. Most jobs, as of now, do nothing but propel a market that does nothing bu provide a reason for those jobs to exist.
The vast majority of the populace are not doctors or dentists though, are they? They are workers in factories, restaurants, offices, ect. Your comparison falls though because it fails to accurately represent exactly how our real life job makeup works, and substitutes it with utter nonsense. That doesn't answer the question, nor justify your statements that you previously made.
It can "sound like" whatever you want, the simple fact is that it happened under capitalism. Responsibility. Also, "totalitarian communism" is an oxymoron. I love how conservatives are so unwilling to take responsibility for anything that they blame the most conservative power on the globe (the nazis) on the nazis direct enemies, the left. You can admit that you don't think conservatives are capable of anything wrong.
Yes, the war was caused by a deeply conservative regime, that was held up on the backs of western appeasement. You forgot about that bit.
1
-
Tom Smith Nah, that's the thing - nazi germany wasn't socialist. You know that, it's why you made such a big deal out of the name, because the only way to fool gullible conservatives into thinking the furthest-right regime in history somehow was even close to the left. And can you really not think of any jobs that would only exist if the other jobs supporting them did in the first place?
And that doesn't have a thing to do with what I said. I don't care what else the factories do, the simple fact is many jobs that exist right now have next to no need to actually exist. Yes, a few do need to exist to keep society running, but there is a reason most people hate their jobs, a reason I have already lain out. To simply point to where the labor is going, rather than what it is doing, is absolutely absurd and probably not worth any time.
Those people died, and were tortured, so that the plants they harvested could be sent back to their home country, turned into commodities and goods, and then sold. This was done exclusively for the profit motive, and to say that capitalism does not promote a profit motive is absurd. And how did democratic workplaces kill anyone?
The soviet union fought the hardest against the nazis, and lost the most. The capitalist empires, like Britain and the USA, stood back and watched as the far-right nazis exterminated millions, until the last second.
1
-
Tom Smith Do I know the party title? Of course I do. Are you saying you're trusting the nazi party to tell the truth?
Considering even back then the conservatives knew the nazis stood with them, it seems only the modern ones have forgotten.
And that's the point. If someone makes a career posting nonsense, then that career would not be supported by someone else who allows for the creation of those machines, and so on.
This just leads back to my beginning point, that it should be questioned why work is so universally disliked. A huge reason is because of the utter uselessness of some jobs.
You're telling me the nazis, who threw socialists in jail first, who said that the idea of the left and equality would lead to the end of civilization, and who openly called themselves right wing and allied with conservatives was somehow socialist? Welcome to reality, pal. You're not fooling anyone. 70% of venezuela's economy is private, that's hardly socialist.
Do you even know what the policy of appeasement was? Western nations not only sat by while this was all happening, but actively turned away fleeing people back towards the nazis, to remain "neutral" in an active genocide. That is the legacy you are trying to defend. Hell, some western industrialists went over to join the nazis. Does that really sound like a history you should eb defending?
Ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? You perfectly encapsulate it. Perhaps fact-check yourself before making a fool of yourself.
1
-
Tom Smith "- OK so explain to me what socialism is and why Germany was not socialist. Did Germany have a small government? Did they lack socialized medicine?"
Socialism is when the means of production are collectively owned by the people/workers/community. Nazi germany did not want that, nor did they have it. You can have socialism with no government. You don't need to be socialist to have socialized medicine, because while they did have it, it was put in place before the nazis took over, under the Wiemar Republic.
"- You keep saying that while using technology made by those factory jobs you consider useless. A hypocrite like a typical leftist you are!"
I built my own computer, from locally-sourced parts. Anyway, you seem to hate big government, yet live in a society created by it. Doesn't that seem a bit absurd? Your comparisons, just like mine, are useless.
"Where are you getting your numbers/"facts?" I just don't trust hypocrites."
Yet you seem rather confident in your own words, ironically enough. Anyway, here is the original source: https://www.aporrea.org/actualidad/a165136.html
which is cited in these two articles, in english:
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/why-is-venezuela-in-crisis/
https://www.foxnews.com/world/what-socialism-private-sector-still-dominates-venezuelan-economy-despite-chavez-crusade
"So National Socialist party is not socialist, the western allies are bad for not immediately wiping Germany off the face of the earth at the first provocation whereas the Soviet Union is good for invading Poland in support of Germany, and Maduro's "United Socialist Party of Venezuela" is actually pro-privatization and free market. Got it!"
Close. The National Socialist party was not socialist, the western allies are bad for not seeing the warning signs of totalitarian rule and genocide or actively ignoring them and hurting the victims of those policies whereas the Soviet Union is just as bad for doing the same, but cannot be undercut in the war effort, and Maduro's "United Socialist Party of Venezuela" is not in fact in charge of a socialist country, but a far more mixed-economy country, leaning towards capitalism. Does that clean it up?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Narv58 Mate, if you didn't want me to give multiple examples, you shouldn't have asked me to prove a point. That's how arguments are made,multiple examples. So let's dive into this dumpster fire, yeah?
"f the left believes in more government control and the right believes more in individual liberties, then by logical reasoning is that the side that wants to ban guns, control speech, and tell you what healthcare to use is the fascist side."
" It's like people on the left never bother to learn the definitions of the words they throw around. "
Dude, you literally just proved you didn't bother to learn the definition of any words or terms you used in that sentence. Any. For one, your left-right dichotomy is false, the left and right are not at all defined by their acceptance or hatred of government. This is easily shown in cases like anarchism, which as a philosphy was formed by Proudhon and Kropotkin. Look those names up for me real quick. Yeah, didn't seem very right wing, right? A self labeled socialist and a self labeled anarcho-communist. And I know, I know, you'll say anarcho communism is an oxymoron, despite the fact that communism is defined as a stateless, classless, and moneyless society in which the people directly control all industry through direct democracy. You can say that system is impossible, but the simple fact is that doesn't matter as to what the word means. For further evidence, the original meanings of left and right were determined at a National Assembly in france, where the conservative right (monarchs, nobles) sat on the right, while the French Republicans and Anarchists sat of the left. You can see this even today, the right claims to be small government, but in terms of military and police spending they are fine with larger government. So your initial logic is false, the left wing is not government control, and thus we must look elsewhere to define fascism. Here's a good start. (you also forgot that fascists don't want to regulate industry, and generally don't. They prefer to regulate people instead, something the left dislike smore than conservatives.)
https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
Your definition of fascism, also, is minimalist. By that definition, many capitalist regimes would be fascist, yes? That's why I just posted a link to a more accurate definition, written by a survivor of fascist itally. So let's look at your other points.
- Exalts race above the individual? Yes. It's called tribalism and the left uses it all the time. It's also called intersectionality.
It isn't, though. That's a strawman argument, the left does not put race above the individual, they put race as a factor of the individual. Whereas the far right generally loves to bring up things like nationality and race much before yourself. Don't forget the words of MLK, a socialist - "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Martin Luther King, Jr."
- Stands for a centralized government? Yes. They want the government to control healthcare, private business, and the economy. Which covers economic regimentation.
Except for two things. For one, that isn't extreme regulation by any sense at all. That regulation exists in places like Denmark, which are free market capitalist and have a higher degree of economic freedom than the US. For second, not all leftists are the same. The vast majority do not want to control the entire economy or all private business, they want mild reform. You forgot that bit.
- Social Regimentation? Yes. You mean if I disagree with you I'm a Bigot, Racist, Sexist, Homophobe? There is no room for freedom of thought on the left. You are either with us, or you're a nazi, which coincidentally means we can punch you. or you're a race traitor/uncle tom if you're black
Literally no, dude. That's another strawman created by right wing conservatives who get mad when their bigotry is called out. All of those words have meanings, and the fact that you refuse to deal in them is very telling. You use this as a shield, to deflect from the fact that there are bigots on the right. Also... that's literally the opposite of social regimentation. That's called free speech. If i wanted to, I could call you anything I wanted. That's free speech, the opposite of social regimentation, and the left defends free speech as well as uses it. You seem to have a problem with that.
- Forcible Suppression of Opposition? Yes. Beating people in riots, shouting down speakers at colleges, spitting on people, all you have to do is watch a video of a conservative giving a speech on campus and you will see them getting suppressed.
Again, incorrect on all counts. Shouting at people is not forceful, and most leftists don't do it. I have been to college lectures given by conservative,s they are all quite. You're following a sensationalist narrative that you don't want to break out of. Now at the same time, the right wing has committed 75% of all terror in the past decade, and is currently supporting the police officers that have explicitly attacking peaceful protesters, and even killed unrelated people. That is ideological censorship with the full backing of the state. That is fascism.
You say you're a free market conservative who doesn't support the government, but you just admitted you only fail to support it when it doesn't agree with you. You love power, the power of the military, the power of police, until it's turned against you. And we're getting to that point, because you all decided to enable an idiot who loves big government and get him into office. Mate, I want less government then you and even I see how silly you're being.
Also, - "Like I'd love to have socialized medicine because at least I vote for my healthcare policies, rather than some mega-corporation that can charge thousands of dollars for medicine that costs pennies. If anything, stronger police and military and things like voter ID's give the government more control"
That sentiment is shared by the majority of the populace. You are literally so out of touch you think what you just said was absurd. Jesus.
So based off the definition that isn't even accurate, you made up things that don't actually fit, and then called it "radical left" because you strawmanned arguments and didn't understand the very words you were using. That's a problem. I don't care about your other political opinions, because you've already lied. So let's try this again this time, and with evidence.
1
-
@Narv58 Say it with me - fascism is right wing.
Because mate, what about that is leftist? You seem to think that if it doesn't subscribe fully to your reductionist perfect world version of conservatism, then it isn't right wing. You realize the right wing existed before the constitution, and will continue to exist in places where the constitution isn't, right? What you just described is still something right wing people do, but you refuse to admit that because you've well and truly bought into your own bs, you've taken your own supply.
The history you believe is a lie. Hell, the right wing website that first promoted this myth, Mises.org, is named after a man who praised fascism and worked, voluntarily, in constructing a fascist economy.Your ideology is painted with blood and held together with an iron first, and while you claim to stand for freedom, and who knows you may even believe it, your political allies abuse you, and use you for their totalitarian gains.
The BNP isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined to sell them. Basically, that means to use saleable words – such as freedom, identity, security, democracy. [...]Once we're in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say, 'yes, every last one must go'. But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with, you're not going to get anywhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity. [...]There's a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas, and the British National Party isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined now to sell them, and that means basically to use the saleable words, as I say, freedom, security, identity, democracy. Nobody can criticise them. Nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas. They are saleable."
This is who you are allied with, who you claim stands for freedom and democracy next to you... while outright telling eachother that they're lying to you. That was said in a speech, delivered to the AFotBNP, an american group of far right people. Those are the ones you defend, the ones who would steal freedom out from under you. Remember that whenever you think that the right truly stands for more freedom, or less government. You'd be surprised how wrong that statement is, and always has been. I can only hope that you actually have the self awareness to see it. We know what you're doing. We know what you and your allies want.
you, like the modern neo-nazis, abhor social justice, and advocate for a system in which the strong prosper while the weak are "incentiveized" to work more within the bounds of society in order to succeed.
you, like the modern neo-nazis, despised any and all forms of diversity. National, racial, ideological, it was all swept away in the nationalistic worship of the country.
"Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for
consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal
of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus UrFascism is racist by definition" - Eco, Ur-Fascism
you, like the modern neo-nazis, despised multiculturalism and all it brought, by acting as if their society would be overrun and drowned in a sea of "others" and advocating for the supremacy and separation of their culture.
"We have a great aim before us; a mighty work of reform of ourselves and our lives, of our life in common, of our economy, of our culture. This work does not disturb the rest of the world. We have enough to do in our own house."
"We have suffered so much that it only steels us to fanatical resolve to hate Our enemies a thousand times more and to regard them for what they are destroyers of an eternal culture and annihilators of humanity. Out of this hate a holy will is born to oppose these destroyers of our existence with all the strength that God has given us and to crush them in the end. During its 2,000-year history our people has survived so many terrible times that we have no doubt that we will also master our present plight."
Hell mate, you calling the nazis socialists? You fell for their propaganda.
"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."
Welcome to the real world. I hope you enjoy it.
"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century" - Mussolini, The Doctrine Of Fascism
" And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago."
" Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists... Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national."
"“We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility."
"Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
- Adolf Hitler.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00473.x
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/adolf-hitler-becomes-german-chancellor
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1841917?seq=1
https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/eirv33n49-20061208/eirv33n49-20061208_055-the_ugly_truth_about_milton_frie.pdf
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek_and_dictatorship#Quotes_about_Hayek_and_dictatorship
https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/european-conservatives-open-door-for-italys-far-right/
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/02/04/tory-mps-give-sickening-support-to-a-white-supremacist-group/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/19/republican-party-white-supremacists-charlottesville
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-britain-robinson/trumps-ambassador-lobbied-britain-on-behalf-of-jailed-right-wing-activist-tommy-robinson-idUSKBN1K331J
1
-
@Narv58 Mate, I literally not once called you a nazi. This is the problem. I said that you share some opinions with the nazis to prove a correlation, not that you shared literally every opinion and thus were automatically a nazi. I share some opinions with stalin, but i'm sure as hell no statist.
Also, calling me a lunatic doesn't do anything. It literally does not prove a point, at all. I specifically quoted your points, and engaged you in debate. You actively refuse now to participate in the same debate that you started up with this massive paragraph. Those weren't obscure websites, those were citations, which are kinda important in an argument. I also "assumed" your viewpoints on certain issues because you outright said you were a conservative nationalist, and I know how they lean in certain areas. If i mischaracterized your beliefs, show me where and i'll correct them. But you can't just call me left wing alex jones and a lunatic when I literally quoted the same people we were talking about and provided citation. If you want to continue, i'm down, but this just feels far too much like a deflection for me to think that's happening. Again, mate, you can't just call me crazy a whole bunch of times and peace out. At least attempt to engage in good faith, because from what I saw, I did. If you disagree, tell me why, and what I did that you'd like me to retract or amend. Because leaving after i spent like half an hour getting quotes and citation doesn't actually do much for your argument.
1
-
@Narv58 Again mate, insults don't help your case.
1. I assumed your view on that because you literally told me your were a nationalist conservative, and that is generally a view they hold. I did not call you a fascist, ever.
2. Saying something "clearly" happens when I just provided a quote otherwise literally proves nothing except that you want to ignore all evidence. MLK was not socially conservative in the slightest, he was socially liberal and economically socialist. Many Christians are socialists, we exist, you just don't like to hear that
3.Mate, the examples you gave are literally mild economic reform. They are pruning the great tree of the free market, not burning it down. Most other countries have very similar policies, not on the fringe, but being supported by conservatives. Some capitalist countries, like denmark, literally pay you to go to college. UBI has been a thing since the days of thomas paine, that isn't an argument. Average tax increase, but lower overall expenses are not radical at all. The Green New Deal is literally the less revolutionary version of what other countries are doing. Reparations have been a thing forever. Those are the definition of mild, and if they weren't then according to you most of the world would be socialist.
4. I am aware you think that happens, but it literally doesn't. You can claim to see it over and over, but i've seen literally the opposite, republicans and conservatives using buzzwords they refuse to understand in an attempt to silence their opposition. Think of people calling obama or biden socialists, or bernie a communist. None of them fit those definitions at all, but they're meant to shut down conversation. The left tendsto just call out actual bigotry, bigotry that conservatives often try to hide.
And if that's all you have, then fine. I guess we're leaving it at that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1