Youtube comments of The french are harlequins (@thefrenchareharlequins2743).
-
3600
-
2700
-
2200
-
1100
-
898
-
867
-
528
-
478
-
452
-
440
-
404
-
394
-
311
-
304
-
207
-
207
-
182
-
179
-
169
-
144
-
142
-
139
-
139
-
130
-
123
-
121
-
115
-
114
-
108
-
100
-
94
-
93
-
91
-
91
-
81
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
@dr1flush
>ya he really doesn't understand socalism.
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. What's not to understand?
>what did you mean when you said indy sounds red
Pyramid schemes, systematic robbery, extortion rackets, security money, sham unions, cartels, price fixing, drug dealing and sweat shops sounds a bit like Stalin to me. Understand I am not saying Indy is a Stalinist though.
>This is a 5 hr conspiracy theory that historians " can't say it"(the truth) . That's what your beliefs rely on fyi
04:50:30
04:18:16 Here TIK was saying that Evans gave him sundry examples of Hitler's socialism before concluding he wasn't a socialist, not that it was a massive conspiracy.
>modern day MARXIST and neo NxZI are ALLIES " Tik is so freaking ridiculous on this take . Thanks for timestamping I never would've seen how ridiculous this video REALLY is.
01:24:54
>100% taxation of property and giving it to head cronies of reich is socalism 🤣🤣🤣🤣👌👌👌👌
00:11:10
>I think someone's biases are showing tik at the end of this vid his hatred for MARXIST really shines
It does have a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore it.
Listen, it is clear you remain unconvinced by, an albeit choppy viewing experience, in which case you can either a) watch the video in it's entirety and understand his general flow of his argument, which might convince you or b) you can leave a dislike and move on.
60
-
59
-
56
-
55
-
51
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
43
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
@dr1flush >Video too long
Not long enough. But he would probably take up 68% of YouTube's servers if he attempted to upload a video even halfway analysing Nazism.
>I suggest you find someone else you look up to with a polar opinion so you can actually take a step back and learn
Richard Evans for example? Unfortunately, every historian who thinks Hitler wasn't a socialist gives sundry examples of his socialism, then conclude he wasn't a socialist.
>You think Nazis and communists are allies!
Not in a literal sense. I think that knowingly or not, Marxists aid [redacted] denialism by denying Hitler was a socialist.
>You're playing semantics!
Again, if you want to get into what the Nazis actually did, Section 6.
>Notice how none of us tire trying to educate you on facts????????
If by giving me facts, you mean uncited comments about how I should kill myself, how I am a psychopath etc, you would be correct. You haven't been doing such but certain people have who I won't be mentioning.
>I still haven't heard a credible argument as to why they arrested Murder or made you suicide if you're part of the political opposition known as socalist.
JUST BECAUSE YOU KILL PEOPLE KNOWN AS SOCIALISTS DOESN'T NESSECARILY MEAN YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION SHOULD BE CONTROLLED COMMUNALLY. LENIN KILLED MENSHEVIKS, HE WAS STILL A SOCIALIST. STALIN KILLED SOCIALISTS IN THE GREAT PURGE, HE WAS STILL A SOCIALIST. BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN, COMMUNISTS ARE ALL TOO EAGER TO DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES WITH HITLER, BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT WOULD BE THE END OF THEIR MOVEMENT IF PEOPLE REALISED HITLER, THE MOST REPREHENSABLE MAN OF OUR TIME, WAS A SOCIALIST.
35
-
34
-
34
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
@jrenjrapiro817 Literally everything you just said in the first paragraph was refuted in Sections 5 and 6. I am not spending an hour transcribing them.
Second off, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPCH4rZU-3Q&t=57s but all that was proven by Evans was Hitler was more focused on race rather than class.
No, I am following the evidence from what Hitler himself thought to how the Nazi economy worked.
Yes, he was a traditionalist, a believer in *Lebensraum and an anti-Semite but all these play into his belief in the Volksgemeinschaft. He believed that only Aryans could create nations and that nations fall when Aryans dilute their blood [Mein Kampf, Page 259], and since he believed that the Jews never had a nation, they were somehow inferior. Hence he believed they were plotting the downfall of Germany and that he needed to unite the German people, and remove all people he deemed to be co-conspirators.
You are opening the door to [redacted] denialism. By denying his socialism, there are but two conclusions: 1) He was "madman Hitler" which is hard to believe, nobody votes for lunatics or 2) it didn't happen.
No, I am not saying that social democrats are Nazis.
And finally, yes, it was based in a belief that da juice was going to destroy civilisation. However, this does lead Hitler to implement autarky, which is about economics.
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
@jrenjrapiro817 Firstly, the definition of socialism according to the Oxford English Dictionary is "A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." [ https://www.lexico.com/definition/socialism ]
Secondly, Evans gives examples of Hitler trying to Volksgemeinschaft, um, -ise, the means of production, only to come to the conclusion that Hitler wasn't a socialist, because he didn't view class as important. Okay, Hitler wasn't a Marxist. I knew that. You don't necessarily have to be a Marxist to be a socialist.
And could you please explain how proving that Hitler was a socialist aids [redacted] denialism? I was under the impression that, if Hitler wasn't a socialist, he couldn't have wanted to socialise the people into a Volksgemeinschaft, the easiest way of doing that being to murder all he deemed unfit. It was hilarious to watch actual Nazis mald that their glorious leader wasn't an economic genius.
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@Gvjrapiro Give me some of his open stated beliefs that align with the libertarian definition of corporatism. The book was published by the Union Movement, which Mosley was in charge of, so if he didn't like the contents, wouldn't have let his party publish it. But if you haven't read it, you definitely need to read it in order to get a basic grasp of the economic beliefs of British Fascism. Also, trade unions are corporations, at least in the fascist sense.
Also, nationalism is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "Advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people." [https://www.lexico.com/definition/nationalism]. Scottish nationalists, for example, do not believe that Scots are superior to the other peoples of the British Isles, they only believe that Scotland should be independent.
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@Gvjrapiro "I support private property, BUT only when it benefits the nation!" is like saying "I am not racist, BUT..." You believe in the labour theory of value, so I will disregard anything you say on economics. For the sake of humouring you, you control yourself, therefore you control your labour, therefore you control the fruits of your labour, your property. You then lie by ommision because I also said "because he wasn't consistent with it." If someone says one thing, but then says another thing that is inconsistent with the first statement, chances are he doesn't believe in one of the two.
How is self sufficiency antithetical to the beleif that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole? How is the belief that there shouldn't be an income tax make someone believe in hierarchies, or at least, how is it antithetical to the belief that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole?
It is all very well speaking about social aspects of fascism, but we are speaking about the economics of fascism here, which is important on whether it is socialistic or not. It's like the George Galloway: just because he has quite conservative social beliefs doesn't mean he isn't a socialist. And corporatism in the libertarian sense isn't the correct way to decribe fascism.
"Some nationalist movements", There are 34 countries in America who had anti-imperialist nationalist movements, there are 56 countries in Africa who got independence through anti-imperialist nationalist movements, about 20 in Europe, that's well over half the world that's nationalist movements seek to rebuke colonialism or imperialism and promote an independent nations.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@Gvjrapiro So he didn't support private property because he wasn't consistent with it. How does self-sufficiency conflict with socialism? Could I get a quote of him speaking about planned obsolescence? The fact that he didn't want total state control of the economy only proves he was a social democrat, like Labour. And what kind of socialist wouldn't reject the income tax and if so, do socialists want to make people poor? The Union Movement trying to be more moderate is good and all, but what difference did it make on the economic beliefs of British Fascism? I know that is the definition that literally anyone else uses for corporations, but we are speaking in the fascist sense here, fascist think they are bodies (corpus) of the state.
I am aware that this is one of the definitions of nationalism, but the other definition my link uses is advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people. This also lines up extremely well with the historical record, and even today: Sinn Fein, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, practically every African nationalist group, etc.
7
-
7
-
7
-
And it probably ended up extending the depression. There was a downturn in the
economy in 1921 that was initially more severe than the downturn in the twelve months immediately following the stock market crash of October 1929. Unemployment in the first year of President Warren G. Harding’s administration was 11.7 percent. Yet Harding did nothing, except reduce government spending as tax revenues declined. The following year unemployment fell to 6.7 percent, and the year after that to 2.4 percent.
Meanwhile after the stock market crash, the unemployment rate peaked at 9 percent two months after the crash, and then began a trend generally downward, falling to 6.3 percent in June 1930. Unemployment never reached 10 percent for any of the 12 months following the stock market crash of 1929. But, after a series of major and unprecedented government interventions, the unemployment rate soared over 20 percent for 35 consecutive months. These interventions began under President Herbert Hoover, featuring the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930—the highest tariffs in well over a century—designed to reduce imports, so that more Americanmade products would be sold, thereby providing more employment for American workers. It was a plausible belief, as so many things done by politicians seem plausible. But a public statement, signed by a thousand economists at leading universities around the country, warned against these tariffs, saying that the Smoot-Hawley bill would not only fail to reduce unemployment but would be counterproductive.
None of this, however, dissuaded Congress from passing this legislation or dissuaded President Hoover from signing it into law in June 1930. Within five months, the unemployment rate reversed its decline and rose to double digits for the first time in the 1930s and it never fell below that level for any month during the entire
remainder of that decade, as one massive government intervention after another proved to be either futile or counterproductive.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Gvjrapiro Second time, where has TIK said that public limited companies should be dismantled, and how large is this body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory? You do realise that if someone supports taking away private property on a case by case basis, they do not support private property, as now ownership of private property is now based on arbitrary decision making? You do labour is a commodity, and as such has no objective value? Do you also realise that if workers thought they were getting scammed, they would be self employed? And don't answer with "they don't have the means to do so" nor did Andrew Carnegie, and he became the richest man in the US. You do realise I am not necessarily "generating" profit for your boss, as there is no guarantee what he pas me to produce will sell, but I am certainly generating profit for myself? And yes, the context is important, I would at least like you to include full clauses when quoting me.
How is wanting the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole, a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government, but not wanting a tax on personal income incompatible? Furthermore, I am still wanting to know what supporting private property but only arbitrarily is actually supporting private property?
Everything is just ideas. Fascism is an idea. Fascism being capitalism is an idea. Fascism was an idea, that rejected Socialism, which it conflates with Marxism. But on your question "if you truly believed that socialism is collective (which you define as state) control, why would they need to even involve trade unions, according to your definition?" Trade unions are collectives. Not necessarily the only collectives, but collectives nonetheless. You do realise that private corporations are an oxymoron, as corporations are owned publicly by shareholders?
The motivations for imperialism were mainly Christianity, money, and trying to see if you can turn an entire continent into a prison. Also, you were speaking about nations, not ethnicities. All I can say for nationalism in Germany and Italy, independence from whom? And Fascism was caused by defeat in WW1, not as a natural extension of a belief in independence, otherwise, I would like to know why the Netherlands didn't go fascist of her own free will.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Gvjrapiro Firstly, they are public companies, and secondly, TIK has said that "the state [which is socialist] can absolutely exist under capitalism". So I doubt that in his ideal society, he would get rid of the state.
No appeal to tradition or repetition ad nauseam can change the fact that conditional support of property is not supported of private property.
Labour has more value to the boss than to the worker, money has more value to the worker than the boss. So they trade, nothing wrong here.
A system where everyone is self-employed would in fact be more capitalist. Capitalism: Private control of the economy. What could be more private than a system in which all individuals work for themselves?
You should include the full clause at least. No use quoting sentence fragments.
Kim Il-Sung, a statist socialist, abolished the income tax in 1974.
Italian Fascism rejected Socialism. Big-S Socialism, because the Marxist party in Italy was called the Italian Socialist Party. I said Fascism rejected Marxism. And show me, where does fascism reject leftism?
And if you want me to answer your question, "Another funny addition - if you truly believed that socialism is collective (which you define as state) control, why would they need to even involve trade unions, according to your definition?", because why not involve trade unions? Trade unions are collectives, and fascists believed that including them in the running of a business would help achieve class harmony. Claiming that I don't have confidence in my definitions does not refute my answer, as trade unions are undeniable, collectives.
We have been over this, "hon": A corporation gets incorporated because it wants to attract the public to fund it. A large number of private individuals make up a public, and given corporations have thousands, even millions of private shareholders, it is public.
Indeed, many countries rationalised an increased tax burden as "civilising missions", yet this still doesn't change the fact that missionaries wanted the countries from which they came to conquer the territories they were in for religious reasons, it doesn't change the fact that cronies of the state wanted colonies to make more currency, and it doesn't change the fact that countries needed a place to dump their rejects.
Which countries split up Germany and Italy? And their plan to get independence was to make Germans and Italians less independent?
Nations and ethnicities overlapping is a European invention. Iran, for example, is a nation, but it has many differing ethnicities, including but not limited to Persians, Turks, Kurds, Gilaks,
Fair, enough, fascism is nationalistic, if only in the first sense.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 It is from Wikipedia, which is horrifically unreliable. This is demonstrated in just the first paragraph of that article:
>However, after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized.
The source for this was Bel's Against the Mainstream. The problem is, Bel doesn't seem to know what privatisation is. This is demonstrated through these lines in his article:
"In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by the government before the 1930s, especially social and labour-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party."
"Besides the transfer to the private sector of public ownership in firms, the Nazi government also transferred many public services (some long-established, others newly created) to special organizations: either the Nazi party and its affiliates or other allegedly independent organizations which were set up for a specific purpose..."
The Nazi Party was not a private sector organisation. Saying giving state-owned property to the party in charge of the state is privatisation makes no sense. This is why I am unsure on whether anything in this article can be taken as a source for Nazi privatisation since the author doesn't know what the private and public sector organisations are.
>State ownership was to be avoided unless it was absolutely necessary for rearmament or the war effort, and even in those cases “the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it.”
This is incorrect. According to Peter Temin in his paper "Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s", "The Nazis viewed private property as conditional on its use - not as a fundamental
right. If the property was not being used to further Nazi goals, it could be nationalized." "Prof. Junkers of the Junkers aeroplane factory refused to follow the government’s
bidding in 1934. The Nazis thereupon took over the plant, compensating Junkers for his loss. This was the context in which other contracts were negotiated."
On top of that, the Nazis founded the largest company at the time, completely under state ownership, Reichswerke Hermann Goering. State ownership was the norm in Nazi Germany, it was a totalitarian state after all with its fingers in every pie including the economy. From this nature, little freedom of contract was given.
>However, the privatization was "applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference," as laid out in the 1933 Act for the Formation of Compulsory Cartels, which gave the government a role in regulating and controlling the cartels that had been earlier formed in the Weimar Republic under the Cartel Act of 1923.
So a public sector organisation (the State) creates and controls other public sector organisations [cartels]? This is not privatisation in the slightest.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Gvjrapiro All these "right-wingers" are inconsistent and therefore don't support private property. Where has TIK said that public limited companies should be dismantled and if so, was it because he wanted to "benefit the nation"? If you can support private property but make exceptions, can you also not be racist, make exceptions and you still wouldn't be racist? You have proven yourself to support the labour theory of value as you literally just said "as the product of their labor[sic] must always be more than what they are paid in compensation." This is the idea of surplus-labour, which can only exist as a conclusion of the labour theory of value. I do support a system in which people own themselves, and a 100-year out-of-date theory of value doesn't change this. And anyway, how is the product of my labour necessarily more than what I am getting paid as per my contract, which I signed? You weren't quoting either, you quote mined, as you omitted an important part: "So he didn't support private property because he wasn't consistent with it." The consistency of his beliefs is important here as if he contradicted his beliefs, then he either didn't believe in the good of the nation, or he didn't believe in private property. And given that Mosley is a fascist, it must have been the latter.
OK, all well and good. He believed in autarky and abolishing the income tax, which is certainly a part of fascism, and not necessarily contradictory to socialism.
As for why I am "shoehorning" socialism into fascism, I want to understand the beliefs of fascism, and the idea of fascists being socialists makes sense to me, given that they literally began by calling themselves national syndicalists. And no, it wasn't corporatist in the libertarian sense that defined fascism economically, it was corporatism in the fascist sense that defined fascism economically. In Fascist Italy for example, you saw the economy managed by employer unions, trade unions and the government [The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right].
The nations of Africa have ethnic conflicts. This doesn't change the fact that there were nationalist movements to get the independence of the nations. Unless you are trying to make the blood and soil argument when you say "The nations of africa [sic] had already been having cultural infighting and problems with one nation promoting itself as supreme above others." Germany and Italy had unifications movements, not independence movements. Germany was independent, it was just in 48 million pieces. Italy was in a similar situation. I am speaking about countries like Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Estonia and Norway.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Gvjrapiro He has a problem with socialism, but the general view among capitalists is that it is idiotic, but as long as it isn't forced on anyone, who cares? After all, "the state can absolutely exist under capitalism".
We aren't speaking about a man wearing red trousers, we are speaking about a man wearing trousers that are both red and blue. The socks are completely different from the trousers.
I know you are not making a moral judgement. Value is subjective, profit is a form of value, profit is subjective, and therefore, a transaction is only made when it profits both parties.
Each individual is owning their own means of production. The community is not collectively owning the means of production, but each individual has a means of production. Seems very private to me. Oh yeah, voluntary associations are what markets are based off, which is something none of the individual anarchists thought should be abolished, and they believed that due to the labour theory of value, they could achieve their utopia through markets. According to Benjamin Tucker, anarchism would become meaningless unless "it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market — that is, private property".
Because in this case, it was 6 extra words, that's not too much to ask.
Kim Il-Sung had no idea that his regime would devolve into a hereditary dictatorship in the 1970s. The Soviet Union was going alright, and North Korea only became the insane country it is today out of a need for stability after the loss of the USSR, or at least, something that won't result in Best Korea exploding into PUbG.
Prove it. I have shown why if Italian fascism rejected socialism in general, then they wouldn't have only rejected Big-S Socialism, like that of the Italian Socialist Party. The Nazis didn't like fascists very much. Goebbels wrote in his diary on the 6th of February, 1942 that "One might say that fascism has reacted upon the creative life of the Italian people somewhat like sterilisation. It is, after all, nothing like National Socialism". This is part of a larger rant about the differences between national socialism and fascism, according to Goebbels. But anyway, what has all this got to do with Oswald Mosley? This was just to get an insight into fascist economic beliefs, not to go full into the hierarchical implications or whatever.
I did feel the need to include trade unions, not because of confidence in definitions, but because that was part of the corporatist system. The fascist economy in Italy was run by employer organisations, trade unions and the government. [The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right, page 143] Back up your claims that "private" corporations undercut trade unions, and then get back to me.
Not all businesses incorporate. The ones that don't do it to get "customers", they do it to get "stockholders" [Basic Economics: Firth Edition, Thomas Sowell, Page 197]. Corporations may be run by a board of directors, but they are still owned by thousands, or even millions, of stockholders. [Basic Economics: Firth Edition, Thomas Sowell, Page 197] Again, all men are islands, islands can trade, but they are only public when 2 or more islands unify.
Just because religion was part of nationalism doesn't mean nationalism was part of religion. As for who they were trying to get currency for, I can direct you to Cecil Rhodes and King Leopold 2: Crimes Against Humanity Boogaloo, not your average British taxpayer. And these prisoners let's take an example, Australia, were ordinary Brits, and they weren't always hardened criminals. Remember, this was the time where you could get hung for stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family.
France had no control over the Duchy of Brunswick, and Austria had no control over the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, so explain how it gave them control over what would be Germany and Italy other than a more advantageous geopolitical position.
So if nations don't always overlap, there can be multiethnic nationalist movements?
The first definition of nationalism, not the second one.
3
-
@Gvjrapiro Yes, he does oppose the idea of socialism. He has attacked YouTube, just YouTube by the way, and a public company, since it is owned by a public of shareholders, for enforcing their guidelines inconsistently, which has forced him to do such things as replacing "rape" with "r" in a video on Nazi crimes against Soviet women. He has only claimed that socialism when enforced on people who don't want it is a horrible attack on human rights.
They are also wearing blue, as in where they don't support private property. So the man simultaneously supports private property and doesn't support private property at the same time, and somehow the fact that others who supposedly support private property do the same as proof that he supports private property?
Income is defined subjectively, as is an expense.
Socialism is the community control of the means of production. Not private control of the means of production, the community. Socialism can exist voluntarily. Capitalism also exists voluntarily. While markets aren't necessarily a feature of socialism they are absolutely a feature of capitalism. And true, you get private property when you mix your labour with nature. Individualist anarchists are anti wage labour, and they didn't believe in a violent revolution that would destroy wage labour, they believed that market forces would drive people to self-employment, as the labour theory of value was an economic consensus at this time. Rothbard also believed the same thing initially, but after listening to a talk by Mises he was convinced by the Austrian School to adopt the subjective theory of value. Do you have any evidence proving Tucker thought otherwise, and you do realise that was an Ezra Heywood quote, not a Tucker quote?
"Utterly pointless", do you mean important to my argument? Of course, you can call something a lie when you leave out the argumentation, I can do the same, but I don't because I am honest.
Kim had no clue that it would be his descendants that would take over North Korea in the 1970s. But I am willing to hear evidence to the contrary. He was most definitely a socialist, he collectivised farms and industry.
Then why do they capitalise on the S? And yes, I did cite Hitler's head propagandist, and I cited this particular text because it wasn't propaganda. It was his own diary and none of which would reach the public until the late 1940s if that.
I am sure Kershaw has his reasoning since he is a historian worth his salt, and I am certain you can provide it. But there is my reasoning: A defining feature of fascism is racism, yes? Not necessarily. "Fascist 'racism' throughout the period between 1922 and 1938, however distinctive, was essentially benign - and shared little, if any substance with the malevolent racism across the Alps." "None of the major Fascist intellectuals were racists of the sort found in National Socialist environs." "In fact, since many, if not most, of the principal ideologues of Fascism, were Actualists, they had principled objections to attributing human behaviour to material - that is biological - causes." Another feature of fascism is anti-semitism, right? Again, not necessarily so. "The form of anti-Semitism adopted by Fascist Italy, as a consequence, was singularly different from that of National Socialist Germany." "However indecent, it shared few of the genocidal traits that have shocked the civilised world." "Italian Jews suffered innumerable indignities and material losses, but there is scant, if any, evidence that between 1938 and 1943, any Jews died at the hands of Fascists simply for having been Jewish." Fact is, there was little anti-Semitism in Italy up until 1938, and it was only because Mussolini wanted to get closer to Hitler. It is clear to me that much of the anti-Semitism comes from influence from National Socialism, and if fascism and National Socialism were one and the same, then Mussolini would have created these laws upon assuming the premiership of Italy. The National Socialists, however, had racism and anti-Semitism built into their ideology.
Source: Gregor, A., (2009). Mussolini's Intellectuals. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Prove that Mosley rejected socialism when he let his party publish a book singing all the praises of syndicalism. And don't say it was because he like private property but, because you sir, are assuming his definition of private property is the same as yours.
And as I have been over, many experts on fascism say that Nazism and Fascism are completely separate. Do your sources speak about national socialism or fascism? Were the trade unions crushed in Italy or Germany, and could you quote from the sources, please?
Whether a black man is a segregationist is irrelevant to the conversation. Private customers trade goods and services with the companies, but they don't own them. That's the difference. And yes, they are using them to generate revenue, it's almost that is what every organisation does, generate revenue through one means or another! The difference between corporations and actually private businesses is that the corporations get revenue from their public and customers, private businesses only get revenue from their customers.
Firstly, Cecil Rhodes wasn't the leader of Britain and as for Leo 2, Belgium isn't Japan! Most Brits back then didn't consider it unsightly to steal a loaf of bread for your family, though the crown said otherwise.
Calling me inept won't change the fact that:
- Frederick William IV refused to become Emperor of Germans of his own volition
- There is no reason to believe that a coalition of great powers could take down Prussia, as Prussia has previously successfully defended themselves
- The powers of France, Austria and Russia had too many conflicting interests to even form such a coalition
- Nobody cares if a mostly agrarian country becomes unified
Really? What makes you think that if Nicola gets independence she will invade England, exterminate them and then colonise England with Scots?
3
-
@Gvjrapiro How embarrassing for you that you are still in this comments section, for over a year, and you haven't even gotten up to this point in the video? 34:08
Shareholders. Plural. How private.
He is still wearing blue socks, whereas you are trying to claim he is wearing all red. Support for private property rights is an all-red affair, and appeals to tradition such as "[t]his is common, again, within even those who advocate for the private property above all else" does not negate the fact he is wearing blue.
Income for the boss must always be greater than the expense of the boss.
That isn't a Tucker quote, a simple Google search refuted that. [ https://www.azquotes.com/author/50182-Ezra_Heywood ]
But an actual Tucker quote is "Laissez Faire [the free market] was very good sauce for the goose, labor, but was very poor sauce for the gander, capital."
I don't need the state to say that the pen I own is indeed my pen for it to be my pen. Property is natural.
When did Rothbard advocate for violence against people in defence of "traditional values" and law and order systems? Quotes, please.
The most I have found for Ludwig von Mises being a racist is his brother, Richard von Mises, writing a satirical study mocking the Nazis. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Rothbard took many individualist anarchist predictions and altered them to fit with the subjective theory of value.
You are going to need to do a lot more than a baseless Tu quoque to justify why you left out my justificative portion of my argument.
Prove that he knew that he was the progenitor of a hereditary dictatorship in the 1970s.
Yes, because you get these things called "small-[letter ideology starts with] [ideology]", as in they believe in [ideology], but not necessarily supportive of the [Ideology] Party. This describes many fascists, including but not limited to Benito Mussolini, Enrico Corradini, Alfred Rocco, Sergio Panuzio and Ugo Spirito.
Calling something a TIK talking point doesn't refute it. It is, in fact, an Anthony James Gregor talking point, a professor of Political Science, well known for his research on fascism.
You may have skimmed over the bit where Anthony James Gregor specifies 1938. This is because Mussolini wanted to get closer to Hitler, in 1938, and up until that point, anti-Semitism was scant in Fascist Italy. Hell even Mussolini's own mistress, Margherita Sarfatti, was Jewish. She, and 10,000 other Jewish people, a third of the adult Jewish population in Italy, was part of the National Fascist Party (Source: Mussolini: A New Life by Nicholas Burgess Farrell). Of course, this all changed in 1938, but from influences of national socialism, and was not inherent in fascism itself, otherwise these laws would have been implemented in 1922.
Slavic isn't a race. You cannot be racist towards Slavs.
It was published by the party, so it isn't that hard to make an inference as to what he thought of the contents of the book.
Mosley probably thought of syndicalism as something along the lines of "a system based on Guild Socialism in which workers were represented in the management of large companies and corporations. Working conditions, apprenticeship schemes, representation in government and profit-sharing were all to be part of a new system."
What actions did Mosley undertake to protect private "piperty"?
Look, I want to know whether your source was speaking about Germany or Italy specifically.
Firstly, you haven't proven that Thomas Sowell is a segregationist and secondly, we are speaking about corporate law here, not American segregation.
The key distinction is that customers do not own the business. They can incentivise the business to do certain things, but they cannot coerce the business to do certain things, as they would be able to if they had ownership.
Don't hate YouTube. Just think it could loosen up its guidelines.
I'll reiterate what I said on the "undeniàlinks" between nationalism, colonialism, imperialism, profit, and religion when you admit that Cecil Rhodes wasn't leading the UK.
-True. It does in fact, prove the objective political trend that the only reason why German unification didn't happen sooner was that Prussia didn't get its finger out of its arse.
-Really? I do not remember reading about the 8th Coalition, formed by France, Austria and Russia against Prussia in the 19th Century.
-Be honest though, do you really think, for example, Russia was prepared to collaborate with Austria after Austria cucked Russia in the Crimean War?
-Such as WHOM?
I don't think so, because the Irish nationalist movement after achieving its initial goals never attempted to claim superiority over the English, nor the Dutch over the Spanish, nor the Estonian over the Russian, nor the Polish over the Russian, nor the Norwegian over the Swede, nor the Tanzanian over the English, nor the Gambian over the French, etc.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@2vexy No, it was entirely irrelevant to the crux of the matter, whether this particular of actions implies this particular set of ethics. I can only imagine bringing the argument into more esoteric fields was an attempt to try to obscure the ethics debate which you would have clearly lost, given that libertarianism is the correct position. Unfortunately for you, I have a PhD in epistemology from multiple prestigious institutions, so I was able to annihilate your argument on those grounds in that field as well. Mindlessly to prove your point, your attempted proof that a word which is used to denote meaninglessness, when repeated often enough, is a proposition, rejected by the law of identity. when I finally decided that you needed to be introduced to the axiomatic nature of the proposition that the words you propose in an argumentation have meaning, you continued to deny this conclusive presentation of evidence. Funnily enough, you demonstrate your ignorance on the topic of axioms, s your example of an axiom is not a base of knowledge, so I advise you to read an epistemology textbook before embarrassing yourself again. Whereas the facts I accept are based on objective reality and reason, your opinions are based on a emotional, violent hatred of human liberty, perhaps influenced by pseudophilosophical Hegelian ramblings by Evola. This is the true reason you reject, nay, deny the facts of cognition, that I have graciously deemed you worthy of presenting.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Gvjrapiro >Now child, I know you hate the truth, but it is painfully apparent that you are incapable of individual thought. I'm sorry that you think repeating talking points over and over makes them true.
youtube.com/watch?v=kDJ7NkUNYcA
>Hitler apparently now opposed imperialism and the expropriation of oppression? If he only cared about one specific area, why did he murder, not deport?
Ironic you call me a child even though I was born 134 years ago because this response could only be typed up by a 10-year-old, so your projection is noted. Firstly: I did not say Hitler was anti-imperialist. I said that I find it unlikely that he would've made a deliberate effort to conquer territories that he thought would be unhealthy for the Aryan population. Secondly, he murdered because as he said on Mein Kampf PDF edition, Page 281, he believed the "nationalization of the masses can be successfully achieved only if, in the positive struggle to win the soul of the people, those who spread the international poison among them are exterminated."
>Citation needed,
youtube .com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&lc=Ugz2RRu4UR4ZfT2o1yl4AaABAg .9Ouac_tUQ1Y9QLywqSqRvO [Link broken because YouTube hates links]
Hitler, "Mein Kampf," P281.
>but none will be found for your denialism.
Given that you analogized the Holodomor as a "punch on the soldier" (yes I paraphrased, fight me) [youtube .com/watch?v=qtACBI1Txrc&lc=Ugy35d9jnw5hN_qoprB4AaABAg] you are throwing stones in your glass house when you speak about denialism. I am just going to apply Sargon's Law whenever you make a negative character judgment about me.
>After all, that's why it is so often pointed out by people like Shirer in the Rise and Fall of The Third Reich that the DAF was run by private businessmen.
It's all very well and good saying that the DAF were run by private businessmen and giving a source for it, but it would be nice if you actually provided examples of these businessmen and provided a page number on where Shirer said this since it is a 1,245-page book after all. Also, it was published in the 1960s so we have probably gotten better archival data since then, so that takes away from the credibility of your source.
>Why does the truth make you lash out so much?
"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
>Why do you assume that private individuals care about "cost efficiency" when they're profiting?
Because you can make profits bigger than 0 if your business was actually efficient enough to provide services to both the civilian population and the military, but instead you have the state-controlled union making things so inefficient that you can barely provide services to the military!
>Oh wait, I know. You don't know the definition of private either.
"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the
judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
Anyway, of an individual or small group. In other words, not public.
>And to say "corporations are not capitalistic," you deny all of economic history.
"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
>I'm sorry child, but capitalist [sic] is a system of statism. It is, at its core, one aligned with forceful use of power.
A system based on private property rights has a system that violates private property rights at the core? Fascinating.
>And corporations are private.
No, they have territories, a community (shareholders), and a government (Board of directors). They are states and therefore are not private.
>They weren't "governed" by mutual agreement though, which is why I didn't say that,
You said "No, in actuality it was communally owned territory that was only "governed" by mutual agreement and voluntary association, and more often than not the actions of one would not harm another and thus they happened with no interference." [youtube .com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8&lc=Ugz2RRu4UR4ZfT2o1yl4AaABAg .9Ouac_tUQ1Y9QLTzOTDHT8] Sorry, putting "governed" in quotations doesn't change we have a form of government here.
>and i'm [sic] sorry that you feel the need to make up lies to make up for the fact that your statism was disproven.
"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
>Simply put, we have no form of government here. No central power, no forceful authority being pushed, no laws, no governing.
In actuality, it was a communally owned territory that was governed by mutual agreement and voluntary association.
>I want you to understand now just how deep the hole you've dug yourself is.
"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
>You define a voluntary, mutual agreement, with the ability to leave at any time, and no force being imparted on any party involved, no central governance, and no state, as a system of "government here, and is therefore a state."
I wasn't including "no central governance, and no state," so you are proving Sargon's Law when you are calling me a liar. Just because an agreement is voluntary doesn't mean it can't conduct the affairs of the communally owned territory.
>No, child.
"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
>It wasn't a system of government to begin with
Not an argument.
>as with your definition, statelessness is impossible because apparently voluntary agreements form a "State."
Why can't they?
>At least you admit how absurd your position is here. No form of government, no state.
"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
>If mutual, forceless voluntaryism isn't stateless, child, what is?
States can exist under voluntaryism, they just can't use force to fund themselves. Here is an example of statelessness: no community/no government.
>A man who spent his life preaching about the evils of profit
No, he spoke out against wage slavery. If profits were to be made through self-employment, he would be fine with that.
>and you say this changes his ideology
Makes him a hypocrite.
>And given that "libertarians" force people into capitalism...
Citation needed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@andrewd2534 >-They privatised Banks,ship yards, railways etc
Reichsbank was still public , party cronies were put in charge of shipyards, railways were still subject to heavy regulations for the benefit of the German workers
>outlawed labour unions
Nationalised them into the German Labour Front (All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions was the closet equivalent in the USSR )
>(left wingers always support the labourers)
Stalin is a right winger then? OK
>promoted the expansion of private property
He centralised industry into 13 corporations, seized Junkers airplane factory for not playing by his rules to establish a precedent, and his taxation policies were practically equivalent to theft
>outlawed strikes
So did Stalin
>-decried ""judeo-bolshevism""
Socialists coming into conflict with one another? When has that ever happened, other than during the Russian Revolution, Vietnamese Invasion of Cambodia, the Great Purge, etc
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dannyhalas9408 13:39 I think this part of the video explains why profits and losses reveal efficiency.
Medicare and medicaid are funded by the government, and the increase in healthcare costs correlate exactly around the same time these programmes were instituted, according to Consumer Price Index and Medical-care price index from 1935 to 2009. You can try to sell a product as expensive as you wish, at the end of the day, if people are your primary market, you need to have a price which they can afford. You don't need to have as low as a price as you can afford when you are primarily selling your products to a state.
And as for railway... In 2016, there were 1.718 billion journeys on the National Rail network, making Britain's the 5th most used in the world. Since privatisation, the number of national rail journeys had increased by 117% by 2014 and according to a 2013 Eurobarometer poll, satisfaction with rail of UK respondents was the second-highest in the EU, behind Finland. The rate of improvement increased compared to that experienced in the last years of BR, according to research by Imperial College London. The researcher said their findings showed that 150 people had probably lived who might have been expected to die in crashes had pre-privatisation trends continued. I'll give you there has been confusion about responsibilities that has led to several safety-critical incidents and incurred high costs for companies and passengers, but overall, were getting better bang for our buck.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@modest_spice6083 I see you brought up Bel's "Against the Mainstream". Very good, lets see how it fairs as a reliable source for Nazi privatisation.
>Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven.
>In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.
So the Nazis weren't doing it because they are corporatists. They were doing it to gain support.
>It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State-owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc.
To gain support from industrialists, yes.
>In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by the government before the 1930s, especially social and labour-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party.
The Nazi Party wasn't a private sector organisation. Saying giving state-owned property to the party in charge of the state is privatisation makes no sense. This isn't the only time Bel calls the Nazi Party a private sector organisation either
>Besides the transfer to the private sector of public ownership in firms, the Nazi government also transferred many public services (some long-established, others newly created) to special organizations: either the Nazi party and its affiliates or other allegedly independent organizations which were set up for a specific purpose...
So I am unsure on whether anything in this article can be taken as a source for Nazi privatisation since the author doesn't know what the private and public sector organisations are.
>Die Deutsche Arbeitsfront (German Labor Front) was not part of the machinery of the State, but a legally independent organization of the Nazi Party...
The Nazi Party was the state.
>Its ‘recommendations’ were compulsory... Membership, also theoretically voluntary, was in fact compulsory. The fees received from the workers and the employees made substantial resources available for use by the Labor Front.
If this was private, nothing here would be compulsory.
>On one hand, the intense growth of governmental regulations on markets, which heavily restricted economic freedom, suggests that the rights inherent to private property were destroyed. As a result, privatization would be of no practical consequences since the state assumed full control of the economic system... On the other hand, the activities of private business organizations and the fact that big business had some power seemed to be grounds for inferring that the Nazis promoted private property. Privatization, in this analysis, was intended to promote the interests of the business sectors that supported the Nazi regime, as well as the interests of the Nazi elites...
Not entirely sure this can be called "privatisation" since most of these big businesses are Aktiengesellschaft or public limited companies and they were controlled by members of the Nazi party.
>Nazi policy was heavily dependent on Hitler’s decisions. Hitler made no specific comments on nationalization or denationalization in Mein Kampf. Even if Hitler was an enemy of free-market economies, he could by no means be considered a sympathizer of economic socialism or the nationalization of private firms. The Nazi regime rejected liberalism and was strongly against free competition and regulation of the economy by market mechanisms. Still, as a social Darwinist, Hitler was reluctant to totally dispense with private property and competition. Hitler’s solution was to combine autonomy and a large role for private initiative and ownership rights within firms with the total subjection of property rights outside the firm to State control. As Nathan pointed out “It was a totalitarian system of government control within the framework of private property and private profit. It maintained private enterprise and provided profit incentives as spurs to efficient management. But the traditional freedom of the entrepreneur was narrowly circumscribed.” In other words, there was a private initiative in the production process, but no private initiative was allowed in the distribution of the product. Owners could act freely within their firms, but faced tight restrictions in the market.”
So Hitler didn't traditionally nationalise the economy, but to conclude this was privatisation would be incorrect since businessmen couldn't act freely, as this letter from a German businessman demonstrates:
>You have no idea how far State control goes and how much power the Nazi representatives have over our work. The worst of it is that they are so ignorant. In this respect, they certainly differ from the former Social-Democratic officials. These Nazi radicals think of nothing except "distributing the wealth." Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system. How can we possibly manage a firm according to business principles if it is impossible to make any predictions We businessmen still make sufficient profit, sometimes even large profits, but we never know how much we are going to be able to keep . . . [Vampire Economy PDF, Mises Institute, Pages 23, 24]
Commissars in all but name could be in charge of factories and make salaries from them, but that is about it. They were part of the Nazi Party and they were controlled by the Nazi Party, which controlled the state.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
>In 1936 a German man could borrow money from a privately owned German bank
They were subordinate the Reichsbank.
>He could hire employees
Doesn't make them not socialist.
>and sell whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted
I know you are trying to claim that this was a free market, but there were price controls on every. A peasant was arrested and put on trial for having
repeatedly sold his old dog together with a pig. When a private buyer of pigs came to him, a sale was staged according to the official rules. The buyer would ask the peasant: "How much is the pig?" The cunning peasant would answer: "I cannot ask you for more than the official price. But how much will you pay for my dog which I also want to sell?" Then the peasant and the buyer of the pig would no longer discuss the price of the pig, but only the price of the dog. They would come to an understanding about the price of the dog, and when an agreement was reached, the buyer got the pig too. The price for the pig was quite correct, strictly according to the rules, but the buyer had paid a high price for the dog. Afterward, the buyer, wanting to get rid of the useless dog, released him, and he ran back to his old master for whom he was indeed a
treasure [Vampire Economy, Mises Institute, Page 85]
>He could even incorporate his business and sell stocks to the public via a stock exchange.
Public? Sounds pretty commie to me.
>Not to mention a significant percent of the Nazi budget was derived from the privatization of businesses.
Citation needed.
>Oh, and they lowered taxes on corporations.
"You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet
everyone is afraid to complain about it. The new State loans
are nothing but confiscation of private property, because no one believes that the Government will ever make repayment, nor even pay interest after the first few years." - Vampire Economy, Page 24
"Industrialists complained that some 80 to 90 percent of business profits were being
siphoned off by the state. This figure is clearly exaggerated, but it speaks volumes about the Nazi government’s basic tax-policy orientation." - Hitler's Beneficiaries, Page 68
>And the government issued bonds.
How does this make them not socialist?
>And real estate could be privately bought and sold.
“For the purpose of protecting the peasantry as the ‘Blood Source of the German People’, the law proposed to create a new category of farm, the Erbhof (hereditary farm), protected against debt, insulated from market forces and passed down from generation to generation within racially pure peasant families. The law applied to all farms that were sufficient in size to provide a German family with an adequate standard of living... but did not exceed 125 hectares.” - Wages of Destruction, Page 182
>None of this was possible in the Soviet Union and ALL of this is anathema to socialist theory.
"Socialism is when there is unemployment, and it's more unemployment the more socialist it is and when it is 100% unemployment, it's communism." - Karl Marx apparently
>What kind of "socialist" lowers taxes on large corporations and expands the power of the private sector?
What kind of capitalist raises taxes, has a central bank, prints money or prevents the free exchange of goods and services?
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Gvjrapiro In any case, you don't have a leg to stand on when you say TIK said Amazon is Marxist when you neither provide proof that he said this and the fact that the very video you are commenting on contains evidence to the contrary.
Sounds pretty public to me.
A debate about the nature of private property doesn't negate the fact that on the principle of non-contradiction, you either support private property, or you don't
Oh, and if you are wondering why I used the singular, it's because the whole voluntary slavery debate isn't a debate, as for you to transfer ownership of yourself to someone else, you would have to be able to transfer control of yourself to someone else, which you can't.
Depends on what one sees "income" as.
The source being a book doesn't necessarily mean that it is right. Any other source would tell you that it was Heywood's quote, including this one: https://quotefancy.com/quote/1781608/Ezra-Heywood-Interest-is-theft-Rent-Robbery-and-Profit-Only-Another-Name-for-Plunder
"And as we've been over, markets to do necessitate capitalism"? Great! I suppose Benjamin Tucker was, therefore, the first anarcho-capitalist when he wrote in State Socialism and Anarchism "[p]rotection they [The Anarchists] look upon as a thing to be secured, as long as it is necessary, by voluntary association and cooperation for self-defence, or as a commodity to be purchased, like any other commodity, of those who offer the best article at the lowest price." My, sounds like laissez-faire heaven!
The fact that I worked for it.
Ah yes, a single article by Rothbard, Right Wing Populism. An absolute quote mine for his detractors. He considered the possibility of allying with right-wing populists, laid down a program for right-wing populists which is where you get the quote about the criminals and bums from, and then discussed alternative roots to power. And he even brought up the fact that right-wing populists and libertarians disagreed on family values such as libertarian support for abortion, pornography and prostitution.
You are correct if you mean by "warped" you meant "applied classical liberalism and Austrian economics".
Evidently, I have not heard of Mises's supposed appraisal of the Nazis. I have heard that he apparently praised fascism in his book Liberalism, but if you look at what he said, it is much more along the lines of "socialism and fascism aren't good, fascism does seem less not good than socialism, so if a gun was on my head, I would pick fascism." Not exactly endearing.
I'd say the justificative section of my argument was very necessary.
Many people have created cults of personalities, none of which devolved into hereditary dictatorships. And you are going to need to specify on which specific policies he put in place before the 1970s that even without hindsight you could be certain would devolve into a hereditary dictatorship.
You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary, so yes.
Those quotes don't, but you might recall I provide further information on the antisemitism in Fascist Italy.
Give me some of those statements that precede 1922.
Mussolini never introduced any racial policies.
We aren't just speaking about his misteress, we are speaking about a third of the adult Jewish population of Italy. If Mussolini was so anti-semitic, why did he not kick them out of his party prior to him getting closer to Hitler?
Italians were considered to be part of the race including the Irish and Slavs.
Ok, do you want some statements? Here are a few from his pamphlet "The Syndical Revolution":
"A return to syndical methods of combating capitalism offers new hope of emancipating the British workers and preserving their hard won liberties."
"The answers to these questions are becoming ever more clear as the experiment in socialism proceeds. To begin with, the real motive of the British workers in giving their support to a Socialist party was to get rid of the capitalist “boss-class” and thus escape from exploitation. Bitter is their disappointment to find that they have merely exchanged masters."
"Syndicalism on the other hand can restore the long lost freedom of the British worker by restoring his control over the tools of his craft and the means of his livelihood."
I say he probably believed that syndicalism was defined that way because he defines it that way in his pamphlet entitled "Syndicalism - A Third Way":
"Syndicalism stands for Workers' Control of Industry. The term "worker" covers managers, technicians and operatives, these expressions indicating functions and not social position. It is from the ranks of these workers that chairmen, directors and other executives will be elected by the Assemblies, as against, under capitalism, by the shareholders."
I presume he wanted workers to remain equal in the ownership of their business by virtue of this quote:
" A return to syndical methods of combating capitalism offers new hope of emancipating the British workers and preserving their hard won liberties."
Again, he was inconsistent in his support of private property. Socialists like Kim Il-Sung have abolished the income tax and why wouldn't Mosley want to purge socialists since, in his own words "The low-wage countries of Asia are being exploited industrially for still bigger profits than those made by capitalism in the West. As a result, British workers face the certainty of losing their markets to sweatshops in Asia financed by the money lenders of Europe and America. The International Socialism of the Labour Party has failed completely to deal with this menace." This is from his pamphlet European Socialism.
And I have read the source in question.
Of course, I doubt Sowell is a segregationist, you haven't provided a shred of proof proving that he is! And you can disagree with someone on some topics and agree with him on others. Take, for example, Karl Marx. I disagree with Marx on economics, but he had very agreeable opinions on gun rights.
Boycotts serve as incentives. They are incentives, and they don't necessarily force a business to do one thing or another. After all, they may not be successful.
Sure, buddy.
Your counter is just saying that there are undeniàlinks between nationalism, colonialism, imperialism, profit, and religion. We brought up examples, and I took them apart showing there are reasons besides nationalism explaining these events.
-Examples, please.
-I don't recall reading about the great 8th Coalition forged to take down Prussia.
-I do. Explain how Russia would have supported Austria since the Austrians didn't help Russia in the Crimean War.
-You haven't given me the name of a single power that actively fought against Italian unification.
There seems to be a historical trend for nationalist movements not to go claim superiority, not to "not remain nationalistic".
I'm taking a cursory look at Polish politics, and all I am seeing is that it is a unitary semi-presidential constitutional republic...
2
-
@Gvjrapiro Yes, he criticised the UK branch of Amazon for giving into pressure that they resisted for many years and banning a book that puts Hitler's idiocy on full display. At no point did he say that Amazon was therefore a Marxist organisation and should be disbanded.
Any economist will tell you that many of these corporations are publicly held companies.
People don't support private property in all cases because they don't believe that, for example, intellectual property is property. Mosley still sees the property he would steal for the benefit of the nation as private property. The point being, it is a false equivalence to compare someone who believes that pretended property is exactly that and therefore doesn't believe in it, and a person who thinks that something that is definitely property and it is OK to steal it for the benefit of the people.
The thing is, whether I am actually wearing blue socks is up for debate, and nobody has argued that I am wearing blue socks since the early 2000s.
Depends on what someone sees "more" as.
The author of the book you cited said that Ezra Heywood said that quote [ https://uncletaz.com/liberty/heywood.html ] so what most likely happened was that someone on Wikipedia misread the source, misattributed the quote to Tucker, and then you looked on Wikipedia and also misattributed the quote to Tucker, without even doing the most basic fact check?
Statism, yes. Necessarily bad, no.
You just said a couple of comments ago "[a]nd as we've been over, markets to do necessitate capitalism." Changed your mind since a couple of days ago, eh?
I feel the need to point out that this quote on millionaires actually comes from Victor S. Yarros [ Yarros, V. (1936). Philosophical Anarchism: Its Rise, Decline, and Eclipse. American Journal of Sociology ].
To be technical, I traded my earned currency for a pen. The pen is mine, the currency no longer is.
OK, so he was the original believer in right unity. He doesn't say anything on family values, other than it should be part of a right-wing populist programme. And yes, contextualising these quotes are important: he was laying down a right-wing populist programme based on his observances, and he at most said something along the lines of "they aren't contradictory to libertarian principles, necessarily".
If by "capitalist" you mean "classical liberalism and Austrian economics" you are correct.
I never said that was what Mises directly said, I just said Mises said something along the lines of that. If you want the actual quote, here it is "This moderation is the result of the fact that traditional liberal views still continue to have an unconscious influence on the Fascists. But however far this may go, one must not fail to recognize that the conversion of the Rightist parties to the tactics of Fascism shows that the battle against liberalism has resulted in successes that, only a short time ago, would have been considered completely unthinkable. Many people approve of the methods of Fascism, even though its economic program is altogether antiliberal and its policy completely interventionist, because it is far from practicing the senseless and unrestrained destructionism that has stamped the Communists as the arch-enemies of civilization. Still others, in full knowledge of the evil that Fascist economic policy brings with it, view Fascism, in comparison with Bolshevism and Sovietism, as at least the lesser evil. For the majority of its public and secret supporters and admirers, however, its appeal consists precisely in the violence of its methods." Liberalism, page 62.
Now that is an actual quote, go look it up, it is in the PDF provided by FEE. Where is your proof Mises said anything you said he did?
That wasn't my justificative clause, that was my judgement clause.
I know that cults of personality lead to dictatorships, I am wondering whether they lead to HEREDITARY dictatorships. Sure, they are arguably ripe for a monarchy, but many totalitarian states have remained republics, how was Kim to know in the 1970s that his state would devolve into a hereditary dictatorship?
Oh really then, well it shouldn't be too hard for you you to simply copy and paste your evidence to the contrary.
Oh, I do. Do you remember when I said "She, and 10,000 other Jewish people, a third of the adult Jewish population in Italy, was part of the National Fascist Party (Source: Mussolini: A New Life by Nicholas Burgess Farrell)"? If you think it has no basis in reality, take it up with Nicholas Farrell, I guess.
Because Mussolini wanted to get closer to Hitler in 1938, and adopted anti-semitic policies to please him.
Oh really? Which racial law did Mussolini introduce prior to 1938?
Again, if you think it has no basis in reality, take it up with Farrell. I am making statements like a third of the adult Jewish population was n the Italian fascist party, which you do not attempt to refute.
Yes, Mussolini did kick the Jews out, but this can be more easily explained by him wanting to ally with Hitler.
Italians were considered to be part of the same race as Slavs. Here is a map by Madison Grant, an influential Nordicist: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_4.jpg
Oh my God, you are looking at the wrong pamphlet. That is "The Syndical Revolution" you are citing, and I used "Syndicalism - A Third Way" as a citation for his definition of syndicalism.
Workers don't get a say in technocracy.
Syndical = in the manner of a syndicate = in the manner of a trade union. Delegate staff of trade union representation in the workforce are made up of workplace volunteers who are appointed by members in democratic elections. Seems fairly egalitarian to me.
It does. Something cannot be A and not A at the same time.
Kim Il-Sung wasn't a monarchist.
Yes, International Socialism like that done by the Labour Party wasn't his goal. Syndicalism, which is a type of socialism, is, however.
That is a shame.
His criticism was not when the Supreme Court desegregated schools, he said that set into motion events that destroyed Dunbar. DC's school system was completely reorganised, and all schools became neighbourhood schools. Dunbar was in the middle of a ghetto, and as such, the school became bad. He points out that DC could have easily pushed for a policy of integration rather than neighbourhood schools.
The thing is, a vote by the shareholders is binding. Boycotts are non-binding.
It is, truly?
Yes, and we went through them and I have shown why they didn't work, like for example, money. You hilariously implied that Cecil Rhodes was the leader of Britain and that Belgium had an imperial cult, like Japan.
-There was no German War of Independence and an Italian state, Lombardia-Venetia actually supported the Austrians.
-I pointed out there was no coalition against Prussia
-"Cuck" as defined by Urban Dictionary is "to allow oneself or one's allies to be taken advantage of or defied knowingly or unknowingly by a malicious enemy or group of enemies." During the Crimean War, Austria allowed Russia to be defied knowingly by a group of enemies. Therefore, "cucked" is completely appropriate terminology to describe what happened between Austria and Russia during the Crimean War. And, this wasn't just any old war, this was the Crimean War, a complete embarrassment for Russia as they had to scuttle their Black Sea Fleet and they couldn't steamroll countries like everyone had expected them to. Russia was not happy with Austria hanging them up to dry.
-The Austrians, supported by Lombardia-Venetia, an Italian State... yeah this seems like a more Sardinian War of Independence.
They have let go of their nationalism? Ask the average Catholic Irish if they want to be part of England again, for example. If you are lucky, you will be speaking to a Catholic south of the border, and you will be laughed at. If you are unlucky, you will be speaking to a Catholic north of the border, and you will be petrol bombed. But the Irish have abandoned nationalism, amirite?
Right, so I am looking closer, and it seems that the government under PiS seems to be violating the Polish constitution. Still looking for "powinniśmy ponownie otworzyć Trebinkę dla Rosjan".
2
-
@Gvjrapiro I have watched it, and nowhere does he call Amazon Marxist. You have yet to provide any proof that he has called Amazon Marxist, so I am going to be dismissing your point on that.
Which economists? Keynesians and Marxians don't count.
The roads weren't stolen from anyone though. Mosley is planning on stealing property. That is the difference, if you support stealing, you don't support private property.
Again, nobody has argued that I am wearing blue socks, so with the best information we have now, I am still wearing all red.
Not a non-argument, you are just realising that the subjective theory of value is true.
Yes, I do, here is the quote from the article I posted: "He followed closely the motto that Ezra Heywood had printed in large letters over his desk: "Interest is Theft, Rent Robbery, and Profit Only Another Name for Plunder."" The author said that Ezra Heywood invented the motto, and Tucker only followed it. Come on, if 3 websites at this point, including in an article the author the book wrote, has said that Ezra Heywood said the quote, take the L and accept that the Wikipedian that wrote Tucker's article misattributed the quote to Tucker.
I am a socialist? And who said I wasn't left-wing?
If I was feeling malicious, I would say it was the most coherent thing you said so far.
"The four major monopolies which he attacked were land, money and banking, trade, patents and copyright." This Benjamin Tucker fellow sounds like an ancap.
How is it not an amazing system? It is the basic division of labour.
I did say "right unity". If you can think of a better, more concise description, lay it on me. Bonus points if you can find a way of doing it without "Nazi", "racist", or "kkk". Firstly, he didn't support traditional values, only that they would have to compromise on some to achieve goals, and he certainly didn't believe in imposing them on people by force! He didn't say that this was a programme he agreed with either he just said that it wasn't necessarily contradictory to libertarianism.
Not warped, in fact, Rothbard probably did the most to make individualist anarchism make the most sense. Possession makes sense with the classical liberal view of the labour theory of property. Markets make sense with the Austrian School observation that there is an ex-ante mutual profit in voluntary trade. Competition makes the most sense with the Austrian school's economic calculation problem.
All the quote proves is that Mises considered fascism to have temporarily saved Europe. Nothing about private property at all, and he says that because of the liberal, so to speak, violence, fascism is contradictory to liberalism.
My justificative clause matters.
So you have conjecture. Right.
Nope, I asked for you to copy and paste the evidence you supposedly provided against me. But you do provide evidence of Mussolini's racism and anti-Semitism, so let's analyse them:
The first and second quotes were from his lover's diary, so it is hearsay, and it was said during the Sudeten Crisis in August 1938, around the same time that Mussolini began getting closer to Hitler.
And that quote was said after the formation of the Rome-Berlin Axis. Not exactly distant from Hitler then, eh?
No doubt Mussolini was concerned about "Jugo-slavs" settling in Dalmatia. Entente promises that Italy would get Dalmatia was one of the primary reasons why Italy even joined the war in the first place, so why wouldn't Mussolini be concerned over not getting land they were promised and sacrificed half a million men for?
I won't be claiming my citation is untrustworthy because that quote had nothing to do with syndicalism. Mosley was criticising Labour socialism and nationalisation in the passages you provided because he believed that it had failed to achieve freedom for the workers.
I do. Power (cracy) to the skilled (techno). Notice there is nothing about demo (people) in there.
We aren't speaking about B or C, we are speaking about A.
Really? I don't remember Kim saying that he was a monarchist, but do give me evidence to the contrary. Hereditary dictatorships don't count, they can still be republics.
According to you, a man supporting something that he defined as "Worker's Control of Industry" and that workers will elect "chairmen, directors and other executives" means that they support technocracy-corporatism. I see.
And yes, it does sound like support for socialism. Why should the small shopkeeper be forced to syndicalise when he isn't employing anyone? Why should family farms be syndicalised when they aren't employing anyone either? If rejecting Labour socialism as Mosley did makes someone not a socialist, then by that logic is Karl Marx not a socialist for rejecting utopian socialism?
What less could you expect from me?
Nope, his criticism of the DC school system was not the fact that it had integrated, it was the fact that it had adopted neighbourhood schools instead of integration. If it had been integrated, the most extensive effect would be there would be white students at Dunbar. Since there were neighbourhood schools instead, it wasn't the best and brightest blacks going to Dunbar, it was the kids from the nearby ghetto.
Still doesn't change the fact the result of a vote by the shareholders is binding, whereas a boycott is not.
Yes, yes really.
All right, well look up. I said "As for who they were trying to get currency for, I can direct you to Cecil Rhodes and King Leopold 2: Crimes Against Humanity Boogaloo, not your average British taxpayer", you said, "And yeah, they were trying to get currency for their leader... you know, the person they thought was chosen by god to lead their superior nation to prosperity?" To which I mocked you for thinking that Belgium had an imperial cult.
-Von Metternich resigned in 1848. Show me, was there any desire to unite Germany before them? Unifying a country takes time, you know.
-But I did.
-Firstly, red herring, ad hominem, and "cope" is a psychological term. Secondly, if you are denying that the Crimean War caused Russia to split ties with Austria, permanently, it is you who needs to take the introductory course in pre-WW1 Europe.
-Yes, there were multiple Italian states that Sardinia was trying to unify i.e. under the Sardinian crown which would thereby make these states less independent, so an Italian state tried to protect their sovereignty.
Perhaps you should have found a better example than the Yankees for your case. American exceptionalism and all.
Oh, so I need to take more than a cursory glance? Well, why didn't you tell me this before!
2
-
@Gvjrapiro I've watched "Amazon (UK) pressured into banning Mein Kampf and other historical Primary Sources" once, I have watched it twice, and nowhere does he call Amazon a Marxist organisation. You are going to need to timestamp the point where he called Amazon Marxist in the video if I am going to believe you.
Yes, I am asking for which specific capitalist economists, and what quotes do you have to prove that they support corporations?
So Mosley planned on making private property more efficient by violating private property rights. Interesting logic you have going on there.
You are arguing I am wearing blue socks, but you don't support socks (private property) and no capitalist has argued I am wearing blue socks since the 2000s. It is interesting to note, however, is that you are saying that I am wearing blue socks and not all red because I am saying you cannot transfer ownership of yourself to someone else, so it is interesting to note that you believe in voluntary slavery.
Never said you believe in the LTV.
I think that if you write down a quote first, it does mean you're the first to come up with it. Ezra Heywood wrote down the quote first, hence he was the first to come up with it. All your other quote proves was that he was against wage labour. Oh, and I feel the need to point out that he said that in an article where he was arguing against communism.
Only when Nazi arguments against me devolve into "closet commie" or something along those lines.
Well, you should.
I'm, sorry, what did you say? No capitalists ever advocated for central banking and tariffs, and many, many capitalists oppose IP. And by the way, it is not "an"cap, it is an"cap".
Prove that the paper is valueless, and why should I, a general, make my own pens when I am better at leading offensives into Somalia, and the pen manufacturer make his own offensives into Somalia when he is better at making pens? Surely we should trade using a common medium of exchange?
That term has 23 characters and spaces, mine has 11 characters and spaces, so you get nothing. Of course Rothbard wants to allow prayer in public schools, Rothbard is a libertarian, after all, with emphasis on the "liber".
Property is a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively. Property is possession. They may not make sense viewed through capitalist lenses, but they do make sense being viewed through Austrian lenses. And where was I saying I didn't reject anarchism?
Rothbard said what? Citations, please.
But it does matter.
I do have a rebuttal, you are just realising the best evidence you have for Kim being a monarchist is conjecture.
No, you haven't.
Firstly, they are the diaries of Mussolini's mistress, not Mussolini himself, so historians caution they should be taken with an extra grain of salt. Secondly, his mistress saying that he said he was racist since 1921 isn't sufficient evidence. Thirdly, why do you focus on Mussolini? We are speaking about Italian Fascism in general, not just one man, after all.
No, I have been saying that racial policies in Italy coincided with Mussolini wanting to forge an alliance with Hitler. Much of this happened in 1938, but the Rome-Berlin Axis had existed since 1936, so it is possible for some racial rhetoric to exist at that point.
Mussolini was clearly using a synecdoche.
Mosley supported private property and not the "syndicalisation" of businesses? Prove it.
In this case, it does. Technocracy as defined by the OED is "the government or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts." Notice the lack of elections. Secondly, of course, I am not a Tory.
But it did pertain to the situation.
So how does this prove he is a monarchist exactly? All this proves is that Kim thinks there should be a hereditary dictatorship.
Look, if you want the full quote, here it is: "Syndicalism stands for Workers' Control of Industry. The term "worker" covers managers, technicians and operatives, these expressions indicating functions and not social position. It is from the ranks of these workers that chairmen, directors and other executives will be elected by the Assemblies, as against, under capitalism, by the shareholders." So everybody in the syndicate gets a vote on who fills these positions. Sounds like workplace democracy to me.
You are only invading Denny's if Denny's doesn't want you there. Oh yeah, and if you want what the man stands for, see above.
But you can.
Nope, he is clearly opposing the neighbourhood school system, not integration, which he clearly states.
The corporation is under no legal obligation to respond to a boycott. It is under a legal obligation to respect a referendum of the shareholders.
Yes, yes really.
Oh really? If I were to go to Belgium, would I be told that Leopold II was the incarnation of the Holy Ghost and that he was the bond between Heaven and Earth? Because that's what happens in countries that actually have imperial cults, not monarchies just over 200 years old that get their powers from a constitution.
-Were these events crushed by the Austrian diplomat?
-Citation needed.
-Where did I use "cope" in this discussion, how is criticising the use of terminology not a red herring and how is calling me a child with no responsibility that spends all day on Twitter and Reddit, not an ad hominem? ANd no, you are denying the Austrian geopolitical situation after the Crimean War, it is you who needs to take that introductory course.
Europeans show the tendency better than Americans? Honestly, do you know how many nationalist movements are in Europe?
I do. I hope you would understand lying about Polish politics was not a sound debating strategy by now, but, I have been contradicted.
in general, I have found your extensive use of ad hominems, red herrings and straight up denialism thoroughly unconvincing. Since, there is no way I can get through to a denialist like yourself, (and you are a denialist I provided quotes by the man himself and you are still trying to find one way to squeeze capitalism out of it, and you must deny Austro-Russian relations in order to make some of your points work) I shall take my leave of you.
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fatcomrade5046 "For a fight it will have to be, since the first objective will not be to build up the idea of the People's State but rather to wipe out the Jewish State which is now in existence." [1] Essentially, Hitler believes that the USSR is actually a Jewish State and is not "real socialism". And anyway, is war between two socialists states completely inconceivable? Even in socialism inspired by Marxism, there were wars, for example the Counter-offensive on the Southwestern border.
For your next point, you mention Junkers. "Professor Junkers of the Junkers aeroplane factory refused to follow the government's bidding in I934. The Nazis thereupon took over the plant, compensating Junkers for his loss. This was the context in which other contracts were negotiated." This could've happened to Krupp as well, so it was probably figured to follow Hitler's bidding. And anyway, industry was centralised into 13 units. This partial nationalisation may have seemed like the industrialists controlling everything, but in reality, it is easier for Hitler to control industry that way. The Nazis also established the largest corporation in the world, owned by the state: Hermann Goering Werke, since Goring wanted to add credibility to his threats to nationalize companies [2]. The Nazis also in the Reichstag Fire Decree suspended Article 153 of the Weimar Constitution, which defended property rights [3]. So as we can see, this limited socialism was what would've preceded full socialism once the USSR was destroyed.
In response to your third comment, I do not think that Hitler was in any way a Marxist. You do not have to be a Marxist to be a socialist. But while you speak about Marx wanting mass murder, I should bring to your attention that Engels in Magyar Struggle considered the disappearance of reactionary peoples to be a step forward, these people being the Scots for being Jacobites, the Bretons for the Chouannerie and Basques for being Carlists [4].
References
1 Hitler, A. 1925. Mein Kampf. Munich: Jaico Publishing House, Page 410.
2 Temin, P. “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s.” From The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Nov., 1991), pp. 573-593 (21 pages). Jstor. https :// www.jstor. org/stable/2597802?seq=1# metadata_info_tab_contents
3 Reichstag Fire Decree from United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Article 1 https ://encyclo pedia.ushmm. org/content/en/article/reichstag-fire-decree
4 Engels, F. 1849. Magyar Struggle. Cologne: Marxists Marxists Internet Archive, https ://marxists .architexturez. net/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13. htm
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
-
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
-
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
-
@Gvjrapiro - Part 1 -
>So you admit that you have no argument to counter your constant failure to provide meaningful points?
Why should I have to make a counterargument against something that wasn't even an argument?
>Oh ok, so you're most likely a troll. Amazing.
"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
>Now, I know you hate any sort of reasoning, but even you have to understand how absurd your statement is.
youtube.com/watch?v=kDJ7NkUNYcA
>Why do you find it unlikely that the man dedicated to constant expansion and militarization would not then go on to militarize and oppress further nations?
Because he didn't want his Aryans to get malaria and other tropical diseases.
>There's no need to even expand his official empire to them, simply treat those conquests as hubs of "inferior" labor [sic] and resource extraction to pay back to the places the "Civilized" [sic] people lived.
And how are you going to get these hubs of "inferior" "labor" to work? You need Aryans to force them to.
>It was, after all, the lack of colonization [sic] that in part pushed public opinion towards both world wars in germany. [sic]
It wasn't in Hitler's mind, his main concern was destroying the Soviet Union and exploiting the resources there.
>And your quote only proves that he wanted to kill them... because he wanted them dead. It does not answer my question, if he only wanted a single, exclusive area, why not simply deport those he disliked? Your quote proves that deportation was not his goal, which means that he was not in favor [sic] of those he disliked simply living elsewhere.
Indeed, it's almost as Hitler didn't want to give the Jewish Conspiracy™ a base to operate out of and that is why we wanted to just to the root of the "problem".
>thank you for proving to me exactly what I stated from the beginning - you have not read these sources, you only parrot those whose content you consume endlessly.
Irrelevant and untrue since if I was parroting, I would have said it was Page 307 because that is the page that TIK cites because he uses the Jaico Publishing House version. I use the greatwar .nl version, and it indeed does turn out that Hitler said that quote, albeit on a different page. But why am I telling you all this? You just want to have your little strut around the chessboard, since your kneejerk reaction to citations being provided is crying "parroting!"
>Truly, sadly, mindless parroting.
youtube.com/watch?v=kDJ7NkUNYcA
>After all, the only way to ideologically undermine the holocaust is to admit that the ideology behind the holocaust was one that believed in hierarchy, in authority, in traditionalism,
Hitler wasn't a Stalinist.
>in [sic] pushes against progress and in favor [sic] of the entrenchment of power in society.
Whatever the hell that is.
>To deny the nazi's right wing, anti-socialist ideology is to deny the reason of [sic] the holocaust, and deny the holocaust in extension.
*anti-Marxist.
>Shirer's book here is a well known one, still circulated in academic circles, and no real reason to revise the information or conclusions of the book has been found.
Other than the fact that it is 70 years old and our understanding of the Third Reich has changed in the past 70 years.
>If you have a genuine criticism of the book, bring it here, because if not you have no justification to dismiss it because of the source's age.
Not dismissing it, just saying it is probably less credible since we have found better archival information in the past 70 years.
>And again, well known, foundational text... that you have not read. The only citations you can even give are from TIK, or things TIK cited.
Ad hominem, and still waiting for the names of the private businessmen who were infiltrating the DAF, otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on when you speak about people having not read sources, and parroting content they obsessively watch.
>I always love these tactics because I can just as easily say the same in turn. You're accusing me of lashing out in response to the truth? Well, that's more likely to apply to you instead.
Ah, but I am not an ideologue, am I?
>If the "union" you're working for has already abolished the right to collective bargaining,
Not to the extent that standards for piecework pay have been lowered so it is easier to get paid and measuring performance of trains using stopwatches was stopped because the workers didn't like it [Source: Most Valuable Asset of the Reich, page 16-17]
>benefitted the private owners running it
Including names such as...?
>and received contracts of guaranteed profit.
I had a contract with the British government where I got a guaranteed profit. It's called a salary. If anything, this proves that these businessmen were actually public, because they got their profit from the state.
>Again, could just as easily apply to you, and in fact, it does.
I am a private individual.
>From the beginning of the economic term private property, it has never been used to only designate "small groups" and individuals.
How is "private property" relevant to the definition of private?
>After all, even ancient romans [sic] had private businesses with multiple owners, levels of management, and so on.
It could have only been privus, not private since private as a term didn't exist back then if they were owned by members of the same family, since the Romans considered the family to be the basic unit of society and not the individual. If there were individuals owning the property from more than one family, it would not be privus.
>You only seek to redefine private because you don't enjoy the fact that the definition allows things you don't ideologically agree with.
Let's see you do better.
>"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
Where was I making a judgment, and how am I an ideologue?
>Not really no, it's the historical norm. After all, private property can only be enforced en masse by a strong and violent state.
Roof Koreans are inclined to disagree.
>Families have territories,
Depends if they are landed or not. Moving on.
>a community, (family members) and a government. (parents) Every family is thus its own state and therefore not private.
Families are private and are therefore not the state. In the "roman" times you bring up, families were the basic unit of society. Since families have undergone few reforms since the 400s, they are still private. They are such a basic, private unit of society that they were given a whole article in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16. Any grouping above family is public, such as gentes, phratry, or civitas.
2
-
@Gvjrapiro - Part 2 -
>In fact, a small business owned by one person has territory, a community, (employees) and a government. (the dictatorship of one owner)
The employees are not the community. They are trading labour for whatever the contract specifies. By this logic, the states of Europe is part of the United States because they trade with the United States. Therefore, individually owned businesses are not private.
>So, I hate to break this to you, your definition is false.
It's from the OED, so let's see if you can define a word better than the writers of the principal historical dictionary of the English language.
>I hate to break it to you, child, but me using your words back at you to mock your arguments is not me using them.
I hate to break it to you, moron, but those were your arguments.
>A government is defined as "the governing body of a nation, state, or community." A governing body is defined as "a group that manages or controls the activities of country, region, or organization."
No, a government is defined as the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office. Govern is defined as conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority. This is what happens when you use Yankee dictionaries like Merriam-Webster's.
>Citing TIK doesn't change this - there is no form of government here.
I was citing you, idiot.
>This is like saying a party was "governed" by a desire to be polite. Technically a correct usage of the term, and yet, no government.
By the way, I was copying you when I made this statement.
> It was a territory, that had no central body of organization [sic], no force, and was not governed by anything, but merely existed in full knowledge of individual rights.
Other than the mutual agreement and voluntary association. We have an organisation here, and therefore, a government.
>You say they are "governed" by these rights.
Yes, this is the governing principle of every liberal state.
>"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
Where was I making a judgment, and how am I an ideologue?
>Is everyone a government, then?
They govern their own body.
>If your definition of statism is any organization, well then, your definition has no place in genuine labelling [sic].
Not my definition, it's the OED's.
>A central government was not described,
Other than the mutual agreements and the voluntary association.
>as well as no state being described.
Other than the communally owned territory with mutual agreements and the voluntary association.
>government being "the governing body of a nation, state, or community," governing being "having authority to conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of a state, organization, or people."
You are using Yankee definitions again, the government is "The group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office."
>And that's where we run into the problem - there is no authority described in this relationshi; [sic]. authority is "the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience." Nobody had the ability to order anyone but themselves, as individuals. Nobody had power to make decisions for others, or enforce obedience.
So these voluntary agreements had no teeth, therefore the "fact" that the property was communally owned had no teeth, and therefore you are bringing up irrelevant points? Thanks for finally admitting this, we can move on now.
>"Whenever an ideologue makes a negative character judgment on someone else, the judgment is more likely to apply to them instead."
Where was I making a judgment, and how am I an ideologue?
>Not a rebuttal. I'm seeing some patterns here.
I am also seeing some patterns here, you make a slew of insults, I tell you it is not an argument and you say "wHy ArE yOu NoT rEsPonDiNg To My pOiNts????////?/?" Stupid git.
>Because a government and a state necessitate the use of authority, and authority does not exist in equal, voluntary, and peaceful relations.
And if you consent to authority, it is voluntary.
>Again, states necessitate the use of authority, and authority cannot be voluntary.
Can be if you agree to it.
>If a general only has command over his troops if they let him, and they can leave at any time, he has no authority over them.
By that logic, Scotland is independent because it can vote to leave at any time.
>According to you, a community is any [sic] organization of peoples.
Citation needed.
>Therefore, even the most stateless of beliefs, to you, are stateless.
And even to me, the floor is made of floor.
>Your "stateless" system is one where any and all interactions, dealings, or trades are prohibited,
No, it's when there are no communally owned territories.
>i'm [sic] guessing by some sort of higher authority, hm? How "stateless.."
Just making a statement of fact.
>He quite literally said in his ideal, agrarian individualist society, that profit or usury would fade away by the very fact that they hold no value.
Citation needed that he thought there would be no income minus expense in his individualist society.
>Ah yes, living in a system you hate makes you a hypocrite, not just a person with hopes.
It was more than that, he was actively participating in the system.
>Google the Chicago Boys and get back to me.
Prove that they believed in not hurting people or taking their stuff. Given they worked for a dictator, the deck is stacked against you.
2
-
@Gvjrapiro >Libertarian ideology is literally based on hurting people to protect "their" property, either in the moment of attack or against innocents for the sole reason of potential anti-capitalist views, as well as taking their stuff, that being the product of the labor their employees do.
A complete misunderstanding of libertarianism along with a theory of value 100 years out of date. Yep, smells like it can only go in one direction.
It is clear to me that you are a Marxist, and you hence have a vested interest in thinking that national socialism wasn't socialism. You might say that I have an interest in thinking Nazism wasn't capitalism, but well why? I am not necessarily a capitalist, I just think we shouldn't initiate force against people or their property, so you would have to deny Nazi crimes to say that it would be anything like my belief system. But you are not below denying or minimalising crimes of horrific regimes, given that you were trying to minimalise the Holodomor.
Anyway, you have spent the past year in this comments section, and since you haven't woken up to your economic and historical illiteracy by this point, it is fair to say you are a lost cause and nothing can change your mind. Take care.
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TIK, I believe you have erred in your assessment of Mosley as anti-democratic; in his 10 Points of Fascist Policy: Fascism Explained published by Mosley in 1933:-
"Fascist Government, however, will at once take power to act by securing from the first Fascist Parliament complete power of action for the Government. Without the power to act and the will to act, nothing can be done. Fascist Government, will use the power given it by the first Fascist Parliament for the reconstruction of the nation. At the end of the first Fascist Parliament, another election will be held, on an occupational and not on a geographical franchise. Men and women will vote within their own industries with a real knowledge of the persons and subjects with which they are dealing. Women who are not in industry will vote as wives and mothers, and will thus be represented for the first time by people competent to speak for the great national interest which they represent."
I haven't read Fascism for the Million, maybe the citation you gave completely contradicts my source, but it does seem like an elaborate way to integrate democracy into his system if he truly is an anti-democratic anti-parliamentarian
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fenton3137 It is not in my interests to have mob rule. The amount of extrajudicial killings that come from such forces isn't something I am willing to stomach.
Of course, that is the nature of life, gain more energy than you lose. In the words of William Irvine, "we humans are unhappy in large part because we are insatiable; after working hard to get what we want, we routinely lose interest in the object of our desire. Rather than feeling satisfied, we feel a bit bored, and in response to this boredom, we go on to form new, even grander desires." Such is the importance of gratitude.
True, many people in the world are living in squalor. The good news is that, according to Our World In Data, 9% of the population are living in extreme poverty today when 35% were in 1990, 13% of the population is illiterate today when in 1990 it was 24%, child mortality is 4% today when in 1990 it was 9%, the amount of people living in a democracy is 55% when in 1990 it was 43%, the amount of people that has completed primary education today is 960 million people when in 1990 it was 750 million people. Call me optimistic, but it seems life is improving.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
>Funny, because when the Nazis came to power they sold most of the state owned businesses. And they had a market economy.
Citations needed.
>'Socialism is when the government does stuff...' Karl Marx, 1823" When do you think Karl Marx was born? In 1823 he was like 5 years old.
Marx did essentially say this in
>"The REAL Political Spectrum" But if we take a look at the actual real political spectrum, it looks quite different.
The "actual real political spectrum" has 20072348 variants, so which one are you using?
>With that logic every single genocide in the entire history is socialism.
Well, only states committed genocides, so it makes you think.
>"Ernst Röhm fallacy" The full argument is that the Nazis killed socialists for being socialists.
Which aside from being a complete non-sequitor, is factually incorrect. The Nazis killed MARXISTS, not any old socialist.
>You think that most historians don't know what socialism is and don't know anything about economy?
If Sturgeon's Law is any basis, 90% of historians do not understand basic economics.
>You have a huge ego. You, some random guy on youtube, thinks he knows it better than experts.
When did he say that? At most he just says he knows BASIC economics.
>Have you ever read Adolf's Zweites Buch?
Obviously yes, otherwise he wouldn't be citing them. Here is a question for you: why do you think he is citing them inappropriately?
>Or even better, have you found a real one?
"Actually read a book" is a meme tier "argument" along the lines of "stick to tanks" at this point.
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
-
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
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BlackpilledBuddha6476 >Refine it as Statism vs Privatism instead of muh Capitalism vs muh Socialism. This is TIK's and yours first mistake, using 20th century dictionary terms.
Look, if we were to use the modern supposed definitions, we would be going over an 1834 page ramble about worker co-ops. The superior option is to use the actual definitions, which is still more forgiving than the common definitions.
>Reich fire degree act didn't remove private property for all Germans except for the non-Germans or ideology enemies of the State who disagreed with the German justice system that he created
"Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Rxich are suspended until further notice." It is not making any exceptions to the suspension of Article 153 for pro-Nxzi Germans.
>(This contradicts TIK's other video about Hitler creating a Republic)
He wasn't exactly creating a monarchy, was he.
>This is why the gestapo arrested employers who weren't obeying the laws of the State in relation to worker's rights and wages.
It was a bit more than that.
>What's your point? I don't see it.
Private property didn't exist.
>You never proved that he abolished the profit motive either. You just pointed out that an increase of redistribution of wealth occurred by dipping into profits but that profit continued to exist.
If you can't see how gratuitously taxing corporations is destroying the profit motive, I can't do much more for you.
>The wolf is different from the dog. Racia* differences do exist when IQ tests are around, skin colour, bone structure etc.
Why stop there? Why not esophagus volume? Why not middle toe length? Why not ovarian velocity?
>Keep denying race all you want but it only makes you a science denier.
I suppose then the American Anthropological Association, American Association of Physical Anthropologists and the Human Genome Project are also all science deniers.
>Voluntary exchange of goods did not exist in Russia if the bolsheviks seized food crops from the rich peasants who refused state orders.
As what happened in Nxzi Germany.
>I don't see how "Soviet Russia had voluntary exchange too".
Germany had voluntary exchange, in the same manner, there was voluntary exchange in the USSR.
>Is probably an actual national socialist
>Isn't based and christpilled
>Can't see the irony in calling an individualist a spiteful mutant
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
>As someone who has a degree in historical sciences
As he does.
>The vast majority of serious scholars agree that National Socialism was not a coherent ideology.
As he does.
>I would ask you to give me references that indicate that this was really socialism and not something else
Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Pages 257, 259, 273, 289, 290, 307, 410, 555, 556, 590
Zweites Buch by Adolf Hitler, Pages 50, 120
The Vampire Economy by Günter Reimann
Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s by Peter Temin, Pages 576, 577
Program of the National Socialist German Workers Party by Adolf Hitler
Reichstag Fire Decree
Constitution of the German Reich
1
-
1
-
1
-
It shall ever perplex me why these men decided to fight for Fritz.
The great British Empire had 400 years of building herself up to the largest empire as history. She had conquered India, a land lusted by many European powers for her wealth in spices and gold. She had civilised an entire continent and had essentially annihilated the evil of slavery in her dominions and much of the coasts of Africa, in which the British were the primary consumers. Her culture was the great mix of traditions of the Celts, Latins and various Germanic groups, of which the result was the greatest playwright, the changes in manufacturing that resulted in the greatest increase in quality of life in history, the beautiful game and the spread of liberty throughout the world.
Compare this with that of the jerry. The hun had spent the better half of the last half century satisfying its bloodlust by waging terrible wars collectively killing ~5,000,000. This is not an isolated incident of the boche displaying barbarism. In the times of Rome, heine resisted the forces of civilisation, and genetically incapable of of constructing any functional society, struck the western Roman Empire while she was on her knees and copied her structure. Many of them assimilated into the superior Latin culture, but unfortunately, many did not and stayed in the territories east of the Rhine. Hunnish culture consists entirely of fat men in leather shorts and violence.
Indeed, no logical man would ever swap the former for the latter. I hope they were all sent to the deepest part of hell for their treachery against their King, Country and Civilisation at large.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chinggiskhan6678 >If it was socialist, there would have been collectivised farms, planned economies, with literally everything owned by the government.
About that... the Nazi Reichministers for Food and Agriculture created the Reichserbhofgesetz, which created racially hereditary farm. Debt reduction would be achieved via the Erbhof farmers taking collective responsibility for debts, and the debts of all Erbhoefe, variously estimated at between 6 and 9 billion
Reichsmarks, were to be transferred to the Rentenbank Kreditanstalt, a state-sponsored mortgage bank. Seems pretty collectivist to me.
Source: Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze
As for planned economies, I suppose Yugoslavia wasn't socialist then because it had a market.
And in many socialist countries, not everything was owned by the government. In the USSR, only 89.6% of farms were collectivised. By your logic, since it wasn't 100%, the USSR was not socialist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@animalfarm7467 >Ah yes, Rothbard; or what I like to call "Austrian-lite"
If Rothbard was "Austrian-lite", Stalin was a Sander's style social democrat.
>Rothbard is the Austrian economist you read when you don't want to get caught reading a Chicago School Austrian economist.
Ah, you too would also be embarrassed to read half the drivel justifying central banking from the Chicago School.
>Notice when Austrians get cornered
Implying infallible praxeological logic could ever result in a "cornering".
>pushing the false idea there is a difference between Mises' "Chicago School" and Austrian economics.
Mises wasn't part of the Chicago School. If he was, I would like to know why Chicago school economists oppose the gold standard and the ABCT.
>You need to be like Ron Paul and the Mises Institute (University LMAO) and follow all the variations of Austrian economists; and then only reference that economist that best suits the discussion.
I also referenced Hazlitt. I didn't reference more because I only have so much time. But I will name more, for your enjoyment: Walter Block, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, Israel Kirzner, Benjamin Anderson, Peter Schiff, Javier Milei, Robert P. Murphy, among others.
>And don't you get sick of the old fake adversarial scam - e.g. – “Buchanan had a falling out with the Kochs when they used his ideas to exploit the people”. LMAO You must understand these fake adversarial relationships are just part of the scam to increase the number of vertebra in the rattle snake (previous reference).
Your metaphysics are truly infallible.
>The Austrian field is filled with these fake disagreements. Even Rothbard had a fake "falling out" with Charles Koch in 1976 and that's what created your two Austrian schools.
The Chicago School existed long before 1976.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
haven't watched the whole argument yet, will respond to a couple of Friedman's opening points - a corrolary of the NAP is that any exclusion of your property must be proportionate, so if the exclusion involved forcing the person to let go resulting in his death then it would be murder, as there was a perfectly proportionate method of excluding him from your property (evicting him into the public area of the apartment, implying letting him climb the flag pole). In any case, a better question than "who would let go" is "who here would make someone let go"? The second instance I am perfectly willing to bite the bullet and not use the gun to stop the shooter, for the same reason if I saw someone shoplifting chewing gum I wouldn't pick a passerby up and throw them at him.
The trouble with the is-ought distinction is that Hume doesn't really prove it, and this is illustrated when you interrogate a Humean on the problem, they eventually fall back to "they're different because they're diffferent". It really breaks down on reflection of what "ought" means - it is used to indicate a sort of correctness. In this light, ought-claims are is-claims, just dealing with the narrower subset of is-claims pertaining to values.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@caymuscairns6845 Here are his sources:
Online Latin-Dictionary http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/32212/publicus-publica-publicum
Online Etymology Dictionary https://www.etymonline.com/word/public
12 See 1h 35 mins into “Debate: Socialsm vs Capitalism,” Sargon of Akkad Live,
https://youtu.be/z6gB3gA9UZg
13 Marx/Engels, “Das Kapital v3,” P593.
14 Hayek, “The Road to Serfdom,” P59-74. Niemietz, “Socialism: The Failed Idea that Never Dies,”
P17-20, P132-154. Nitti, “Bolshevism, Fascism and Democracy,” P138.
15 Birchall, “The Spectre of Babeuf,” P156-159. Dilorenzo, “The Problem with Socialism,” Chapter 1.
Farrell, “Mussolini,” Chapter 10. Gentile, “Origins and Doctrine of Fascism,” P31. Mises, “Socialism,”
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
The video makes an argument for regulation, which may seem perfectly sound on the surface, however, upon realising a basic economic principle, falls apart.
The best way, as of now, to determine the urgency of scarce goods and resources is with prices. If the supply of a resource goes down, demand will go up, and only the ventures that really need a resource uses the resource since it becomes too expensive for ventures that do not need a large quantity of any given resource to use, (and also encourages people to find more of a resource in order to make as much money as possible, but that is besides the point anyway) and vice versa.
This is why central planning always fails. It cannot be efficient and as such, collapses in on itself. This principle also applies to the internal economies of corporations. Especially true for corporations, since it cannot count on a monopoly of force to take the resources it needs directly.
What regulation does is create a barrier to entry, which essentially subverts the issue of not having a monopoly on force, since now, a corporation is A) the only ones able to pay up in regards to violations of regulations and B) the corporation will eventually become the only association able to provide a good or service people wants.
As such, not only does it create monopolies, it actually harms people more than it helps.
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
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelvarney. Fair enough, I didn't.
Lets presume that eight people, 4 male and 4 female (generation 1) are selected for a eugenics program. Let's presume that they make 4 monogamous couples, lets label them Families Red, Blue, Yellow and Green. And lets presume each couple has 4 children. We would have 16 children (generation 2). Let us then presume that 2 children from all the families are considered desirable enough for the program, and so the program doesn't break down lets presume that the 2 children selected are male and female. Red and Blue families breed producing 4 children and Yellow and Green families do the same. We would have another 16 children (generation 3). Like last time, 2 children from all the families are considered desirable enough for the program, and so the program doesn't break down lets presume that the 2 children selected are male and female. The Red-Blue families cannot breed with each other because they are either sisters, brothers or cousins, and the same is with the Yellow-Green families. So the Red-Blue and Yellow-Green will breed with each other, producing 16 children (generation 4). By this point, everyone in the eugenics program are family and so we are going to have to inbreed the best two candidates.
This is basically. what happened with the Habsburgs. I have explained how, now it's your turn.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drewan6591 I am aware, but those people do not understand property rights. Property rights come from the fact that we own ourselves, and if we mix the labour of our body with something of the earth, it becomes our property. Hence, ownership over another person is pretended ownership.
I hope with that I demonstrated how owning other people and owning a company are two entirely separate things and in fact, companies do not violate the right to property, as they tend to be engaged in business activities, with people voluntarily trading their labour for a pay check in order to produce goods that come from the earth, and services, which are voluntarily agreed upon for a pay check.
And the good news is, is if that co-operatives are more efficient than traditional privately owned companies or shareholder held corporations (which aren't efficient at all, they need the state to survive), then they will displace those kinds of business without the need for government intervention.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nicknolte6811 >Krupp, IG Farben and Flick trials apparently never happened. If they were under duress, why were they convicted?
Again, because Hitler used both POSITIVE and negative reinforcement, for a want of a better phrase.
>Total control of the economy, yet couldn't even induce private power to build factories and plants necessary for the war effort in the middle of the war.
They certainly forced IG Farben to build IG Auschwitz.
>You didn't cite a single specific source, so you haven't debunked it.
You even quoted my sources in your response to me, but i'll gladly repeat them here: Soviet and Nazi Economic planning in the 1930s and Auschwitz: a history
>They constantly raised conscription ages throughout the war.
True, but they weren't exactly using vetarans of the Franco-Prussian War in Stalingrad.
>And you would have to train these men with no technical knowledge or skills or expertise. That takes weeks, months, years.
And you think slaves from the concentration camps would be any better?
>Lol / You debunk yourself. Capitalists take the surplus and invest it in even more growth and expansion.
>surplus
Opinion disregarded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@S1nGuLariTY_ It seems a proposition, which will not admit of much dispute, that all our ideas are nothing but copies of our impressions, or, in other words, that it is impossible for us to think of any thing, which we have not antecedently felt, either by our external or internal senses. I have endeavoured to explain and prove this proposition, and have expressed my hopes, that, by a proper application of it, men may reach a greater clearness and precision in philosophical reasonings, than what they have hitherto been able to attain. Complex ideas may, perhaps, be well known by definition, which is nothing but an enumeration of those parts or simple ideas, that compose them. But when we have pushed up definitions to the most simple ideas, and find still some ambiguity and obscurity; what resource are we then possessed of? By what invention can we throw light upon these ideas, and render them altogether precise and determinate to our intellectual view? When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operation of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connexion; any quality, which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other. We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second. This is the whole that appears to the outward senses. The mind feels no sentiment or inward impression from this succession of objects: Consequently, there is not, in any single, particular instance of cause and effect, any thing which can suggest the idea of power or necessary connexion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jasonlongton1876 >OK, so what? US banks are subordinate to the Federal Reserve. Rules and regulations governing banking is not a feature of socialism, but of capitalism.
Central banking and government regulations are not features of capitalism.
>Uh, *Yes*, it does. If the workers, and not even the public at large, own the means of production, how can there be 'employees'?
An employee is just a person that does work in exchange for a salary. It can either control or not control, the MOP.
>Price controls in some sectors does [sic] not mean there isn't a free market.
1) A market cannot be "free" if it is controlled by a coercive organisation. And it was much more than one sector.
>There are rent controls in New York City. Is NYC a Nazi state?
Rhetorically yes, but NYC is only a Nazi state if it is committed to getting territory for the Aryan people to survive and destroying the Jewish Conspiracy™.
>This one made me smile. The source is "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany" one of TIK's own sources in the 5 hour version. It's amusing as this source does not actually support TIK's conclusion and he presents it in a very misleading manner.
He was evaluating the usefulness of the source as a source for Nazi privatisation, which communists use to "prove" that Hitler was a capitalist.
>I will generously assume this to be a joke on your part, and that you made the joke to dodge one of my most damaging points.
I wasn't.
>A Stock Exchange, where ownership interests in for profit businesses are bought and sold between private parties for the express purpose of making money has got to the the least socialistic thing I've ever heard.
A community of shareholders controlling the means of production has got to be one of the most statist things I've ever heard.
>It means in addition to a stock market, there is also a bond market. If you don't understand the essential role stock and bond markets play in capitalist economies, then you should start there rather than trying to define capitalism and socialism.
Why can they not play a role in socialist economies? Especially when bonds, from the government, are a debt that everyone else has to pay off.
>First, nothing you cite implies real estate could not be privately bought and sold, actually quite the contrary.
Yes, it explies. As you could not buy and sell this land because it would be "... passed down from generation to generation within racially pure peasant families."
>What you posted affirms Nazi commitment to privately held real estate. In a socialist economy those small (and large) private farms would be seized and owned by the state and not guaranteed to private owners.
This is the collective, public state control of the economy. This was collectivisation. The public sector decided that such farms could not be repossessed or sold. The public dictated that Jews couldn't own these farms as well.
>Again, a bad joke, perhaps made because Karl Marx argued profusely that socialism would encompass none of the features cited above.
Was just poking fun at you by asking "Where's the socialism?", including "employees" in your list of things you thought weren't socialistic.
1
-
@jasonlongton1876 >If you are trying to parse out some coherent principled ideological system by which the N*zis operated, you weren't paying attention.
Oh I can, watch me:
Hitler believed that only Aryans could create civilisations, and civilisations are destroyed because the Aryans interbreed with their slaves. Following this logic, the small hats are the least Aryan, because they apparently never had a civilisations [Mein Kampf, Page 257-259, 267-269, 290-291.]. The Aryans are apparently the best because they devote themselves to the service of their community [Mein Kampf Page 269] and the small hats are the worst because they are individualistic [Mein Kampf, Page 271-272]. The small hats are apparently using capitalistic methods to cause the crisis of capitalism [Mein Kampf P289], which will be exploited by them to bring about communism [Mein Kampf Page 290].
So Hitler planned to save the world by doing the following: 1) Destroy the Soviet Union [Mein Kampf 410] and seize resources for Germany, 2) Do the Holocaust [Mein Kampf, Page 307] thereby socialising the people and 3) Establish National Socialism, which was proper socialism, so civilisation will last forever.
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
-
@Silvannetwork Use notepad to record your comments, in case they get deleted.
1) Soviet archival evidence does give the death toll at much lower than is thought. It remains debated to this day. Historians that have used archival evidence from Communist China such as Frank Dikotter, Yang Jisheng, Chen Yizi and Yu Xiguang give the death toll at ~40,000,000. I will give you the Black Book of Communism is nonsense. It's what to be expected when the French write a book.
2) The death tolls are calculated based deaths due to foreseeable consequences of state decisions and deliberate executions by the state. Deliberate executions by the state are counted when executions are based on ideological reasons.
3) I would call upwards of 1.5 million in Cambodia and anywhere between 200,000 - 3,500,000 or perhaps more in North Korea to be not high. Of course I am cherry picking the worst examples other than Russia and China. As far as democide goes, most other communist states weren't so terrible.
4) There are various forms of socialism. When you have an ideology that broadly advocates "that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" it is to be expected.
As for the East India Company, it was chartered by the British monarchy in order to affect other monarchies wallets in East India and make the British monarchy more money, which is why it was given a monopoly on English trade enforced by the crown. The Anglo-Saxon model does not promote any state doing anything much really.
A master owns a slave in the same way a mugger owns your wallet, or in the same way Leopold II owned the Congo.
There are numerous reasons for the US's high death toll. For one they have higher population. If we add together France and Germany's population and times it by two, we get roughly the same as the US's population. If we do the same for coronavirus death tolls, we get roughly 350,000 deaths. It is still short of the US's 560,000 however another factor is the US's most famous stereotype: obesity. According to "Individuals with obesity and COVID-19: A global perspective on the epidemiology and biological relationships", people with obesity who contracted SARS-CoV-2 were 113% more likely than people of healthy weight to land in the hospital, 74% more likely to be admitted to an ICU, and 48% more likely to die (No wonder the UK is also practically being slaughtered).
Correct me if I am wrong, but most individualists in America wanted to use the Swedish model. They have a population of 10,000,000 which goes into America's population 30 times. If we are to use a scale factor on Sweden's death toll, we get a around third less deaths than what America has at the moment. As for Asian socialist countries... China's 4,000 deaths must be underestimated.
Why do socialists make the argument that "they were always at war against antagonistic powers"? America has been at war for 225 of the 243 years since her inception in 1776. It has faced complete subjugation twice. France since the establishment of the Third Republic faced subjugation twice, once successfully Meanwhile, Soviet Russia was threatened with subjugation twice. Communist China was threatened with subjugation once.
Socialism has failed too many times for him to consider it , in as distant cultures as Germany and Korea (Germany was bombed to the ground and the Gambia today is richer than Korea in 1945. Both peoples are industrious, a main factor in kickstarting their economies). He speaks of it as a science experiment.
I must say though, I will consider reading Trotsky's book, after Nichomachean Ethics, Basic Economics and the Communist Manifesto. I do want to understand the ideology more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rubenphilipsen5266 Apologies if my spelling is akin to a drunken Simian, I am communicating through my telephone. All that has been established is that TIK hasn't nessecarily read every book that is on, his list of general book list, which by the way isn't just the book sources for this video. Ultimately, I do not find the fact he owns but hasn't read in full books on everything from ketogenic dieting to the Battle of Stalingrad sufficient proof of cherry picking. Oh yes, and his YouTube sources include things like well known socialists defining socialism to illustrate a point he was making.
But if you want some scientific arguments in favour of Hitler being a socialists, I can only direct you Peter Temin's "Nazi and Soviet Economic Planning in the 1930s", Goetz Aly's "Hitler's Beneficiaries", Gunter Reimar's "Vampire Economy", and Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" along with a constant reminder of the definition of socialism. These people do a much better job than I could ever do in a YouTube comment, and besides, it would be to much of a pain to type it all out on my phone anyway.
1
-
@rubenphilipsen5266
>They appropriated the label with only the smallest change to differentiate themselves.
Indeed, they called themselves socialists, and the supposedly small change was that, unlike the Soviets who were classists, the Nazis were racist.
>The state did not own industry in Germany. It consequently needed to have a legal instrument to plan. The Nazi’s signed long-term contracts with industry groups to buy their output at fixed prices.
In the same source, it is said: "Both governments reorganised industry into larger units, ostensibly to increase state control over economic
activity. The Nazis reorganized industry into I3 administrative groups with a large number of subgroups to create a private hierarchy for state control. The state therefore could direct the firms' activities without acquiring direct ownership of enterprises. The pre-existing tendency to form cartels was encouraged to eliminate competition that would destabilize prices.44" So clearly industry, and only industry, was not under the nominal control of the Nazis. It is all very well saying that the Nazis did X, Y and Z, but I must question those statements when they are contradicted by actual evidence presented in the source.
>Furthermore, it cannot be overstated that National Socialism and Socialism both must be fleshed out within the framework of their own historical context; only then, once their independent conceptual-historical foothold has been secured, a fair and truthful assumption can be made. Only then can National Socialism as it was put into practice by the Nazi’s be assessed in terms of the broader historical context of “national socialism” and not vice versa.
I can get behind this.
>In his dissertation “National Socialism Before Nazism: Friedrich Naumann and Theodor Fritsch, 1890-1914” (submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley), Asaf Kedar states: “…we must remember that “socialism” is what W. B. Gallie has called an “essentially contested concept,” a concept that has accrued multiple and often contradictory and mutually antagonistic meanings in the course of its history. Since the only “essence” that can be attributed to such a concept is its non-essence, i.e. its permanently contested character, it follows that the only relationship between the myriad meanings of the term is what Wittgenstein has named “family resemblance,” or constantly shifting patterns of similarities and differences across the multiple instantiations of the concept, with no possibility of pinning down a fixed core of attributes.”
And during the time of the Nazis, socialism was...?
>It is more or less the same as the observation that I am almost certainly not communicating with the real General Alan Cunningham as he is dead.
They brought me back, on the off-chance that they may need to teach the Italians another lesson.
1
-
@rubenphilipsen5266 >during the time of the Nazi’s there were no other political parties active in Germany and the [sic] most of the countries they occupied. It is common knowledge that The Third Reich was a one-party system, a form of government where the country is ruled by a single political party, meaning only one political party existed and the forming of other political parties was forbidden.
It's almost as if the Nazis were totalitarian, the kind of people that think that everything should be within the state, nothing should be outside the state, and nothing should be against the state... this also includes the economy, you know?
>Yet, you are wondering where the Socialists were during the reign of the Nazi’s.
Depends on what kind of socialists. If you are speaking about Marxists and other worker-based forms of socialism, they were in camps/in the resistance. As for the Nationalists and other racist socialists, they were given great power over the German government.
>Are you serious? You keep on proving your own inadequacy and clearly haven’t got the faintest idea what you are talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDJ7NkUNYcA
>Let me clarify things for you, “general”… My grandfather was a Social Democrat in The Netherlands during World War 2 and he helped British pilots and a couple of jewish [sic] families to go into hiding from the Nazi’s. Thanks to him they all survived. Maybe that gives you inkling [sic] of an idea where the Socialists were.
At most, it gives you an inkling of where SuccDems were.
>As far as the rest of your “reasoning” is concerned…it keeps on failing to impress and still amounts to little more than cherry picking.
Explain how.
>Try reading books comprehensively from cover to cover before citing them.
Done that.
>When you do decide to cite books publicly at least have the decency to do so as yourself, not as an anonymous ‘nobody’ hiding behind the name of a general.
It's a free country, I'll do what I want.
>A general I might add who, after the war, was not suited to be the High Commissioner in the Palistine territories before they became the State of Israel due to being, and I quote: “…quite unable to make up his mind what to do and pathetically anxious to avoid a showdown.” You might want to rethink your online persona, “general Alan Cunningham”…
There are times for caution and there are times for decisive action. Interpet it however you wish, I am not going to make risky decisions in the Levant. From what I have seen, today it is a controversial place to discuss, so you have no clue what it was like actually running the place in the bloody 1940s.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gvjrapiro Collectivisation was strongly concentrated in the areas which had strong nationalist movements. Soviet politician Stanislaw Kosior declared Ukrainian nationalism to be the Soviets greatest threat. There was more than enough grain produced in Ukraine to feed the Ukrainians, although there was less than the previous year due to collectivisation. However, it was the Soviet government who got the final say on who got the food, and it was either they had one, great, massive pepega, or, the men at the top, realising their plan to crush Ukrainian spirit by ending the NEP and collectivising the farms causing a famine had failed, and they resorted to "mismanaging" the situation. Call it conspiratorial all you want, they knew what happened to the economy when it was somewhat private, and what happened to it when it was collectivised from past experience, and they thought Ukrainian nationalism was their biggest threat. As for the whole "kulaks had it coming" argument, dekulakisation had only a year left when the Holodomor started, and the extent to which destroying crops aided in the creation of the famine is debatable.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro With what means could the Ukrainians resist? At most, the people who were most against collectivizations, the kulaks, destroyed their grain, so not exactly trying to launch a civil resistance campaign like that of the civil rights movement.
What was the name of this famine, and how does the fact that the state made a profit detract from the fact that it was an attempt to end Ukrainian nationalism? I have shown proof that the Soviet government was concerned with Ukrainian nationalism, where is the memorandum that states "дa comrade, we need to make lots of money for our great centrally planned state"?
Ukrainian nationalism had received a boost through the Korenizatsiya programs of the 1920s and to a much, much lesser extent in the 1930s.
I presume you are referring to the Russian famine of 1891–1892? That was caused by poor weather and the fact medieval farming methods were still used. And it didn't kill nearly as many people as the Holodomor.
Collectivization didn't work, why do you think Lenin backtracked on it and introduced the NEP?
And the Soviets weren't going after a few farmers. They were going after an entire nation.
Yes... mismanaging the agricultural economy in areas that you collectivized, but it's all just a conspiracy theory that they collectivized it in parts of the country with big nationalist movements!
And of course, it was a conspiracy. Practically every genocide in modern history is a conspiracy. And this doesn't make them any less unlikely either. There were no direct orders for the Holocaust, but even if you are a functionalist it is pretty easy to figure that Hitler would have known about it due to the sheer scale of things, and didn't give enough of a damn about it to stop it.
I doubt it did have much to do with famines, given that there was enough food to feed the Ukrainians in 1932, and the Soviets "mismanaged" the grain away from Ukrainians mouths.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro Precisely. They couldn't resist, as they had no means to, so "movements against these policies and the government that supported them would spring up around these areas".
The factors were certainly within the Soviet's control, as they could have stopped exporting food and properly divvied up the food among the farmers. They could have also, I don't know, not have liquidated the best farmers in their country?
It was more than a single politician. Pavel Postyshev said that "1933 was the year of the defeat of Ukrainian nationalist counter-revolution." But listen, if words aren't good enough for you, why from 18 November 1932 peasants from Ukraine were required to return extra grain they had previously earned for meeting their targets? Why on 20 November 1932 was a law was passed forcing peasants who could not meet their grain quotas to surrender any livestock they had? Why then did collective farms that failed to meet their quotas were placed on "blacklists" in which they were forced to surrender 15 times their quota, then those farms were picked apart for any possible food by party activists, and blacklisted communes had no right to trade or to receive deliveries of any kind? Why on 5 December 1932, Stalin's security chief presented the justification for terrorizing Ukrainian party officials to collect the grain and it was considered treason if anyone refused to do their part in grain requisitions for the state? Why was Ukraine was required to provide 1/3 of the grain collection of the entire Soviet Union?
The Korenizatsiya programmes were an indigenisation policy... what was not to like about that?
That's kind of what happens when you use medieval farming methods. Not the fault of the state.
"First" is a funny way to spell "second". The first policy was actually war communism.
"Other areas" included other parts of the country with nationalist movements. Why don't you accept that putting a nation through a traumatic event is a surefire way to cripple it?
Firstly, it's functionalism, not minimalism. Secondly, the fact that orders were passed down proves that the Holocaust was a conspiracy, and saying that I am "manufacturing a conspiracy" is a joke of an argument.
Interesting how at that point in history the Soviets cared more about other countries' peoples than their own, and that you cannot seem to name any of these famines.
And again, yes, it would have to have been a conspiracy, I say that loud and clear, and it doesn't detract from my argument. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future, find me one genocide in modern history that does not meet that description.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro Nope, there are ways of subverting the Soviet state without launching a civil resistance movement.
You can keep repeating it was outside Soviet control, it doesn't make it true. Especially when scholars such as Stephen Wheatcroft and Lewis H. Siegelbaum agree that it was largely a result of Soviet policies.
Again, name this great famine that the centrally planned Soviet Union thought they could make money from.
Why was it that livestock, a form of food, was specifically requisitioned? Was there no other incentive of confiscation the Soviets could have thought of?
>So the state told people to listen to the state's policies? OK, and?
Ukraine produced 14.65 million tonnes of grain in '32, compared to the Soviet estimate of 69.8 million tonnes. It is quite disproportionate.
You brought the thing up with your statement "You act as though the whole of the USSR's policies was to end Ukrainian nationalism when in reality, that nationalism didn't even exist until these policies, so how could the USSR have conspiratorially put them into place?" Which I refuted since nationalism existed before collectivisation and was the result of a different policy.
Because it wasn't like Imperial Russia was industrialising at an equal rate.
The point being, they knew collectivisation didn't work, so why did they bring it back?
Who said it was exclusive to "Ukrainian" nationalist movements?
Not manufacturing, just realising it makes more sense with a conspiracy.
Also, the first report of the Holocaust was the result of a man having to go into one of the camps. If that isn't trying to keep a secret, I don't know what is.
You have Belarus, you have Kazahkstan, you have Chechenya, need I go on? Now, how about you stop deflecting and answer my question, otherwise I can assume that the claim of famines abroad is false.
It's good enough to be used in criminal law. I have provided proof, and you have not shown where I fabricated proof.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro
You could. For one example, many people fled to the Ukrainian lands in Poland, told stories of the famine, turning international opinion against the Soviets.
It was beyond poor. It was so, idiotic, and utterly stupid that it must have been malice. This is the view taken by many scholars including but not limited to Timothy Snyder, Stephen Wheatcroft and Robert Conquest.
So according to you, the Soviets thought they could export grain to Ukraine and yield incalculable profit... problems with that hypothesis include the fact that the USSR was centrally planned so it didn't need currency, you cannot export within your borders and generally making no sense whatsoever.
You would have your own farm in this scenario. The Soviet Government just wanted a fair deal of your yield.
No, I am just expressing concern over your use of "OK, and?" when we are speaking about coercion by a sovereign state here.
You are thinking of kulaks and their limited resistance to the Soviet Union. Kulaks weren't necessarily Ukrainian.
High estimation? The Soviet leadership knew that there would be poor results from collectivisation, as war communism taught them in the RSFSR. High quotas were made out of malevolence.
People weren't being slighted by indigenisation. They were loving it. People were allowed to celebrate their own culture. The Soviet government got concerned that they got too carried away and sought to crush Ukrainian spirit, and introduced a policy of limited Russification.
Historically, it was like that. Imperial Russia was in fifth place for industrially produced goods. Cast iron production went up 106,200,000 pounds between 1900 and 1913. Coal production went up 1,229,000,000 pounds between 1900 and 1913. Steel and iron production went up 83,000,000 pounds between 1900 and 1913. Who is to say Imperial Russia couldn't produce tractors?
They did know that collectivisation, like the policies under war communism, didn't work. that is why I am assuming they are failing on purpose.
Ah, but I never said that was the only movement they wanted to end, did I?
I have provided evidence, over which you are coping right now.
Yes, they were trying to keep it a secret from the Allies. Of course, the government knew, they were secretly planning and carrying out mass murder, if that is not a conspiracy, nothing is.
And it made no sense whatsoever.
Belarus was part of the USSR, which also had a rebirth of nationalism thanks to indigenisation. Romania? It's interesting how I haven't heard of famine there before. The worst I have heard is that many farms went bankrupt because of the Great Depression, but I haven't heard of any famine. You will need to direct me to proof of the Great Romanian Famine of 1932.
I have shown proof, you are coping over it.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@holz_name >Microsoft alone has more revenue than the bottom 56 countries of the world. In 2020 Microsoft had a revenue of $143 billion, that is more than the GDP of Hungary with just $140 billion.
Evidently Microsoft is more economically important than Hungary.
>But then you will say that Microsoft could only get so big because we live in Socialism, wouldn't you?
I think I have said a few times it is because of limited liability.
>Can you name me any examples of living Capitalism, past or in the present?
Counter economic practices
>I don't accept your diseconomies theory, because firms tent to become bigger by buying out the competition. You didn't addressed this argument yet.
When firms get so big, it becomes difficult to coordinate. This is why, at some point, buying up the factories of old rivals becomes inefficient. Remember, we got rid of limited liability as which means less resources because many people aren't willing to play with their life savings, which makes it less likely they will purchase every last factory of an inefficient rival. Firms make more money by becoming more efficient. This was why Japanese car manufacturers displaced the company plagued by diseconomies of scale General Motors with just in time production.
>So why would I pay rent???? I would just say f* off landlord. If I don't have to pay then I would just steal. Do you think I pay because of the goodness of my hearth?
Because as you said:
>Of course the landlord would sanction me somehow for not paying rent. She will just kick me out of my house using violence.
Which is completely justified because you broke your contract.
>Then I will be homeless and would have lost literally everything I had. This is worse than going to jail. In Capitalism I would become homeless and jobless and would die outside.
Pay your rent. Or get your own house.
>In Socialism I would be in the care of the state.
Edit: I assume you are not planning to be a leech on your community, in which case, good luck getting out of the care of the state. $40,000 for every family in the United States, all spent on means tested programs, how is there still poverty? More of a critique of the welfare state but oh well.
>Btw, the state cannot put me in jail for not paying rent. We abolished debtors prisons long time ego.
I was speaking about taxes for things you would never pay for like drone strikes against children and such. I know you will call me a "freeloader" or something like that, but I would happily pay for services that I use.
>I'm not an expert here on anything. I was asking TIK. Yes, one big firm is replaced by another big firm. Proves my point, no?
Well, as "big" as a firm can be while having 16% of the market share, and that is only including retailing as a way of acquiring objects.
1
-
@holz_name >Those are not what I want in my society. Thank you very much.
Why? In the hands of private individuals, firearms are used defensively much, much more times offensively, people should be able to use most means of exchanges they want, there is nothing wrong with immigrants, nor is the best way to stop drugs is to put people who have them in a cage, there is nothing wrong in the exchange of food stamps, nor is there anything wrong with making your own power.
>So basically we would live in a society ruled by gangs and mobsters?
Hello Cathy Newman.
>Who are "we"?
You and I, who creating a capitalist society.
>Some people will create LLCs because it will benefit them.
They can of course say that for some reason, their personal savings are untouchable if their business tanks, but no arbiter would have any time for that kind of argument.
>Some people like to play with their own or other people's money because more risk equals more profit.
Agreed.
>If you corner the market, bought out every competing firm, then by default you are the most efficient firm left.
Well, until you aren't when someone opens their own competing firm and you are left in the dust because of difficulty in finding experienced management to ensure everything is running smoothly, duplication of efforts, office politics, inertia, cannibalisation and reputation upkeep. Hence, not every part of a former rival will be bought out, making it much more likely that competition will be back to normal.
>So I don't know what you mean? GM is still very successful.
Isn't as successful as Toyota and Honda and the like.
>So where is the difference between paying tax to the state or rent to a landlord?
The social contract is bogus, but the contract you sign upon your inhabitation is real.
>I have to pay either the landlord or the state.
In a system where you just have to pay a landlord is also a system in which you can buy your own house.
>In Socialism I pay tax for services that I don't use, but other people need. This benefits me in the long term because those students will become adults and get jobs and pay tax for my services.
If you think you can benefit from it, by all means pay for it. I don't want to stop you.
>do you think the healthcare in the USA is capitalistic or socialistic?
Not socialist for obvious reasons, not capitalist either. I don't think any system where the government spends $1.2 trillion on health care can be considered capitalist.
1
-
@holz_name >you think you don't have to pay a landlord for simple owning a house.
When did I say that?
>a) not everybody can just buy houses. b) not everybody can buy the land.
I know.
>c) where do you think your water, electricity and gas will come?
Water, from a stream, electricity, from a turbine and gas, from various sources
>You didn't name me one advantage yet.
I'll list a few:
-Savings stay valuable due to gold standard being used for retail banks
-People constantly trying to find the most efficient way of doing something, goods become more inexpensive as a result, everyone has a larger, more valuable amount of possessions
-Actually works
>Arbiter who agree with them clearly would agree with them.
Clarification / grammar check required.
>A contract doesn't become "real" just because there is a physical paper to sign. A contract is only real if there is some way to prosecute.
A contract is a binding agreement. The social contract may be binding, but I can't remember making any agreement with the state.
>If there are arbiter who like LLCs then LLCs will become real. If there are arbiter who think the social contract is real then the social contract become real. And clearly there are arbiter for LLCs and the social contract in from of tax. So both LLCs and the social contract are real. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not real.
An arbiter is employed because two parties cannot come to an agreement on their own terms. An arbiter must then come to a conclusion based on fair, objective standards. An arbiter who does not will find himself unemployed. There may be good proof that proves why having a few letters at the end of your firm's name means you are not indebted, but every rationally minded individual is waiting to hear it.
>You go and create a new Facebook. Or a new Microsoft. It's not how it works. Big firms corner the market, talent go to the big firms because they have the capital to pay for the talent. Without state intervention, firms tent to centralize into huge conglomerates.
In what manner? Do you want me to create a new OS that competes with Windows? Why would I do that when most computers in the world run Android? Or if you want me to make a something that competes with Bing? When you tell me to make a new Facebook, do you mean Facebook as a social media platform? Easy, I make a crate manufacturing business and sell it to up and coming orators. Point being, there is a million different ways of doing something, as such, "big" firms are really not that big when you look at it from every angle.
>But it works only if everybody pays.
Shouldn't that tell you that physical libraries are an inferior option and digital libraries are superior?
>It's like vaccinations. Vaccines only work if everybody gets vaccinated.
Not necessarily, milkmaids wouldn't get smallpox even if not everyone caught cowpox.
>I have no clue how vaccine work, I didn't study medicine or virology. I admit my ignorance and I put my trust into people who have studied it.
Since you are using analogies, most experts in the field of economics would tell you that leaving people to their own devices and trying not to interfere with prices
>This is socialism and it works (until it doesn't like in Nazi Germany).
Or the USSR. Or North Korea. Or China. Or Cambodia. Or Zimbabwe. Or Eritrea. Or Hungary. Or Czechoslovakia. Or East Germany. Or Laos. Or the Congo. or Ethiopia. Or Mozambique. Or India. Or Romania. Or Yugoslavia. Or Burma. Or Iraq. Or Libya. Et cetera.
>Whom should I trust in capitalism?
Same people you do now.
1
-
@holz_name >You can't point me to any system that is capitalistic that works.
Counter-economics.
>Well except if you think that human trafficking is good.
Counter-economics does not allow for victimisation. Hence, human trafficking is not part of it.
>What does it matter? I don't care about ideology. It is binding, hence it is real.
Because it is the Merriam Webster definition of a contract. "Binding" means it is an obligation which cannot be broken, a contract must also be an agreement. Otherwise, I could say that you broke the contract you had with me that you would clean my residence for no pay, even if you agreed to it or not.
>Clearly LLCs are used and clearly judges uphold the limited liability based on fair and objective standards.
Firstly, judges today make decisions based on law, not on ethics. And secondly, what fair and objective standards?
>Yes, those few letters indeed mean that you have limited liability. Is this a no-true-scotchman argument?
It is a no-true-Scotsman argument in the same way that I am asking you to prove that Yemi Osinbajo who doesn't even know what Isle of Jura is is a Scotsman.
>You think digital libraries are free?
No, just more efficient.
>And no, physical libraries are still better. A book is still better than any pdf.
I mean, they are both ways of recording information, and one manner doesn't require a massive room to be set aside and millions in maintenance.
>If there would be the consensus than most western democracies would be Capitalistic. [sic]
How come? Remember that politicians don't do things based on facts and logic. Otherwise, the handle on the Broad Street pump would never have been replaced. It is the same with politicians and Keynesians.
>Most countries are socialistic
And the ones that aren't include?
>But to go on your high horse and telling me how wonderful Capitalism would be if you are living in a Socialistic society and having all the benefits of Socialism is really just hypocritical.
I don't know about you, but I don't see any benefit to:
-Being prosecuted for defending my property
-Being prosecuted for being prepared to defend my property
-Being prosecuted for owning a plant
-Having money stolen off to pay for a useless healthcare system
-Having money stolen off me to pay for fire departments that go on strike all the time
-Having money stolen off me to pay for prosecuting people with different views to me
-Having money stolen off me to pay for drones strikes
-Etc.
Edit: Sure. But since all of the western countries are Socialistic then those are just the exception. The western countries have like 90% of all wealth of the world.
Are they successful because they are socialistic or is it something else? Textbook example of a Texan sharpshooter.
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 I'm not saying you can't, I am saying such action is ethically unjustifiable. I repeat:
That: I own myself
Hence: I own my labour
Hence: I own the fruits of my labour, my property.
I do not cease to have this right because it is being infringed. Since you and your 10 cronies are infringing on someone's rights, you have made an enemy of peaceful people, and you will be sought, prosecuted and punished.
Edit: You lying bugger, you edited in "And let's say your peaceful posse is only 20 strong, meanwhile I've hired a private defence force to supply me with 50 highly trained bodyguards" 2 days after making the comment. I can understand one correcting their mistakes, maybe even adding a point before the person responds, but after response, it is just bad form.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 >tjeres a central authority that insured contracts AND resolves disputes?
It's one and the same. DROs are basically dispute insurance because litigation is really, really expensive.
>Wouldn't there be multiple, competing instances of such agencies in a free market?
Yes, and they will work together because war is extremely expensive.
>Imagine you work at said organisation for dispute resolution and two people show up, both with a claim to the same property. How do you decide which s valid?
As established, property is the fruits of one's labour. So I would decide it based on who initially mixed their labour with the object.
>Imagine I did hire a rival DRO. What then?
Supposing you did, it would work with my DRO to resolve the dispute. Since it is a rival, it needs to be more impartial, honest, and integrous than mine, so it would only work out in my favour.
>And are the McPolice a monopoly or can I hire the KF Police to defend me?
McPolice aren't a monopoly, but what kind of a police force would protect someone going around kicking people off their property?
>You haven't really thought this through, have you son?
Au contraire, see above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 >What makes them money will be providing a service that satisfies their customers.
Not necessarily, they can provide as good as a service as they want, but if it is too expensive, they will go into debt.
>Now given a competing claim, they can't both do that, can they?
They can. See, you want the same piece of land I do, and the best shot we have at getting our desired outcome is by going to an impartial arbitrator. Otherwise, nothing can go ahead.
>You obviously don't have much experience with the corporate world. Corporations will keep litigation going for years if they calculate that a negative outcome will cost them more than the company lawyers they are employing anyway.
But, it is too expensive to get involved in litigation in the first place, hence resolution.
>Money will buy me out of a siege no problem. Especially if I spend it in an army to defend me.
You really have no clue how much armies cost. And this isn't your first instance of you being ignorant of the cost of things:
"I'm super rich, so I don't need to worry about litigation."
"can I hire the KF Police to defend me?"
"No, I'm richer than you, so I have economics on my side."
"I hired the best bodyguards money can buy"
Seriously, cut the infinite money crap.
>Who's going to join your speculative siege?
Asked and answered. See the points about man acting to achieve a goal and the McMarines.
>Especially when to can't prove that what they are laying siege to belongs to you.
I know your headquarters doesn't belong to me, but you are a threat to the peace.
>Now, back to this "mxing of labour". Earlier you argued that if I mixed my labour with some property and then "abandoned" it, you could claim that property by working on it.
Yes.
Further, could you post your whole response at once instead of responding to 2 of my points and then editing the rest of your response? It is quite dishonest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 >No, you're still running from explaining how MY DRO has to be "more impartial" than yours. Or how something can be "more impartial".
I am not. Ball's in your court.
>So there are many DROs in competition. Who decides which one reaches the "right" conclusion?
Asked and answered, see above for the laws of logic.
>Mine says the property belongs to me, yours says it belongs to you. What now?
Time to argue.
>No, as far as I'm concerned, YOU have no respect for peace. After all, you're trying to take my property. And my DRO agrees.
So the proper way to go about it is to give a notice that it is supposedly your property, not to point guns at me and not to allow me back to collect my belongings.
>How do "laws of economics" ensure impartiality?
Say if two countries have a dispute, go to an impartial third party rather than an ally to resolve it?
>Oh, and I own McDonalds. That's how I got so rich. I'm pretty sure the McMaribes will do my bidding given I'm the one paying their salaries
Again, with your infinite money crap.
>Who decides I'm the felon? I maintain you are squatting on my property, making you the felon.
Squatting is a civil offence.
1
-
@slaterslater5944 >Nope, you're still not explaining why, in a dispute, my DRO will have to be "more impartial" than yours. Let alone how something can be "more impartial '...
"Lalalalala I can't hear you!"
>I don't have infinite money, just enough to own McDonalds and by extension the McMarines..
How much? McDonald's is a public company. And what are the other shareholders are going to say? And surely you have better things to do than commit home invasions? Remember, you entered my house along with 10 other people.
>I maintain you are trying to steal my property off me, making you the felon.
You can also maintain the sky is green, but that doesn't make it so. No, you abandoned it to derelict, I came out and cleared the land, built my house on it, so it is mine. Odd how such a wealthy individual has such a poor grasp of property rights.
>I have no idea what you are attempting to say here. What "law of economics" does that reference?
Do I have to do this again? Man acts deliberately to achieve a goal (human action axiom of economics) -> in a dispute both men want a favourable outcome -> neither man will want a biased arbitrator in favour of the other -> the only way to resolve a dispute is to go to an impartial arbitrator.
>And historically, that hasn't tended to happen.
Nonsense. There is a reason why the US and Britain haven't fought since 1815, and it is because they settled their border disputes with international arbitration.
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 >No, u.
ROFL what a funny comeback, why don't you screenshot that and post it on Reddit?
>You said that when you asserted my DRO had to be "more impartial" than yours. Don't you remember?
I said a rival DRO would have to make a better product, which would include being more impartial.
>And what you just described is impartiality.
Yes.
>Things either are, or are not impartial. Just as things either are, or are not impossible. You can't qualify absolutes, you see.
It's more equivelent to likelihood than possibility.
>You decide DRO 1 is impartial, I decide DRO 2 is. What now?
Now, they work together, and discover what the truth is.
>Are there really no rich people in your libertarian fabtasy?
There's a difference between being wealthy and having infinite money.
>I'm sure e.g. Jeff Bezo's could buy out McDonald's, and he doesn't have infinite money.
Why would he? It would just be adding to the diseconomies of scale.
>So I'm Jeff Bezos.
Jeff Bezos has better things to do than commit home invasions.
>I want you off my property,
Jeff Bezos has no land in Scotland.
>and I have my Amazon Prime Army poised to annihilate you.
Even if it was your property, it would be completely disproportionate, so it would be murder. You have seemingly got your entire perception of anarcho-capitalism from those picardia memes.
>McDonald's don't want to get involved in a conflict they can't win.
Eve so, Bezos would still need to deal with Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Tesla, Berkshire Hathaway and others.
>That's an economic law...
That's not an economic law. I'll tell you an economic law: MAN ACTS DELIBERATELY TO ACHIEVE A GOAL -> Man's goal is to survive -> having a person murdering people is an obsticle to that goal -> man attempts to stop the murderer.
1
-
@slaterslater5944 >what a funny comeback
Guilty as charged.
>Why would a rival DRO need to make a "better" product
Economic competition, is this a foreign concept to you?
>(by "better" you clearly mean one that agrees with YOU)
No.
>I have never argued that I have infinite money, just that I have enough to raise my own army.
! This claim is disputed.
>And McDonalds are scared of it and have no incentive to help some smacked-up Jock
I can tell you first hand from going through Dundee a smacked up Jock doesn't need any help.
>who can't even prove that he had a right to my property which he is squatting on?
Wrong. It is YOU who cannot prove you own the land. Documents don't count. Labour does.
>Who cares if my reaction is disproportionate?
Watch a man chase a child down with a rocket launcher shouting "THAT BOY STOOD ON MY PROPERTY!!!", and take a survey asking who cared about that.
>Who's going to tell me off?
Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Tesla, etc.
>is absolutely oin line with me acting deliberately to achieve a goal, that goal being survival and acquisition of property. - >man acts to achieve that goal.
It is, but this isn't a question of economics, it is a question of ethics. Before you accuse me of shifting the goalposts, note I have only used the Human Action Axiom to show why an organisation is incentivised to help stop right infringements.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BlackpilledBuddha6476 The family is a representation of privacy, not individualism. Your family could never be public. You tribe might, you family cannot.
The problem is you define "groups" too broadly. I have, and never could give a damn about someone who lives in East Dunbartonshire, even though I probably share some ancestry with him. I can give a damn about people who live in my town, and more especially, my friends.
Humanity for most of it's history lived in groups of 150 people, there or thereabouts. Even still, there was competition for access to women, who would be the leader of the tribe, since humans are naturally individualistic and therefore compete on a personal level, and only occasionally on a group level. You see no such intrapersonal competition among bees.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@2vexy No, just reflectuons which I have published for your benefit, perhaps in a quixotic attempt to remind you that not only did you lose the debate, you lost the debate on your own grounds, i.e., in spite of the fact that you redirected my intellect first to the non-issue of the usefulness of definitions, in which you presented an utterly meaningless case by virtue of the fact that you were informing me of your delusion that definitions are arbitrary, you still lost, despite your continued denial of the conclusive proof of the purpose of defintions, which you, in your continued efforts to demonstrate you are entirely incapable of forming higher order concepts, have confused it with some relgious argument. Once I came to the understanding that reasoning with an anti-intellectual like you was as useful as administering medicine to the dead, I declined to answer your fantasies, instead allowing you time to undergo reflection on how utterly wrong you have been. You have instead again malconceived this as a moment of victory for your whim-worshipping hegelianism, taking the philistine view that winning an argument is simply outlasting your interlocutor, rather than offering any conclusive evidence for your positions. While I have successfully done the latter, and have thus won the argument, you have been entirely unable to oppose this in spite of your blissful ignorance, since your position is just that: blissful ignorance, entirely devoid of reason and any correspondence to reality.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@egeerdil5550 Distance changes the situation since in order to really utterly anschluss the UK would be to land a successful naval invasion there. Assuming the US doesn't want to violate Denmark's neutrality, a naval invasion would take around 5,000 km from Bermuda, or in other words, further than it is for Wilhelmshaven.
The United States Navy would only certainly overtake the UK's in 1944. If I were an admiral in the US Navy fighting a war with Britain, I would probably try to use submarines instead of conventional ships, however, I see no reason why the UK couldn't deal with them since they were the first to develop the RADAR, and they had the Ultra decryption program and used depth charges extensively.
Perhaps later, the US could mass produce a submarine similar to the Type XXI, however this misses the main issue: The only way at that time that those Anglo democracies could get drawn into a war was if Britain got into a war that the US was trading with, and Britain tried to defend her "belligerent rights". The United States is naturally isolationist and would have no reason to start a war.
Germany on the other hand was much closer to the UK. Germany had made her plans to conquer the east public and in order to maintain a balance of power in Europe, the UK had guaranteed Poland in order to dissuade a much more immediate threat from taking over all the resources it needed to try to conquer any country it wished.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@murataubakir8437 He in fact, suspended property rights.
Reichstag Fire Decree, from United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: "Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice."
German Constitution from Wikisource: "Article 153.
Property shall be guaranteed by the constitution. Its nature and limits shall be prescribed by law.
Expropriation shall take place only for the general good and only on the basis of law. It shall be accompanied by payment of just compensation unless otherwise provided by national law. In case of dispute over the amount of compensation recourse to the ordinary courts shall be permitted, unless otherwise provided by national law. Expropriation by the Reich over against the states, municipalities, and associations serving the public welfare may take place only upon the payment of compensation.
Property imposes obligations. Its use by its owner shall at the same time serve the public good.
"
How could've Hitler put industry in the control of private hands when private control of property was suspended? It makes no sense.
1
-
@murataubakir8437 Continuing on, “In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government
prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the
private sector, mainly to organizations within the party.”
...was transferred to the private sector... mainly to organizations... within... the Nazi party.
Transferred to the ‘private’ sector, to the party. Transferred to the private state-party. Bel thinks that the Nazi Party - the State - was a private-sector organization? Are you for real? And this isn’t the only time Bel says this either.
“Besides the transfer to the private sector of public ownership in firms, the Nazi
government also transferred many public services (some long established, others newly created) to special organizations: either the Nazi party and its affiliates or other allegedly independent organizations which were set up for a specific purpose...”
So Bel thinks the private sector also includes the Nazi party, which was a public organisation. Yeah, I don't think everything in this article can be taken at face value.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gvjrapiro >Ah, so a part of a system not a system itself. And how does more people dumping there mean more status?
It is in better standing as a dumping ground,
>Far less than you, yes.
Prove it.
>Because wealth, and the accumulation and associated connections/power, gives one more status or authority, by allowing them to purchase property, offer jobs to others, ect.
Oh come on, now we are going back to my "having more rubbish implies it is more important than other ones, and therefore has more status" reductio ad absurdum.
>Wealth is "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority."
No, it's an "abundance of valuable possessions or money"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gvjrapiro @Aiden B @Aiden B @Aiden B @Aiden B @Aiden B @Aiden B @Aiden B @Aiden B @Aiden B @Aiden B @Aiden B
Not saying that the dump is a system, just saying it is part of the system in which it has greater standing.
Indicates, but doesn't mean. Not exactly the strongest axoim.
>Tell me, how is wealth, a system of disparate values that allows for the gain or loss of status or authority in regards to profit, connections, purchasing power, profit, property ownership, ect, is not a system, and is not a system of hierarchy with differing amounts of status and authority?
None of the above has anything to do with "an abundance of valuable possessions". Note the lack of system.
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
-
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
-
1
-
@toddovall2389 As for Nazis attacking people "left of center" and supporting the "right wing", it depends on your definitiuon of left and right wing. Actual liberals are what many would consider right wing for example.
But listen, since you asked so nicely, here are Alan Cunningham's Selected Quotes From Fascist Writings™:
Hitler straight up saying he is a socialist in an unpublished book, so it cannot have been propaganda
"I am a socialist. I do not see class or I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of the Folk, made up of people who are linked by blood, united by a language, and subject to a same general fate." - Adolf Hitler, Zweites Buch Chapter 3
Hitler on why Red was chosen
"The red [in the Nazi banner] expressed the social thought underlying the movement." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Page 446
Hitler on why the Aryans are the best
"The greatness of the Aryan is not based on his intellectual powers, but rather on his willingness to devote all his faculties to the service of the community..." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Page 269
Hitler on why he is racist
"History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. It shows, with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race the result has been the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher culture ... The J** wriggles his way in among the body of the nations and bores them hollow from inside. The weapons with which he works are lies and calumny, poisonous infection and disintegration, until he has ruined his hated adversary." - Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Pages 307 and 590
Hitler on how J**s are tricking the workers
"Just as he succeeded in obtaining civic rights by intrigues carried on under the protection of the bourgeois class, he now hoped that by joining in the struggle which the workers were waging for their own existence he would be able to obtain full control over them." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Page 290
"When that moment arrives, then the only objective the workers will have to fight for will be the future of the J*** people. Without knowing it, the worker is placing himself at the service of the very power against which he believes he is fighting." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Page Page 290
Hitler on how he intends to fight J*** Bolshevism
"For a fight it will have to be, since the first objective will not be to build up the idea of the People's State but rather to wipe out the Jewish State which is now in existence." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Page 590
"The nationalization of the masses can be successfully achieved only if, in the positive struggle to win the soul of the people, those who spread the international
poison among them are exterminated." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Page 307.
You probably don't recognise this as socialism, but all you need to do is replace "workers" in Marxism with "Aryan", and "bourgeois" in Marxism with "J*" and it is pretty easy to recognise. (Just for the record, no one speaking intelligently about Hitler will call him a Marxist. He viewed it as another plot by the J** to destroy the Aryans.)
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
-
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
-
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
-
He was such an Georgian, to take it all away. We miss him so, That you should know, And we honor him this day. He was an Georgian, to take that shot, to leave us all behind. God do we wish we could take it back, And now he's on our minds. Mitchell was an Georgian, to leave us feeling like this, Our minds are rubber, our joints don't work, Our tears fall into abyss. He was an Georgian, to take that shot, In life it wasn't his task, He shouldn't have had to go that way, before an decade'd past. Now he sits there in my heart, this Georgian of mine, Always there to make me smile, Make me feel just fine. He had courage,that boy did, courage in his heart. To take that shot, To end his pain, To tear us all apart. But in the end, he died in courage. Lacking, nevermore, He died a Georgian, Mitchell did, And we'll love him forevermore. We love you like an brother. We miss you so much. We will always love you, kid. Rest In Peace Mitch.
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
-
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
-
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
-
mike mcmike And from the “Sacred City,” this valiant warlike throng;
Skedaddled in confusion, although thirty thousand strong—
Without a shot, without a blow, or least sign of resistance,
And leaving their poor friends behind, with the “Yankees” for assistance!
With a whack, rowdy-dow,
How are you, Southern chivalry?
Whack, rowdy-dow,
Your race is nearly run!
And again o’er Sumter’s battered walls, the Stars and Stripes do fly,
While the chivalry of Sixty-one in the “Last ditch” lie;—
With Sherman, Grant and Porter too, to lead our men to glory,
We’ll squash poor Jeff’s confederacy, and then get “Hunkydory!”
With a whack, rowdy-dow,
How are you, neutral Johnny Bull?
Whack, rowdy-dow,
We’ll settle next with you!
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-dk9dx3xb2t
>Socialist countries like the Soviet Union had state owned businesses.
Like Reichswerke Hermann Goering and Volkswagen?
>No, Karl Marx never said "Socialism is when government does stuff, neither in 1823, nor any time else.
"...socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange
with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature..." - Capital Volume 3, Page 593
Fancy language to say "collective control of the means of production". How is collective control enforced, one must wonder?
>And what is there to think? There were already genocides before socialism existed.
Depends on when socialism came into being.
>No, they did kill socialists too. Gregor Strasser for example.
He was a national socialist.
>The Sturgeon's Law is not correct. It was made by a science fiction author.
That is ad hominem.
>Also, what do you think is more important when talking about politics? Politics or economy?
Why is this relevent?
>He thinks that most historians don't know anything about economy and don't know what socialism is, but that he knows it.
He said "they're simply not trained in economics." And given that many historians confuse Marxism with all of socialism, I do not find this completely implausible.
>He doesn't even know much about basic economy.
He doesn't believe in a system that would require overturning all laws of economics, so I find that statement dubious at least.
>No, not obviously.
Explain how
>It's not a meme tier "argument", without ever having read the real book and instead some random copy on the internet.
Firstly, bold of you to make this claim without any citation. Secondly, sometimes the internet is the only place where it is reasonable to read a book. You wouldn't say TIK can only cite "The Forced War" that he often counterargues against when he has funded a Nazi £40 to get the physical copy.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1