Topic: Bernie Sanders is the Frontrunner for the Dems - page 3. (Read 1025 times)

copy and paste then    I know that you can't articulate anything.

pro tip: follow the money. who profited? how were the profits "socialized"?

If you were asked to rebut the arguments presented therein, and this is your response, you fully deserve an F.

I'm not sure what else to say...

There's nothing nonsense, or even second rate intellectually or historically, about Austrian school of economics. I do not fully agree with their viewports, note. However, if you cannot or will not attempt to refute the assertions made, they stand as the winning arguments, don't they?

 https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

...practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis.

"rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people."  

The whole thing is trashy, nonsense collection. but may work well for the illiterate, I see. He's talking about the totalitarian state and pointing THIS IS SOCIALISM. Nope, this is totalitarianism. He plays with the conceptual confusion about these terms. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, he does not mention a single company that supported the German system.

No, you needed to continue reading that section. That matter was fully explained. You may not agree with it, of course.

I went straight to the point and showed the error in the text. price control is not synonymous of socialism, it does not give the government control of the means of production. it is just anti-liberal, the Nazis ascended in the midst of a terrible economic crisis and tried to control the inflation. we are talking about history and this is not solved with pure logic. sorry. you need facts and references.


sometimes denial is the only way out

While it can be said that nazism had a lot of traits similar to socialism, it wasn't their ideology and so they would pick and choose and change things as needed in order to achieve their end goal by any means sort of thing. That article only seems to talk about the nuts and bolts but ignores the overall ideology that drove them. Without the ideology, they really don't have much ground to stand on in calling it socialism. Which is why I had said it was their own "form" of socialism.

If you want to argue against the logical argument, by all means do so. Nothing in your reply indicates you are capable of doing that, even if willing to. By the way, when you present a logical argument, it is capable of standing alone, and not requiring references. However, as I earlier mentioned, without precise definitions, none of this chatter is meaningful.

What it amounts to may be no more than "Socialists" not liking to be damaged by comparison with negatives being included in their definition of a word. But, then, there really are many very negative examples of socialism, aren't there? What's one more?

And this is no different than attempts to blur meanings and babble about "democratic socialism."

Anyway, I'm not particular interested in your misunderstandings about "think tanks," or the Mises Institute, or any other that seem to not buttress your opinions.

I certainly hope it's option number two. Unfortunately, I already put my ballot in the mail a couple of weeks ago, so I can't participate in rallying around Biden. Oh well, it appears Sanders is going to take my state, anyway. I'm not sure what all these people with SUVs and monster trucks in my state are going to do if Bernie ends up becoming president and gets his way. At least most of them are spacious enough to live in, if need be.

yea I know. it's always the same source, the propaganda from the think tanks.
The author doesn't even provide bibliographic references. why to worry?

"But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936."

this is anti liberal, but not socialist. the author states that this kind of control makes the state "owner" of the means of production. this is a lie. corporations did not hand over their profits to the government. it's easy to fall into traps if you don't know the concepts.

I stick to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the historians, the Academy, my decades of studies.
It's not exactly a choice like fruit juice or soda: "I choose to consume this one!"

Deutsche Welle has recently published series of articles to belie this wave of fake news from think tanks. Highly recommended.



btw do you know what is really amazing about these think tanks? this part:

"Mises Institute is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent the law allows. Tax ID# 52-1263436"

Billionaries "donate" to this cause (their own cause) and get tax breaks. They deliver you propaganda for their cause and indirectly YOU PAY for it. When money is lacking for universal medicare, for example. It's being spent at the golf club of those who delivered you this article.

This is an article that claims the Nazis were not socialists.

https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

This is an article that claims the Nazis were socialists.

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

I tend toward the latter.

lol.... oh please. I apparently know more than enough to know when you were asking questions that had zero bearing on what I had responded to. Seems like you're the only one whining. But yeah, you probably do need a nap since you strained that big brain of yours. Funny how a troll ends up adding me to his ignore list.

it was a reaction to the growth of socialism and they stole the name to confuse the working class. the differences in its politics, in the economy, are huge. socialists were persecuted and killed. as I wrote before, don't be fooled by Hitler. it's 2020 and he's still fooling people.

Biden got the win that he needed in South Carolina, and because of that the chances of a contested convention has went up substantially. Sanders is going to have the most delegates by the time the convention will come around, but as of right now he's not going to have the 50 percent needed to clinch the nomination.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/

This is going to get very interesting very fast. There's a couple roads that we can go down here.

1. Bidens finish means nothing, Bernie is still going to crush it in Super Tuesday. This is Bernies best shot to getting over the 50 percent number, still going to be tough though.

2. Bidens finish makes the moderates rally around him. He's their last chance to winning and they rally around him to ensure that he's the nominee instead of Bernie. Bernie still gets the most delegates but not by much.

538 is a pretty good one to read though, very interesting.

Actually, it was the NAZIS that said they themselves were socialist. Their very name.

There may be some fine lines between corrupt fascist country and a corrupt socialist country, I am not sure it is worth arguing without very precise defining of the terms first.

cause you lack the basics. keep whining. it's all you can do. added to ignore list

I did not say nazism is socialism.. I did not say it was socialist. For someone with such a big brain that we should all bow to you seem to have some reading comprehension issues at the very least.

Right. I didn't say much. And I told you why. Beyond that, it's not my fault you went off on some tangent that had nothing to do with what I responded to of yours and thus you got all the responses you did. Maybe you need to go take a nap. You implied you're old. You probably need to rest now.

actually you did not say much:

"There's so much wrong with what you said that I don't even know where to start. The only thing you got right was about being totally ignorant in history cause you clearly are."

you are always avoiding, you just say I'm wrong but is unable to explain why  

when you say nazism is socialism you're implying it is leftist. dude it is really tiring to talk to people who lacks the basics.

everything I say is wrong, "immaterial", unrelated  

I could spend a day bringing facts and more facts and all you have is "OMG YOU'RE SO WRONG"

Supreme court doesn't agree with you but instead they have found that the government has wide latitude to tax and spend in service of the "general welfare". Like I said. Unless it violates the "law", they can do what they want and to date the Supreme court has determined they're not violating the law.

That has zero bearing on your initial claim but is instead nothing more than a differentiation in one aspect between Nazism and socialism.

Where the hell did you get the "left wing Nazism" from? You seriously need to go back and look at what I responded to of yours cause at this point you just seem to be off on some tangent.

Hitler stated that the National Socialist State recognizes no classes. How this is reconciled with the socialist concept of class struggle?

I am pointing out a lot of contradictions of your hypothetical "left-wing Nazism". and I see you don't have a clue on what I'm talking about....