Topic: Nazis were socialists - Change my mind - page 4. (Read 1460 times)

Again, not my definition:


You're just like Trump, it's always hard to know if you're lying in bad faith or just being plain stupid.

So that was not my definition and I haven't changed it. Now could you explain how I'm using the word "socialism" in order to qualify what I feel is good and disqualify the rest before changing subject?

Because that was your last accusation even if as usual you try to change subject rather than answer with honest arguments.


No I'm not ignoring it, it's just that when you say "collectivization" it can be understood in two ways:
-either as "nationalized" which means a part of the economy must be owned by the government, and that seemed to be your meaning here
-either as "under control of the population" which would be my understanding of the word

If we go with the "nationalized" then yes Nazis were socialists that's just factual.

But what I'm trying to say is that it's not a very useful word if that's the case. Because if for you, any country where the government owns parts of the economy is a socialist country (I'm not going to be of bad faith, let's say "important parts of the economy" because obviously there can some exceptions) then:
-Iran is a socialist country
-Nazi Germany was a socialist country
-China is a socialist country
-USSR was a socialist country
-France is a socialist country
-India is a socialist country
-ISIS is a socialist country
-Lybia is a socialist country

So... You have all the right to use socialist in this meaning. It just seems a bit empty and useless when you can qualify France, Iran, ISIS and China by the same word.
Hell, by this meaning even USA might be called socialist, I don't know your economy well enough to be able to say so though.

I would lean towards the second meaning of the word socialist which is much more interesting and different. And under this meaning, Nazis were not socialist.

socialism is simply a more precise realisation of "egalitee" fraternitee,

equality and brotherhood, and it didnt started in russia it started in france with the french revolution, the socialism kommunism hatred is nothing else but the greed for power of the westerm burgois rich elite. that where konfronted with stalin, stalin is nothing else but a russian napoleon/hitler.

they came to power by removing the king and spreading socialist propaganda (egalitee, fraternitee) and once they where in power and ran the banks in france, they where confronted with socialism.

regards

No, your definition.


Tell me some more about how you aren't incoherent when you can't even remember what you said yesterday. As I explained any organization given this control will defacto have the power of the state and is just as easily abused no matter if you call it an NGO or the government. The very act of collectivization creates the potential for dictatorial control of those resources. This isn't a logical fallacy it is a fact. Perhaps if only we collectivized all the Bitcoin miners into a NGO, the Bitcoin network would be more safe right? After all it is "for the people", so what can go wrong? "The people" don't make decisions, individuals do. You can call a big steaming pile of shit a top hat, but if you try to wear it all you are gonna do is smell like dookie.

As you seem to ignore the definition I have written I will ask you to give us your definition of socialism and which countries implemented it

You will probably say "Real socialism has never been tried"
Right?

Now if that's not a black or white logical fallacy then I don't know what it is...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

You know it's possible to have a non governmental organization managing parts of the country while not being the government?
That's what the unions were doing in France until very recently for example. They were "just" managing the whole retirement funds. 14% of the GDP, nothing big of course...

The government is the group of people managing the executive power. I don't see why you couldn't have a non executive organ directly controlled by the people managing parts of the economy, which is exactly what Marx called collectivization.

Socialism = collectivization of production (your definition)

Collectivization of resources inherently requires the state to manage the collective resources. Any non-state centralization of production defacto becomes the state the moment it is created. Being managed by men, they inherently abuse this structure to create totalitarian dictatorships, as history has shown over and over and over again. There is no logical reason to support socialism, but there are plenty of emotional reasons.

My bad I didn't know that giving a definition and applying it to something was pathos, but using an obvious logical fallacy was logos.

It's amazing the amount of double standards that you're able to hold as one single individual!

I don't have to make you look like anything. Socialists are inherently incoherent. Socialism is based in pathos, not logos.

Ok so for you a socialist country is any country where the government owns part of the economy that's it?

If that's your definition then yes Nazis were socialists indeed.


I'm more interested into digging your vision of the word, I have no intent to make a political campaign here ^^


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Sure, do you want me to give you my account so you can directly write down what I should be saying? That's would be even easier.
I've never changed the definition I give of socialism so I don't see how the hell your false accusation is anything but a shitty rethorical trick to make me look like I'm incoherent.

The people are enjoying direct benefits of the state owned enterprises, it's not like Hitler uses the products himself.

If your definition of collectivization is somehow having 50 million owners of production without a representitive - there's something wrong with you.
But that's not what you believe,  you're just trying to swindle out of the socialist label on the National Socialists any way you can so that your socialism sounds better

Yes, that is collectivization, because collectivization is an inherently flawed concept.

Some one gets wasted and plows into a school bus, everyone says the driver was drunk. You reply "You call that drinking? That is manslaughter. Drinking is when you have fun with your friends." Socialism is an amorphous thing that socialists call all the things they like, and of course socialism is never at fault any time it results in negative consequences.

Sorry who are this "they" you're using?

Again, the only person owning the means of production in Nazi Germany was Hitler, the only person owning the means of production in USSR was Staline.

That's collectivisation for you?

The same reason Stalin put other socialists into the gulags. Power. Socialism is simply the means to an end for dictatorial power. Collectivizing all the resources inherently is flawed because it makes it so easy for a dictator to step in and take over everything, let alone the plethora of other flaws with socialism.

there is a big difference between equity owners that live from passive income and people that are forced to sell their time.

besides back to topic,

if the nazis where socialists why did they kill socialists and kommunists then and put them into the KZ or ausschwitz?

why did hitler attack the socialist soviet union then?

there are many rich, powerful and influential people in the west nowadays who need for their economic survival, to get a rumor like that around. but i doubt it will work. nazis were national kapitalists.

regards

How do so many "servants" become wealthy when they learn a valuable skill or when they produce something of value?
How come all the big companies started from a garage?

You're only a servant to your bad habits. Don't try to find enemies to justify your failures.

you are wrong capitalism, is subservence and obediance and trust under a ruling capitalist.
muslims are also capitalists in a way, actually all human cooperation turns out being capitalist sooner or later

jews managed america quite well in the last 200 years but its not sustainable jews opened doors for unsustainable hedonism

I didn't say what I want, I said goverments are centrally planned and have nothing to do with the private market.
Capitalism is a system of voluntary cooperation between consenting individuals. Goverment does not fall into that equation because of it's threat of force.
I didn't say we should abolish our mixed economy goverment. I said how things stand.

But your questions are funny though.
If the goverment was providing you with food, you'd ask "who's going to provide food?", if it was providing water, you'd say "who's going to provide water?" like those things wouldn't exist without the threat of violence mandated by the goverment.

Just because goverment does something, you think that thing can't be done without it.
Astonishing.

The banks run a fractional reserve banking system only because the goverments have decided to issue a guarantee on their reserves.
They only have 17% of the money deposited on their accounts in reality, but they lend all of it because it just switches accounts and becomes a number rather than a value. You do know that this fractional reserve banking system came down crumbling in 1933 and The Great Depression but do you know what we did about it? We guaranteed the banks reserves with tax payer money if they go crumbling down again.
The state supported the fractional reserve banking after it was supposed to disappear in 1933 like every other ponzi scheme that existed.

so you want to run american economy without a state, you must be some kind of a savage anarchist, who is going to provide education, defense and police? who is going to be the capitalist of those people in america currently its a jewish ran banking cartel, but what do you want? you want to work for gold? thats not reliable, for foreign currencies? cryptos?

get ready to feel what capitalism in truth is. its chaos. and competition between individuals for financial sovereignty. no more professional jewish market managment for americans.

Who uses coercion in order to enforce that monopoly?
It is the state, not the private market.

It's the centrally managed entity that is funded by forceful theft of its citizens.

They are statists.
They didn't earn that money, it's not their money.
It's money they got through theft of its citizens (taxation).

Correlating a centrally planned entity with capitalism is absurd.

free market
noun
noun: free market; plural noun: free markets; modifier noun: free-market

    an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses

ever heard of currency imperialism? every national central bank does that, including the usa.
capitalists need wage slaves. the moment other capitalists rise up and take away parts of their financial sovereignty the older capitalists lose some of their power

besides that capitalist usa also invaded and annexed regions
capitalism doesnt mean peace and democracy it means seeking to empower a banking cartel, as much as possible also at the expense of other and their freedom, communism/marxism is doing the same btw.

for example american capitalism discriminates nonamerican capitalism and vice versa.