"Liberals" have countless real world examples of price control. There was an old today-obsolete concept of liberalism, which sure, maybe that could be argued there, but I doubt it. you are using this to claim that Nazis were socialists. so that text was not so good to prove your point (?) are you lost? are you ok? Do you understand that Mises was liberal and the text is defending liberal values? I see you did not understand the text fully, I guess it just looks "smart" to you and presents the conclusion you want. So you pasted it... but you are unable to think and talk about it. Why should I care how or if profits were socialized? because I expect you to show more evidences that Nazism was socialist. Actual practice of socialism typically shows the highest echelons of government keep the vast majority of profits, so clearly, the "socialization of profits" cannot be a determination of whether a society is socialistic.
according to who? you? I insist, sorry. Who took the profits? Did the state use industry money to create public services? It's common understanding among those who have studied the Third Reich, Mises description of the minute detailed control of industry by the state's officials is accurate.
what is common understanding? the existence of price control? why this makes it socialist? show me more authors agreeing with Mises. He is widely ignored in the Academy because his work is superficial and irrelevant. Do you know who likes to quote him? Ultra Liberal Think Tanks and its readers. Pro tip: Try to quote Hayek next time. Maybe he can help you, a little bit. go Google it  |
|
|
|
I'm not sure what else to say...
copy and paste then  I know that you can't articulate anything. pro tip: follow the money. who profited? how were the profits "socialized"? Yes, I did copy and paste, just to verify that you cannot articulate a logical argument. It's nothing to me, by the way. I don't care if you consider the German NAZI party socialists or not. you pasted a text about supply and demand, yea I'm sure that price control goes against the principles of liberalism. But call this socialism is a big leap without any basis. I asked you about the profits, where did they go? I'm articulating dude. put your neurons to work. Chip and Dale, hello? |
|
|
|
Using the Nazi party as an example of why someone shouldn't vote for Bernie is pretty silly unless you believe Bernie has some secret agenda to become a dictator.
The name is despair. Lack of politicization and inability to deal with what they do not know. "The Truman Show" reality is collapsing... |
|
|
|
I'm not sure what else to say...
copy and paste then I know that you can't articulate anything. pro tip: follow the money. who profited? how were the profits "socialized"? |
|
|
|
No, you needed to continue reading that section. That matter was fully explained. You may not agree with it, of course.
"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. |
|
|
|
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."
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. 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.
sometimes denial is the only way out |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
....
when you say nazism is socialism you're implying it is leftist. ....
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Right. I didn't say much. And I told you why.
cause you lack the basics. keep whining. it's all you can do. added to ignore list |
|
|
|
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.
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" |
|
|
|
what happened to the Frankfurt School philosophers and Bauhaus during the ascension of Nazism? and why?
Immaterial to your initial claim. no, it's not. they were persecuted, why? are you sure you know anything about this period? Actually yes, it is immaterial. Nor does why they were "persecuted" have anything to do with you're initial claim. Do you need to go back and re read what you said so maybe you stop dicking around with shit that has no bearing on it. 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.... |
|
|
|
Please clarify me about the corporatism in nazi germany. how is this compatible to socialist theories?
Immaterial as to whether or not it's compatible. Seriously. Are you just going to stroke yourself off through out a bunch of things that have no bearing on your initial claim? Cause this really is wasting my time now. you're just showing you don't have any historical knowledge. fails to establish the simplest relations on the historical facts of that time. |
|
|
|
what happened to the Frankfurt School philosophers and Bauhaus during the ascension of Nazism? and why?
Immaterial to your initial claim. no, it's not. they were persecuted, why? are you sure you know anything about this period? |
|
|
|
who calls for historical revisionism need to back up their claims.
Yes, you do. Maybe start with Mussolini. start describing how and why the socialist porsche and the socialist bayer supported Hitler.
That would be a waste of my time as they have no bearing on your initial statement. Unless maybe what you said and what you think you said are two different things. waste of time? what are you avoiding? Please clarify me about the corporatism in nazi germany. how is this compatible to socialist theories? and tell me about Mussolini. what's new from him? |
|
|
|
You mean how I replied to yours at the start? Gee. Maybe you should be backing up your claims to support your initial disparaging remarks.
you did it first! you! lol kiddo.... I'll ignore you if you don't have any real argument. Nice avoiding. But I thought this was about historical accuracy as opposed to "arguments". Besides. I already said I wasn't going to bother pointing out everything wrong. I had started to write a response and then I realized that it was going to take a bunch of time and given you're nothing more than a drive by troll who spits out a couple lines to stroke your ego. calls people stupid and moves on, you weren't worth the effort. But hey. I'm sure all us stupid people would greatly appreciate someone with your massive intellect sharing with us all your in depth knowledge. Or you could carry on and go jerk yourself of with your brilliant little posts that add no value at all. Either way, you turned into a few minutes of entertainment. subject is nazism and socialism. please. I'm not avoiding. just asked you about porsche and bayer. If you want to go against the whole Academy, all books and historians you will need a good support. I am ready to answer your questions, if you have any. well I have one more question. what happened to the Frankfurt School philosophers and Bauhaus during the ascension of Nazism? and why? |
|
|
|
You mean how I replied to yours at the start? Gee. Maybe you should be backing up your claims to support your initial disparaging remarks.
you did it first! you! lol kiddo.... I'll ignore you if you don't have any real argument. who calls for historical revisionism need to back up their claims. you could start describing how and why the socialist porsche and the socialist bayer supported Hitler. |
|
|
|
I used to read encyclopedias when I was 6 years old, before the internet, that was fun, but come on, bring your sources. Yeah.. I really believe you cause when someone does those sorts of claims it really makes me think you're an adult. Seriously. What is that even supposed to say.... Oh look at me.. my brain is so big you must bow to my superior intellect... Please. that's pathetic at best. just replied to your accusation but please focus on the subject, not me. are you capable? |
|
|
|
Sorry, no infowars for me. Just real historical facts which you clearly have never seen.
I used to read encyclopedias when I was 6 years old, before the internet, that was fun, but come on, bring your sources. |
|
|
|
it is impossible to arrive at correct conclusions from false premises. fascism and nazism were the reaction to the growth of socialism in Europe, its base is essentially capitalist, corporatist. The Nazis added "social" to the name of the party to FOOL people. It's still working, many people still fooled by Hitler....
one must be totally ignorant in history to say such nonsense.
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. try it go go start dropping your infowars links, that will be fun |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
