Nazis were socialists - Change my mind

[iluvbitcoins]

Party principles of the German Workers Party from 1913.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53314721#msg53314721

Party principles of the National Socialist Workers Party from 1918. (DAP changed their name to NSDAP)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53319034#msg53319034

Party principles from the first National Socialist party in the Reich (from 1918.)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53323636#msg53323636

Strasser program
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53326816#msg53326816

Some random quotes
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53323521#msg53323521

Note:
Edited some of these posts moving my replies downwards so it would be easier to read through the OP.

[1715151803]

1715151803

[TECSHARE]

Nah, they were only called the "National Socialist German Workers' Party", they weren't socialists just like every other failed attempt at socialism wasn't socialist.

[Balthazar]

Yet another "nazis were socialists" thread. Oh, come on, this is ridiculous.

They didn't anything to nationalize private enterprises. Just for example, military industry was private owned. Heavy machinery was private owned. Hell, even the oil and mining industry were in a private sector.

Even more, they were doing opposite policy including privatization of public enterprises. If this is a socialist policy then Margaret Thatcher was a socialist as well.

[canaris1985]

I'd say both sides at extremes work in similarly destructive way. Not to mention the fact that Maoist China and Soviet Union repressed, killed and enslaved more people than were killed during the both world wars

[af_newbie]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers%27_Party

Nazis were all three: socialists, nationalists, and racists.

They have implemented many programs to redistribute wealth to the working class:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlXqFgqOviw

If you are not sure, read Hitler's Mein Kampf:

https://srv-file7.gofile.io/download/AUqaIT/meinkampf.pdf

[Balthazar]

They have implemented many programs to redistribute wealth to the working class

NSDAP was a party of cleptocrats and it would be strange to publish such non-science fiction stories. They were doing everything to centralize wealth, and their military agression was yet another tool for that. Just like their racism, which was merely a tool to rob the jews who were quite wealthy then.

If you are not sure, read Hitler's Mein Kampf:

Well, then you should consider China as a People's Democratic Dictatorship.

http://www.icwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ADB-75.pdf

Because Mao has written it in his fantasy novels. He even managed to write it down into chinese constitution.

[iluvbitcoins]

Here are the party principles of the Deutsche Arbeiter Partei or the German Workers Party from 1913.
Adolf Hitler will later join the party
https://www.docdroid.net/4qIxCKf/party.pdf

Transfer of capitalist large-scale enterprises, in which private property is injurious to the common good, into the possession of the Reich or municipality, particularly nationalization of the mining industry and the railways.

The faceless exploitation of the workers by emergent capitalism at the beginning of the 19th century led to bloody riots, which brought the workers no practical results.

Fixation of minimum wage rates for each occupation and region; enactment of statutory legislation with which public authorities and self-governing bodies can prevent the enlistment of racially-foreign workers to pressure wages.

General implementation of a 36-hour weekly rest period; free Saturday afternoons for female workers and the legal establishment of statutory leave entitlements for all employees in the sense of the Commercial Clerks Act.

-----

Yet another "nazis were socialists" thread. Oh, come on, this is ridiculous.

They didn't anything to nationalize private enterprises. Just for example, military industry was private owned. Heavy machinery was private owned. Hell, even the oil and mining industry were in a private sector.

Even more, they were doing opposite policy including privatization of public enterprises. If this is a socialist policy then Margaret Thatcher was a socialist as well.

If socialism means complete nationalization of private enterprise, what's the difference between socialism and communism?

Just like their racism, which was merely a tool to rob the jews who were quite wealthy then.

Just like the kulaks.

[Mometaskers]

Well they called themselves as such, if they identify as socialists, they must be socialists! I don't about the exact policies they implemented but at least in paper, they tried to be socialist. Anyway, something I just dug up that some people here might be able to discuss about.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1708-PS
Edited by: Dr. Robert Ley
Published by: Central Publishing House of the N.S.D.A.P.
Franz Eher, successor Munich

The program of the NSDAP

The program is the political foundation of the NSDAP and accordingly the primary political law of the State. It has been made brief and clear intentionally.

All legal precepts must be applied in the spirit of the party program.

Since the taking over of control, the Fuehrer has succeeded in the realization of essential portions of the Party program from the fundamentals to the detail.

The Party Program of the NSDAP was proclaimed on the 24 February 1920 by Adolf Hitler at the first large Party gathering in Munich and since that day has remained unaltered. Within the national socialist philosophy is summarized in 25 points:

1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.

2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.

4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.

6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.

9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

Adolf Hitler proclaimed the following explanation for this program on the 13 April 1928:

Explanation

Regarding the false interpretations of Point 17 of the program of the NSDAP on the part of our opponents, the following definition is necessary:

"Since the NSDAP stands on the platform of private ownership it happens that the passage" gratuitous expropriation concerns only the creation of legal opportunities to expropriate if necessary, land which has been illegally acquired or is not administered from the view-point of the national welfare. This is directed primarily against the Jewish land-speculation companies.

[Oxstone]

So the name is enough of a proof right?

So Democratic Republic of China or the  Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) are actually democracies and not dictatorships?

Wahou, I didn't know it was so easy!

Nazis were fascists, hence they were in favor of gathering all powers under one man. That's not socialism. That's dictatorship.

And about the socialist policies in there program, they were never applied so... Unless of course a foodstamp program is a socialist policy for you. But that means all the countries in the world were socialist countries at this period :/

[TECSHARE]

So the name is enough of a proof right?

So Democratic Republic of China or the  Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) are actually democracies and not dictatorships?

Wahou, I didn't know it was so easy!

Nazis were fascists, hence they were in favor of gathering all powers under one man. That's not socialism. That's dictatorship.

And about the socialist policies in there program, they were never applied so... Unless of course a foodstamp program is a socialist policy for you. But that means all the countries in the world were socialist countries at this period :/

Like I said...

Nah, they were only called the "National Socialist German Workers' Party", they weren't socialists just like every other failed attempt at socialism wasn't socialist.

This is so predictable I had to get it out of the way first thing.

[Oxstone]

So the name is enough of a proof right?

So Democratic Republic of China or the  Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) are actually democracies and not dictatorships?

Wahou, I didn't know it was so easy!

Nazis were fascists, hence they were in favor of gathering all powers under one man. That's not socialism. That's dictatorship.

And about the socialist policies in there program, they were never applied so... Unless of course a foodstamp program is a socialist policy for you. But that means all the countries in the world were socialist countries at this period :/

Like I said...

Nah, they were only called the "National Socialist German Workers' Party", they weren't socialists just like every other failed attempt at socialism wasn't socialist.

This is so predictable I had to get it out of the way first thing.

Yeah it's predictable that when you say something stupid someone will call it out as stupid

Saying that Nazis were socialists because they had socialist in their name is as stupid as calling north korea a democracy for the same reason.

[iluvbitcoins]

I have already posted the DAP party program before they changed their name (from 1913.) so here's the more relevant one from 1918. when they changed their name to the today-known NSDAP (National Socialist Workers Party)
https://www.docdroid.net/1vMbN4A/national-socialist-workers-party.pdf

Transfer of all capitalist large-scale enterprises, in which private management is injurious to the common good, into the possession of the state, province (völkisch self-governing bodies), and municipality. Consideration shall be given to in particular to: the entire transportation system, natural resources, water power, insurance companies, and the advertising industry. Profit-sharing among all employees in state, provincial, and municipal enterprises.

Expropriation of large estates and entails for the purpose of establishing small- and medium-sized peasant farmsteads. A prohibition on the buying-up of land for luxury purposes (hunting and the like). Establishment of the state’s right of first refusal on every sale of property and land [Grund und Boden]. Nationalization of property-selling [Grundbesitzverkaufes].

We reject, however, all forms of unearned income, such as ground rents and interest, as well as usurious profits extorted from the misery of one’s fellow man. Against them we stridently advocate the value of productive labor.

The private economy can never be wholly or violently abolished, yet all forms of social property should exist alongside it and be increasingly expanded. We advocate unconditionally for the transfer of all capitalist large-scale enterprises, which constitute private monopolies, into the possession of the state, province (völkisch self-governing bodies), or municipality.
In the purposeful conversion of all other enterprises into cooperative property through steadily increasing the profit-sharing of all those who work in them, both physically and intellectually, we see the guiding principles for future progress.

Reorganization of the entire taxation system with the aim of promoting labor, rendering unearned incomes and profiteering in land, trade, and stock-market impossible above all. Abolition of unjust indirect taxes and introduction of a heavily graduated income tax. Scheduling of the highest possible taxation rates for retirement income and the lowest conceivable rates for earned income. High taxation of all fallow land; introduction of capital gains taxes; increase in inheritance tax and stock-market tax; introduction of luxury taxes and taxation of all hitherto tax-free property. Calculation of taxation rates according to number of children.

Fixation of minimum wage rates and salaries for each occupation and municipality through consensus with the trade unions. Introduction of a cost-of-living supplement [Teuerungszuschlägen] and family allowance. Adoption of legal regulations according to which public authorities and municipal self-governing bodies can prevent the engagement of racially-foreign workers.

Definitive regulation of working-hours on the basis of the eight-hour day as the maximum working time, with the establishment of shorter working-hours for hazardous industries; Reich-wide workers’ legislation.

A ban on nightwork in all industries, insofar as this is not unfeasible due to technical reasons. A complete ban on nightwork for women and young workers.
General implementation of a 36-hour weekly rest period; free Saturday afternoons and the legal establishment of statutory leave entitlements for all employees.

--

Nah, they were only called the "National Socialist German Workers' Party", they weren't socialists just like every other failed attempt at socialism wasn't socialist.

I would actually argue that Nation Socialism was economically more successful than internationalsocialism.
It's most likely because of this quote

The private economy can never be wholly or violently abolished, yet all forms of social property should exist alongside it and be increasingly expanded.We advocate unconditionally for the transfer of all capitalist large-scale enterprises, which constitute private monopolies, into the possession of the state, province (völkisch self-governing bodies), or municipality.
In the purposeful conversion of all other enterprises into cooperative property through steadily increasing the profit-sharing of all those who work in them, both physically and intellectually, we see the guiding principles for future progress.

Not completely eliminating the private market enabled the nationalsocialist country to not only avoid starvation but run an economy that's able to engage in warfare with half of Europe, well, for a period time.

So the name is enough of a proof right?

So Democratic Republic of China or the  Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) are actually democracies and not dictatorships?

Wahou, I didn't know it was so easy!

Nazis were fascists, hence they were in favor of gathering all powers under one man. That's not socialism. That's dictatorship.

And about the socialist policies in there program, they were never applied so... Unless of course a foodstamp program is a socialist policy for you. But that means all the countries in the world were socialist countries at this period :/

Like I said...

Nah, they were only called the "National Socialist German Workers' Party", they weren't socialists just like every other failed attempt at socialism wasn't socialist.

This is so predictable I had to get it out of the way first thing.

Yeah it's predictable that when you say something stupid someone will call it out as stupid

Saying that Nazis were socialists because they had socialist in their name is as stupid as calling north korea a democracy for the same reason.

It's not because they had in in their name, it's because it's the truth.
I'm posting chronologically, so you'll get even more info later into the thread.

[Oxstone]

So for you the question is not what they have done (because they haven't nationalized the industry in the end) but what they said they were going to do once at the power?

Ok. Why not.

That means I can make you and TECSHARE vote for me if I say I won't nationalize anything and delete all regulations even if you know I won't?

Ok. Why not.

[darkangel11]

It's hard for you guys to find common ground because all of you are right. NSDAP wasn't a normal left socialist party, but it also wasn't a normal right nationalist party. It combined both and these views are usually on the opposite side of the spectrum.

How it came to be this way? While normal left socialism is about giving power to the working class and the revolutionary fight for freedom, Germans had their own interpretation. To them socialism (called Spengler's prussian socialism) was the revolutionary fight of the German nation. While in socialism and communism classes of people felt oppressed and felt the need to fight for their rights, in nazism the whole nation felt like it has to regain its status lost after the first world war.

It's interesting that the main enemy of NSDAP was KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands), so we can't say that they really wanted communism and socialism in their country. They only used these ideas because they were popular at the time. How to get the whole political spectrum on your side? Create a party that combines some ideas of the far left and some of the far right

[iluvbitcoins]

It's hard for you guys to find common ground because all of you are right. NSDAP wasn't a normal left socialist party, but it also wasn't a normal right nationalist party. It combined both and these views are usually on the opposite side of the spectrum.

How it came to be this way? While normal left socialism is about giving power to the working class and the revolutionary fight for freedom, Germans had their own interpretation. To them socialism (called Spengler's prussian socialism) was the revolutionary fight of the German nation. While in socialism and communism classes of people felt oppressed and felt the need to fight for their rights, in nazism the whole nation felt like it has to regain its status lost after the first world war.

It's interesting that the main enemy of NSDAP was KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands), so we can't say that they really wanted communism and socialism in their country. They only used these ideas because they were popular at the time. How to get the whole political spectrum on your side? Create a party that combines some ideas of the far left and some of the far right

That's a wrong look at things.

Nazi is a neologism, during that era members of the party never referred to themselves as Nazis. That's a new made up term.
They always called themselves National Socialists, and yes, they wanted socialism.
I will post more information when I get back from class to prove this point.

However, what you will understand if you read through the literature and nationalsocialists scripture.
Nationalsocialists weren't Marixsts
Nationalsocialists mostly despised Marx, they thought his form of internationsocialism is a Jewish trick and despised mostly the lack of nationalism in it.
However, they were socialists and openly advocated for socialism, just not the Marx type of socialism. They were building their own.
He's not the only socialist on the planet, he's just the one who inspired communism.

[darkangel11]

Nazi is a neologism, during that era members of the party never referred to themselves as Nazis. That's a new made up term.
They always called themselves National Socialists, and yes, they wanted socialism.

And socialism was a neologism 60 years before Hitler came to power. 

You're trying to put a socialist label on NSDAP, even though the party was not completely socialist in its nature. Opposing capitalism doesn't mean you're a full socialist.
If you compare nazi socialism with soviet socialism you'll see that they're different.
Hitler did not want a class to rule over other classes like it was in other socialist republics. He wanted a nation to rule over other nations. He didn't want wealth to be distributed among the people but for the whole world to be under a single leadership and used socialism to gain support of the masses.  

[Oxstone]

However, they were socialists and openly advocated for socialism, just not the Marx type of socialism. They were building their own.
He's not the only socialist on the planet, he's just the one who inspired communism.

Ok then maybe put your definition of socialism then.

Because talking about a socialism "but not the one of Marx" would actually make the stupid argument "that was not real socialism" a valid argument you understand that?

Marx defined socialism, anyone talking today about socialism refers to Marx's idea. It's only logical to assume that when you use a word you use the most widely spread meaning of the word and not an obscure definition used 100 years ago.

Maybe that with your definition of socialism Nazis could be considered socialists, who knows?

[squatz1]

Well, I'll try. A socialist is defined as such - "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." (Google)

I've grabbed some info from the Historians subreddit to refute this, as I'm ya know not a historian.

"National Socialism", or in German; "Nationalsozialismus" is a term that was created when the Nazis(Well... I guess they weren't Nazis before they invented the term Nazi... They were DAP's, I guess) attempted to create a nationalist redefinition of "Socialism", an alternative to both classical schools of Socialism and various Liberal ideas. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class conflict, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, everything we commonly associate with the modern understanding of Socialism, and sought to create a new German socialism in which individuals subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organization.

In an interview with George Sylvester Viereck in 1923 Adolf Hitler himself said:

"Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."1

And even though the term was the same as the one used by Marxists and Utopian Socialists, Hitler was not afraid to make it clear that this term was one that they had adopted, and that in their usage, it is very much the opposite of what we normally associate with Socialism. In a speech in 1938 Hitler said:

"'Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not.[...]"2

Why exactly Hitler choose the word Socialism, only he himself knows. But we can speculate and make qualified guesses based on our knowledge of the past. A very common theory is that it was chosen to sway working-class votes. Germany has a pretty substantial and rich Socialist tradition. The most prominent Socialist thinkers are from Germany: Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Bebel, Liebknecht the elder, Lassalle, etc. all Germans. And the Socialists were popular in the elections around the time where the term Nationalsozialismus was adopted, with the SPD and the USPD scoring around 35% of the votes in the 1920 election.34

Notes:

1:Interview with George Sylvester Viereck, 1923

2:The Speeches of Adolf Hitler

3: Kershaw, Ian (1999). Hitler 1889-1936

4: Nohlen, D & Stöver, P (2010) Elections in Europe: A data handbook,

So, one of the big reasons that Hitler had referred to this as Socialism was an attempt to sway working class voters (a large part of the German voting bloc) to his camp. As said above, the most popular socialist thinkers had been from Germany.

[KingScorpio]

A nazi is just a racist commie.
I'll argument my position as a replica to the replies.

not just racist,

racist and nationalist.

but the questions is what are you what is the alternative?

enslaving yourself to the financial elite of the british empire?

shall the entire world be enslaved to royalty and a banking cartel?

what do you want?

[iluvbitcoins]

Note: Gregor Strasser is the most important person in the party during the time Hitler is in jail because of the Beer Hall Putsch

The Capitalist system with its exploitation of those who are economically weak, with its robbery of the workers labour power, with its unethical way of appraising human beings by the number of things and the amount of money he possesses, instead of by their internal value and their achievements, must be replaced by a new and just economic system, in a word by German Socialism
Gregor Strasser

‘Because we had become nationalists in the trenches,’ he told an audience in 1924, ‘we could not help becoming socialists in the trenches.
Adolf Hitler

Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight.
Joseph Goebbels
Quote in The New York Times, November 28, 1925

After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.
Adolf Hitler as quoted by Otto Wagener in Hitler—Memoirs of a Confidant, editor, Henry Ashby Turner, Jr., Yale University Press (1985) p. 288

What the world did not deem possible the German people have achieved…. It is already war history how the German Armies defeated the legions of capitalism and plutocracy. After forty-five days this campaign in the West was equally and emphatically terminated
“Adolf Hitler’s Order of the Day Calling for Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece,” Berlin, (April 6, 1941), New York Times, April 7, 1941

To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.

Hitler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed., “First Interview with Hitler, 4 May 1931,” Secret Conversations with Hitler: The Two Newly-Discovered 1931 Interviews, New York: John Day Co., 1971, pp. 31-33. Also published under the title Unmasked: Two Confidential Interviews with Hitler in 1931 , published by Chatto & Windus in 1971

    I will tolerate no opposition. We recognize only subordination – authority downwards and responsibility upwards. You just tell the German bourgeoisie that I shall be finished with them far quicker than I shall with marxism... When once the conservative forces in Germany realize that only I and my party can win the German proletariat over to the State and that no parliamentary games can be played with marxist parties, then Germany will be saved for all time, then we can found a German Peoples State.

Hitler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed., “First Interview with Hitler,4 May 1931,” Secret Conversations with Hitler: The Two Newly-Discovered 1931 Interviews, New York: John Day Co., 1971, pp. 36-37. Also published under the title Unmasked: Two Confidential Interviews with Hitler in 1931 published by Chatto & Windus in 1971

    I have learned a great deal from Marxism as I do not hesitate to admit… The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it… National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.

What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.
Adolf Hitler as quoted by Otto Wagener in Hitler—Memoirs of a Confidant, editor, Henry Ashby Turner, Jr., Yale University Press (1985) p. 149

Strasser represented the party circles who favoured an assertive ‘Germanic’ form of socialism: ‘We are socialists,’ he wrote in 1926 in a pamphlet setting out the future tasks of the movement, ‘[and] are enemies, deadly enemies of the present capitalist economic system.’
Stachura, Strasser, p. 51; see too Kissenkoetter, Gregor Strasser, p. 24.

In 1930 that resentment boiled over into an open rupture. In July 1930 Gregor Strasser's brother Otto, who represented a small group of uncompromising anti-capitalist revolutionaries, seceded from the party with a formal announcement that ‘the socialists leave the NSDAP’.107 In August von Salomon resigned in protest at the failure of the party to support the aspirations of the SA to become a proto-army to rival the established armed forces.
K. Gossweiler Die Strasser-Legende (Berlin, 1994), p. 19; Kissenkoetter, Gregor Strasser, pp. 41–7.

----

Nazi is a neologism, during that era members of the party never referred to themselves as Nazis. That's a new made up term.
They always called themselves National Socialists, and yes, they wanted socialism.

And socialism was a neologism 60 years before Hitler came to power.  

You're trying to put a socialist label on NSDAP, even though the party was not completely socialist in its nature. Opposing capitalism doesn't mean you're a full socialist.
If you compare nazi socialism with soviet socialism you'll see that they're different.
Hitler did not want a class to rule over other classes like it was in other socialist republics. He wanted a nation to rule over other nations. He didn't want wealth to be distributed among the people but for the whole world to be under a single leadership and used socialism to gain support of the masses.  

I'm not trying to put it on them, you're trying to take it down.
Their name is the National Socialist Workers Party.
When the German Socialist Party fell apart in 1922., almost all the members joined the National Socialist Workers Party.
I will get to that part later.
Hitler even wasn't the radical within the party, he was one of the milder options. Some, like Strasser and Rohm demanded an immediate revolution since the legal way wasn't working - they claimed. They threatened him if he doesn't do it, they'll do it themselves without him (they controlled the SA)
But I will get to that later, since as I said, I'm posting most data chronologically, we passed the founding of the DAP, and the 1918. NSDAP, this is 1922. and I'll post something soon

[iluvbitcoins]

However, they were socialists and openly advocated for socialism, just not the Marx type of socialism. They were building their own.
He's not the only socialist on the planet, he's just the one who inspired communism.

Ok then maybe put your definition of socialism then.

Because talking about a socialism "but not the one of Marx" would actually make the stupid argument "that was not real socialism" a valid argument you understand that?

Marx defined socialism, anyone talking today about socialism refers to Marx's idea. It's only logical to assume that when you use a word you use the most widely spread meaning of the word and not an obscure definition used 100 years ago.

Maybe that with your definition of socialism Nazis could be considered socialists, who knows?

No, socialism is collective control of large-scale production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marx_socialists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#Origins_of_socialism

So, one of the big reasons that Hitler had referred to this as Socialism was an attempt to sway working class voters (a large part of the German voting bloc) to his camp. As said above, the most popular socialist thinkers had been from Germany.

One could say the same about nationalism.
One of the big reasons that Hitler had referred to this as Nationalist was an attempt to sway WW1 veterans to his camp.
Which is true as well, but doesn't change the fact he was a nationalist and that the party was indeed socialist.

not just racist,

racist and nationalist.

but the questions is what are you what is the alternative?

enslaving yourself to the financial elite of the british empire?

shall the entire world be enslaved to royalty and a banking cartel?

what do you want?

I want free markets.

[iluvbitcoins]

The NSDAP wasn't the first nationalsocialist party in the Reich.
It was the first one in Austria, not in the Reich.

The first nationalsocialist party in the Reich was the
German Socialist Party

For many,many years Hitlers NSDAP struggled to obtain members, and could never reach anything even near to the membership size of the German Socialist Party. The GSP was the most popular nationalsocialist party in the Reich almost until the time it fell apart in 1922 when almost all members of the German Socialist Party move to Hitlers National Socialist Workers Party.

You can read their statute as well
https://www.docdroid.net/G3dBffx/german-socialist-party.pdf


They demand

Free land, since the cancerous harm afflicting the national economy [Volkswirtschaft] as well as the economies of home, business, and even the individual folk-comrade, derives from rent charges. The indebtedness of the German soil (100 billion before the War) brings all social and economic evils in its wake: tenement buildings, housing distress, infant mortality, national epidemics, poverty, crime, growing mob mentality [Verpöbelung], and national disintegration [Volkszersetzung]. This can be remedied by means of declaring German land as state property beyond private ownership, i.e. that the sale of land and soil from private hands to private hands is in future to be barred. Land is to lose its character as a commodity. A characteristic of commodities is their replaceability. Soil, however, is irreplaceable. Anybody who wants to or has to sell can only do so to the community. The community issues land to interested parties as Zeitpacht or Erbpacht.2 Thereupon land may no longer be used to raise capital in future. It will be declared debt-free [unbelastbar]. Accordingly, a personal loan will be raised as opposed to today’s mortgage loan. All current mortgages, where it is not the case already, are to be declared non-terminable short-term direct reduction mortgages [Tilgungshypotheken], reducing the rate of interest. In this manner German land is gradually freed and a truly generous settlement is reached. Even the simplest man will once again be able to live on his own plot in his own small house. The emergence of supercapitalism derives from the previous liberalization in sale of, and yield capacity of, the soil. With free land there is no supercapitalism.

Nationalization of the monetary system. Our finances are in the hands of private individuals, particularly Jews and other international people. That is an absurdity in itself, since money is the blood of the national body of the Volk [Volkskörpers]. The state as the representative of the people can only really govern if it possesses power of disposal4 over money and finance. Today money too has been alienated from and deprived of its purpose of being a convenient means of exchange between labor and wage, goods and purchase price, between producer and consumer. Money today instead serves as a means of generating more money again and again through banking-practices and stock-jobbing, without any real work involved. Our true savings- and credit-institutes must become nationalized banks, eliminating the obscene profits of the shareholders as well as the princely salaries of the directors and the royalties of the supervisory boards. We demand a Reich Economic Council5 to examine the reestablishment of the banks and enterprises in relation to the real requirements and welfare of the community. Future creditworthiness will no longer extend to property, but to people. From this it follows that, as in the past, business will be built upon the competency, reliability, and honesty of the individual, by which the requisite tranquility and organic growth will be brought to our economy.

The stock market game is rejected as harmful and unnecessary, since trading in assets is to be prohibited. Our currency is to be redesigned. Unending interest, which has as its premise the immoral interpretation of capital’s immortality so cunningly devised by its inventors and guardians, is superseded through a service of interest payments gradually replacing the capital. This would put an end once and for all to the interest-slavery originating out of the Orient.

5. Breaking up of our large estates for the purposes of settlement, according to the yield capacity of the individual territories.

12. Protection of the German worker against foreign labour, which depresses the German worker’s wages and standard of living.

The German Socialist Party is a party of the financially-weak layers of the Volk, i.e. the workers, civil servants, shop-assistants, artisans, small-businessmen and peasants, the teachers, settlers,6 technicians. He who sees things clearly joins us without hesitation. False Jewish-socialism and the interest-economy must be as chaff before the wind.

Outline for the Founding of a
German Socialist Party
on a Jew-free and Capital-free Foundation

Merely the form of government and the men in charge have changed, while capitalism and Jewry will rear their heads higher than ever under democracy. As before, you, the German Volk, will be leeched dry, plundered and condemned to toil and worry. How did it come to this, and shall it remain this way forever? The cause of this failure lies in the fact that the struggle against these two powers has hitherto been conducted separately. Yet both are intimately connected.

Social-democracy only engages in a mock-fight against capitalism, for its leaders are Jews and capitalists!

Yet the Jew-experts1 struggle in vain against Jewry because they stand firmly on the ground of the capitalist state order, so both they and social-democracy are bound to fail.

The change required to finally establish real freedom for the German Volk is to form a German Socialist Party.

Lassalle, the founder of German social-democracy, must as a Jew have known his racial-comrades [Rassegenossen] well when he said: “A popular movement has to keep its distance from capitalists and Jews where they appear as directors and leaders, and instead pursue its own aims.”

however, the party does not want a Western-style democracy with a Jewish-plutocratic apex, but a free Peoples’ State [Volksstaat] in which capitalism and Jewry are overcome.

Until now capitalism and Jewry have stood in the way of such reforms.

being instead quite anti-capitalist and Jew-free [Judenrein]. It allows itself to be guided solely by the welfare of the whole, and strives for a far more even distribution of vital commodities and for the recovery and revival of the Germans, whose folk-strength [Volkskraft] has been so gravely afflicted. But it is not through a fresh revolution or abrupt change that new conditions will be striven for 

[KingScorpio]

A nazi is just a racist commie.
I'll argument my position as a replica to the replies.

well thats a big difference then, you could then also say a kingdom is just a dictatorship with a religion,

in a democracy like the us you could say its a dictatorship with banks as dictators, that distribute access to consumption capacities etc.

the big problem about communism is that after a while it also has its power centres and oligarchies,

usually can be seen in form of banking cartels,

like the chinse banking cartel printing yuan, euro banking cartel printing euros, and future ingsoc banking cartel printing ingsoc dollar as a mark of the english socialism.

they all claim to be communists then, and the banking cartels pay policemen, soldiers, etc. for their work, to do the stuff the people running companies need.

form the perspective of someone running for example a textile factory you need a power holder running the system.

regards

[iluvbitcoins]

A nazi is just a racist commie.
I'll argument my position as a replica to the replies.

well thats a big difference then, you could then also say a kingdom is just a dictatorship with a religion,

Why would a kingdom need to have a religion?

[KingScorpio]

A nazi is just a racist commie.
I'll argument my position as a replica to the replies.

well thats a big difference then, you could then also say a kingdom is just a dictatorship with a religion,

Why would a kingdom need to have a religion?

because thats how kings are,

a king can't rule without divine support.

king and divinity is inseperable except you mean those nasty biological kingdoms instead of the spiritual kingdom.

maybee i should have said a kingdom is a theistic dictatorship as many people consider nationalism as some kind of religion, and communism as a religion created by atheists

[Sendoku]

Any ideology is a religion in some sence. If a common man or politician chooses to follow one, he or she accepts its rigid axioms and hierarchies and then acts like they are the truth. This is built in feature of every human being and is hard (though worth) fighting against

[KingScorpio]

Any ideology is a religion in some sence. If a common man or politician chooses to follow one, he or she accepts its rigid axioms and hierarchies and then acts like they are the truth. This is built in feature of every human being and is hard (though worth) fighting against

religion are rules for a way of live, thats much more, than just an opinion(ideology)

[TECSHARE]

Any ideology is a religion in some sence. If a common man or politician chooses to follow one, he or she accepts its rigid axioms and hierarchies and then acts like they are the truth. This is built in feature of every human being and is hard (though worth) fighting against

They are both forms of belief systems to some extent. They are both frames of references for putting metrics on, understanding, and interacting with the world. One thing that atheists often don't seem to understand is even if you don't logically believe in God, the part of your brain that revolves around religion and faith is still there, and is filled with secular rather than religious concepts. This is one of the primary reasons communism and socialism are so hostile to religion, because they seek to occupy the position of God. Without God there is nothing above the state, thus the state becomes God.

[coins4commies]

We need to get to a point where we can look past labels. When you only look at one label and make connections based on that, you're stereotyping.  Its how the human brain is wired because our ancestors didn't have education and had to make quick judgements on the fly.  The last angry rhino gored someone so this angry rhino will probably gore someone type decisions.  

I think calling nazis socialists is a stretch  but its at least its debatable so what if we just concede that they are socialists? So what? It would be more precise to simply describe their systems specifically instead of with a generic label.  Why don't you lay out the things they did that you have a problem with and the things they did that you like?

 Do we hate nazis because they were socialists or because they were fascists?
Do we hate nazis because of their economic system of ownership or because of their racist social policies and goal to exterminate jews?

I would say the same about nationalism.  Was their nationalism bad because being proud of your nation and wanting to do well is inherently bad? or was it bad because of the 25 point system? or was it just a few points? or was it because they used violence to attack other nations?

In conclusion, its more clear when you are specific about what you are talking about than hiding behind general terms for which everyone has differing definitions.

[iluvbitcoins]

Here's some more info

Strasser thought the party is moving away from it's anti-capitalist roots so he published a suggestion that Goebells himself revisioned.
It was criticized for being too mild.
You can view it here.
https://www.docdroid.net/gmaxz0l/strasserov-program.pdf

Holdings larger than 1,000 Morgen are to be divided into small holdings of 50 to 200 Morgen, after each man of Germannationality who has been an agricultural labourer on the property has been compensated with 2 Morgen. –Generous land consolidation.

All businesses which on a stated day in the past employed twenty or more employees are to be converted into joint stock companies.

For all joint stock companies, ownership of 51 percent of those in group 2.a will be turned over to the general public; 49 percent of those in group 2.b. Ownership willbe transferred to the general public in the following distributions:Group2.a.: Reich 30%, Workforce 10%, Region 6%, District 5%.Group 2.b.: Reich 30%, Workforce 10%, Region 5%, District 4%

Inheritance taxes (excluding direct descendants and antecedents); distribution rates Reich 4/7, Region 2/7, District 1/7

a.)Compulsory combination of the farmers into local cooperatives, and of these cooperatives into district cooperatives under the supervision of the Chamber of Agriculture. b.)Prohibition of free sale of agricultural products, sale only to the cooperative.c.)Combination of members of the finishing trades (butchers, millers, bakers, etc.) in compulsory guilds (see C.1).d.)Conclusion of direct delivery contracts between these producers’ cooperatives and the guilds or large direct consumers’ cooperatives

The employees in each of these industrial enterprises are to be grouped in a works-union [Werksgemeinschaft] which will receive 10 percent of the stock of the company.

.)Those businesses or individuals who employ fewer than 20 are to be grouped by law in compulsory guilds

Present-day properties, up to a size of 1,000 Morgen (productivity level I [Bonität I]), may remainas hereditary holdings as long as there is a male heir in the family who is able and willing to carry on the hereditary obligations

1.)Land and soil are the property of the nation! (Buildings count as assets. Assets remain private property.)

State Domains [i.e. ‘crown land’] are not to be divided, and instead are to be set up as model farms managed by administrators under the control of the Regional Chambers, not leased

The newly-created small holdings can only be leased as entails on behalf of the Reich

they will be bonded to the soil by a lease-free granting of 2 Morgen of good local land

-----

We need to get to a point where we can look past labels. When you only look at one label and make connections based on that, you're stereotyping.  Its how the human brain is wired because our ancestors didn't have education and had to make quick judgements on the fly.  The last angry rhino gored someone so this angry rhino will probably gore someone type decisions.  

I think calling nazis socialists is a stretch  but its at least its debatable so what if we just concede that they are socialists? So what? It would be more precise to simply describe their systems specifically instead of with a generic label.  Why don't you lay out the things they did that you have a problem with and the things they did that you like?

 Do we hate nazis because they were socialists or because they were fascists?
Do we hate nazis because of their economic system of ownership or because of their racist social policies and goal to exterminate jews?

I would say the same about nationalism.  Was their nationalism bad because being proud of your nation and wanting to do well is inherently bad? or was it bad because of the 25 point system? or was it just a few points? or was it because they used violence to attack other nations?

In conclusion, its more clear when you are specific about what you are talking about than hiding behind general terms for which everyone has differing definitions.

People usually regard nationalsocialism and internationalsocialism as things that are on opposing sides of the spectre.
Extremene left and extreme right.

It's important for people to realize that both nationalsocialism and internationalsocialism are socialism.

They aren't opposing viewpoints. They're the same ideology of envy that believes people should be robbed just because they have more money. Even without the economy just look at the cult of the leader, propaganda, dictatorship, 1 man controlling everything, freedom of speech, gulags/camps.

[trumpman]

 

[star7dust]

But they were nazis at first place. Who cares about all the rest?

[iluvbitcoins]

But they were nazis at first place. Who cares about all the rest?

Nazi is a made up term in recent time.
They are and were National Socialists.

[Oxstone]

You already explained why Nazis aren't socialists.

You said Socialism is the collective control of large scale production.

Was there a collective control of large scale production under Nazis rule?

Answer is no. Thus they are not socialists.

I don't understand why you're not even seeing your own contradiction honestly Oo

[iluvbitcoins]

You already explained why Nazis aren't socialists.

You said Socialism is the collective control of large scale production.

Was there a collective control of large scale production under Nazis rule?

Answer is no. Thus they are not socialists.

I don't understand why you're not even seeing your own contradiction honestly Oo

Read this

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 was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

[iluvbitcoins]

The Socialists Leave the NSDAP!

https://www.docdroid.net/ChqmXJB/the-socialists-leave-the-nsdap.pdf

-----


Internationalsocialists and Nationalsocialists divide Europe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-J_SLcBJL4&feature=emb_title

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYc7wZEmo-0&feature=emb_title

Notes from the videos:
Communists offers a secret deal to National Socialist Germany for a division of Europe
They split Poland. USSR takes Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
Roosevelt considers USSR an Axis power
USSRs population is starving but they're sending grain and supplies to National Socialist Germany
Communists and National Socialists drink together
It's a crime to be against National Socialism in the USSR
Communists round up the Jews and deliver them to Hitler

[squatz1]

But they were nazis at first place. Who cares about all the rest?

Nazi is a made up term in recent time.
They are and were National Socialists.

I don't think the name is a good point of evidence to be using. I wouldn't say that the North Korean Government is democratic because their official name is 'Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea' Nothing about them is democratic nor for the people. Same thing with China I'm pretty sure.

The Nazis wanted to redefine Socialism, as I said before, they wanted to build a new system around the term socialism -- which was practically authoritarianism with private ownership, though you still had to work with the government or you'd be fucked -- think of something like China, which I think is a pretty good example of such government.

They're not socialists.

[TECSHARE]

But they were nazis at first place. Who cares about all the rest?

Nazi is a made up term in recent time.
They are and were National Socialists.

I don't think the name is a good point of evidence to be using. I wouldn't say that the North Korean Government is democratic because their official name is 'Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea' Nothing about them is democratic nor for the people. Same thing with China I'm pretty sure.

The Nazis wanted to redefine Socialism, as I said before, they wanted to build a new system around the term socialism -- which was practically authoritarianism with private ownership, though you still had to work with the government or you'd be fucked -- think of something like China, which I think is a pretty good example of such government.

They're not socialists.

Look at Squatz parroting Captain Postmodern talking points over here. Careful, next you will be telling me true Communism has never been tried because all the other times they tried it turned out to be massive genocidal failures.

[KingScorpio]

However, they were socialists and openly advocated for socialism, just not the Marx type of socialism. They were building their own.
He's not the only socialist on the planet, he's just the one who inspired communism.

Ok then maybe put your definition of socialism then.

Because talking about a socialism "but not the one of Marx" would actually make the stupid argument "that was not real socialism" a valid argument you understand that?

Marx defined socialism, anyone talking today about socialism refers to Marx's idea. It's only logical to assume that when you use a word you use the most widely spread meaning of the word and not an obscure definition used 100 years ago.

Maybe that with your definition of socialism Nazis could be considered socialists, who knows?

No, socialism is collective control of large-scale production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marx_socialists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#Origins_of_socialism

So, one of the big reasons that Hitler had referred to this as Socialism was an attempt to sway working class voters (a large part of the German voting bloc) to his camp. As said above, the most popular socialist thinkers had been from Germany.

One could say the same about nationalism.
One of the big reasons that Hitler had referred to this as Nationalist was an attempt to sway WW1 veterans to his camp.
Which is true as well, but doesn't change the fact he was a nationalist and that the party was indeed socialist.

not just racist,

racist and nationalist.

but the questions is what are you what is the alternative?

enslaving yourself to the financial elite of the british empire?

shall the entire world be enslaved to royalty and a banking cartel?

what do you want?

I want free markets.

americans dont want free market, they want to sell their money,  they wouldn't therwise protest and sanction of europe buying much more competitive gas from russia, or products from china

[squatz1]

But they were nazis at first place. Who cares about all the rest?

Nazi is a made up term in recent time.
They are and were National Socialists.

I don't think the name is a good point of evidence to be using. I wouldn't say that the North Korean Government is democratic because their official name is 'Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea' Nothing about them is democratic nor for the people. Same thing with China I'm pretty sure.

The Nazis wanted to redefine Socialism, as I said before, they wanted to build a new system around the term socialism -- which was practically authoritarianism with private ownership, though you still had to work with the government or you'd be fucked -- think of something like China, which I think is a pretty good example of such government.

They're not socialists.

Look at Squatz parroting Captain Postmodern talking points over here. Careful, next you will be telling me true Communism has never been tried because all the other times they tried it turned out to be massive genocidal failures.

Heh.

I'm not one of those people that's going to argue that Venezuela isn't Socialism or anything along those lines. Or to say that the USSR isn't Communism. All of the tries of true socialism in the world have ended in the deaths of millions.

But it's just wrong to say that Nazis are socialist, because they aren't.

[Balthazar]

Or to say that the USSR isn't Communism.

USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Not Union of Soviet Communist Republics which, by definition of communism itself, would be oxymoron.

[tsaroz]

Socialists is a vague word. In a broad sense every modern government are socialist.
Socialism differs from communism basically in the matter of ownership and religion.
Nazi party was certainly a socialist party by work, Volkswagen is an example of the government delivering for the welfare of people.

[TECSHARE]

Heh.

I'm not one of those people that's going to argue that Venezuela isn't Socialism or anything along those lines. Or to say that the USSR isn't Communism. All of the tries of true socialism in the world have ended in the deaths of millions.

But it's just wrong to say that Nazis are socialist, because they aren't.

Yet that is literally the exact same argument you are making, also known as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

[coins4commies]

Its almost as if every country is different and no two governments are identical even if they share one word in their name. Bizarre!

[KingScorpio]

Party principles of the German Workers Party from 1913.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53314721#msg53314721

Party principles of the National Socialist Workers Party from 1918. (DAP changed their name to NSDAP)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53319034#msg53319034

Party principles from the first National Socialist party in the Reich (from 1918.)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53323636#msg53323636

Strasser program
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53326816#msg53326816

Some random quotes
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53323521#msg53323521

Note:
Edited some of these posts moving my replies downwards so it would be easier to read through the OP.

there is fundamentally no difference between a party and a religious nobility both are oligarchies ruling the masses over the sphere they claim of.

[Oxstone]

You already explained why Nazis aren't socialists.

You said Socialism is the collective control of large scale production.

Was there a collective control of large scale production under Nazis rule?

Answer is no. Thus they are not socialists.

I don't understand why you're not even seeing your own contradiction honestly Oo

Read this

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 was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

Exactly. And who was "the German government" under the Nazis?

Were they the people? Was it the population?

No, the government was Adolf Hitler and anyone he gave power to. The means of production were not collectively controlled they were controlled by one man.

That's not collective control of means of production hence not socialism.

[Balthazar]

Exactly. And who was "the German government" under the Nazis?

Were they the people? Was it the population?

<...>

There is another funny catch in such kind of statements. Any country, including the USA, has a set of special legislations for major disasters, e.g. like being in a state of war with powerful enemy. These laws are usually authorizing the government to expropriate any wortly assets in case if that is required to either achieve advantage over the enemy or save lives.

So, considering his own words, it seems like iluvbitcoins truly believes that US was a socialist country during the civil war and Abraham Lincoln was serving as its Führer. I suppose there is no need to make any extended comment for such a nonsense.

[TECSHARE]

Funny how to socialists, socialism is a seemingly amorphous term changed to fit the needs of any specific scenario needed, not being socialism any time it fails, and being socialism any time something positive is accomplished.

[Oxstone]

Funny how to socialists, socialism is a seemingly amorphous term changed to fit the needs of any specific scenario needed, not being socialism any time it fails, and being socialism any time something positive is accomplished.

How so?

Never changed the definition of the term.

Socialism is when you have a society where means of productions are collectively possessed.

That's all. I don't see a debate here. Only you and iluvbitcoin trying to fit the Nazis inside this definition, which is obviously difficult yeah ^^

[TECSHARE]

Funny how to socialists, socialism is a seemingly amorphous term changed to fit the needs of any specific scenario needed, not being socialism any time it fails, and being socialism any time something positive is accomplished.

How so?

Never changed the definition of the term.

Socialism is when you have a society where means of productions are collectively possessed.

That's all. I don't see a debate here. Only you and iluvbitcoin trying to fit the Nazis inside this definition, which is obviously difficult yeah ^^

Good of you to unilaterally declare there is no debate. It is amazing that no matter how many times socialism tried to acheive this goal of "collective possession of production" and fails, the failure itself is touted as the justification of why it is not socialism. Socialism is nothing but a means to the end of totalitarianism. Your naive fantasies of collectivization are nothing but a conduit for delivering dictatorship as is inevitably the result any time socialism is tried, every moment in between touted as the success of socialism while its failures are never socialism. By your own metric the USSR was socialism. Mao's China was socialism. Shit, even China today is socialism according to this metric. Socialists are relativist retards who have no actual principles but the ones that sound good in any given argument, because they believe the ends justifies the means of their utter bullshit.

[iluvbitcoins]

Heh.

I'm not one of those people that's going to argue that Venezuela isn't Socialism or anything along those lines. Or to say that the USSR isn't Communism. All of the tries of true socialism in the world have ended in the deaths of millions.

But it's just wrong to say that Nazis are socialist, because they aren't.

Do you have any argumentation behind those words?

Socialists is a vague word. In a broad sense every modern government are socialist.
Socialism differs from communism basically in the matter of ownership and religion.
Nazi party was certainly a socialist party by work, Volkswagen is an example of the government delivering for the welfare of people.

Today all western countries employ a model which is best described with a term 'mixed-economy'. We use the private market with a heavy usage of wellfare programs and goverment redistribution through taxation. It's a mix of socialism and capitalism. Countries run on the market and use it to run some of those programs.

Its almost as if every country is different and no two governments are identical even if they share one word in their name. Bizarre!

They were a lot more simmilar than we were taught.

You already explained why Nazis aren't socialists.

You said Socialism is the collective control of large scale production.

Was there a collective control of large scale production under Nazis rule?

Answer is no. Thus they are not socialists.

I don't understand why you're not even seeing your own contradiction honestly Oo

Read this

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 was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

Exactly. And who was "the German government" under the Nazis?

Were they the people? Was it the population?

No, the government was Adolf Hitler and anyone he gave power to. The means of production were not collectively controlled they were controlled by one man.

That's not collective control of means of production hence not socialism.

By that sort of reasoning the USSR wasn't socialism, China wasn't socialism, Cambodia wasn't socialism, Albania wasn't socialism, Cuba wasn't socialism, 0 countries in the world had socialism.
Which country would you describe as socialist?

Exactly. And who was "the German government" under the Nazis?

Were they the people? Was it the population?

<...>

There is another funny catch in such kind of statements. Any country, including the USA, has a set of special legislations for major disasters, e.g. like being in a state of war with powerful enemy. These laws are usually authorizing the government to expropriate any wortly assets in case if that is required to either achieve advantage over the enemy or save lives.

So, considering his own words, it seems like iluvbitcoins truly believes that US was a socialist country during the civil war and Abraham Lincoln was serving as its Führer. I suppose there is no need to make any extended comment for such a nonsense.

We live in capitalist countries that employ lots of socialist policies, but in the major pictures most of the country is run by the private market.
We're a mixed economy, and so is the case with the event you described.

[iluvbitcoins]

"In these sad times it is exceptionally comforting to see many Parisian workers talking to German soldiers as friends, in the street or at the corner café. Well done, comrades, and keep it up, even if it displeases some of the middle classes - as stupid as they are mischevious. The brotherhood of man will not remain forever a hope: it will become a living reality."

-L'Huminaté, 4 July 1940.

Source: The Lost Literature of Socialism by scholar and historian George G. Watson
L'Huminaté was the newspaper of the French Communist Party. Interestingly the paper still exists, formally independent but still closely tied to the Party.

The Times adopted a term Communazi to referr to the USSR and National Socialist Germany.

Facists given Istria, Zadar, Cres, Lošinj, Lastovo, Palagruža by the Treaty of Rapallo - 12th November 1920
Independent State of Croatia (facist) formed - 10th April 1941
National Socialists invade USSR - 22nd June 1941
1st partisan units formed in Croatia - 22nd June 1941

It's odd how those dates add up. It's almost as if they were okay with National Socialism until the nazis invaded USSR.

Another interesting thing to note is that Staljin ignored all warnings he received about the incoming German invasion until it hit them.
He had complete trust in Hitler.

After Hitler eliminated Strasser, Staljin said something along the lines "It's wonderful how that man deals with his opposition".
I believe he admired him.

[Oxstone]

By that sort of reasoning the USSR wasn't socialism, China wasn't socialism, Cambodia wasn't socialism, Albania wasn't socialism, Cuba wasn't socialism, 0 countries in the world had socialism.
Which country would you describe as socialist?

None, that's more or less the point you know?

What's funny is people making fun of the argument "it's not real socialism" while it's not the argument at all, the argument is "it's a dictatorship, not socialism".

And what's even funnier is to see people like you or TECSHARE giving a definition of socialism, not being able to apply this definition to said country and still wanting to put the word socialism on it xD

That's not difficult science, you have a definition with precise criterias, you apply it to a situation and see if the situation fits the definition.

What is socialism? Collectivisation of means of production, it means the factories (at least) are owned and controlled by the population.

Was it the case in USSR? Is it the case in China? Or in Nazi Germany?

No.

So those countries are not socialist countries unless you have another definition of socialism. But contrary to what TECSHARE is lying about, I'm not the one with a bizarre definition of socialism, you were the one giving this definition.

After Hitler eliminated Strasser, Staljin said something along the lines "It's wonderful how that man deals with his opposition".
I believe he admired him.

Wahou, a dictator admiring another dictatore, that must mean they are both dictators no?

[iluvbitcoins]

By that sort of reasoning the USSR wasn't socialism, China wasn't socialism, Cambodia wasn't socialism, Albania wasn't socialism, Cuba wasn't socialism, 0 countries in the world had socialism.
Which country would you describe as socialist?

None, that's more or less the point you know?

What's funny is people making fun of the argument "it's not real socialism" while it's not the argument at all, the argument is "it's a dictatorship, not socialism".

And what's even funnier is to see people like you or TECSHARE giving a definition of socialism, not being able to apply this definition to said country and still wanting to put the word socialism on it xD

That's not difficult science, you have a definition with precise criterias, you apply it to a situation and see if the situation fits the definition.

What is socialism? Collectivisation of means of production, it means the factories (at least) are owned and controlled by the population.

Was it the case in USSR? Is it the case in China? Or in Nazi Germany?

No.

So those countries are not socialist countries unless you have another definition of socialism. But contrary to what TECSHARE is lying about, I'm not the one with a bizarre definition of socialism, you were the one giving this definition.

After Hitler eliminated Strasser, Staljin said something along the lines "It's wonderful how that man deals with his opposition".
I believe he admired him.

Wahou, a dictator admiring another dictatore, that must mean they are both dictators no?

They did collectively control the economy, what the hell are you on about?
Even if for some bizarre reason countries that collectively control the economy from a central entity aren't socialist the leaders actively wanted to implement socialism and each time they tried, it resulted in mass deaths.

So, if a hundred leaders throughout the world call themselves socialist and fail to build your perfect version of socialism, how do we know anyone who calls himself socialist is actually going to create that utopia? If every single person who tried it failed already. We don't have 1 example. We have a 100.

It's bizzare how people are going to call Norway socialist because of it's healthcare but USSR is apparently not socialist hahah

[KingScorpio]

if nazis where socialists, why did they attack other socialists then?

or in other words,

nazis might rather be capitalists, since they tried to capitalise themselves on the territory they seeked to controll.

people that strive and want power, cant tolerate others that strive and want power next to them.

additonally you have to understand there are also capitalists in communism/socialism

[iluvbitcoins]

if nazis where socialists, why did they attack other socialists then?

or in other words,

nazis might rather be capitalists, since they tried to capitalise themselves on the territory they seeked to controll.

people that strive and want power, cant tolerate others that strive and want power next to them.

additonally you have to understand there are also capitalists in communism/socialism

If Russia is capitalist why did it invade Ukraine?
If Serbia is capitalist why did it invade Kosovo?
If Austria-Hungary is a monarchy why did it invade Serbia?
National Socialists didn't produce nearly enough oil and needed the oil fields in Ukraine and the Caucuses to power their war machine.
After the Soviets eliminated half of their generals in the purges,  their military was terrible. The most capable were killed.
Hitler saw how weak the Soviet army was in their invasion of Finland.
They suffered terrible defeats at the hands of a few Finns. He considered the resource rich region to be easy pray, especially after he absolutely destroyed Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia with their new blitzkrieg type of warfare. Entire countries crumbled in less then 2 weeks.

nazis might rather be capitalists, since they tried to capitalise themselves on the territory they seeked to controll.

That literally doesn't make any sense. Capitalism is a voluntarly system of cooperation between consenting individuals.
There's nothing voluntaristic here. It's  implication of force. Statism.

[KingScorpio]

if nazis where socialists, why did they attack other socialists then?

or in other words,

nazis might rather be capitalists, since they tried to capitalise themselves on the territory they seeked to controll.

people that strive and want power, cant tolerate others that strive and want power next to them.

additonally you have to understand there are also capitalists in communism/socialism

If Russia is capitalist why did it invade Ukraine?
If Serbia is capitalist why did it invade Kosovo?
If Austria-Hungary is a monarchy why did it invade Serbia?
National Socialists didn't produce nearly enough oil and needed the oil fields in Ukraine and the Caucuses to power their war machine.
After the Soviets eliminated half of their generals in the purges,  their military was terrible. The most capable were killed.
Hitler saw how weak the Soviet army was in their invasion of Finland.
They suffered terrible defeats at the hands of a few Finns. He considered the resource rich region to be easy pray, especially after he absolutely destroyed Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia with their new blitzkrieg type of warfare. Entire countries crumbled in less then 2 weeks.

nazis might rather be capitalists, since they tried to capitalise themselves on the territory they seeked to controll.

That literally doesn't make any sense. Capitalism is a voluntarly system of cooperation between consenting individuals.
There's nothing voluntaristic here. It's  implication of force. Statism.

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.

[iluvbitcoins]

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 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.

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

[KingScorpio]

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 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.

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.

Those are not capitalists, they are statists.
They didn't earn that money, it's not their money.
It's money they got through taxation from their subjects.

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

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.

[iluvbitcoins]

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.

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.

[KingScorpio]

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.

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.

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

[iluvbitcoins]

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

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.

[KingScorpio]

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

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.

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

[TECSHARE]

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

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.

[Oxstone]

They did collectively control the economy, what the hell are you on about?

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?

[TECSHARE]

They did collectively control the economy, what the hell are you on about?

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?

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.

[iluvbitcoins]

They did collectively control the economy, what the hell are you on about?

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 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

[Oxstone]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

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.

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

[Oxstone]

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

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!

[TECSHARE]

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

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!

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.

[Oxstone]

Socialism = collectivization of production (your definition) iluvbitcoins' 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.

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.

[iluvbitcoins]

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.

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?

[TECSHARE]

Socialism = collectivization of production (your definition) iluvbitcoins' 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.

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.

No, your definition.

What is socialism? Collectivisation of means of production, it means the factories (at least) are owned and controlled by the population.

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.

[KingScorpio]

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

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.

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

[Oxstone]

No, your definition.

What is socialism? Collectivisation of means of production, it means the factories (at least) are owned and controlled by the population.

Tell me some more about how you aren't incoherent when you can't even remember what you said yesterday.

Again, not my definition:

No, socialism is collective control of large-scale production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marx_socialists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#Origins_of_socialism

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.

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.

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?

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.

[iluvbitcoins]

Which of the countries you've written talked like this?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53319034#msg53319034
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53314721#msg53314721

Which country was giving quotas on production, price controls, deciding what's supposed to be produced, how much of it and when, nationalized entities, dissolved companies, forbade farm selling, eliminated importing, had wage controls and made it impossible to fire someone, controlled and decided who works&where for how much?


Farms up to 308 acres could not be sold, divided, mortgaged or foreclosed on for debt.
Reich Food Estate was established to regulate the conditions and production of the farmers.

In 1936, Göring's Four Year Plan was inaugurated. Protectionism was decreed and autarchy the desire-the so-called "Battle of Production." Consumer imports were nearly eliminated, price and wage controls were enacted, and vast state projects were built to manufacture raw materials.

All employment was under the exclusive control of government employment offices which determined who would work where and for how much. And on June 22, 1938, the Office of the Four Year Plan instituted guaranteed employment by conscripting labor. Every German worker was assigned a position from which he could not be released by the employer, nor could he switch jobs, without permission of the government employment office. Worker absenteeism was met with fines or imprisonment-all in the name of job security. A popular Nazi slogan at the time was "the Common Interest before Self"!

Corporations below a capitalization of $40,000 were dissolved and the founding of any below a capitalization of $2,000,000 was forbidden, which wiped out a fifth of all German businesses.

Private firearms were outlawed and confiscated

--------
You didn't answer me again. Tell me which country had socialism or has real socialism never been tried?

[Oxstone]

Which of the countries you've written talked like this?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53319034#msg53319034
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53314721#msg53314721

Which country was giving quotas on production, price controls, deciding what's supposed to be produced, how much of it and when, nationalized entities, dissolved companies, forbade farm selling, eliminated importing, had wage controls and made it impossible to fire someone, controlled and decided who works&where for how much?


Farms up to 308 acres could not be sold, divided, mortgaged or foreclosed on for debt.
Reich Food Estate was established to regulate the conditions and production of the farmers.

In 1936, Göring's Four Year Plan was inaugurated. Protectionism was decreed and autarchy the desire-the so-called "Battle of Production." Consumer imports were nearly eliminated, price and wage controls were enacted, and vast state projects were built to manufacture raw materials.

All employment was under the exclusive control of government employment offices which determined who would work where and for how much. And on June 22, 1938, the Office of the Four Year Plan instituted guaranteed employment by conscripting labor. Every German worker was assigned a position from which he could not be released by the employer, nor could he switch jobs, without permission of the government employment office. Worker absenteeism was met with fines or imprisonment-all in the name of job security. A popular Nazi slogan at the time was "the Common Interest before Self"!

Corporations below a capitalization of $40,000 were dissolved and the founding of any below a capitalization of $2,000,000 was forbidden, which wiped out a fifth of all German businesses.

Private firearms were outlawed and confiscated

You're making one huge appeal to emotions here by making an enumerations of very specific facts, too specific. No other country has ever done this, not even USSR. Here if being a socialist country would mean all of this was true, then ONLY Nazi Germany would have been socialist. You see my point?

You're trying to put one single word on the broad concept of "government is heavily intervening in the economy". That's not possible or at least, that's not really usefull.

--------
You didn't answer me again. Tell me which country had socialism or has real socialism never been tried?

Sorry the answer didn't fit well in the last post.

No country has implemented a 100% socialist system I believe but it's the same for capitalism, no country is 100% capitalism and free market.

France is a good example with whole parts of the economy being totally socialist. The retirement and health systems were (they got nearly completely destroyed in the last two decades) under the direct control of the unions, which is MUCH CLOSER to direct control because we had hundreds of different unions all very locally implemented and managed. The results were extremely successfull because France had (still has in fact but things are changing) one of the best healthcare system in the world and one of the lowest poverty level of retired people while dedicating a very small part of its wealth to it. (for the healthcare it's 10% of GDP against 15% of GDP in a capitalist system like USA if I remember correctly).

Now with modern technology it would probably be possible to go even one step further in socialism by putting parts of the economy not under the control of the unions but directly under the control of the people, and blockchain could be a part of this.

So that's a good example of socialism. Until the last presidents, we had an important part of the economy that was not in the free market, but neither under the control of the executive government. It was owned by the unions which were owned by the people directly. Can we get rid of the unions and go for direct control? I'd say so.

Edit: I'd like to make my auto critic (very communist behaviour :p ) by saying that I'm not trying to say socialist is awesome here. You asked for an example and I gave you the French one, discussing the result would be discussing how effective capitalism/socialism can be and it's not the subject. Socialism has pros and cons and so has capitalism (mainly a question of freedom against justice). But socialism is a very specific social organization that has been experimented in just a few situations. Still, lots of people are doing exactly what you are saying here, and calling "socialist" what are simply dictatorships. In a dictatorship the government owns everything yes, but the government is one man, not the people.

[iluvbitcoins]

You're making one huge appeal to emotions here by making an enumerations of very specific facts, too specific. No other country has ever done this, not even USSR. Here if being a socialist country would mean all of this was true, then ONLY Nazi Germany would have been socialist. You see my point?

You're trying to put one single word on the broad concept of "government is heavily intervening in the economy". That's not possible or at least, that's not really usefull.

--------
You didn't answer me again. Tell me which country had socialism or has real socialism never been tried?

Sorry the answer didn't fit well in the last post.

No country has implemented a 100% socialist system I believe but it's the same for capitalism, no country is 100% capitalism and free market.

France is a good example with whole parts of the economy being totally socialist. The retirement and health systems were (they got nearly completely destroyed in the last two decades) under the direct control of the unions, which is MUCH CLOSER to direct control because we had hundreds of different unions all very locally implemented and managed. The results were extremely successfull because France had (still has in fact but things are changing) one of the best healthcare system in the world and one of the lowest poverty level of retired people while dedicating a very small part of its wealth to it. (for the healthcare it's 10% of GDP against 15% of GDP in a capitalist system like USA if I remember correctly).

Now with modern technology it would probably be possible to go even one step further in socialism by putting parts of the economy not under the control of the unions but directly under the control of the people, and blockchain could be a part of this.

So that's a good example of socialism. Until the last presidents, we had an important part of the economy that was not in the free market, but neither under the control of the executive government. It was owned by the unions which were owned by the people directly. Can we get rid of the unions and go for direct control? I'd say so.

Edit: I'd like to make my auto critic (very communist behaviour :p ) by saying that I'm not trying to say socialist is awesome here. You asked for an example and I gave you the French one, discussing the result would be discussing how effective capitalism/socialism can be and it's not the subject. Socialism has pros and cons and so has capitalism (mainly a question of freedom against justice). But socialism is a very specific social organization that has been experimented in just a few situations. Still, lots of people are doing exactly what you are saying here, and calling "socialist" what are simply dictatorships. In a dictatorship the government owns everything yes, but the government is one man, not the people.

How are facts about the National Socialist goverment controlling the market and the companies an appeal to emotion? It's stating facts.
No other country needs to do any of it. We already said that socialism is the collective control of the means of production.
I wrote lots of examples in which the National Socialists controlled them. They decided how many of what was produced, who worked and how long, and how much he was paid.
The USSR didn't have collective control of production? They did, hence they're socialist.

France today is socialist but National Socialist Germany isn't?  
They literally controlled the whole fucking economy.
France has an almost completely free market.

[Oxstone]

How are facts about the National Socialist goverment controlling the market and the companies an appeal to emotion? It's stating facts.
No other country needs to do any of it. We already said that socialism is the collective control of the means of production.
I wrote lots of examples in which the National Socialists controlled them. They decided how many of what was produced, who worked and how long, and how much he was paid.
The USSR didn't have collective control of production? They did, hence they're socialist.

France today is socialist but National Socialist Germany isn't?  
They literally controlled the whole fucking economy.
France has an almost completely free market.

Please, can you try to read with the least amount of bias what I've written? I understand that you don't like socialism and it's fine, I'm just trying to show you that your definition of socialism isn't very useful because it applies either to nearly every country or to none of them that's all.

I don't want to fight here, I try to have a civil debate over an important social idea.

If I sum up what you've said until now, for you a country is "socialist" when the government controls parts of the economy directly.

The problem is that by this definition, nearly all countries in the world CURRENTLY have such government.

So it's not a very useful definition because it designates a group far too wide of countries and societies. What's the point of a word that can qualify at the same time Iran, France and China?

I'm trying to tell you that socialism wasn't defined by Marx as a society where GOVERNMENT owns parts of the economy but where PEOPLE own parts of the economy.

And it's not the "real socialism hasn't been tried" argument because it HAS BEEN TRIED. It was the case until very recently in France.

And by this definition, Nazis were not socialist, they were just a dictatorship.


Can you at least agree with me that if your definition of socialism is "when government owns parts of the economy" then EVERY DICTATORSHIP is socialist. Which, again, makes the word quite useless.

[Negotiation]

The Nazis were not socialists They fight against the community and try to improve it They did not try to run any initiative privately. Generally speaking of socialist God, God maintains opposition between them This is usually the case with religion Those who are anti-social work are socialist They all work in a destructive way

[iluvbitcoins]

Please, can you try to read with the least amount of bias what I've written? I understand that you don't like socialism and it's fine, I'm just trying to show you that your definition of socialism isn't very useful because it applies either to nearly every country or to none of them that's all.

I don't want to fight here, I try to have a civil debate over an important social idea.

If I sum up what you've said until now, for you a country is "socialist" when the government controls parts of the economy directly.

The problem is that by this definition, nearly all countries in the world CURRENTLY have such government.

So it's not a very useful definition because it designates a group far too wide of countries and societies. What's the point of a word that can qualify at the same time Iran, France and China?

I'm trying to tell you that socialism wasn't defined by Marx as a society where GOVERNMENT owns parts of the economy but where PEOPLE own parts of the economy.

And it's not the "real socialism hasn't been tried" argument because it HAS BEEN TRIED. It was the case until very recently in France.

And by this definition, Nazis were not socialist, they were just a dictatorship.


Can you at least agree with me that if your definition of socialism is "when government owns parts of the economy" then EVERY DICTATORSHIP is socialist. Which, again, makes the word quite useless.

How do France,Iran and China control their economies?
They do not decide who works where, how much he gets paid, how much you can produce, they don't nationalize companies, it's all decided individually unlike in National Socialist Germany where the party decides that.

Socialism existed before Marx.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marx_socialists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#Origins_of_socialism

It's not "my" definition, it's the definition
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp

[Oxstone]

they don't nationalize companies, it's all decided individually unlike in National Socialist Germany where the party decides that.

Aaaaaaaaaaah ok I see. The problem is that you have absolutely no idea of how the rest of the world works. So you don't see the problem because you're not even aware that the rest of the world is not USA. That in lots of countries, government and public groups directly control huge parts of the economy.

Well I would be glad to explain you how in France 40% of the GDP is not controlled by private companies for example (it was 60% 40 years ago) but you're not only uneducated, like TECHSHARE you like to insult people you discuss with and don't really read them (I've made the difference between nationalisation and proletariat controlled pretty clear I believe).

So please, stay in your world where socialism has only one definition (polysemic isn't real sure) and the whole world is identical to USA.

[iluvbitcoins]

they don't nationalize companies, it's all decided individually unlike in National Socialist Germany where the party decides that.

Aaaaaaaaaaah ok I see. The problem is that you have absolutely no idea of how the rest of the world works. So you don't see the problem because you're not even aware that the rest of the world is not USA. That in lots of countries, government and public groups directly control huge parts of the economy.

Well I would be glad to explain you how in France 40% of the GDP is not controlled by private companies for example (it was 60% 40 years ago) but you're not only uneducated, like TECHSHARE you like to insult people you discuss with and don't really read them (I've made the difference between nationalisation and proletariat controlled pretty clear I believe).

So please, stay in your world where socialism has only one definition (polysemic isn't real sure) and the whole world is identical to USA.

1. I'm from Croatia, not USA.
2. Quote the part where I've insulted you.
3. Having a taxpayer funded education system or taxpayer funded healthcare is not "controlling" the economy, that's taking part in it.
When you can pick workers and managers in companies then you control the economy.
4. Proleteriat controlled can exist in capitalism as long as it's voluntary.

What's your definition of socialism?
I still don't understand how France is socialism but National Socialist Germany isn't.

[Oxstone]

2. Quote the part where I've insulted you.

Hard to do once you've edited your post.

You don't understand because you don't read. France nationalized healthcare, education, transports, energy and military industry by force plus some heavy industries like cars (not just the funds, the workers are picked by either the government or the unions/public organization). Now only parts of this remain that's why I say it went from 60% to 40%.

And if you haven't understood the difference between government control and proletariat control I don't see what I can add to this debate.

[KingScorpio]

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

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.

thats because stalin was in power, the king also puts his fellow citizens into slavish work, in the west instead of stalin there is the masonic banking cartel, and they are having everyone else being their salary/wage slaves.

thats how life is. majority of people dont have power they have to give power to others.

regards

[TECSHARE]

No, your definition.

What is socialism? Collectivisation of means of production, it means the factories (at least) are owned and controlled by the population.

Tell me some more about how you aren't incoherent when you can't even remember what you said yesterday.

Again, not my definition:

No, socialism is collective control of large-scale production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marx_socialists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#Origins_of_socialism

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.

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.

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?

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.

I see, so some one else said it first, therefore you didn't say it. You keep speaking as if collective control by the "proletariat" is achievable and will not be subject to all of the exact same flaws that collectivism under the government is subject to. This is what I mean by socialists having constantly shifting definitions. You just imagine a world where all your imaginary dreams work perfectly, then rename it something other than what exists in reality, then boom, "real socialism" is something other than the horrible genocidal failure it always is.

[coins4commies]

This is how system design works.  Old versions of the telephone are still telephones but new telephones do not share all of their flaws.   We keep redefining because we keep improving upon previous designs.  100 years from now, it will have shifted again based on the failures of the 21st century. 

[TECSHARE]

This is how system design works.  Old versions of the telephone are still telephones but new telephones do not share all of their flaws.   We keep redefining because we keep improving upon previous designs.  100 years from now, it will have shifted again based on the failures of the 21st century. 

Like I said, fantasies and imagination. You aren't actually addressing any of these flaws just imagining a future where they are magically solved.

[coins4commies]

Of course we are.  We look at why things failed in the past and adjust the system to avoid that happening again.  Just like with vehicles.  When a vehicle crashes, NTSB doesn't ban all travel from all vehicles.  They do an investigation and then, if need be, they adjust standards and regulations to prevent those failures from occurring again in the future.  Then, other things fail, more people die, and they repeat the process.  All while travel becomes more and more safe. 

What you want to do is narrowly focus on the failures in order to prevent progress.  You want us to "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

[BADecker]

When you hear about all the plays and concerts the Nazi's went to, you realize they were socialites, not socialists.

 

[KingScorpio]

When you hear about all the plays and concerts the Nazi's went to, you realize they were socialites, not socialists.

 

what is the difference between a gazi and a nazi?

the gazi is a geographic socialists, and a nazi is a lingual or even a racial socialist.

[BADecker]

When you hear about all the plays and concerts the Nazi's went to, you realize they were socialites, not socialists.

 

what is the difference between a gazi and a nazi?

the gazi is a geographic socialists, and a nazi is a lingual or even a racial socialist.

But what is a geographic socialite?     

[KingScorpio]

When you hear about all the plays and concerts the Nazi's went to, you realize they were socialites, not socialists.

 

what is the difference between a gazi and a nazi?

the gazi is a geographic socialists, and a nazi is a lingual or even a racial socialist.

But what is a geographic socialite?     

a nazi fights for the interests of people understanding his national langauge,

a gazi fights for the interests of people fighting in his region.

[Oxstone]

I see, so some one else said it first, therefore you didn't say it. You keep speaking as if collective control by the "proletariat" is achievable and will not be subject to all of the exact same flaws that collectivism under the government is subject to. This is what I mean by socialists having constantly shifting definitions. Ydu just imagine a world where all your imaginary dreams work perfectly, then rename it something other than what exists in reality, then boom, "real socialism" is something other than the horrible genocidal failure it always is.

What do you want me to do against such amount of bad faith?

Someone else gives his definition of socialism and it becomes mine.
Somehow me explaining the difference between direct control and centralized control isn't taken into account.

Dude just speak to a mirror it will be easier xD

I'd say anyone with a brain understood the difference between nationalization and proletariat controlled and I even gave real world example, if you can't read I can't do anything for you because it's a forum so the base of everything is your ability to read.

So read it all again, see that I asked Iluvbitcoins his definition and started the discussion with this, see the example of real world proletariat direct control... And maybe see that you can think by yourself a little bit rather than just preaching "socialism is bad and genocide and horrible and worst that Satan himself on earth" like some cult member

[TECSHARE]

I see, so some one else said it first, therefore you didn't say it. You keep speaking as if collective control by the "proletariat" is achievable and will not be subject to all of the exact same flaws that collectivism under the government is subject to. This is what I mean by socialists having constantly shifting definitions. Ydu just imagine a world where all your imaginary dreams work perfectly, then rename it something other than what exists in reality, then boom, "real socialism" is something other than the horrible genocidal failure it always is.

What do you want me to do against such amount of bad faith?

Someone else gives his definition of socialism and it becomes mine.
Somehow me explaining the difference between direct control and centralized control isn't taken into account.

Dude just speak to a mirror it will be easier xD

I'd say anyone with a brain understood the difference between nationalization and proletariat controlled and I even gave real world example, if you can't read I can't do anything for you because it's a forum so the base of everything is your ability to read.

So read it all again, see that I asked Iluvbitcoins his definition and started the discussion with this, see the example of real world proletariat direct control... And maybe see that you can think by yourself a little bit rather than just preaching "socialism is bad and genocide and horrible and worst that Satan himself on earth" like some cult member

"direct control" = centralization
collectivization = centralization
You know what the difference between collectivization run by "government" and by the "proletariat" is? Nothing, they are both run by individual humans with all the same flaws. You gave the definition of socialism, and there is no difference between what you are describing and past failures. "Direct control" is imaginary and a marketing point, not a possible reality, that is until we all get uploaded into the matrix and can use our brains to collectively administer our world. Until that time any collectivization is equivalent to centralization under the government. Yes, a cult member, because cult members are notorious for being against collectives aren't they?

[Oxstone]

"direct control" = centralization

WTF? you kidding right?

Direct control by the population is the DEFINITION of decentralization! Stop talking please, just buy a dictionnary and come back after!!!

[TECSHARE]

"direct control" = centralization

WTF? you kidding right?

Direct control by the population is the DEFINITION of decentralization! Stop talking please, just buy a dictionnary and come back after!!!

Yet this magical unexplained control system still only exists in your mind and not in reality. You keep shifting definitions all you like. Decentralized collectivization is an oxymoron.

[Oxstone]

"direct control" = centralization

WTF? you kidding right?

Direct control by the population is the DEFINITION of decentralization! Stop talking please, just buy a dictionnary and come back after!!!

Yet this magical unexplained control system still only exists in your mind and not in reality. You keep shifting definitions all you like. Decentralized collectivization is an oxymoron.

Yes I've never gave the example of the French unions controlling heavy parts of the industry and the whole healthcare and retirement system until 1995.

I'm tired of you and your inability to read. Stay in your ignorance, keep thinking free market is the only possibility in the world.

[TECSHARE]

Yes I've never gave the example of the French unions controlling heavy parts of the industry and the whole healthcare and retirement system until 1995.

I'm tired of you and your inability to read. Stay in your ignorance, keep thinking free market is the only possibility in the world.

So now unions are not centralized organizations are they? Keep shifting those definitions each time flaws in your argument are pointed out, clearly it is working well for you.

[Oxstone]

Yes I've never gave the example of the French unions controlling heavy parts of the industry and the whole healthcare and retirement system until 1995.

I'm tired of you and your inability to read. Stay in your ignorance, keep thinking free market is the only possibility in the world.

So now unions are not centralized organizations are they? Keep shifting those definitions each time flaws in your argument are pointed out, clearly it is working well for you.

Not in France no.

Anyone can create one, completely free process without any kind of limit. You just have to be a group of at least 2.

Then you get a decision power proportionated to the number of people in your group.

The only thing you can do to get even more decentralized is by giving a voting power directly to each individual. That's what I said before.

Again, read. Stop talking for an hour please and fucking read.

[TECSHARE]

Yes I've never gave the example of the French unions controlling heavy parts of the industry and the whole healthcare and retirement system until 1995.

I'm tired of you and your inability to read. Stay in your ignorance, keep thinking free market is the only possibility in the world.

So now unions are not centralized organizations are they? Keep shifting those definitions each time flaws in your argument are pointed out, clearly it is working well for you.

Not in France no.

Anyone can create one, completely free process without any kind of limit. You just have to be a group of at least 2.

Then you get a decision power proportionated to the number of people in your group.

The only thing you can do to get even more decentralized is by giving a voting power directly to each individual. That's what I said before.

Again, read. Stop talking for an hour please and fucking read.

What does the fact that anyone can create one have anything to do with the fact it is a hierarchical organization with a centralized control structure? I can create my own version of Bitcoin too, that doesn't mean it has any control over anything or any influence whatsoever. The fact that I can create my own Bitcoin fork doesn't change the fact that a small group controls most of the mining capacity just like the ability for anyone to create a unions doesn't necessarily give them any control of the means of production. This is only decentralization in your imagination.

[alexkamillakroy]

Typical bunch of "argumentation"... maybe the OP does need to follow his own alleged advice & google definitions of both first...  

[Oxstone]

What does the fact that anyone can create one have anything to do with the fact it is a hierarchical organization with a centralized control structure? I can create my own version of Bitcoin too, that doesn't mean it has any control over anything or any influence whatsoever. The fact that I can create my own Bitcoin fork doesn't change the fact that a small group controls most of the mining capacity just like the ability for anyone to create a unions doesn't necessarily give them any control of the means of production. This is only decentralization in your imagination.

I don't know what to say...

If you don't see the difference between concentration of mining capacity and the inherent decentralization of voting power what can I do? You need an education man, I pity you.

[TECSHARE]

What does the fact that anyone can create one have anything to do with the fact it is a hierarchical organization with a centralized control structure? I can create my own version of Bitcoin too, that doesn't mean it has any control over anything or any influence whatsoever. The fact that I can create my own Bitcoin fork doesn't change the fact that a small group controls most of the mining capacity just like the ability for anyone to create a unions doesn't necessarily give them any control of the means of production. This is only decentralization in your imagination.

I don't know what to say...

If you don't see the difference between concentration of mining capacity and the inherent decentralization of voting power what can I do? You need an education man, I pity you.

Oh I see, now we are talking about voting power and not collectivization of the means of production. Like I said, constantly shifting definitions.

[BADecker]

When you hear about all the plays and concerts the Nazi's went to, you realize they were socialites, not socialists.

 

what is the difference between a gazi and a nazi?

the gazi is a geographic socialists, and a nazi is a lingual or even a racial socialist.

But what is a geographic socialite?     

a nazi fights for the interests of people understanding his national langauge,

a gazi fights for the interests of people fighting in his region.

Of course, all the plays and concerts the Nazi leaders went to, show that they were socialites at heart, right?

[Oxstone]

What does the fact that anyone can create one have anything to do with the fact it is a hierarchical organization with a centralized control structure? I can create my own version of Bitcoin too, that doesn't mean it has any control over anything or any influence whatsoever. The fact that I can create my own Bitcoin fork doesn't change the fact that a small group controls most of the mining capacity just like the ability for anyone to create a unions doesn't necessarily give them any control of the means of production. This is only decentralization in your imagination.

I don't know what to say...

If you don't see the difference between concentration of mining capacity and the inherent decentralization of voting power what can I do? You need an education man, I pity you.

Oh I see, now we are talking about voting power and not collectivization of the means of production. Like I said, constantly shifting definitions.

THIS IS HOW IT WORKS FOR GODS SAKE!!! THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION ARE OWNED BY THE UNIONS AND THE UNIONS DECIDE COLLECTIVELY WHAT TO DO WITH THOSE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!!! AND HOW DO THEY DECIDE? THEY REGROUP EVERYONE AND HAVE A VOTE THAT'S HOW IT WORKS

This is it! You won! You're definitively too stupid to discuss with! this is insane, how do you manage to do anything daily? Is it like this all the time? You're the kind of people because of whom companies must write "do not ingest" on detergent packaging because otherwise you would drink it then sue them saying "Yeah well it was not written and I'm not going to take 2 seconds of my life to THINK u know?"

This is absurd. I've never seen anyone either with such bad faith or so stupid.

[BADecker]

What does the fact that anyone can create one have anything to do with the fact it is a hierarchical organization with a centralized control structure? I can create my own version of Bitcoin too, that doesn't mean it has any control over anything or any influence whatsoever. The fact that I can create my own Bitcoin fork doesn't change the fact that a small group controls most of the mining capacity just like the ability for anyone to create a unions doesn't necessarily give them any control of the means of production. This is only decentralization in your imagination.

I don't know what to say...

If you don't see the difference between concentration of mining capacity and the inherent decentralization of voting power what can I do? You need an education man, I pity you.

Oh I see, now we are talking about voting power and not collectivization of the means of production. Like I said, constantly shifting definitions.

THIS IS HOW IT WORKS FOR GODS SAKE!!! THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION ARE OWNED BY THE UNIONS AND THE UNIONS DECIDE COLLECTIVELY WHAT TO DO WITH THOSE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!!! AND HOW DO THEY DECIDE? THEY REGROUP EVERYONE AND HAVE A VOTE THAT'S HOW IT WORKS

This is it! You won! You're definitively too stupid to discuss with! this is insane, how do you manage to do anything daily? Is it like this all the time? You're the kind of people because of whom companies must write "do not ingest" on detergent packaging because otherwise you would drink it then sue them saying "Yeah well it was not written and I'm not going to take 2 seconds of my life to THINK u know?"

This is absurd. I've never seen anyone either with such bad faith or so stupid.

Oh, don't be so hard on him. He sees reality better than most.     

[TECSHARE]

THIS IS HOW IT WORKS FOR GODS SAKE!!! THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION ARE OWNED BY THE UNIONS AND THE UNIONS DECIDE COLLECTIVELY WHAT TO DO WITH THOSE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!!! AND HOW DO THEY DECIDE? THEY REGROUP EVERYONE AND HAVE A VOTE THAT'S HOW IT WORKS

This is it! You won! You're definitively too stupid to discuss with! this is insane, how do you manage to do anything daily? Is it like this all the time? You're the kind of people because of whom companies must write "do not ingest" on detergent packaging because otherwise you would drink it then sue them saying "Yeah well it was not written and I'm not going to take 2 seconds of my life to THINK u know?"

This is absurd. I've never seen anyone either with such bad faith or so stupid.

Unions are hierarchical organizations subject to all the same flaws of governments. Centralizing the means of production into unions is not decentralization no matter how much you vote on it. What you have is the facade of the proletariat controlling the means of production, the same system that was in place every other time socialism was tried and failed with horrible results.

[KingScorpio]

universal property of the means of production in the end, ends with, decay. and a new defacto financial dictatorship.

[iluvbitcoins]

Yes I've never gave the example of the French unions controlling heavy parts of the industry and the whole healthcare and retirement system until 1995.

I'm tired of you and your inability to read. Stay in your ignorance, keep thinking free market is the only possibility in the world.

So now unions are not centralized organizations are they? Keep shifting those definitions each time flaws in your argument are pointed out, clearly it is working well for you.

Not in France no.

Anyone can create one, completely free process without any kind of limit. You just have to be a group of at least 2.

Then you get a decision power proportionated to the number of people in your group.

The only thing you can do to get even more decentralized is by giving a voting power directly to each individual. That's what I said before.

Again, read. Stop talking for an hour please and fucking read.

If you need to have a group of at least 2 to form a union.
That's capitalism.
Voluntary interactions between consenting individuals are capitalism.
If there's no central entity, that's not socialism.

The unions don't control the economy, they control their own companies.

2. Quote the part where I've insulted you.

Hard to do once you've edited your post.

You don't understand because you don't read. France nationalized healthcare, education, transports, energy and military industry by force plus some heavy industries like cars (not just the funds, the workers are picked by either the government or the unions/public organization). Now only parts of this remain that's why I say it went from 60% to 40%.

And if you haven't understood the difference between government control and proletariat control I don't see what I can add to this debate.

And National Socialist Germany didn't have nationalized healthcare, education, transports, energy and military industry?
Germans literally invented the pensions plans, I assume you've also heard of some of their "heavy industries" like the Volkswagen Beetle.

thats because stalin was in power, the king also puts his fellow citizens into slavish work, in the west instead of stalin there is the masonic banking cartel, and they are having everyone else being their salary/wage slaves.

thats how life is. majority of people dont have power they have to give power to others.

Yes. We're exploited so hard the average poor person in the US owns air-conditioning, a microwave, and 70% own a car.
That's the average poor person, not an average person.
Meanwhile, Stalin stole grain from Ukraine and sent it to National Socialists while Ukranians starved (7 million dead) so hard there were documented cases of people hunting children so they could eat them.

This is how system design works.  Old versions of the telephone are still telephones but new telephones do not share all of their flaws.   We keep redefining because we keep improving upon previous designs.  100 years from now, it will have shifted again based on the failures of the 21st century.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
When each try resulted in millions of corpses, yeah, trying again is definitely a good idea.

nationalization and proletariat controlled

Proleteriat = workers
Therefore proleteriat control = capitalism
Nationalization = socialism

[iluvbitcoins]

So far in this thread we've seen socialist supporters claim France is socialist because of nationalized healthcare, military, education, trains and energy but National Socialist Germany which had nationalized healthcare, military, education, trains, energy and the car industry isn't.

They claim France is socialist because of unions although every single capitalist country has unions and those unions are voluntary organizations with consenting individuals.

How many times can you shift definitions in order to make it fit your narrative

[TECSHARE]

So far in this thread we've seen socialist supporters claim France is socialist because of nationalized healthcare, military, education, trains and energy but National Socialist Germany which had nationalized healthcare, military, education, trains, energy and the car industry isn't.

They claim France is socialist because of unions although every single capitalist country has unions and those unions are voluntary organizations with consenting individuals.

How many times can you shift definitions in order to make it fit your narrative

Socialism and communism require capitalism to exist. Capitalism does not require socialism or communism to exist. Socialism and communism can only exist parasitically within capitalism.

[KingScorpio]

Of course, all the plays and concerts the Nazi leaders went to, show that they were socialites at heart, right?

there is

general humanist socialism

and limited socialism.

soviet union was about general global humanist socialism, but there where natural borders, like russian nationalism and xenophobia, expertism

nazism and gazism, have banking cartels that rule them and limit access to consumption capacities.

regards

btw we could also call the usa a liberal monarchy, run by a banking cartel around hamilton.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton

he controlls the banking licenses in the usa, so thats the nobility of the usa.

regards

[iluvbitcoins]

Of course, all the plays and concerts the Nazi leaders went to, show that they were socialites at heart, right?

there is

general humanist socialism

and limited socialism.

soviet union was about general global humanist socialism, but there where natural borders, like russian nationalism and xenophobia, expertism

nazism and gazism, have banking cartels that rule them and limit access to consumption capacities.

regards

btw we could also call the usa a liberal monarchy, run by a banking cartel around hamilton.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton

he controlls the banking licenses in the usa, so thats the nobility of the usa.

regards

Having borders is nationalism and xenophobia?
Guess I'm a nationalist and a xenophobe.

[KingScorpio]

Of course, all the plays and concerts the Nazi leaders went to, show that they were socialites at heart, right?

there is

general humanist socialism

and limited socialism.

soviet union was about general global humanist socialism, but there where natural borders, like russian nationalism and xenophobia, expertism

nazism and gazism, have banking cartels that rule them and limit access to consumption capacities.

regards

btw we could also call the usa a liberal monarchy, run by a banking cartel around hamilton.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton

he controlls the banking licenses in the usa, so thats the nobility of the usa.

regards

Having borders is nationalism and xenophobia?
Guess I'm a nationalist and a xenophobe.

jes thats how it is as soon as you refuse enslavement by foreign scum, and refuse to feed and house and educate their illiterate and retarded you become nowadays a "racist".

germany is litereally being enslaved this way. they abuse the constitution that has been enforced on germany after world war to to enslave the germans.

[BADecker]

Of course, all the plays and concerts the Nazi leaders went to, show that they were socialites at heart, right?

there is

general humanist socialism

and limited socialism.

soviet union was about general global humanist socialism, but there where natural borders, like russian nationalism and xenophobia, expertism

nazism and gazism, have banking cartels that rule them and limit access to consumption capacities.

regards

btw we could also call the usa a liberal monarchy, run by a banking cartel around hamilton.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton

he controlls the banking licenses in the usa, so thats the nobility of the usa.

regards

Having borders is nationalism and xenophobia?
Guess I'm a nationalist and a xenophobe.

jes thats how it is as soon as you refuse enslavement by foreign scum, and refuse to feed and house and educate their illiterate and retarded you become nowadays a "racist".

germany is litereally being enslaved this way. they abuse the constitution that has been enforced on germany after world war to to enslave the germans.

Yabut. Socialites often go to different nations to watch plays or listen to fine concert music.

[styca]

Socialism and communism require capitalism to exist. Capitalism does not require socialism or communism to exist. Socialism and communism can only exist parasitically within capitalism.

Socialism arguably, yes, as it involves a lot of state management and state intervention in an otherwise free economy. Socialism is a form of managed capitalism.
Communism no, how does that need capitalism? How can it exist within capitalism? It's a completely different system. Please don't try to cite China!

"Capitalism does not require socialism"? I'd disagree with this, too. Socialism is a spectrum (the same spectrum as capitalism, just the opposite direction of travel). Capitalist countries, even the UK and the US, tend to have a degree of socialism - National Health Service for example in the UK. Arguably any capitalist country that allows insurance policies has an element of socialism, as insurance is the pooling of risk where money flows from the fortunate to the unfortunate. Has a purely capitalist country ever existed? I mean proper 100% laissez-faire? If you can find one that has existed, then has it persisted as 100% capitalist without incorporating elements of socialism?

[Balthazar]

Communism no, how does that need capitalism? How can it exist within capitalism? It's a completely different system.

Communism is a stateless system. It was tried few times in the beginning of 20th century, and failed. People of the current civilization aren't ready to live in a stateless society. Any attempt to establish it will be doomed to fail because people are corrupt by their nature. And, of course, it's incompatible with modern capitalism because you can't enforce fiat money without the government.

Please don't try to cite China!

<offtopic>
All the so-called "communist" states are socialist republics. Neither of them was communist in any way, and never claimed to be. It's just an oversimplification which is a part of propaganda narrative. USSR was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example. Only dumb people are thinking that it was some kind of "communist" thing or whatever.

Like the USSR, People's Republic of China is a socialist republic. The only difference is that USSR was a federation of semi-autonomous subjects with their own constitutions and state bodies, including the law enforcement agencies. Each republic had its own parliament, government with full set of ministries, police and even its own KGB. Local legislation of USSR republics was quite volatile as well. Just for example, RSFSR had no legal framework for private enterprises, it had only allowed the cooperative and collective enterprises. Georgian SSR, on the contrary, issued the legal framework which was allowing the private property on means of production. Same is correct for some other republics, like Azerbaijan SSR or Tajik SSR, small private enterprises were quite common there. China is a much simpler thing, it's a unitary republic which is governed by one constitution. There are no republics or whatever, everything is being ruled by legislation and orders issued in Bejing.
</offtopic>

TECSHARE
Socialism is nothing but a set of government policies which are subsidized by capitalism. A managed version of capitalism, I'd say.
So there is nothing strange in observing the growth of capitalism in socialist PRC. Socialists always need some money to fund their fantasies, nothing has changed.

However, this

Capitalism does not require socialism or communism to exist.

is absolutely incorrect assumption as well. I mean that capitalists are no less delusional than socialists or communists.

Any attempt to implement 100% capitalist regime would lead you to either fascism or the public unrest which will result with violent overthrow of such government. There is also a high risk to be executed, so I wouldn't agree to rule such regime myself. If you don't want to have fascism in your capitalist society, then your little capitalism pet will require some socialism to prevent the public from killing your government officials. Simple truth as it is.

Socialism arguably, yes, as it involves a lot of state management and state intervention in an otherwise free economy. Socialism is a form of managed capitalism.

It's interesting that Vladimir Lenin, a founder of the russian communist party, has defined his new regime as "state-controlled capitalism". Yep, he never tried to pretend that it was socialist, communist or whatever.

[TECSHARE]

Socialism and communism require capitalism to exist. Capitalism does not require socialism or communism to exist. Socialism and communism can only exist parasitically within capitalism.

Socialism arguably, yes, as it involves a lot of state management and state intervention in an otherwise free economy. Socialism is a form of managed capitalism.
Communism no, how does that need capitalism? How can it exist within capitalism? It's a completely different system. Please don't try to cite China!

"Capitalism does not require socialism"? I'd disagree with this, too. Socialism is a spectrum (the same spectrum as capitalism, just the opposite direction of travel). Capitalist countries, even the UK and the US, tend to have a degree of socialism - National Health Service for example in the UK. Arguably any capitalist country that allows insurance policies has an element of socialism, as insurance is the pooling of risk where money flows from the fortunate to the unfortunate. Has a purely capitalist country ever existed? I mean proper 100% laissez-faire? If you can find one that has existed, then has it persisted as 100% capitalist without incorporating elements of socialism?

I lost count of how many times you contradicted yourself about halfway through, I am not going to even dignify this with a response.

Communism no, how does that need capitalism? How can it exist within capitalism? It's a completely different system.

Communism is a stateless system. It was tried few times in the beginning of 20th century, and failed. People of the current civilization aren't ready to live in a stateless society. Any attempt to establish it will be doomed to fail because people are corrupt by their nature. And, of course, it's incompatible with modern capitalism because you can't enforce fiat money without the government.

Please don't try to cite China!

<offtopic>
All the so-called "communist" states are socialist republics. Neither of them was communist in any way, and never claimed to be. It's just an oversimplification which is a part of propaganda narrative. USSR was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example. Only dumb people are thinking that it was some kind of "communist" thing or whatever.

Like the USSR, People's Republic of China is a socialist republic. The only difference is that USSR was a federation of semi-autonomous subjects with their own constitutions and state bodies, including the law enforcement agencies. Each republic had its own parliament, government with full set of ministries, police and even its own KGB. Local legislation of USSR republics was quite volatile as well. Just for example, RSFSR had no legal framework for private enterprises, it had only allowed the cooperative and collective enterprises. Georgian SSR, on the contrary, issued the legal framework which was allowing the private property on means of production. Same is correct for some other republics, like Azerbaijan SSR or Tajik SSR, small private enterprises were quite common there. China is a much simpler thing, it's a unitary republic which is governed by one constitution. There are no republics or whatever, everything is being ruled by legislation and orders issued in Bejing.
</offtopic>

TECSHARE
Socialism is nothing but a set of government policies which are subsidized by capitalism. A managed version of capitalism, I'd say.
So there is nothing strange in observing the growth of capitalism in socialist PRC. Socialists always need some money to fund their fantasies, nothing has changed.

However, this

Capitalism does not require socialism or communism to exist.

is absolutely incorrect assumption as well. I mean that capitalists are no less delusional than socialists or communists.

Any attempt to implement 100% capitalist regime would lead you to either fascism or the public unrest which will result with violent overthrow of such government. There is also a high risk to be executed, so I wouldn't agree to rule such regime myself. If you don't want to have fascism in your capitalist society, then your little capitalism pet will require some socialism to prevent the public from killing your government officials. Simple truth as it is.

Socialism arguably, yes, as it involves a lot of state management and state intervention in an otherwise free economy. Socialism is a form of managed capitalism.

It's interesting that Vladimir Lenin, a founder of the russian communist party, has defined his new regime as "state-controlled capitalism". Yep, he never tried to pretend that it was socialist, communist or whatever.

First of all I don't agree with your definition of Socialism, just to make that clear, but for the sake of argument lets look past that and address the core of my premise. I didn't say zero "socialism" is ideal, I said socialism and communism requires capitalism to exist, and capitalism does not require communism or socialism to exist. This is true. Socialism and communism require initial input from capitalism, then inevitably degrades to the point where it becomes something else completely. Pure capitalism could exist under its own structure, but it would not necessarily be ideal.

[styca]

I lost count of how many times you contradicted yourself about halfway through, I am not going to even dignify this with a response.

That's fine, I'll count for you: zero.

I didn't say zero "socialism" is ideal

Pure capitalism could exist under its own structure, but it would not necessarily be ideal.

Yes, I can agree with that.

communism require initial input from capitalism.

I still disagree. Are you arguing that the concepts of money or of private ownership of the means of production pre-date primitive hunter-gatherer societies?

Perhaps our disagreement is just semantics?  

[TECSHARE]

I lost count of how many times you contradicted yourself about halfway through, I am not going to even dignify this with a response.

That's fine, I'll count for you: zero.

I didn't say zero "socialism" is ideal

Pure capitalism could exist under its own structure, but it would not necessarily be ideal.

Yes, I can agree with that.

communism require initial input from capitalism.

I still disagree. Are you arguing that the concepts of money or of private ownership of the means of production pre-date primitive hunter-gatherer societies?

Perhaps our disagreement is just semantics?  

I find socialists and communists rest solely upon semantics and shifting definitions, which is why I am not even going to bother engaging you. I don't have any interest in watching you do semantic back flips and inverting the meanings of words over and over again to try to make a square peg fit in a communist hole.

[iluvbitcoins]

Communism is a stateless system.

In theory. In practice since it needs coercion to be established, those with the monopoly on power are going to keep the power.

All the so-called "communist" states are socialist republics.

Even more reason to say socialism is bad.

Any attempt to implement 100% capitalist regime would lead you to either fascism or the public unrest which will result with violent overthrow of such government.

What does statist facism have to do with free-market capitalism? o.o
I think the founding US did fine without facism as much as Hong Kong does today

[criptix]

Any attempt to implement 100% capitalist regime would lead you to either fascism or the public unrest which will result with violent overthrow of such government.

What does statist facism have to do with free-market capitalism? o.o
I think the founding US did fine without facism as much as Hong Kong does today

Because they were never and are not full capitalist economies.

Just look at the inequality from today with all the socialist policies we have (social security, welfare etc).

In a full capitalist system the gap between poor and wealthy would likely ballon by several magnitudes and likely succumb to some feudalistic system where the top is gonna decide everything while majority of citiziens are poor and slavelike.

(On a global scale this is actually what happens - industry nations decide what happens and earn the most money while 3rd world nations are used as garbage dumps and doing low value work that make them barely survive).

I just dont see human nature changing in the short term so that we can have utopia with a full capitalist economy.

[TECSHARE]

Any attempt to implement 100% capitalist regime would lead you to either fascism or the public unrest which will result with violent overthrow of such government.

What does statist facism have to do with free-market capitalism? o.o
I think the founding US did fine without facism as much as Hong Kong does today

Because they were never and are not full capitalist economies.

Just look at the inequality from today with all the socialist policies we have (social security, welfare etc).

In a full capitalist system the gap between poor and wealthy would likely ballon by several magnitudes and likely succumb to some feudalistic system where the top is gonna decide everything while majority of citiziens are poor and slavelike.

(On a global scale this is actually what happens - industry nations decide what happens and earn the most money while 3rd world nations are used as garbage dumps and doing low value work that make them barely survive).

I just dont see human nature changing in the short term so that we can have utopia with a full capitalist economy.

You operate under the assumption that these social programs do not contribute to inequality and assign all blame to capitalism. I don't find it a coincidence that there is a correlation with all of these social programs in the USA being expanded and economic instability and hardship growing.

[criptix]

Any attempt to implement 100% capitalist regime would lead you to either fascism or the public unrest which will result with violent overthrow of such government.

What does statist facism have to do with free-market capitalism? o.o
I think the founding US did fine without facism as much as Hong Kong does today

Because they were never and are not full capitalist economies.

Just look at the inequality from today with all the socialist policies we have (social security, welfare etc).

In a full capitalist system the gap between poor and wealthy would likely ballon by several magnitudes and likely succumb to some feudalistic system where the top is gonna decide everything while majority of citiziens are poor and slavelike.

(On a global scale this is actually what happens - industry nations decide what happens and earn the most money while 3rd world nations are used as garbage dumps and doing low value work that make them barely survive).

I just dont see human nature changing in the short term so that we can have utopia with a full capitalist economy.

You operate under the assumption that these social programs do not contribute to inequality and assign all blame to capitalism. I don't find it a coincidence that there is a correlation with all of these social programs in the USA being expanded and economic instability and hardship growing.

I guess you could make arguments for both pro and contra socialistic policies.

For example nordic nations (with the exception of their immigration policies) are probaly one of the best nations to live in on the global scale and they are imho extremely socialistic, while still part of the richest industry nations.

On the other extreme Venezuela nuff said.

[iluvbitcoins]

I guess you could make arguments for both pro and contra socialistic policies.

For example nordic nations (with the exception of their immigration policies) are probaly one of the best nations to live in on the global scale and they are imho extremely socialistic, while still part of the richest industry nations.

On the other extreme Venezuela nuff said.

They have one of the freest (most capitalistic) markets in the world according to the economic freedom index.

In a full capitalist system the gap between poor and wealthy would likely ballon by several magnitudes and likely succumb to some feudalistic system where the top is gonna decide everything while majority of citiziens are poor and slavelike.

Social policies only increase inequality because they teach people not to work and therefore they stay poor instead of finding a job and picking up their lives.

[Sahyadri]

Party principles of the German Workers Party from 1913.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53314721#msg53314721

Party principles of the National Socialist Workers Party from 1918. (DAP changed their name to NSDAP)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53319034#msg53319034

Party principles from the first National Socialist party in the Reich (from 1918.)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53323636#msg53323636

Strasser program
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53326816#msg53326816

Some random quotes
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208627.msg53323521#msg53323521

Note:
Edited some of these posts moving my replies downwards so it would be easier to read through the OP.

Really cant comment about the ideologies of Nazis but one thing for sure I can mention here is the speech by Hitler during his rein .For example, in a 1927 speech he said , “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation … and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” Now decide for yourself.

[Negotiation]

Typical bunch of "argumentation"... maybe the OP does need to follow his own alleged advice & google definitions of both first...  

I do not think it has to follow any Google definition because it implies that the Nazis were not socialists they did these things to remove prejudice from society The Nazis used to say against those who were anti-social.

[iluvbitcoins]

Typical bunch of "argumentation"... maybe the OP does need to follow his own alleged advice & google definitions of both first...  

I do not think it has to follow any Google definition because it implies that the Nazis were not socialists they did these things to remove prejudice from society The Nazis used to say against those who were anti-social.

Literally nothing you just said makes any sense whatsoever.

[BADecker]

Socialites are to socialists as Israelites are to Israelists.     

[TECSHARE]

Typical bunch of "argumentation"... maybe the OP does need to follow his own alleged advice & google definitions of both first...  

I do not think it has to follow any Google definition because it implies that the Nazis were not socialists they did these things to remove prejudice from society The Nazis used to say against those who were anti-social.

Literally nothing you just said makes any sense whatsoever.

The sig spam bots seem to be in force in this thread.

[JAX Community]

Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934. Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character

[iluvbitcoins]

Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934. Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character

Facism is an extremely statist ideology as well.
Giving the goverment or supreme leader more authority over the individual and his free will is the complete opposite of capitalism.
Facism and socialism are very close ideologies.
The major difference is that the enemy in socialism is found in class instead of race.

[TECSHARE]

Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934. Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character

Facism is an extremely statist ideology as well.
Giving the goverment or supreme leader more authority over the individual and his free will is the complete opposite of capitalism.
Facism and socialism are very close ideologies.
The major difference is that the enemy in socialism is found in class instead of race.

I don't agree that racism is a critical component of fascism. If you remove both the race and class elements from both, what you are left with is totalitarianism. That is the important part that ENABLES the racism and classism.

[yslyv]

As far as i know socialism is kinda financial system. Being a socialists does not make anybody a good person. Their financial ideology can support distrubition of the financial items in loyal way. But it does not mean that they are not racist or murderers.