Nazis were socialists - Change my mind

[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.

[1714757051]

1714757051

[1714757051]

1714757051

[1714757051]

1714757051

[1714757051]

1714757051

[1714757051]

1714757051

[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.