Nazis were socialists - Change my mind

[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

[1714755031]

1714755031

[1714755031]

1714755031

[1714755031]

1714755031

[1714755031]

1714755031

[1714755031]

1714755031

[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.