Nazis were socialists - Change my mind

[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

[1713865764]

1713865764

[1713865764]

1713865764

[1713865764]

1713865764

[1713865764]

1713865764

[1713865764]

1713865764

[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.