D-Day, 75 Years Later

[georgephillip]

Today is D-Day! Today is the day my uncle had his buddy's leg blown off right in front of him and he couldn't do a damn thing to help him. Except get down in a hole and drag him there too to bleed out and die.

Quote by Colin Powell:
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by
the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of
empire building by George Bush.
He answered by saying that, “Over the years, the United States has sent
many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom
beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in
return is enough to bury those that did not return.”
It became very quiet in the room.

How did your heroic capitalists fare at Stalingrad?

About as well as Trump in Vietnam?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Today is D-Day! Today is the day my uncle had his buddy's leg blown off right in front of him and he couldn't do a damn thing to help him. Except get down in a hole and drag him there too to bleed out and die.

Quote by Colin Powell:
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by
the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of
empire building by George Bush.
He answered by saying that, “Over the years, the United States has sent
many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom
beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in
return is enough to bury those that did not return.”
It became very quiet in the room.

How did your heroic capitalists fare at Stalingrad?

About as well as Trump in Vietnam?

There were no capitalists in Stalingrad, dunce.


Only a pair of totalitarians.


Roosevelt couldn't decide who he liked more....finally chose Koba.


Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:

" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"



BTW....it was Bill 'the rapist' Clinton who claimed he despised the military when he dodged Vietnam.


You know less than nothing, huh?

 

[georgephillip]

Stalin had been asking US and UK "allies" to open a second front in the west since 1939, yet D-Day didn't happen until after the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad.

Henry Ford was happy to accept a Nazi medal.
Hitler had a portrait of Ford hanging above his desk,
Ford, IBM, and GM helped rebuild Germany's military during the 1930s in ways they were unwilling to do in the US.

D-Day: How the US Supported Hitler's Rise to Power

"And then during the war their subsidiaries in Europe continued to produce, continued to make profits, which they were able to accrue after the war ended.

"In fact, GM and Ford were able to sue the U.S. government for millions of dollars for reparations for their plants that the U.S. bombed and destroyed in Europe during the war that were producing for the Nazis.

"So American business had a shameful record."

American capitalists like Ford and Prescott Bush were happy to help Hitler rearm and fatten their fortunes in the process, and they were also part of the "greatest generation."

The Battle of Stalingrad was the largest and bloodiest battle of the war involving over 2.2 million combatants and 1.1 million military and civilian causalities. It was about 2 years before D-Day and it was the turning point on the Eastern Front as well as WWII. There's a subtitled movie, Stalingrad on Youtube that looks pretty good.

Had the non-aggression pack between Russia and Germany held, there would have been no D-Day because England would have fallen with the rest of Europe. Had there been no eastern front, Hitler would have been unstoppable.

Had the non-aggression pack between Russia and Germany held, there would have been no D-Day because England would have fallen with the rest of Europe. Had there been no eastern front, Hitler would have been unstoppable.

Was an invasion of England the original destination of Nazi forces which turned eastward into Russia? From the little information I've acquired, Hitler would have found it difficult (if not impossible) to move his armies across the English Channel. Had England fallen, perhaps Edward VIII would have divorced Wallis Simpson?

Upon the failure at Axis-German-Soviet summit in 1940 to convince Stalin to enter the war, Hitler commented, "Stalin demands more and more", he's a cold-blooded blackmailer" and that "a German victory has become unbearable for Russia" so that "she must be brought to her knees as soon as possible." In June 1941, German and her allies attacked Russia with a force 3 million troops. I have never heard that Hitler's original destination was England and that he change directions and went Russia. That doesn't seem likely.

Edward VIII was persona non grata in Britain. His abdication of the throne was seen by the government and the royal family as disgraceful and a dereliction of his duty. From what I have read, the Royal family felt so strongly about this, because Edward's younger brother George would have to become King.

George as a young child was a such slow learner, their was rumors of him being retarded. He had a speech impediment, was shy and was often hidden from the public He was a lovable kid who idealized his big brother but the one thing he was not was a future king.

To nearly everyone's surprise, George, the dull became George, the dutiful. He was a good king; more important than that, he was a good man. Britain was fortunate to have had him as king. He far surpassed what the government and even the royal family expected of him.
The monarchy survives thanks to George VI
German–Soviet Axis talks - Wikipedia

Edward VIII was persona non grata in Britain. His abdication of the throne was seen by the government and the royal family as disgraceful and a dereliction of his duty. From what I have read, the Royal family felt so strongly about this, because Edward's younger brother George would have to become King.

Edward appeared to have held some Nazi sympathies...

"Queen Elizabeth has every right to expect that Bad Uncle Edward, who died in 1972, would remain dead and quiet.

"But now his ghost blunders back into the light to disturb the golden twilight of her reign.

"This wretched man, the Duke of Windsor, and before that King Edward VIII and Prince of Wales, has left a curse on the House of Windsor.

"There he is, grinning, as he tutors Elizabeth, aged 7 or 8, and her little sister Margaret in giving the Nazi 'Heil Hitler' salute, in the film clip released (to much dismay) by Rupert Murdoch’s London tabloid, The Sun."

Britain’s Royal Nazi Cover-Up

 

[georgephillip]

Today is D-Day! Today is the day my uncle had his buddy's leg blown off right in front of him and he couldn't do a damn thing to help him. Except get down in a hole and drag him there too to bleed out and die.

Quote by Colin Powell:
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by
the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of
empire building by George Bush.
He answered by saying that, “Over the years, the United States has sent
many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom
beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in
return is enough to bury those that did not return.”
It became very quiet in the room.

How did your heroic capitalists fare at Stalingrad?

About as well as Trump in Vietnam?

There were no capitalists in Stalingrad, dunce.


Only a pair of totalitarians.


Roosevelt couldn't decide who he liked more....finally chose Koba.


Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:

" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"



BTW....it was Bill 'the rapist' Clinton who claimed he despised the military when he dodged Vietnam.


You know less than nothing, huh?

There were no capitalists in Stalingrad, dunce.


Only a pair of totalitarians.


Roosevelt couldn't decide who he liked more....finally chose Koba

Capitalists ruled in Germany, and they had no shortage of conservative American fascist helpers:

"George Herbert (Bert) Walker’s relationship with Averell Harriman went back to 1919, reported Buchanan, when both went to Paris to set up 'the German branch of their banking and investment operations, which were largely based on critical war resources such as steel and coal.'

"Other corporate entities, all with ties to similar German interests, were then created by UBC, which had Prescott Bush on its board – most notably, the Hamburg-American Line, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Seamless Steel Corporation.

"On October 12, 1920, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat headlined “Ex-St. Louisan Forms Giant Ship Merger,” explaining that Bert Walker was the 'moving power' behind the 'merger of two big financial houses in New York, which will place practically unlimited capital at the disposal of the new American-German shipping combine.'

"In the summer and fall of 1942, Congress, under the authority of the Trading With the Enemy Act, seized the first group of entities, the UBC, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Hamburg-American Line.

"Buchanan’s diligence has discovered that the latter “reportedly smuggled Nazi spies into the U.S. before the war and encouraged U.S. ‘Patriots’ to travel to Germany and proselytize for Hitler in the early 1930s.'"

Scumbag capitalists will always collaborate with fascists; it's how they grow their fortunes.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Boy that meme is old. The youngest survivor of the D day invasion is in his mid 90s.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Today is D-Day! Today is the day my uncle had his buddy's leg blown off right in front of him and he couldn't do a damn thing to help him. Except get down in a hole and drag him there too to bleed out and die.

Quote by Colin Powell:
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by
the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of
empire building by George Bush.
He answered by saying that, “Over the years, the United States has sent
many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom
beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in
return is enough to bury those that did not return.”
It became very quiet in the room.

How did your heroic capitalists fare at Stalingrad?

About as well as Trump in Vietnam?

There were no capitalists in Stalingrad, dunce.


Only a pair of totalitarians.


Roosevelt couldn't decide who he liked more....finally chose Koba.


Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:

" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"



BTW....it was Bill 'the rapist' Clinton who claimed he despised the military when he dodged Vietnam.


You know less than nothing, huh?

There were no capitalists in Stalingrad, dunce.


Only a pair of totalitarians.


Roosevelt couldn't decide who he liked more....finally chose Koba

Capitalists ruled in Germany, and they had no shortage of conservative American fascist helpers:

"George Herbert (Bert) Walker’s relationship with Averell Harriman went back to 1919, reported Buchanan, when both went to Paris to set up 'the German branch of their banking and investment operations, which were largely based on critical war resources such as steel and coal.'

"Other corporate entities, all with ties to similar German interests, were then created by UBC, which had Prescott Bush on its board – most notably, the Hamburg-American Line, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Seamless Steel Corporation.

"On October 12, 1920, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat headlined “Ex-St. Louisan Forms Giant Ship Merger,” explaining that Bert Walker was the 'moving power' behind the 'merger of two big financial houses in New York, which will place practically unlimited capital at the disposal of the new American-German shipping combine.'

"In the summer and fall of 1942, Congress, under the authority of the Trading With the Enemy Act, seized the first group of entities, the UBC, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Hamburg-American Line.

"Buchanan’s diligence has discovered that the latter “reportedly smuggled Nazi spies into the U.S. before the war and encouraged U.S. ‘Patriots’ to travel to Germany and proselytize for Hitler in the early 1930s.'"

Scumbag capitalists will always collaborate with fascists; it's how they grow their fortunes.

No, socialists ruled Germany.

Luckily for you, you know where to slither in for an education.


1. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.



2. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?


3. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.


4. . What Mises identified was that 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, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.




5. De facto government ownership of the means of production... was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State." Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman




Socialists....Nazis....Liberals....Progressives.....Communists.

Peas of the same pod.




Now....slither away, dolt.

 

[georgephillip]

Quote by Colin Powell:
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by
the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of
empire building by George Bush.
He answered by saying that, “Over the years, the United States has sent
many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom
beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in
return is enough to bury those that did not return.”
It became very quiet in the room.

How did your heroic capitalists fare at Stalingrad?

About as well as Trump in Vietnam?

There were no capitalists in Stalingrad, dunce.


Only a pair of totalitarians.


Roosevelt couldn't decide who he liked more....finally chose Koba.


Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:

" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"



BTW....it was Bill 'the rapist' Clinton who claimed he despised the military when he dodged Vietnam.


You know less than nothing, huh?

There were no capitalists in Stalingrad, dunce.


Only a pair of totalitarians.


Roosevelt couldn't decide who he liked more....finally chose Koba

Capitalists ruled in Germany, and they had no shortage of conservative American fascist helpers:

"George Herbert (Bert) Walker’s relationship with Averell Harriman went back to 1919, reported Buchanan, when both went to Paris to set up 'the German branch of their banking and investment operations, which were largely based on critical war resources such as steel and coal.'

"Other corporate entities, all with ties to similar German interests, were then created by UBC, which had Prescott Bush on its board – most notably, the Hamburg-American Line, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Seamless Steel Corporation.

"On October 12, 1920, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat headlined “Ex-St. Louisan Forms Giant Ship Merger,” explaining that Bert Walker was the 'moving power' behind the 'merger of two big financial houses in New York, which will place practically unlimited capital at the disposal of the new American-German shipping combine.'

"In the summer and fall of 1942, Congress, under the authority of the Trading With the Enemy Act, seized the first group of entities, the UBC, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Hamburg-American Line.

"Buchanan’s diligence has discovered that the latter “reportedly smuggled Nazi spies into the U.S. before the war and encouraged U.S. ‘Patriots’ to travel to Germany and proselytize for Hitler in the early 1930s.'"

Scumbag capitalists will always collaborate with fascists; it's how they grow their fortunes.

No, socialists ruled Germany.

Luckily for you, you know where to slither in for an education.


1. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.



2. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?


3. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.


4. . What Mises identified was that 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, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.




5. De facto government ownership of the means of production... was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State." Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman




Socialists....Nazis....Liberals....Progressives.....Communists.

Peas of the same pod.




Now....slither away, dolt.

You and Trump would have been sterling Nazis.

Nazism - Wikipedia

"National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsiɪzəm, ˈnæt-/),[1] is the ideology and practices associated with the Nazi Party—officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP)—in Nazi Germany, and of other far-right groups with similar aims.

"Nazism is a form of fascism and showed that ideology's disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system, but also incorporated fervent antisemitism, anti-communism, scientific racism, and eugenics into its creed.

"Its extreme nationalism came from Pan-Germanism and the Völkisch movement prominent in the German nationalism of the time, and it was strongly influenced by the Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged after Germany's defeat in World War I, from which came the party's 'cult of violence' which was 'at the heart of the movement.'"

 

[Flopper]

Stalin had been asking US and UK "allies" to open a second front in the west since 1939, yet D-Day didn't happen until after the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad.

Henry Ford was happy to accept a Nazi medal.
Hitler had a portrait of Ford hanging above his desk,
Ford, IBM, and GM helped rebuild Germany's military during the 1930s in ways they were unwilling to do in the US.

D-Day: How the US Supported Hitler's Rise to Power

"And then during the war their subsidiaries in Europe continued to produce, continued to make profits, which they were able to accrue after the war ended.

"In fact, GM and Ford were able to sue the U.S. government for millions of dollars for reparations for their plants that the U.S. bombed and destroyed in Europe during the war that were producing for the Nazis.

"So American business had a shameful record."

American capitalists like Ford and Prescott Bush were happy to help Hitler rearm and fatten their fortunes in the process, and they were also part of the "greatest generation."

The Battle of Stalingrad was the largest and bloodiest battle of the war involving over 2.2 million combatants and 1.1 million military and civilian causalities. It was about 2 years before D-Day and it was the turning point on the Eastern Front as well as WWII. There's a subtitled movie, Stalingrad on Youtube that looks pretty good.

Had the non-aggression pack between Russia and Germany held, there would have been no D-Day because England would have fallen with the rest of Europe. Had there been no eastern front, Hitler would have been unstoppable.

Had the non-aggression pack between Russia and Germany held, there would have been no D-Day because England would have fallen with the rest of Europe. Had there been no eastern front, Hitler would have been unstoppable.

Was an invasion of England the original destination of Nazi forces which turned eastward into Russia? From the little information I've acquired, Hitler would have found it difficult (if not impossible) to move his armies across the English Channel. Had England fallen, perhaps Edward VIII would have divorced Wallis Simpson?

Upon the failure at Axis-German-Soviet summit in 1940 to convince Stalin to enter the war, Hitler commented, "Stalin demands more and more", he's a cold-blooded blackmailer" and that "a German victory has become unbearable for Russia" so that "she must be brought to her knees as soon as possible." In June 1941, German and her allies attacked Russia with a force 3 million troops. I have never heard that Hitler's original destination was England and that he change directions and went Russia. That doesn't seem likely.

Edward VIII was persona non grata in Britain. His abdication of the throne was seen by the government and the royal family as disgraceful and a dereliction of his duty. From what I have read, the Royal family felt so strongly about this, because Edward's younger brother George would have to become King.

George as a young child was a such slow learner, their was rumors of him being retarded. He had a speech impediment, was shy and was often hidden from the public He was a lovable kid who idealized his big brother but the one thing he was not was a future king.

To nearly everyone's surprise, George, the dull became George, the dutiful. He was a good king; more important than that, he was a good man. Britain was fortunate to have had him as king. He far surpassed what the government and even the royal family expected of him.
The monarchy survives thanks to George VI
German–Soviet Axis talks - Wikipedia

Edward VIII was persona non grata in Britain. His abdication of the throne was seen by the government and the royal family as disgraceful and a dereliction of his duty. From what I have read, the Royal family felt so strongly about this, because Edward's younger brother George would have to become King.

Edward appeared to have held some Nazi sympathies...

"Queen Elizabeth has every right to expect that Bad Uncle Edward, who died in 1972, would remain dead and quiet.

"But now his ghost blunders back into the light to disturb the golden twilight of her reign.

"This wretched man, the Duke of Windsor, and before that King Edward VIII and Prince of Wales, has left a curse on the House of Windsor.

"There he is, grinning, as he tutors Elizabeth, aged 7 or 8, and her little sister Margaret in giving the Nazi 'Heil Hitler' salute, in the film clip released (to much dismay) by Rupert Murdoch’s London tabloid, The Sun."

Britain’s Royal Nazi Cover-Up

I think people make too much over Edward's ties to Hitler and Nazism. Edward felt he was being treated unjustly by the family and government. Much of his flirtation with the nazis was his way of getting back at the family and members of the government who wanted to keep him in exile. Both before and after war was declared, Edward wanted to be serve the crown or at least be recognize. He felt his ties with Germany could be used to avoid the war. After the war started he continue his attempts to involve himself, however his cozy relationship with the Nazi prevented that. His notoriety guaranteed him the ears of the press which he used to make comments on the success of bombing of Britain, the need for Britain to sue for peace, political and military blunders, etc.. Both the King and government had enough of him and decided to offer him the governorship of the Bahamas to get him off the continent and hopefully shut him up.

 

[Flopper]

Quote by Colin Powell:
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by
the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of
empire building by George Bush.
He answered by saying that, “Over the years, the United States has sent
many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom
beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in
return is enough to bury those that did not return.”
It became very quiet in the room.

How did your heroic capitalists fare at Stalingrad?

About as well as Trump in Vietnam?

There were no capitalists in Stalingrad, dunce.


Only a pair of totalitarians.


Roosevelt couldn't decide who he liked more....finally chose Koba.


Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:

" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"



BTW....it was Bill 'the rapist' Clinton who claimed he despised the military when he dodged Vietnam.


You know less than nothing, huh?

There were no capitalists in Stalingrad, dunce.


Only a pair of totalitarians.


Roosevelt couldn't decide who he liked more....finally chose Koba

Capitalists ruled in Germany, and they had no shortage of conservative American fascist helpers:

"George Herbert (Bert) Walker’s relationship with Averell Harriman went back to 1919, reported Buchanan, when both went to Paris to set up 'the German branch of their banking and investment operations, which were largely based on critical war resources such as steel and coal.'

"Other corporate entities, all with ties to similar German interests, were then created by UBC, which had Prescott Bush on its board – most notably, the Hamburg-American Line, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Seamless Steel Corporation.

"On October 12, 1920, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat headlined “Ex-St. Louisan Forms Giant Ship Merger,” explaining that Bert Walker was the 'moving power' behind the 'merger of two big financial houses in New York, which will place practically unlimited capital at the disposal of the new American-German shipping combine.'

"In the summer and fall of 1942, Congress, under the authority of the Trading With the Enemy Act, seized the first group of entities, the UBC, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Hamburg-American Line.

"Buchanan’s diligence has discovered that the latter “reportedly smuggled Nazi spies into the U.S. before the war and encouraged U.S. ‘Patriots’ to travel to Germany and proselytize for Hitler in the early 1930s.'"

Scumbag capitalists will always collaborate with fascists; it's how they grow their fortunes.

No, socialists ruled Germany.

Luckily for you, you know where to slither in for an education.


1. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.



2. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?


3. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.


4. . What Mises identified was that 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, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.




5. De facto government ownership of the means of production... was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State." Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman




Socialists....Nazis....Liberals....Progressives.....Communists.

Peas of the same pod.




Now....slither away, dolt.

Yes and No. Although the name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party Hitler had little interest in the tenants of socialism. I think it would be correct to say that Hitler elevated himself to power under the guise of a socialist. It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, however, their interpretation of socialism was far different than Carl Marx.
Once in power Hitler sought the help for the wealthy industrialists who were determined to stomp out socialism. Hitler aligned himself with their goals. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. Hitler endorsed private ownership and in speeches said it was necessary for development of Germany. As war approaches, Hitler decide he needed compete control, compensated property at will, nationalized practically all industries.

The assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical. What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, totalitarian power.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How did your heroic capitalists fare at Stalingrad?

About as well as Trump in Vietnam?

There were no capitalists in Stalingrad, dunce.


Only a pair of totalitarians.


Roosevelt couldn't decide who he liked more....finally chose Koba.


Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:

" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"



BTW....it was Bill 'the rapist' Clinton who claimed he despised the military when he dodged Vietnam.


You know less than nothing, huh?

There were no capitalists in Stalingrad, dunce.


Only a pair of totalitarians.


Roosevelt couldn't decide who he liked more....finally chose Koba

Capitalists ruled in Germany, and they had no shortage of conservative American fascist helpers:

"George Herbert (Bert) Walker’s relationship with Averell Harriman went back to 1919, reported Buchanan, when both went to Paris to set up 'the German branch of their banking and investment operations, which were largely based on critical war resources such as steel and coal.'

"Other corporate entities, all with ties to similar German interests, were then created by UBC, which had Prescott Bush on its board – most notably, the Hamburg-American Line, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Seamless Steel Corporation.

"On October 12, 1920, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat headlined “Ex-St. Louisan Forms Giant Ship Merger,” explaining that Bert Walker was the 'moving power' behind the 'merger of two big financial houses in New York, which will place practically unlimited capital at the disposal of the new American-German shipping combine.'

"In the summer and fall of 1942, Congress, under the authority of the Trading With the Enemy Act, seized the first group of entities, the UBC, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Hamburg-American Line.

"Buchanan’s diligence has discovered that the latter “reportedly smuggled Nazi spies into the U.S. before the war and encouraged U.S. ‘Patriots’ to travel to Germany and proselytize for Hitler in the early 1930s.'"

Scumbag capitalists will always collaborate with fascists; it's how they grow their fortunes.

No, socialists ruled Germany.

Luckily for you, you know where to slither in for an education.


1. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.



2. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?


3. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.


4. . What Mises identified was that 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, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.




5. De facto government ownership of the means of production... was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State." Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman




Socialists....Nazis....Liberals....Progressives.....Communists.

Peas of the same pod.




Now....slither away, dolt.

Yes and No. Although the name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party Hitler had little interest in the tenants of socialism. I think it would be correct to say that Hitler elevated himself to power under the guise of a socialist. It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, however, their interpretation of socialism was far different than Carl Marx.
Once in power Hitler sought the help for the wealthy industrialists who were determined to stomp out socialism. Hitler aligned himself with their goals. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. Hitler endorsed private ownership and in speeches said it was necessary for development of Germany. As war approaches, Hitler decide he needed compete control, compensated property at will, nationalized practically all industries.

The assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical. What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, totalitarian power.

"... had little interest in the tenants (sic) of socialism."


These are the tenets of socialism.


...the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


Any other little items that you can latch on to are simply distinctions without a difference.



All six of these belong in the same category....Nazism, Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and Progressivism.


To believe otherwise identifies you as a government school grad.

 

[Flopper]

How did your heroic capitalists fare at Stalingrad?

About as well as Trump in Vietnam?

There were no capitalists in Stalingrad, dunce.


Only a pair of totalitarians.


Roosevelt couldn't decide who he liked more....finally chose Koba.


Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:

" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"



BTW....it was Bill 'the rapist' Clinton who claimed he despised the military when he dodged Vietnam.


You know less than nothing, huh?

There were no capitalists in Stalingrad, dunce.


Only a pair of totalitarians.


Roosevelt couldn't decide who he liked more....finally chose Koba

Capitalists ruled in Germany, and they had no shortage of conservative American fascist helpers:

"George Herbert (Bert) Walker’s relationship with Averell Harriman went back to 1919, reported Buchanan, when both went to Paris to set up 'the German branch of their banking and investment operations, which were largely based on critical war resources such as steel and coal.'

"Other corporate entities, all with ties to similar German interests, were then created by UBC, which had Prescott Bush on its board – most notably, the Hamburg-American Line, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Seamless Steel Corporation.

"On October 12, 1920, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat headlined “Ex-St. Louisan Forms Giant Ship Merger,” explaining that Bert Walker was the 'moving power' behind the 'merger of two big financial houses in New York, which will place practically unlimited capital at the disposal of the new American-German shipping combine.'

"In the summer and fall of 1942, Congress, under the authority of the Trading With the Enemy Act, seized the first group of entities, the UBC, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Hamburg-American Line.

"Buchanan’s diligence has discovered that the latter “reportedly smuggled Nazi spies into the U.S. before the war and encouraged U.S. ‘Patriots’ to travel to Germany and proselytize for Hitler in the early 1930s.'"

Scumbag capitalists will always collaborate with fascists; it's how they grow their fortunes.

No, socialists ruled Germany.

Luckily for you, you know where to slither in for an education.


1. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.



2. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?


3. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.


4. . What Mises identified was that 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, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.




5. De facto government ownership of the means of production... was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State." Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman




Socialists....Nazis....Liberals....Progressives.....Communists.

Peas of the same pod.




Now....slither away, dolt.

Yes and No. Although the name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party Hitler had little interest in the tenants of socialism. I think it would be correct to say that Hitler elevated himself to power under the guise of a socialist. It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, however, their interpretation of socialism was far different than Carl Marx.
Once in power Hitler sought the help for the wealthy industrialists who were determined to stomp out socialism. Hitler aligned himself with their goals. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. Hitler endorsed private ownership and in speeches said it was necessary for development of Germany. As war approaches, Hitler decide he needed compete control, compensated property at will, nationalized practically all industries.

The assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical. What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, totalitarian power.

"... had little interest in the tenants (sic) of socialism."


These are the tenets of socialism.


...the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


Any other little items that you can latch on to are simply distinctions without a difference.



All six of these belong in the same category....Nazism, Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and Progressivism.

Nazism erected a system of production, distribution and consumption that defies classification in any of the usual categories. It was not capitalism in the traditional sense: the autonomous market mechanism so characteristic of capitalism during the last two centuries had all but disappeared. It was not State capitalism: the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, and in fact took steps to denationalize them. It was not socialism or communism: private property and private profit still existed. The Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics of capitalism and a highly planned economy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There were no capitalists in Stalingrad, dunce.


Only a pair of totalitarians.


Roosevelt couldn't decide who he liked more....finally chose Koba.


Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:

" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"



BTW....it was Bill 'the rapist' Clinton who claimed he despised the military when he dodged Vietnam.


You know less than nothing, huh?

There were no capitalists in Stalingrad, dunce.


Only a pair of totalitarians.


Roosevelt couldn't decide who he liked more....finally chose Koba

Capitalists ruled in Germany, and they had no shortage of conservative American fascist helpers:

"George Herbert (Bert) Walker’s relationship with Averell Harriman went back to 1919, reported Buchanan, when both went to Paris to set up 'the German branch of their banking and investment operations, which were largely based on critical war resources such as steel and coal.'

"Other corporate entities, all with ties to similar German interests, were then created by UBC, which had Prescott Bush on its board – most notably, the Hamburg-American Line, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Seamless Steel Corporation.

"On October 12, 1920, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat headlined “Ex-St. Louisan Forms Giant Ship Merger,” explaining that Bert Walker was the 'moving power' behind the 'merger of two big financial houses in New York, which will place practically unlimited capital at the disposal of the new American-German shipping combine.'

"In the summer and fall of 1942, Congress, under the authority of the Trading With the Enemy Act, seized the first group of entities, the UBC, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Hamburg-American Line.

"Buchanan’s diligence has discovered that the latter “reportedly smuggled Nazi spies into the U.S. before the war and encouraged U.S. ‘Patriots’ to travel to Germany and proselytize for Hitler in the early 1930s.'"

Scumbag capitalists will always collaborate with fascists; it's how they grow their fortunes.

No, socialists ruled Germany.

Luckily for you, you know where to slither in for an education.


1. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.



2. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?


3. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.


4. . What Mises identified was that 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, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.




5. De facto government ownership of the means of production... was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State." Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman




Socialists....Nazis....Liberals....Progressives.....Communists.

Peas of the same pod.




Now....slither away, dolt.

Yes and No. Although the name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party Hitler had little interest in the tenants of socialism. I think it would be correct to say that Hitler elevated himself to power under the guise of a socialist. It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, however, their interpretation of socialism was far different than Carl Marx.
Once in power Hitler sought the help for the wealthy industrialists who were determined to stomp out socialism. Hitler aligned himself with their goals. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. Hitler endorsed private ownership and in speeches said it was necessary for development of Germany. As war approaches, Hitler decide he needed compete control, compensated property at will, nationalized practically all industries.

The assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical. What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, totalitarian power.

"... had little interest in the tenants (sic) of socialism."


These are the tenets of socialism.


...the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


Any other little items that you can latch on to are simply distinctions without a difference.



All six of these belong in the same category....Nazism, Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and Progressivism.

Nazism erected a system of production, distribution and consumption that defies classification in any of the usual categories. It was not capitalism in the traditional sense: the autonomous market mechanism so characteristic of capitalism during the last two centuries had all but disappeared. It was not State capitalism: the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, and in fact took steps to denationalize them. It was not socialism or communism: private property and private profit still existed. The Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics of capitalism and a highly planned economy.

It was not capitalism in any sense.

Try reading Hegel.

The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).



Then, Marx.

a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.





"... the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, ..."

Horsefeathers.

 

[Flopper]

Capitalists ruled in Germany, and they had no shortage of conservative American fascist helpers:

"George Herbert (Bert) Walker’s relationship with Averell Harriman went back to 1919, reported Buchanan, when both went to Paris to set up 'the German branch of their banking and investment operations, which were largely based on critical war resources such as steel and coal.'

"Other corporate entities, all with ties to similar German interests, were then created by UBC, which had Prescott Bush on its board – most notably, the Hamburg-American Line, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Seamless Steel Corporation.

"On October 12, 1920, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat headlined “Ex-St. Louisan Forms Giant Ship Merger,” explaining that Bert Walker was the 'moving power' behind the 'merger of two big financial houses in New York, which will place practically unlimited capital at the disposal of the new American-German shipping combine.'

"In the summer and fall of 1942, Congress, under the authority of the Trading With the Enemy Act, seized the first group of entities, the UBC, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Hamburg-American Line.

"Buchanan’s diligence has discovered that the latter “reportedly smuggled Nazi spies into the U.S. before the war and encouraged U.S. ‘Patriots’ to travel to Germany and proselytize for Hitler in the early 1930s.'"

Scumbag capitalists will always collaborate with fascists; it's how they grow their fortunes.

No, socialists ruled Germany.

Luckily for you, you know where to slither in for an education.


1. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.



2. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?


3. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.


4. . What Mises identified was that 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, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.




5. De facto government ownership of the means of production... was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State." Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman




Socialists....Nazis....Liberals....Progressives.....Communists.

Peas of the same pod.




Now....slither away, dolt.

Yes and No. Although the name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party Hitler had little interest in the tenants of socialism. I think it would be correct to say that Hitler elevated himself to power under the guise of a socialist. It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, however, their interpretation of socialism was far different than Carl Marx.
Once in power Hitler sought the help for the wealthy industrialists who were determined to stomp out socialism. Hitler aligned himself with their goals. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. Hitler endorsed private ownership and in speeches said it was necessary for development of Germany. As war approaches, Hitler decide he needed compete control, compensated property at will, nationalized practically all industries.

The assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical. What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, totalitarian power.

"... had little interest in the tenants (sic) of socialism."


These are the tenets of socialism.


...the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


Any other little items that you can latch on to are simply distinctions without a difference.



All six of these belong in the same category....Nazism, Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and Progressivism.

Nazism erected a system of production, distribution and consumption that defies classification in any of the usual categories. It was not capitalism in the traditional sense: the autonomous market mechanism so characteristic of capitalism during the last two centuries had all but disappeared. It was not State capitalism: the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, and in fact took steps to denationalize them. It was not socialism or communism: private property and private profit still existed. The Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics of capitalism and a highly planned economy.

It was not capitalism in any sense.

Try reading Hegel.

The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).



Then, Marx.

a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.





"... the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, ..."

Horsefeathers.

My reply to your first post about Germany being socialist was "Yes and No". Yes it was socialist but only when it served Hitler's goals. Hitler certainly embraced socialism which he credited with his rise to power.

Hitler's version of socialism would have made Karl Marx rollover in his grave. While he praised socialist principals he also praised the entrepreneurial spirit of true Germans. Only a few years after Hitler delivered one his most impassioned speeches praising Marx, the Nazis began their book burning and the first to be burned was the works of Karl Marx in 1933. Within a few years, "Das Kapital" could not be found in a single book store or library in German. There simply was too many discrepancies between Hitler's socialism and that of Marx. Trade Unions were key to Hitler's rise to power but within ten years he had effective destroyed them. In 1934, the growing debt of goverment was his biggest economic problem. So he turned to very people he promised to destroy, the bankers and industrialist. They secured the loans which effectively saved the Reich but in return, he started a plan of de-nationalizing. He nullify the power of trade unions to satisfy the industrialists. Although short lived, Nazi capitalism was born. However, by 1938, Hitler had nationalized almost all the major industries in the country. However, he did not seize ownership of all these industries, he promised the industrialist huge rewards when war was won, and he kept his promise of private ownership for individuals and small businesses provide they were not Jewish or Communist. Socialism in German and the USSR were vastly different. However they were very similar in one respect. Both the Communist and the Nazis used socialism as a guise to build a totalitarian state.
https://www.nber.org/chapters/c9476.pdf
Karl Marx - Wikipedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, socialists ruled Germany.

Luckily for you, you know where to slither in for an education.


1. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.



2. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?


3. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.


4. . What Mises identified was that 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, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.




5. De facto government ownership of the means of production... was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State." Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman




Socialists....Nazis....Liberals....Progressives.....Communists.

Peas of the same pod.




Now....slither away, dolt.

Yes and No. Although the name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party Hitler had little interest in the tenants of socialism. I think it would be correct to say that Hitler elevated himself to power under the guise of a socialist. It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, however, their interpretation of socialism was far different than Carl Marx.
Once in power Hitler sought the help for the wealthy industrialists who were determined to stomp out socialism. Hitler aligned himself with their goals. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. Hitler endorsed private ownership and in speeches said it was necessary for development of Germany. As war approaches, Hitler decide he needed compete control, compensated property at will, nationalized practically all industries.

The assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical. What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, totalitarian power.

"... had little interest in the tenants (sic) of socialism."


These are the tenets of socialism.


...the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


Any other little items that you can latch on to are simply distinctions without a difference.



All six of these belong in the same category....Nazism, Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and Progressivism.

Nazism erected a system of production, distribution and consumption that defies classification in any of the usual categories. It was not capitalism in the traditional sense: the autonomous market mechanism so characteristic of capitalism during the last two centuries had all but disappeared. It was not State capitalism: the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, and in fact took steps to denationalize them. It was not socialism or communism: private property and private profit still existed. The Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics of capitalism and a highly planned economy.

It was not capitalism in any sense.

Try reading Hegel.

The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).



Then, Marx.

a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.





"... the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, ..."

Horsefeathers.

My reply to your first post about Germany being socialist was "Yes and No". Yes it was socialist but only when it served Hitler's goals. Hitler certainly embraced socialism which he credited with his rise to power.

Hitler's version of socialism would have made Karl Marx rollover in his grave. While he praised socialist principals he also praised the entrepreneurial spirit of true Germans. Only a few years after Hitler delivered one his most impassioned speeches praising Marx, the Nazis began their book burning and the first to be burned was the works of Karl Marx in 1933. Within a few years, "Das Kapital" could not be found in a single book store or library in German. There simply was too many discrepancies between Hitler's socialism and that of Marx. Trade Unions were key to Hitler's rise to power but within ten years he had effective destroyed them. In 1934, the growing debt of goverment was his biggest economic problem. So he turned to very people he promised to destroy, the bankers and industrialist. They secured the loans which effectively saved the Reich but in return, he started a plan of de-nationalizing. He nullify the power of trade unions to satisfy the industrialists. Although short lived, Nazi capitalism was born. However, by 1938, Hitler had nationalized almost all the major industries in the country. However, he did not seize ownership of all these industries, he promised the industrialist huge rewards when war was won, and he kept his promise of private ownership for individuals and small businesses provide they were not Jewish or Communist. Socialism in German and the USSR were vastly different. However they were very similar in one respect. Both the Communist and the Nazis used socialism as a guise to build a totalitarian state.
https://www.nber.org/chapters/c9476.pdf
Karl Marx - Wikipedia

You're wrong, for the simple reason that you demand a clear and straight line between the views, or you deny the facts that all collectivist schemes demand the very same outcome.
What you miss is that one becomes the other incrementally.

The increments are accomplished by regulation and statute.


"Socialists like Bernie Sanders rarely call for full-blown government ownership of the means of production. They call for policies that amount to government management of the means of production. Such policies calling for extensive federal intervention into local affairs stand in direct violation of the limits placed on federal power by the U.S. Constitution. Yet, when people express concern about the dangers of a centrally planned economy, Sanders tries to assuage such fears by saying, “The government, in a democratic society, is the people.”
Falling in Love With Socialism


Wise up.


Further....the greatest threat that Trump is to the Establishment, the collectivist establishment, is that he removes their latter to wealth.
They put in regulations so that industry has to hire lobbyists to bribe them to write loopholes.

"Trump Attack on Regulation
Starts To Win Admiration
Both At Home and Abroad"
Trump Attack on Regulation Starts To Win Admiration Both At Home and Abroad - The New York Sun




Every notice how many Congressmen leave government far richer than when they went in?



"Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal"
Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal


....hence poor men come to Washington to do good, and leave as millionaires, having made good.

Trump is a threat to their sinecures.

 

[georgephillip]

Yes and No. Although the name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party Hitler had little interest in the tenants of socialism. I think it would be correct to say that Hitler elevated himself to power under the guise of a socialist. It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, however, their interpretation of socialism was far different than Carl Marx.
Once in power Hitler sought the help for the wealthy industrialists who were determined to stomp out socialism. Hitler aligned himself with their goals. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. Hitler endorsed private ownership and in speeches said it was necessary for development of Germany. As war approaches, Hitler decide he needed compete control, compensated property at will, nationalized practically all industries.

The assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical. What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, totalitarian power.

"... had little interest in the tenants (sic) of socialism."


These are the tenets of socialism.


...the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


Any other little items that you can latch on to are simply distinctions without a difference.



All six of these belong in the same category....Nazism, Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and Progressivism.

Nazism erected a system of production, distribution and consumption that defies classification in any of the usual categories. It was not capitalism in the traditional sense: the autonomous market mechanism so characteristic of capitalism during the last two centuries had all but disappeared. It was not State capitalism: the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, and in fact took steps to denationalize them. It was not socialism or communism: private property and private profit still existed. The Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics of capitalism and a highly planned economy.

It was not capitalism in any sense.

Try reading Hegel.

The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).



Then, Marx.

a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.





"... the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, ..."

Horsefeathers.

My reply to your first post about Germany being socialist was "Yes and No". Yes it was socialist but only when it served Hitler's goals. Hitler certainly embraced socialism which he credited with his rise to power.

Hitler's version of socialism would have made Karl Marx rollover in his grave. While he praised socialist principals he also praised the entrepreneurial spirit of true Germans. Only a few years after Hitler delivered one his most impassioned speeches praising Marx, the Nazis began their book burning and the first to be burned was the works of Karl Marx in 1933. Within a few years, "Das Kapital" could not be found in a single book store or library in German. There simply was too many discrepancies between Hitler's socialism and that of Marx. Trade Unions were key to Hitler's rise to power but within ten years he had effective destroyed them. In 1934, the growing debt of goverment was his biggest economic problem. So he turned to very people he promised to destroy, the bankers and industrialist. They secured the loans which effectively saved the Reich but in return, he started a plan of de-nationalizing. He nullify the power of trade unions to satisfy the industrialists. Although short lived, Nazi capitalism was born. However, by 1938, Hitler had nationalized almost all the major industries in the country. However, he did not seize ownership of all these industries, he promised the industrialist huge rewards when war was won, and he kept his promise of private ownership for individuals and small businesses provide they were not Jewish or Communist. Socialism in German and the USSR were vastly different. However they were very similar in one respect. Both the Communist and the Nazis used socialism as a guise to build a totalitarian state.
https://www.nber.org/chapters/c9476.pdf
Karl Marx - Wikipedia

You're wrong, for the simple reason that you demand a clear and straight line between the views, or you deny the facts that all collectivist schemes demand the very same outcome.
What you miss is that one becomes the other incrementally.

The increments are accomplished by regulation and statute.


"Socialists like Bernie Sanders rarely call for full-blown government ownership of the means of production. They call for policies that amount to government management of the means of production. Such policies calling for extensive federal intervention into local affairs stand in direct violation of the limits placed on federal power by the U.S. Constitution. Yet, when people express concern about the dangers of a centrally planned economy, Sanders tries to assuage such fears by saying, “The government, in a democratic society, is the people.”
Falling in Love With Socialism


Wise up.


Further....the greatest threat that Trump is to the Establishment, the collectivist establishment, is that he removes their latter to wealth.
They put in regulations so that industry has to hire lobbyists to bribe them to write loopholes.

"Trump Attack on Regulation
Starts To Win Admiration
Both At Home and Abroad"
Trump Attack on Regulation Starts To Win Admiration Both At Home and Abroad - The New York Sun




Every notice how many Congressmen leave government far richer than when they went in?



"Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal"
Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal


....hence poor men come to Washington to do good, and leave as millionaires, having made good.

Trump is a threat to their sinecures.

"Socialists like Bernie Sanders rarely call for full-blown government ownership of the means of production. They call for policies that amount to government management of the means of production. Such policies calling for extensive federal intervention into local affairs stand in direct violation of the limits placed on federal power by the U.S. Constitution.

What limits does the US Constitution place on corporations?

Bernie's calling for worker self directed enterprises which will bring democracy to the workplace, i.e., the place where adults spent half their waking hours:

Bernie Sanders: Workers should control the means of production

"One Sanders plan would create 'worker wealth funds' which corporations would be required to contribute into, and which would both pay dividends to the workers and buy shares in those firms to give workers ultimate voting control. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., another contender, is considering a similar idea.

"Sanders’ proposal for worker ownership is a new iteration of a plans put forward decades ago by Swedish trade union economist Rudolf Meidner, who envisioned a gradual socialization of industry by requiring owners to dedicate a percentage of yearly profits into union-owned 'wage-earner funds' that would be used to buy shares in the company.

"Over time, the employees’ funds would buy up more and more of the company until eventually workers controlled a majority stake or even everything.

"The plan, though pursued by the Social Democratic Party, was never fully realized in Sweden."

 

[PoliticalChic]

"... had little interest in the tenants (sic) of socialism."


These are the tenets of socialism.


...the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


Any other little items that you can latch on to are simply distinctions without a difference.



All six of these belong in the same category....Nazism, Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and Progressivism.

Nazism erected a system of production, distribution and consumption that defies classification in any of the usual categories. It was not capitalism in the traditional sense: the autonomous market mechanism so characteristic of capitalism during the last two centuries had all but disappeared. It was not State capitalism: the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, and in fact took steps to denationalize them. It was not socialism or communism: private property and private profit still existed. The Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics of capitalism and a highly planned economy.

It was not capitalism in any sense.

Try reading Hegel.

The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).



Then, Marx.

a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.





"... the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, ..."

Horsefeathers.

My reply to your first post about Germany being socialist was "Yes and No". Yes it was socialist but only when it served Hitler's goals. Hitler certainly embraced socialism which he credited with his rise to power.

Hitler's version of socialism would have made Karl Marx rollover in his grave. While he praised socialist principals he also praised the entrepreneurial spirit of true Germans. Only a few years after Hitler delivered one his most impassioned speeches praising Marx, the Nazis began their book burning and the first to be burned was the works of Karl Marx in 1933. Within a few years, "Das Kapital" could not be found in a single book store or library in German. There simply was too many discrepancies between Hitler's socialism and that of Marx. Trade Unions were key to Hitler's rise to power but within ten years he had effective destroyed them. In 1934, the growing debt of goverment was his biggest economic problem. So he turned to very people he promised to destroy, the bankers and industrialist. They secured the loans which effectively saved the Reich but in return, he started a plan of de-nationalizing. He nullify the power of trade unions to satisfy the industrialists. Although short lived, Nazi capitalism was born. However, by 1938, Hitler had nationalized almost all the major industries in the country. However, he did not seize ownership of all these industries, he promised the industrialist huge rewards when war was won, and he kept his promise of private ownership for individuals and small businesses provide they were not Jewish or Communist. Socialism in German and the USSR were vastly different. However they were very similar in one respect. Both the Communist and the Nazis used socialism as a guise to build a totalitarian state.
https://www.nber.org/chapters/c9476.pdf
Karl Marx - Wikipedia

You're wrong, for the simple reason that you demand a clear and straight line between the views, or you deny the facts that all collectivist schemes demand the very same outcome.
What you miss is that one becomes the other incrementally.

The increments are accomplished by regulation and statute.


"Socialists like Bernie Sanders rarely call for full-blown government ownership of the means of production. They call for policies that amount to government management of the means of production. Such policies calling for extensive federal intervention into local affairs stand in direct violation of the limits placed on federal power by the U.S. Constitution. Yet, when people express concern about the dangers of a centrally planned economy, Sanders tries to assuage such fears by saying, “The government, in a democratic society, is the people.”
Falling in Love With Socialism


Wise up.


Further....the greatest threat that Trump is to the Establishment, the collectivist establishment, is that he removes their latter to wealth.
They put in regulations so that industry has to hire lobbyists to bribe them to write loopholes.

"Trump Attack on Regulation
Starts To Win Admiration
Both At Home and Abroad"
Trump Attack on Regulation Starts To Win Admiration Both At Home and Abroad - The New York Sun




Every notice how many Congressmen leave government far richer than when they went in?



"Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal"
Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal


....hence poor men come to Washington to do good, and leave as millionaires, having made good.

Trump is a threat to their sinecures.

"Socialists like Bernie Sanders rarely call for full-blown government ownership of the means of production. They call for policies that amount to government management of the means of production. Such policies calling for extensive federal intervention into local affairs stand in direct violation of the limits placed on federal power by the U.S. Constitution.

What limits does the US Constitution place on corporations?

Bernie's calling for worker self directed enterprises which will bring democracy to the workplace, i.e., the place where adults spent half their waking hours:

Bernie Sanders: Workers should control the means of production

"One Sanders plan would create 'worker wealth funds' which corporations would be required to contribute into, and which would both pay dividends to the workers and buy shares in those firms to give workers ultimate voting control. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., another contender, is considering a similar idea.

"Sanders’ proposal for worker ownership is a new iteration of a plans put forward decades ago by Swedish trade union economist Rudolf Meidner, who envisioned a gradual socialization of industry by requiring owners to dedicate a percentage of yearly profits into union-owned 'wage-earner funds' that would be used to buy shares in the company.

"Over time, the employees’ funds would buy up more and more of the company until eventually workers controlled a majority stake or even everything.

"The plan, though pursued by the Social Democratic Party, was never fully realized in Sweden."

"Bernie's calling for worker self directed enterprises which will bring democracy to the workplace, i.e., the place where adults spent half their waking hours..."


I realize you are a dolt....but is it possible that you don't know that Republicans pried the slaves away from the Democrats a century and a half ago?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

"... had little interest in the tenants (sic) of socialism."


These are the tenets of socialism.


...the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


Any other little items that you can latch on to are simply distinctions without a difference.



All six of these belong in the same category....Nazism, Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and Progressivism.

Nazism erected a system of production, distribution and consumption that defies classification in any of the usual categories. It was not capitalism in the traditional sense: the autonomous market mechanism so characteristic of capitalism during the last two centuries had all but disappeared. It was not State capitalism: the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, and in fact took steps to denationalize them. It was not socialism or communism: private property and private profit still existed. The Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics of capitalism and a highly planned economy.

It was not capitalism in any sense.

Try reading Hegel.

The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).



Then, Marx.

a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.





"... the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, ..."

Horsefeathers.

My reply to your first post about Germany being socialist was "Yes and No". Yes it was socialist but only when it served Hitler's goals. Hitler certainly embraced socialism which he credited with his rise to power.

Hitler's version of socialism would have made Karl Marx rollover in his grave. While he praised socialist principals he also praised the entrepreneurial spirit of true Germans. Only a few years after Hitler delivered one his most impassioned speeches praising Marx, the Nazis began their book burning and the first to be burned was the works of Karl Marx in 1933. Within a few years, "Das Kapital" could not be found in a single book store or library in German. There simply was too many discrepancies between Hitler's socialism and that of Marx. Trade Unions were key to Hitler's rise to power but within ten years he had effective destroyed them. In 1934, the growing debt of goverment was his biggest economic problem. So he turned to very people he promised to destroy, the bankers and industrialist. They secured the loans which effectively saved the Reich but in return, he started a plan of de-nationalizing. He nullify the power of trade unions to satisfy the industrialists. Although short lived, Nazi capitalism was born. However, by 1938, Hitler had nationalized almost all the major industries in the country. However, he did not seize ownership of all these industries, he promised the industrialist huge rewards when war was won, and he kept his promise of private ownership for individuals and small businesses provide they were not Jewish or Communist. Socialism in German and the USSR were vastly different. However they were very similar in one respect. Both the Communist and the Nazis used socialism as a guise to build a totalitarian state.
https://www.nber.org/chapters/c9476.pdf
Karl Marx - Wikipedia

You're wrong, for the simple reason that you demand a clear and straight line between the views, or you deny the facts that all collectivist schemes demand the very same outcome.
What you miss is that one becomes the other incrementally.

The increments are accomplished by regulation and statute.


"Socialists like Bernie Sanders rarely call for full-blown government ownership of the means of production. They call for policies that amount to government management of the means of production. Such policies calling for extensive federal intervention into local affairs stand in direct violation of the limits placed on federal power by the U.S. Constitution. Yet, when people express concern about the dangers of a centrally planned economy, Sanders tries to assuage such fears by saying, “The government, in a democratic society, is the people.”
Falling in Love With Socialism


Wise up.


Further....the greatest threat that Trump is to the Establishment, the collectivist establishment, is that he removes their latter to wealth.
They put in regulations so that industry has to hire lobbyists to bribe them to write loopholes.

"Trump Attack on Regulation
Starts To Win Admiration
Both At Home and Abroad"
Trump Attack on Regulation Starts To Win Admiration Both At Home and Abroad - The New York Sun




Every notice how many Congressmen leave government far richer than when they went in?



"Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal"
Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal


....hence poor men come to Washington to do good, and leave as millionaires, having made good.

Trump is a threat to their sinecures.

"Socialists like Bernie Sanders rarely call for full-blown government ownership of the means of production. They call for policies that amount to government management of the means of production. Such policies calling for extensive federal intervention into local affairs stand in direct violation of the limits placed on federal power by the U.S. Constitution.

What limits does the US Constitution place on corporations?

Bernie's calling for worker self directed enterprises which will bring democracy to the workplace, i.e., the place where adults spent half their waking hours:

Bernie Sanders: Workers should control the means of production

"One Sanders plan would create 'worker wealth funds' which corporations would be required to contribute into, and which would both pay dividends to the workers and buy shares in those firms to give workers ultimate voting control. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., another contender, is considering a similar idea.

"Sanders’ proposal for worker ownership is a new iteration of a plans put forward decades ago by Swedish trade union economist Rudolf Meidner, who envisioned a gradual socialization of industry by requiring owners to dedicate a percentage of yearly profits into union-owned 'wage-earner funds' that would be used to buy shares in the company.

"Over time, the employees’ funds would buy up more and more of the company until eventually workers controlled a majority stake or even everything.

"The plan, though pursued by the Social Democratic Party, was never fully realized in Sweden."

"Bernie Sanders: Workers should control the means of production

"One Sanders plan would create 'worker wealth funds' which corporations would be required to contribute into, and which would both pay dividends to the workers and buy shares in those firms to give workers ultimate voting control. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., another contender, is considering a similar idea.

"Sanders’ proposal for worker ownership is a new iteration of a plans put forward decades ago by Swedish trade union economist Rudolf Meidner, who envisioned a gradual socialization of industry by requiring owners to dedicate a percentage of yearly profits into union-owned 'wage-earner funds' that would be used to buy shares in the company.

"Over time, the employees’ funds would buy up more and more of the company until eventually workers controlled a majority stake or even everything.

"The plan, though pursued by the Social Democratic Party, was never fully realized in Sweden."




Already done by the American capitalist system:


"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.


.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably




In your face, booooooyyyyyyeeeeeeee!!!!

 

[Flopper]

Nazism erected a system of production, distribution and consumption that defies classification in any of the usual categories. It was not capitalism in the traditional sense: the autonomous market mechanism so characteristic of capitalism during the last two centuries had all but disappeared. It was not State capitalism: the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, and in fact took steps to denationalize them. It was not socialism or communism: private property and private profit still existed. The Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics of capitalism and a highly planned economy.

It was not capitalism in any sense.

Try reading Hegel.

The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).



Then, Marx.

a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.





"... the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, ..."

Horsefeathers.

My reply to your first post about Germany being socialist was "Yes and No". Yes it was socialist but only when it served Hitler's goals. Hitler certainly embraced socialism which he credited with his rise to power.

Hitler's version of socialism would have made Karl Marx rollover in his grave. While he praised socialist principals he also praised the entrepreneurial spirit of true Germans. Only a few years after Hitler delivered one his most impassioned speeches praising Marx, the Nazis began their book burning and the first to be burned was the works of Karl Marx in 1933. Within a few years, "Das Kapital" could not be found in a single book store or library in German. There simply was too many discrepancies between Hitler's socialism and that of Marx. Trade Unions were key to Hitler's rise to power but within ten years he had effective destroyed them. In 1934, the growing debt of goverment was his biggest economic problem. So he turned to very people he promised to destroy, the bankers and industrialist. They secured the loans which effectively saved the Reich but in return, he started a plan of de-nationalizing. He nullify the power of trade unions to satisfy the industrialists. Although short lived, Nazi capitalism was born. However, by 1938, Hitler had nationalized almost all the major industries in the country. However, he did not seize ownership of all these industries, he promised the industrialist huge rewards when war was won, and he kept his promise of private ownership for individuals and small businesses provide they were not Jewish or Communist. Socialism in German and the USSR were vastly different. However they were very similar in one respect. Both the Communist and the Nazis used socialism as a guise to build a totalitarian state.
https://www.nber.org/chapters/c9476.pdf
Karl Marx - Wikipedia

You're wrong, for the simple reason that you demand a clear and straight line between the views, or you deny the facts that all collectivist schemes demand the very same outcome.
What you miss is that one becomes the other incrementally.

The increments are accomplished by regulation and statute.


"Socialists like Bernie Sanders rarely call for full-blown government ownership of the means of production. They call for policies that amount to government management of the means of production. Such policies calling for extensive federal intervention into local affairs stand in direct violation of the limits placed on federal power by the U.S. Constitution. Yet, when people express concern about the dangers of a centrally planned economy, Sanders tries to assuage such fears by saying, “The government, in a democratic society, is the people.”
Falling in Love With Socialism


Wise up.


Further....the greatest threat that Trump is to the Establishment, the collectivist establishment, is that he removes their latter to wealth.
They put in regulations so that industry has to hire lobbyists to bribe them to write loopholes.

"Trump Attack on Regulation
Starts To Win Admiration
Both At Home and Abroad"
Trump Attack on Regulation Starts To Win Admiration Both At Home and Abroad - The New York Sun




Every notice how many Congressmen leave government far richer than when they went in?



"Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal"
Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal


....hence poor men come to Washington to do good, and leave as millionaires, having made good.

Trump is a threat to their sinecures.

"Socialists like Bernie Sanders rarely call for full-blown government ownership of the means of production. They call for policies that amount to government management of the means of production. Such policies calling for extensive federal intervention into local affairs stand in direct violation of the limits placed on federal power by the U.S. Constitution.

What limits does the US Constitution place on corporations?

Bernie's calling for worker self directed enterprises which will bring democracy to the workplace, i.e., the place where adults spent half their waking hours:

Bernie Sanders: Workers should control the means of production

"One Sanders plan would create 'worker wealth funds' which corporations would be required to contribute into, and which would both pay dividends to the workers and buy shares in those firms to give workers ultimate voting control. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., another contender, is considering a similar idea.

"Sanders’ proposal for worker ownership is a new iteration of a plans put forward decades ago by Swedish trade union economist Rudolf Meidner, who envisioned a gradual socialization of industry by requiring owners to dedicate a percentage of yearly profits into union-owned 'wage-earner funds' that would be used to buy shares in the company.

"Over time, the employees’ funds would buy up more and more of the company until eventually workers controlled a majority stake or even everything.

"The plan, though pursued by the Social Democratic Party, was never fully realized in Sweden."

"Bernie Sanders: Workers should control the means of production

"One Sanders plan would create 'worker wealth funds' which corporations would be required to contribute into, and which would both pay dividends to the workers and buy shares in those firms to give workers ultimate voting control. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., another contender, is considering a similar idea.

"Sanders’ proposal for worker ownership is a new iteration of a plans put forward decades ago by Swedish trade union economist Rudolf Meidner, who envisioned a gradual socialization of industry by requiring owners to dedicate a percentage of yearly profits into union-owned 'wage-earner funds' that would be used to buy shares in the company.

"Over time, the employees’ funds would buy up more and more of the company until eventually workers controlled a majority stake or even everything.

"The plan, though pursued by the Social Democratic Party, was never fully realized in Sweden."




Already done by the American capitalist system:


"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.


.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably




In your face, booooooyyyyyyeeeeeeee!!!!

I thought the discussion in this thread was about D-Day, not Turmp, Sanders, democrats and the American capitalist system.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It was not capitalism in any sense.

Try reading Hegel.

The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).



Then, Marx.

a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.





"... the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, ..."

Horsefeathers.

My reply to your first post about Germany being socialist was "Yes and No". Yes it was socialist but only when it served Hitler's goals. Hitler certainly embraced socialism which he credited with his rise to power.

Hitler's version of socialism would have made Karl Marx rollover in his grave. While he praised socialist principals he also praised the entrepreneurial spirit of true Germans. Only a few years after Hitler delivered one his most impassioned speeches praising Marx, the Nazis began their book burning and the first to be burned was the works of Karl Marx in 1933. Within a few years, "Das Kapital" could not be found in a single book store or library in German. There simply was too many discrepancies between Hitler's socialism and that of Marx. Trade Unions were key to Hitler's rise to power but within ten years he had effective destroyed them. In 1934, the growing debt of goverment was his biggest economic problem. So he turned to very people he promised to destroy, the bankers and industrialist. They secured the loans which effectively saved the Reich but in return, he started a plan of de-nationalizing. He nullify the power of trade unions to satisfy the industrialists. Although short lived, Nazi capitalism was born. However, by 1938, Hitler had nationalized almost all the major industries in the country. However, he did not seize ownership of all these industries, he promised the industrialist huge rewards when war was won, and he kept his promise of private ownership for individuals and small businesses provide they were not Jewish or Communist. Socialism in German and the USSR were vastly different. However they were very similar in one respect. Both the Communist and the Nazis used socialism as a guise to build a totalitarian state.
https://www.nber.org/chapters/c9476.pdf
Karl Marx - Wikipedia

You're wrong, for the simple reason that you demand a clear and straight line between the views, or you deny the facts that all collectivist schemes demand the very same outcome.
What you miss is that one becomes the other incrementally.

The increments are accomplished by regulation and statute.


"Socialists like Bernie Sanders rarely call for full-blown government ownership of the means of production. They call for policies that amount to government management of the means of production. Such policies calling for extensive federal intervention into local affairs stand in direct violation of the limits placed on federal power by the U.S. Constitution. Yet, when people express concern about the dangers of a centrally planned economy, Sanders tries to assuage such fears by saying, “The government, in a democratic society, is the people.”
Falling in Love With Socialism


Wise up.


Further....the greatest threat that Trump is to the Establishment, the collectivist establishment, is that he removes their latter to wealth.
They put in regulations so that industry has to hire lobbyists to bribe them to write loopholes.

"Trump Attack on Regulation
Starts To Win Admiration
Both At Home and Abroad"
Trump Attack on Regulation Starts To Win Admiration Both At Home and Abroad - The New York Sun




Every notice how many Congressmen leave government far richer than when they went in?



"Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal"
Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal


....hence poor men come to Washington to do good, and leave as millionaires, having made good.

Trump is a threat to their sinecures.

"Socialists like Bernie Sanders rarely call for full-blown government ownership of the means of production. They call for policies that amount to government management of the means of production. Such policies calling for extensive federal intervention into local affairs stand in direct violation of the limits placed on federal power by the U.S. Constitution.

What limits does the US Constitution place on corporations?

Bernie's calling for worker self directed enterprises which will bring democracy to the workplace, i.e., the place where adults spent half their waking hours:

Bernie Sanders: Workers should control the means of production

"One Sanders plan would create 'worker wealth funds' which corporations would be required to contribute into, and which would both pay dividends to the workers and buy shares in those firms to give workers ultimate voting control. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., another contender, is considering a similar idea.

"Sanders’ proposal for worker ownership is a new iteration of a plans put forward decades ago by Swedish trade union economist Rudolf Meidner, who envisioned a gradual socialization of industry by requiring owners to dedicate a percentage of yearly profits into union-owned 'wage-earner funds' that would be used to buy shares in the company.

"Over time, the employees’ funds would buy up more and more of the company until eventually workers controlled a majority stake or even everything.

"The plan, though pursued by the Social Democratic Party, was never fully realized in Sweden."

"Bernie Sanders: Workers should control the means of production

"One Sanders plan would create 'worker wealth funds' which corporations would be required to contribute into, and which would both pay dividends to the workers and buy shares in those firms to give workers ultimate voting control. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., another contender, is considering a similar idea.

"Sanders’ proposal for worker ownership is a new iteration of a plans put forward decades ago by Swedish trade union economist Rudolf Meidner, who envisioned a gradual socialization of industry by requiring owners to dedicate a percentage of yearly profits into union-owned 'wage-earner funds' that would be used to buy shares in the company.

"Over time, the employees’ funds would buy up more and more of the company until eventually workers controlled a majority stake or even everything.

"The plan, though pursued by the Social Democratic Party, was never fully realized in Sweden."




Already done by the American capitalist system:


"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.


.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably




In your face, booooooyyyyyyeeeeeeee!!!!

I thought the discussion in this thread was about D-Day, not Turmp, Sanders, democrats and the American capitalist system.

When I am forced to correct your mistakes....things go in other directions.


Consider it an education and a filling in of your lacunae.

 

[georgephillip]

Nazism erected a system of production, distribution and consumption that defies classification in any of the usual categories. It was not capitalism in the traditional sense: the autonomous market mechanism so characteristic of capitalism during the last two centuries had all but disappeared. It was not State capitalism: the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, and in fact took steps to denationalize them. It was not socialism or communism: private property and private profit still existed. The Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics of capitalism and a highly planned economy.

It was not capitalism in any sense.

Try reading Hegel.

The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).



Then, Marx.

a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.





"... the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, ..."

Horsefeathers.

My reply to your first post about Germany being socialist was "Yes and No". Yes it was socialist but only when it served Hitler's goals. Hitler certainly embraced socialism which he credited with his rise to power.

Hitler's version of socialism would have made Karl Marx rollover in his grave. While he praised socialist principals he also praised the entrepreneurial spirit of true Germans. Only a few years after Hitler delivered one his most impassioned speeches praising Marx, the Nazis began their book burning and the first to be burned was the works of Karl Marx in 1933. Within a few years, "Das Kapital" could not be found in a single book store or library in German. There simply was too many discrepancies between Hitler's socialism and that of Marx. Trade Unions were key to Hitler's rise to power but within ten years he had effective destroyed them. In 1934, the growing debt of goverment was his biggest economic problem. So he turned to very people he promised to destroy, the bankers and industrialist. They secured the loans which effectively saved the Reich but in return, he started a plan of de-nationalizing. He nullify the power of trade unions to satisfy the industrialists. Although short lived, Nazi capitalism was born. However, by 1938, Hitler had nationalized almost all the major industries in the country. However, he did not seize ownership of all these industries, he promised the industrialist huge rewards when war was won, and he kept his promise of private ownership for individuals and small businesses provide they were not Jewish or Communist. Socialism in German and the USSR were vastly different. However they were very similar in one respect. Both the Communist and the Nazis used socialism as a guise to build a totalitarian state.
https://www.nber.org/chapters/c9476.pdf
Karl Marx - Wikipedia

You're wrong, for the simple reason that you demand a clear and straight line between the views, or you deny the facts that all collectivist schemes demand the very same outcome.
What you miss is that one becomes the other incrementally.

The increments are accomplished by regulation and statute.


"Socialists like Bernie Sanders rarely call for full-blown government ownership of the means of production. They call for policies that amount to government management of the means of production. Such policies calling for extensive federal intervention into local affairs stand in direct violation of the limits placed on federal power by the U.S. Constitution. Yet, when people express concern about the dangers of a centrally planned economy, Sanders tries to assuage such fears by saying, “The government, in a democratic society, is the people.”
Falling in Love With Socialism


Wise up.


Further....the greatest threat that Trump is to the Establishment, the collectivist establishment, is that he removes their latter to wealth.
They put in regulations so that industry has to hire lobbyists to bribe them to write loopholes.

"Trump Attack on Regulation
Starts To Win Admiration
Both At Home and Abroad"
Trump Attack on Regulation Starts To Win Admiration Both At Home and Abroad - The New York Sun




Every notice how many Congressmen leave government far richer than when they went in?



"Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal"
Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal


....hence poor men come to Washington to do good, and leave as millionaires, having made good.

Trump is a threat to their sinecures.

"Socialists like Bernie Sanders rarely call for full-blown government ownership of the means of production. They call for policies that amount to government management of the means of production. Such policies calling for extensive federal intervention into local affairs stand in direct violation of the limits placed on federal power by the U.S. Constitution.

What limits does the US Constitution place on corporations?

Bernie's calling for worker self directed enterprises which will bring democracy to the workplace, i.e., the place where adults spent half their waking hours:

Bernie Sanders: Workers should control the means of production

"One Sanders plan would create 'worker wealth funds' which corporations would be required to contribute into, and which would both pay dividends to the workers and buy shares in those firms to give workers ultimate voting control. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., another contender, is considering a similar idea.

"Sanders’ proposal for worker ownership is a new iteration of a plans put forward decades ago by Swedish trade union economist Rudolf Meidner, who envisioned a gradual socialization of industry by requiring owners to dedicate a percentage of yearly profits into union-owned 'wage-earner funds' that would be used to buy shares in the company.

"Over time, the employees’ funds would buy up more and more of the company until eventually workers controlled a majority stake or even everything.

"The plan, though pursued by the Social Democratic Party, was never fully realized in Sweden."

"Bernie Sanders: Workers should control the means of production

"One Sanders plan would create 'worker wealth funds' which corporations would be required to contribute into, and which would both pay dividends to the workers and buy shares in those firms to give workers ultimate voting control. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., another contender, is considering a similar idea.

"Sanders’ proposal for worker ownership is a new iteration of a plans put forward decades ago by Swedish trade union economist Rudolf Meidner, who envisioned a gradual socialization of industry by requiring owners to dedicate a percentage of yearly profits into union-owned 'wage-earner funds' that would be used to buy shares in the company.

"Over time, the employees’ funds would buy up more and more of the company until eventually workers controlled a majority stake or even everything.

"The plan, though pursued by the Social Democratic Party, was never fully realized in Sweden."




Already done by the American capitalist system:


"Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free. That results in an automatic 15% return before you’ve collected your first dividend. On top of that, the company matches 100% on the first 6% of salary contributed to a 401(k) plan.


.....they’d retire with nearly $4.9 million in their investment account at average long-term rates of return. If inflation runs the same rate it did during the past century, that would be around $1.7 million in today’s dollars, which would generate $5,700 per month pre-tax without every touching the principal."
A Married Couple Working for Walmart Could Retire and Live Very Comfortably




In your face, booooooyyyyyyeeeeeeee!!!!

Wal-Mart matches employee stock purchases by 15% on the first $1,800 worth of shares bought each year. If you work at the company and write a check to buy $1,800 worth of the stock, the company is going to give you another $270 to buy shares completely free

Since the average Wal-Mart employee requires food stamps and other forms of welfare to compensate for their low wages, where does said employee acquire $150 every month to buy stock?