I don’t understand why republicans are so selective about the definition of socialism

[Norman]

"Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled, alongside a democratic political system of government. Democratic socialism rejects self-described socialist states just as it rejects Marxism–Leninism."

Same trick as Hitler used when he added "national" in front of socialism. You don't get anything better, it's the same turd only with some extra words.

The problem with Nazi Germany wasn't the socialism, it was the nationalism. Capitalists did very well under the Nazis, at least until they lost the war that their capitalist economic policies made inevitable. (Germany essentially borrowed massively to rebuild her military industrial complex and needed to conquer other lands for the resources to sustain it.)

A lot of reasons why "Socialism" wouldn't work... but going into hysterics isn't an argument.

Or maybe it is if your core voter is too stupid to know what words mean. Kind of how Trump came to power to start with.

It was socialism and tyranny. Socialism the German way...

 

[JoeB131]

No, you don't. The people inside Russia were starving to death. You don't know what you are talking about.

How do you blame the EU, for choices Greece made? That makes no sense. This is like you blaming the bank, for giving you a loan, when you lied on the application.

I do blame the bank if they made me a bunch of promises and knowingly ignored my lies.

Pretty much what the EU did to the Greeks. "Join us, we will give you all these goodies! Oh, you're in? Now we are going to **** you!"

 

[Flash]

All those Democrat asshole candidates are running on a platform to turn the US into a Socialist Shithole.

The only difference is the rate. Commie Bernie and Pocahontas are the roaring freight train to the Socialist Shithole. The rest of the dimwit candidates would be the slower passenger train making a few stops along the way but the destination is still the same .

 

[JoeB131]

It was socialism and tyranny. Socialism the German way...

Um, no, it really wasn't. There was no collectivism, no government ownership of businesses...

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist

Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today — a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety.

Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a “people’s community” — the volksgemeinschaft — that would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity. Thus, he would use the unifying aspects of “National Socialism” to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the German state.

 

[Norman]

It was socialism and tyranny. Socialism the German way...

Um, no, it really wasn't. There was no collectivism, no government ownership of businesses...

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist

Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today — a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety.

Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a “people’s community” — the volksgemeinschaft — that would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity. Thus, he would use the unifying aspects of “National Socialism” to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the German state.

He was not a real socialist, it wasn't real socialism.

Yet he did with all socialists do... grab the guns, nationalize everything and then go on an expansionist tyrade (how nationalistic!).

 

[JoeB131]

He was not a real socialist, it wasn't real socialism.

Yet he did with all socialists do... grab the guns, nationalize everything and then go on an expansionist tyrade (how nationalistic!).

First, it's spelled "Tirade"... you aren't even spelling the word right, much less using it right.
Second- Nazi Germany didn't "grab guns". In fact, they had restored many of the gun owner rights that the Weimar Republican had attempted to take away.
Third, um, no, Seimens, Krupp, etc... all the big companies, were not nationalized. Neither were the lands of wealthy German nobles, which is why you had guys still calling themselves by titles like "Graf" and "Ritter"

 

[Norman]

He was not a real socialist, it wasn't real socialism.

Yet he did with all socialists do... grab the guns, nationalize everything and then go on an expansionist tyrade (how nationalistic!).

First, it's spelled "Tirade"... you aren't even spelling the word right, much less using it right.
Second- Nazi Germany didn't "grab guns". In fact, they had restored many of the gun owner rights that the Weimar Republican had attempted to take away.
Third, um, no, Seimens, Krupp, etc... all the big companies, were not nationalized. Neither were the lands of wealthy German nobles, which is why you had guys still calling themselves by titles like "Graf" and "Ritter"

Those Jews sure wished they had some guns.

Thankfully, when the Sanders folk decide to come for our rights, we will have guns. The failure of socialism will not be repeating itself in the land of the free.

 

[Andylusion]

No, you don't. The people inside Russia were starving to death. You don't know what you are talking about.

How do you blame the EU, for choices Greece made? That makes no sense. This is like you blaming the bank, for giving you a loan, when you lied on the application.

I do blame the bank if they made me a bunch of promises and knowingly ignored my lies.

Pretty much what the EU did to the Greeks. "Join us, we will give you all these goodies! Oh, you're in? Now we are going to **** you!"

So you know for the a fact, that the bank knew you were lying?

And you know the EU was fully aware they were lying when they joined the EU?

Do you have evidence of that?

But even then, Greece could have at least twice that I know of. They didn't. Why didn't they? If what the EU did was oh so terrible... then why didn't they leave the EU the times it had the chance?

Look, you can't say "The EU is the cause of all my problems" and "I don't want to leave the EU because of all the benefits".

You can't have it both ways. If you join any group, any group at all, there are benefits and requirements for joining. You can't have the benefits, and not follow all the requirements. That's life.

You can't both be married, and screw every woman you come across. Generally speaking, you don't get both.

You can't join the EU, get all the benefits of the EU, refuse to leave the EU... and then blame the EU for all your problems.

Doesn't work that way. If the EU is the problem, then leave, and see how your problems are all solved.

And lastly, I don't blame the bank or the EU for any of this. That mindset, is the mindset of a loser, who is looking for anyone to blame other than themselves.



It's this logic, that people dump coffee on themselves, and are shocked it is hot, and blame McDonald's for their own complete and total incompetence.

No. You are full of crap on this. It isn't the job of everyone on the planet, to stop you from making a dumb choice, and lying in order to achieve that choice.

If you agree to make a bad loan with me, how is that my responsibility? Is it my job to make sure you make wise choices, or your job? Your job. Period. End of story. You own your own choices. Not me.

You need to stop thinking in such a immature mindset. There is no one to blame for any choices you make in life, but you, and that goes for everyone, including me, and the choices nations make by the incompetent people they vote into office.

 

[Oldstyle]

And yet the entire "impressive" nation imploded on it's own...not because they were conquered by the West...but because their system was unsustainable! The only impression that should make on any intelligent person is that it's not something to emulate!

the British Empire imploded on it's own, not because they were conquered, but because their system was unsustainable.

Yet not a ******* one of you denounces capitalism, even though the British Empire was Capitalism in it's ugliest form.

Britain didn't implode...it simply lost it's far flung empire...something that happened with every other European nation as well. That's something that had zero to with capitalism being sustainable...it's about colonialism being unsustainable! The United States was part of the British Empire that broke away and declared it's independence! We didn't change from a capitalistic society...if anything we became even MORE capitalistic than Britain ever was! We flourished because of that system!

 

[JoeB131]

Those Jews sure wished they had some guns.

Uh, the Nazis had tanks...

Hey, they actually tried the whole "let's fight back with guns" in the Warsaw Ghetto. They managed to kill a whopping 19 Germans before 50,000 of them were killed or sent off to the camps.

 

[JoeB131]

Britain didn't implode...it simply lost it's far flung empire...something that happened with every other European nation as well. That's something that had zero to with capitalism being sustainable...it's about colonialism being unsustainable! The United States was part of the British Empire that broke away and declared it's independence! We didn't change from a capitalistic society...if anything we became even MORE capitalistic than Britain ever was! We flourished because of that system!

Wait. It "lost" it's empire? Did they leave it at a bus stop?

No, it lost it's empire because Indians, Kenyans, Burmese, Egyptians, got tired of sending treasure to London so British people could live high on the hog.

Just like the USSR lost it's empire because Khazaks, Lithuanians, Ukranians, Moldavans, etc. got tired of sending treasure to Moscow so Russians could live high on the hog.

Also, using the US as an example isn't really a solid one, since Industrialized capitalism hadn't really evolved yet. Most people were still living as subsitance farmers at the time.

Our "Capitalist" system survived because FDR realized Capitalism was unsustainable, and replaced it with a progressive model before the people got fed up with that shit and replaced it with something worse.

 

[Norman]

Those Jews sure wished they had some guns.

Uh, the Nazis had tanks...

Hey, they actually tried the whole "let's fight back with guns" in the Warsaw Ghetto. They managed to kill a whopping 19 Germans before 50,000 of them were killed or sent off to the camps.

As if they had resources to send tanks to go after random citizens, they barely had the resources for food. Talk about stupid.

Further, sending tanks to destroy your own communities is a total non-starter from the get go.

 

[JoeB131]

So you know for the a fact, that the bank knew you were lying?

Actually, kind of a fact of life, the 2008 recession happened because the banks KNEW most of the people they were loaning money to weren't qualified for loans. They didn't care. They figured they could just reposess and resell at a profit.

And you know the EU was fully aware they were lying when they joined the EU?

.Yup. They have thousands of analysts and professionals...

They simply aren't capable of that level of incompetence.

It's this logic, that people dump coffee on themselves, and are shocked it is hot, and blame McDonald's for their own complete and total incompetence.

No, we blame McDonald's for continuing to serve coffee they KNEW was too hot for human consumption. Maybe before spouting off like a good little Corporate Toady, you need to educate yourself in the FACTS of that case.

If you agree to make a bad loan with me, how is that my responsibility? Is it my job to make sure you make wise choices, or your job? Your job. Period. End of story. You own your own choices. Not me.

You need to stop thinking in such a immature mindset. There is no one to blame for any choices you make in life, but you, and that goes for everyone, including me, and the choices nations make by the incompetent people they vote into office.

Again, if we had a system that looked out for consumers instead of bankers, the bankers would be more responsible.

 

[Norman]

So you know for the a fact, that the bank knew you were lying?

Actually, kind of a fact of life, the 2008 recession happened because the banks KNEW most of the people they were loaning money to weren't qualified for loans. They didn't care. They figured they could just reposess and resell at a profit.

And you know the EU was fully aware they were lying when they joined the EU?

.Yup. They have thousands of analysts and professionals...

They simply aren't capable of that level of incompetence.

It's this logic, that people dump coffee on themselves, and are shocked it is hot, and blame McDonald's for their own complete and total incompetence.

No, we blame McDonald's for continuing to serve coffee they KNEW was too hot for human consumption. Maybe before spouting off like a good little Corporate Toady, you need to educate yourself in the FACTS of that case.

If you agree to make a bad loan with me, how is that my responsibility? Is it my job to make sure you make wise choices, or your job? Your job. Period. End of story. You own your own choices. Not me.

You need to stop thinking in such a immature mindset. There is no one to blame for any choices you make in life, but you, and that goes for everyone, including me, and the choices nations make by the incompetent people they vote into office.

Again, if we had a system that looked out for consumers instead of bankers, the bankers would be more responsible.

In the forefront were the GSEs. The housing bubble was highly politically motivated.

Good honest people create good systems... bad people on the other hand...

 

[JoeB131]

In the forefront were the GSEs. The housing bubble was highly politically motivated.

Good honest people create good systems... bad people on the other hand...

YOu are a little confused, there, buddy. The GSE's weren't the problem. The problem were the banks making loans to people who shouldn't have gotten loans because they weren't making enough money or they were overextended.

Shit, I shouldn't have gotten a loan in 2004, but I did. Then they gave me another one in 2006.

 

[Norman]

In the forefront were the GSEs. The housing bubble was highly politically motivated.

Good honest people create good systems... bad people on the other hand...

YOu are a little confused, there, buddy. The GSE's weren't the problem. The problem were the banks making loans to people who shouldn't have gotten loans because they weren't making enough money or they were overextended.

Shit, I shouldn't have gotten a loan in 2004, but I did. Then they gave me another one in 2006.

GSEs started the fun.

 

[JoeB131]

GSEs started the fun.

No, greedy bankers did. I would add to that both parties neglected to supervise the banks while still promising to back their losses.

 

[Norman]

GSEs started the fun.

No, greedy bankers did. I would add to that both parties neglected to supervise the banks while still promising to back their losses.

GSEs are greedy banks.

 

[Oldstyle]

Britain didn't implode...it simply lost it's far flung empire...something that happened with every other European nation as well. That's something that had zero to with capitalism being sustainable...it's about colonialism being unsustainable! The United States was part of the British Empire that broke away and declared it's independence! We didn't change from a capitalistic society...if anything we became even MORE capitalistic than Britain ever was! We flourished because of that system!

Wait. It "lost" it's empire? Did they leave it at a bus stop?

No, it lost it's empire because Indians, Kenyans, Burmese, Egyptians, got tired of sending treasure to London so British people could live high on the hog.

Just like the USSR lost it's empire because Khazaks, Lithuanians, Ukranians, Moldavans, etc. got tired of sending treasure to Moscow so Russians could live high on the hog.

Also, using the US as an example isn't really a solid one, since Industrialized capitalism hadn't really evolved yet. Most people were still living as subsitance farmers at the time.

Our "Capitalist" system survived because FDR realized Capitalism was unsustainable, and replaced it with a progressive model before the people got fed up with that shit and replaced it with something worse.

So you're claiming that our system was doomed until FDR "saved" it? You're an amusing fellow, Joey! Speaking as a History major I'd like to commend you on your total lack of understanding of what made the United States great and what continues to make it great!

Listening to you expound on world history makes me wonder where you studied the subject? Or didn't...

 

[JoeB131]

So you're claiming that our system was doomed until FDR "saved" it? You're an amusing fellow, Joey! Speaking as a History major I'd like to commend you on your total lack of understanding of what made the United States great and what continues to make it great!

Listening to you expound on world history makes me wonder where you studied the subject? Or didn't...

I have a bachelor degree in history from UIC. True, it's not one of those universities that teaches about talking snakes, so there's that.

The first problem is, no history major would expound that the US is "Great". Frankly, we have just as much in our history to be ashamed of than proud of. You know, genocide of the Native Americans, slavery, exploitation of immigrant labor.

Second, um, yeah, the US probably would have slid into fascism if FDR hadn't saved it. As Herbert Hoover expounded,