edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
The only parasites I see are the corporate parasites feeding on Tramp's government teat.
Question for democrat Socialists
- Thread starter CrusaderFrank
- Start date
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
Republicans piss on the Constitution every day and twice on Sunday. They proved it just recently with their FAKE "trial."
- Sep 16, 2012
- 66,499
- 62,116
- 3,605
Silver Cat
Gold Member
Are you ready to marry a dead body, a little girl, or a sheep? I suppose it doesn't conform your religion, too.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
No one is forcing anyone to be gay by performing a CIVIL marriage ceremony. You are an IDIOT!
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,804
- 2,290
No...they aren't. They are the same thing......government control of the means of production. Fascism is socialism........Mussolini, who coined the term Fascism...was a marxist to his core........
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
Notice how the Fascist Right has to change the subject when they know they are LOSING!
Silver Cat
Gold Member
Is it your social circle? Try to see more of real life.
Gandhi was a Nationalist.
Stalin was a Nationalist.
Mandela was a Nationalist.
Fidel Castro was a Nationalist.
Che Guevera was a Nationalist.
FDR was a Nationalist.
Mao Zedong was a Nationalist.
Ho Chi Minh was a Nationalist.
JFK was a Nationalist.
Viktor Orban of Hungary is a Nationalist.
Believing in your nation and wanting what is best for it, isn't new and isn't restricted to either good or bad leaders, as this small partial list shows. It's simply, love of country, that's all.
No doubt, you're part of the George Soros, New World Order, open borders and free flow of peoples notion. It's starting to fall apart in Europe.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
Your hero disagrees with you!
"Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."
--Adolf Hitler, Sunday Express, 28 September 1930; cited. in The Rise of Fascism by F.L. Carsten, p. 137
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,804
- 2,290
Saw this today.....
And for the record.....you can ignore the "democratic" in front of the "socialism," because no matter where it starts, socialism always leads to the destruction of freedom.......
INTERVIEW (Part I): Swedish Author Johan Norberg On The Devastating Impact Of Socialism, And What It Could Cost The U.S.
DW: Proponents of socialism will tell you that the ideology works in concept, but simply hasn’t been implemented correctly. They’ll set aside Venezuela, which they once championed as a socialist success story, as having been corrupted. What’s the reality there? Why hasn’t socialism ever succeeded?
NORBERG: Well, it’s interesting because they always adore the policies. It’s just that they don’t like the outcomes and the results, the consequences. Socialists in Sweden and in the United States adored Venezuelan policies until it destroyed the economy, and had GDP per capita collapse by more than 60%, and people began to starve. At that point they said, “It’s not real socialism.”
So, apparently their definition is not just some kind of socialist policy, but it also has to turn out well – and in that case, they’re right because it has never been implemented anywhere with good results.
What they did was that they started to regulate the economy in a real way, in a socialist way, that Sweden never did. They began to take over private businesses. They began with drastic price controls because they thought that this was the way to give people cheap bread. But obviously, the result was, as it is everywhere where such things are being implemented, that farmers stopped producing food, and instead, they sell it on the black markets, and they smuggle it out of the country because they can’t make a living with those kinds of price controls.
They took all the capital, some of which they got because of the price increases in oil (some $1,000 billion over ten years), which could be used to invest in the country, it was all taken by the government to give to their supporters, some for programs and policies, but most of all just wasted in corruption and other stuff, which meant that they didn’t even invest in the future of the oil industry. So, the output grows smaller and smaller all the time. The moment when prices began to come down to normal levels, they couldn’t sustain anything anymore, and it all collapsed tremendously – and we all knew this. We could all see this because those policies on socializing businesses and implementing price controls, wasting capital rather than investing it, always ends up in tears – but socialists loved it until they noticed that people began to starve.
DW: What’s your opinion of socialism as a philosophical concept, and as a form of government?
NORBERG: Lots of people say that the ideas of socialism are wonderful, it’s just that the means were too brutal and awful, and the means corrupted the ends in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and Venezuela. Therefore, it collapsed. I would say it is the other way around. It’s the complete opposite. The problem is that socialism goes against human nature. It is the total opposite of any kind of system of human morality, and that’s why they always end up with walls and barbed wire and machine guns because that’s the only way to force people to do it. We know this because we’ve seen so many different experiments with socialism – even libertarian voluntary forms of socialism, like the kibbutz in Israel for example, and they were done by idealists.
No one was forced to work collectively. From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs – but it didn’t even work there. What happened was that people didn’t want that regimentation, that kind of collective ownership. People began to demand to do things in different ways and own stuff. They began to realize that when everything was in common, they began to waste stuff. People kept the light up and the heat during night when they didn’t need it because they didn’t have to pay market prices. People took their pets to the dining room because food was free. So people began to demand this kind of freedom, and when it came to work, what happened was that as one of the kibbutzim pioneers said, “It became a paradise for parasites” because if you don’t get your wage according to what you’ve done, the effort you put into it, why bother? Why do you ever work at all, in that case?
People of talent then began to leave the kibbutz.
The thing is, had this been Eastern Germany or Venezuela or the Soviet Union, they saw the same thing, and forced people to work, not for gain of a profit, but for the government, they had to force them. They brought out the machine guns. And if people wanted to leave for another place, they built the walls and they killed people who did it. So, it’s really that the brutal ends were a result of the whole system going so much against the human nature of people who want some freedom, who want some individual responsibility, and who want to gain according to what they do rather than what the governments tell them.
That’s a very long way of answering the question, but I think that’s important for the philosophical part of it. It’s not that the means corrupted the ends. It’s that the ends would never work, and that’s why they needed brutal means.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
Please provide actual quotes from each of the people you listed actually saying that!
??? The only thing fake about the Impeachment, was the so-called hearing.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
The Daily Liar is FAKE NEWS!
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,804
- 2,290
There is no such thing as a fascist Right...fascism is a left wing economic system.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
The IMPEACHMENT was real, so real in fact that Tramp is branded as IMPEACHED for ever and ever!
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,804
- 2,290
Moron.....
Read A Pile Of Top Nazis Talking About How They Love Leftist Marxism
The Nazis were leftists. This statement is blasphemy to the academic-media complex, since everyone knows the Nazis were degenerate right-wingers fueled by toxic capitalism and racism. But evidence Adolf Hitler’s gang were men of the left, while debatable, is compelling.
The dispute on Nazi origins resurfaced through the confluence of brawling alt-right and antifa fringe movements and recent alternative histories by Dinesh D’Souza and others. The vitriol and lack of candor it produces from supposedly fact-driven academics and media is disturbing, if unsurprising. They stifle dissent on touchy subjects to maintain their narrative and enforce cultural hegemony.
However uncomfortable to opinion shapers, alternative views of the Third Reich exist and were written by the finest minds of their time. Opinions from the period perhaps carry more weight because they are unburdened by the aftermath of the uniquely heinous Nazi crimes.
------
Also, Adolf Hitler Loved Karl Marx
It wasn’t only theoretical. Hitler repeatedly praised Marx privately, stating he had “learned a great deal from Marxism.” The trouble with the Weimar Republic, he said, was that its politicians “had never even read Marx.” He also stated his differences with communists were that they were intellectual types passing out pamphlets, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun.”
It wasn’t just privately that Hitler’s fealty for Marx surfaced. In “Mein Kampf,” he states that without his racial insights National Socialism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground.” Nor did Hitler eschew this sentiment once reaching power.
As late as 1941, with the war in bloom, he stated “basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same” in a speech published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Nazi propaganda minister and resident intellectual Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that the Nazis would install “real socialism” after Russia’s defeat in the East.
And Hitler favorite Albert Speer, the Nazi armaments minister whose memoir became an international bestseller, wrote that Hitler viewed Joseph Stalin as a kindred spirit, ensuring his prisoner of war son received good treatment, and even talked of keeping Stalin in power in a puppet government after Germany’s eventual triumph. His views on Great Britain’s Winston Churchill and the United States’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt were decidedly less kind.
Nazi and Communist Hatred of Each Other Was Brotherly
Despite this, there’s a persistent claim that Nazis and communists hated each other, and mention that the Nazis persecuted socialists and oppressed trade unions. These things are true, but prove little. The camps’ hatred stemmed from familiarity. It was internecine, the nastiest kind.
The Nazis and communists were not only in a struggle for street-war supremacy, but also recruits. These recruits were easily turned, because both sides were fighting for the same men. Hayek recalls
Silver Cat
Gold Member
You are intolerant bigot! What should you do, if the "person of your choice" is a sheep?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,804
- 2,290
You don't know what you are talking about....
Nazism is Socialism -- F A Hayek, et al
One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because -and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany – many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience. But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a move movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt.
A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extend directed against their economic policy. What the Nazis mainly objected to was their internationalism and all the aspects of their cultural programme which were still influenced by liberal ideas. But the accusations against the social-democrats and the communists which were most effective in their propaganda were not so much directed against their programme as against their supposed practice -their corruption and nepotism, and even their alleged alliance with “the golden International of Jewish Capitalism.”
It would, indeed, hardly have been possible for the Nationalists to advance fundamental objections to the economic policy of the other socialist parties when their own published programme differed from these only in that its socialism was much cruder and less rational. The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder,[2] one of Hitler’s early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists. But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic -individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, “international finance and loan capital,” the system of “interest slavery” in general; the abolition of these is described as the “[indecipherable] of the programme, around which everything else turns.” It was to this programme that the masses of the German people, who were already completely under the influence of collectivist ideas, responded so enthusiastically.
That this violent anti-capitalistic attack is genuine – and not a mere piece of propaganda – becomes as clear from the personal history of the intellectual leaders of the movement as from the general milieu from which it springs. It is not even denied that man of the young men who today play a prominent part in it have previously been communists or socialists. And to any observer of the literary tendencies which made the Germans intelligentsia ready to join the ranks of the new party, it must be clear that the common characteristic of all the politically influential writers – in many cases free from definite party affiliations – was their anti-liberal and anti-capitalist trend. Groups like that formed around the review “Die Tat” have made the phrase “the end of capitalism” an accepted dogma to most young Germans.[3]
And more...
The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism" | Chris Calton
German socialism, as Mises defines it, differs from what he called “socialism of the Russian pattern” in that “it, seemingly and nominally, maintains private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship, and market exchange.” However, this is only a superficial system of private ownership because through a complete system of economic intervention and control, the entrepreneurial function of the property owners is completely controlled by the State.
By this, Mises means that shop owners do not speculate about future events for the purpose of allocating resources in the pursuit of profits. Just like in the Soviet Union, this entrepreneurial speculation and resource allocation is done by a single entity, the State, and economic calculation is thus impossible.
“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,804
- 2,290
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Navarro and Musk fight in public while Democrats complain ironically complain about Authoritarian administration- Started by Mr. Friscus
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
