Frazzled wrote:True that, althoguh I'd posit most of the weridos attacking Obama call him a socialist, not a Nazi. Come on redy, get your nutjob slurs correct!
Uh Fraz,..............Could you please post the origin and definition of the term nazi?
It is amazing the lengths that socialist go to in order to obscure the fact that germany from 1933-1945 was a socialist state.
reds8n wrote:I've yet to see any protest in the last few years where someone hasn't accused/labelled the oposition as Nazis. It's like Godwin's Law has escaped the internet and now roams the world at will.
I find it both amazing and disheartening that an internet meme with no scientific basis in fact is used to casually dismiss the concerns of entire groups of people. I can understand questioning the credibility of those who are shouting the term mindlessly with nothing to back up their statements, but when Godwins law is used as an excuse to ignore those that are calmly using the term and providing source material for their position then there is a huge problem. Wouldn't you agree.
Actually, the Nazis were socialist about as much as China under Mao was a Republic.
That said: I find his references to a 'peaceful' tea party rather humorous. The local tea party had a meeting near here. Some of them forgot to take off their white sheets from their previous meeting that day, however.
Which gives the 'liberal media' a lot to work with. Giving a speech while wearing a swastika is not a way to convince people to join your cause.
Me, I'm all for smaller government. And closing the boarders for the next five years as an experiment in economics. And releasing the Native Americans from their bondage to the United States.
focusedfire wrote:
It is amazing the lengths that socialist go to in order to obscure the fact that germany from 1933-1945 was a socialist state.
No it wasn't.
reds8n wrote:I've yet to see any protest in the last few years where someone hasn't accused/labelled the oposition as Nazis. It's like Godwin's Law has escaped the internet and now roams the world at will.
I find it both amazing and disheartening that an internet meme with no scientific basis in fact is used to casually dismiss the concerns of entire groups of people. I can understand questioning the credibility of those who are shouting the term mindlessly with nothing to back up their statements, but when Godwins law is used as an excuse to ignore those that are calmly using the term and providing source material for their position then there is a huge problem. Wouldn't you agree.
No. The problem is entirely with the idiots yelling, baying and making spurious claims about nazis and the like.
Yes, Fascist Socialists considered Communist Socialists as one of their greatest threats.
Sort of how a baptist will go after a catholic before he would a buddist. Things that are very similar but under someone elses control are always considered a greater threat to the particular authority in question.
Ironically, in this country, we've got one side advocating the economic theories of the Nazis, and the other advocating the social theories of the Nazis...
focusedfire wrote:
It is amazing the lengths that socialist go to in order to obscure the fact that germany from 1933-1945 was a socialist state.
Tangentially to your point, practically no extant state in the world has zero socialist tendencies (those that are tend to be anarchies) by a strict definition. There's little value in apply the label 'socialist', since by definition it encompasses both economic and ethical considerations of interaction. it's a term that is extremely misused, often pejoratively, and rarely contributes much to the discussion.
Practically speaking, some level of socialist tendencies is desirable for any civilisation as a pacification measure for the masses. Investments in social services or infrastructure tend to allow for a larger economic market than can be present without them. Few people are inclined to revolution if they have a place to sleep, food and entertainment, right?
Lines on maps are stupid mental constructs, as are laws, legallities of who gets to be where, just because of which lines they were born within. Unjust, unkind, unintelligent. Get rid of the lines on the maps and everyone can succeed anywhere depending on merit rather than citizenship birthright. Oh yeah wars between 'sovereign nations' would not exist either. Added bonus.
Guitardian wrote:Lines on maps are stupid mental constructs, as are laws, legallities of who gets to be where, just because of which lines they were born within. Unjust, unkind, unintelligent. Get rid of the lines on the maps and everyone can succeed anywhere depending on merit rather than citizenship birthright. Oh yeah wars between 'sovereign nations' would not exist either. Added bonus. Terrorists would cease to worry about who is on whos land, palestinian relocation versus Israeli middle-eastern presence wouldn't cause religious factions to go all jihadist and so on. Added bonus again.
I would say the Nazi party was a socialist party. Hitler (and Nazi Germany) was pretty centrist though (economically), only a socialist in the sense that he used the title to describe himself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:Lines on maps are stupid mental constructs, as are laws, legallities of who gets to be where, just because of which lines they were born within. Unjust, unkind, unintelligent. Get rid of the lines on the maps and everyone can succeed anywhere depending on merit rather than citizenship birthright. Oh yeah wars between 'sovereign nations' would not exist either. Added bonus. Terrorists would cease to worry about who is on whos land, palestinian relocation versus Israeli middle-eastern presence wouldn't cause religious factions to go all jihadist and so on. Added bonus again.
I don't know about that idea. You'd have to have one world government making decisions for every place at once, or doing nothing instead.
With no lines on maps those dern ferener Canadians would be allowed to just wander into Mn. Ugh, the humanity of it.
Borders wouldn't be a problem if people didn't cross them illegally. I mean, if government rescinded borders (imagine how that would feth over counties dependent on being a certain land mass for aid and what not) we might as well make fences around yards illegal. I mean fences are normally to keep people out but if any old person is allowed to freely roam where they want then that means fences shouldn't be allowed, leading people able to walk across my lawn at will.
Naw, I like the border idea. If dern fereners want to come to this country they can walk through the front door like the millions that are here legally that did just that. You sneak in from the back, ie cross illegally, you made yourself a target, in my book.
What? So an imaginary line in the sand is reason to want to enter a country?
There are probably as many entering legally as there are entering illegally so the borders are only a problem because the dern fereners who want to enter illegally are doing so.
My yard has an invisible border. You are saying that the reason someone would trespass on my lawn is because there is an invisible line of demarcation separating my property from the roadway? Sure, technically with no border it wouldn't be trespass and therefore not illegal to enter my property but if you want to cross that line into my property just to be "TFG" then prepare for an ass kicking or the very least a 911 call.
So again. I've no problems with people crossing our borders legally. I've no problem with people entering my yard under good intentions. It's when the borders of any type get stepped over illegally I have a problem. AZ is showing true initiative and is doing it right. Now if only the other 49 states would do the same (well, illegals probably aren't much of a problem in AK or HI).
Nobody can help where they are born, or control the complexities involved in coming through the 'front door' as you say. It isn't an easy task dealing with INS bureaucracy. No amount of lines on maps can get rid of desperation that leads people to risk crossing those lines. It just costs more trying to enforce it than it actually helps the legals who were lucky enough to be born here keep their jobs in a failed economy.
That is where you and I differ and we always will.
Open border won't solve any problems either. It will just encourage more illegal activity. Sure the illegals would no longer be here "illegally" but it would encourage more illegal activity.
That's like leaving your front door open and expecting everyone who just walks into your house willy nilly to be there for good intent and not harm. An attitude like that will get you shot/mugged/raped or all 3.
I guess if you want into this country bad enough and want to do it legally you deal with the red tape involved. It's a pain in the ass to sit at the DMV for 30-45 minutes to renew my tabs on my car or renew my drivers license but if I want to have the PRIVILEGE to drive legally I deal with it.
yeah try waiting 8-12 months instead of 30-45 minutes after paying 2 months wages in fees and who knows how much in transit. It's kind of discouraging to be 'legal' when really the requirements are: "Do you have money enough for our ridiculous fee? Do you have a criminal background? Can you pay us a lot of money and get by while we take our time getting around to you on our 8-12 month waiting list? O.K. then! you can be legal... in 8-12 months. Just sayin from experience.
the answers to those questions are:
yes I have money for the ridiculous fee (how I managed to scrape it up is my business)
no I don't have a criminal background
and... most importantly...
No I can't get by with no job waiting 12 months for you to laminate me a simple card (or laser print or whatever it is nowadays) so I can get work legally... so yeah I guess I work illegally while I wait for the government to get around to legalizing me.
Well, then it's a problem with the current system but opening the borders up to anyone and everyone won't solve the problem either.
A crappy experience but if you want to do something legally you sometimes have to deal with crap. I don't agree with most laws in place but I obey them (most of the time) because breaking them is a lot more detrimental to my freedom (I prefer to not be sitting in a prison cell).
But what happens when you are stuck here illegally with no means to leave with because you cannot work? Just go to your local INS and ask them to arrest you and cost more tax money deporting you? Or work illegallly because you have to due to the lines on maps and economic inequality?
Fateweaver, you're assuming that everyone crossing the boarder is coming here to commit crimes. Personally, I'd either close the boarders entirely or open them entirely. Making weird security checkpoints just ups costs for taxpayers.
We could aid the Mexican government a huge amount for free if we just got rid of this damn drug war... and we'd have a lot less Mexican criminals to deal with too.
Fateweaver wrote:What? So an imaginary line in the sand is reason to want to enter a country?
Um, no? I don't really know how you came to the conclusion that my post indicated what you describe.
Borders are problematic because, in all cases, they exist to separate one are from another. If you want to move into an area that has a border, then you must cross the border. The desire isn't created by the very existence of the border, though I suppose that might be true in some cases, its created by whatever happens to be on the other side of said border.
Borders are problematic because, in all cases, they exist to separate one from another. If you want to move into an area that has a border, then you must cross the border. The desire isn't created by the very existence of the border, though I suppose that might be true in some cases, its created by whatever happens to be on the other side of said border.
The desire to cross a border is because of internal and external pressures that force people to leave. Internal pressures are what force you to leave while external pressures are what could draw you into a particular region (though external pressures could also force people away and internal pressures could force people to choose a specific location as well). The point is is that people see a positive stimulus to their lives by coming to a place, so there must be something worthwhile in that place.
Hispanics have been coming to America for many years. The influx has not been acute, but a chronic trend that has happened for many decades. If you want to make America a less desireable place to go, then remove what makes people want to come here.
WarOne wrote:
Hispanics have been coming to America for many years. The influx has not been acute, but a chronic trend that has happened for many decades. If you want to make America a less desireable place to go, then remove what makes people want to come here.
Unfortunately, it is an Iconic Belief of a "Better Life" that draws so many to this country. That is next to impossible to remove. It is what has drawn people to these shores for centuries.
Wanna say this law doesnt go after the jobs again? Please, prove me wrong with my own evidence listed here.
Yes, which was already illegal under existing federal law. Which was hardly enforced, and which was the problem. At which point you'll note my position stated earlier in the thread, that if this new law seeks to punish businesses heavily and really has the political will to follow that through, then it's all good. Hopefully the tough measures on suspected illegal immigrants are just a sideshow to that real solution.
Given the political emphasis on the tough on illegals rhetoric, that's a really big 'if'. Given the support and emphasis in this thread for targetting illegals themselves, and the unwillingness to even engage on debate on a demand focussed solution, that's an even bigger 'if'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
focusedfire wrote:
Frazzled wrote:True that, althoguh I'd posit most of the weridos attacking Obama call him a socialist, not a Nazi. Come on redy, get your nutjob slurs correct!
Uh Fraz,..............Could you please post the origin and definition of the term nazi?
It is amazing the lengths that socialist go to in order to obscure the fact that germany from 1933-1945 was a socialist state.
Your understanding of politics is awful, and you refuse to let it get better.
The Nazi party, or National Socialist German Workers' Party had at it's root some elements of socialism. They originally fit a strange place in German politics, aggressively opposed to the Socialists and the Conservatives, taking on a hyper-nationalist stance that placed the German worker as the victim of a range of internal and external factors. Well, that makes it sound somewhat reasonable, truth is they condemned both capitalism and communism as Jewish plots.
The socialist element of the party was united under Gregor Strasser, and argued for mass action to remove the Jewish dominated capitalist system. Their popularity should not be understated.
However, that element of Nazism stopped very dramatically in 1934, when the left wing element of the party, including Strasser, were assassinated by the right wing of the party. From then on the direction of the Nazi party was dedicated absolutely towards deadly suppression of any proponents of left wing politics.
Meanwhile the Nazi party continued to receive the support of the conservative parties of Germany, the first Nazi government was achieved as a coalition with conservative parties - which would be a strange achievement for a socialist party.
If you need any more evidence you only have to consider the original of the term Nazi. The Social Democratic Party of Germany were the Sozis, and as their opponents their opposition were given the name Nazis.
So, seriously, can you please stop with that nonsense once and for all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:The problem is that you'd have to change South American governments. And you know how well that works.
Some places down there it's government of the week.
sebster wrote:Yes, which was already illegal under existing federal law. Which was hardly enforced, and which was the problem. At which point you'll note my position stated earlier in the thread, that if this new law seeks to punish businesses heavily and really has the political will to follow that through, then it's all good. Hopefully the tough measures on suspected illegal immigrants are just a sideshow to that real solution.
Given the political emphasis on the tough on illegals rhetoric, that's a really big 'if'. Given the support and emphasis in this thread for targetting illegals themselves, and the unwillingness to even engage on debate on a demand focussed solution, that's an even bigger 'if'.
A law that is supposed to be enforced by an underfunded, undermanned government department that is ineffective at doing its job, as defined by federal law and its own mandate.
Making Local and State law enforcement more responsible for investigating claims that a company employs illegal immigrants allows for a better chance of the cases getting into the court system and thus making the companies more responsive and accountable.
So you agree that the best measure of addressing the issue will come from focussing on demand, and that successful enforcement depends on a serious commitment to investigate and convict instances of the employment of illegal aliens?
It's pretty clear that we aren't going to agree on the issues of tasking local law with requiring ID from reasonably suspicious persons, but I can agree to disagree on that if we agree on what I think is the big issue - closing demand by bringing in a real chance of prosecution for companies who employ illegal aliens.
Unfortunately, the two go hand-in-hand. How can any official KNOW that some-one has hired illegals without determining the legal status of the employees?
Reasonable suspicion creates a loophole for some that can be exploited. No "reasonable suspicion" means law enforcement has to find another way to determine if the employees are in this country, and thus the state, legally. Any lawyer can make the case that the police didn't have "reasonable suspicion" to require id from the employees, and thus any result of them 'carding' ilegals within a given work place would be "fruit of the poison tree". In other words, not admissable in court.
So while the law is a step in the right direction on the demand side, it can easily be sidestepped by a cunning lawyer.
Of course, if the police can get a warrant, that arguement vanishes. Enforcement will, nonetheless, be tricky.
helgrenze wrote:
Unfortunately, it is an Iconic Belief of a "Better Life" that draws so many to this country. That is next to impossible to remove. It is what has drawn people to these shores for centuries.
I know. No matter how many of you we slaughtered, no one got the message and you just kept coming. If we're recinding the citizenships of illegal immigrants childern, and rounding up illegal immigrants, I'd like start with every white individual and put them on a boat back to Europe (everyone else, most of you seem ok, but I think we can all agree that the crazy WASPs got to go). We didn't have crimes against humanity in this country until you guys came sneaking over the boarder, with your drugs and diseases and slavery.
On the up side, you all seem addicted to cheap cigarettes and casinos. So step up, take this deep drag of poison and feed your life savings into a slot machine and you'll go just a little way toward making it even for two centuries of your inhumanity and greed.
helgrenze wrote:Any lawyer can make the case that the police didn't have "reasonable suspicion" to require id from the employees, and thus any result of them 'carding' ilegals within a given work place would be "fruit of the poison tree". In other words, not admissable in court.
So while the law is a step in the right direction on the demand side, it can easily be sidestepped by a cunning lawyer.
helgrenze wrote:Unfortunately, the two go hand-in-hand. How can any official KNOW that some-one has hired illegals without determining the legal status of the employees?
Fair point. It's a matter of approach though, if you start with businesses suspected of employing illegals and then put it on them to demonstrate the process they use to ensure everyone working there is legally allowed to work in the US, compared to carding people pulled over for speeding.
I know. No matter how many of you we slaughtered, no one got the message and you just kept coming. If we're recinding the citizenships of illegal immigrants childern, and rounding up illegal immigrants, I'd like start with every white individual and put them on a boat back to Europe (everyone else, most of you seem ok, but I think we can all agree that the crazy WASPs got to go). We didn't have crimes against humanity in this country until you guys came sneaking over the boarder, with your drugs and diseases and slavery.
On the up side, you all seem addicted to cheap cigarettes and casinos. So step up, take this deep drag of poison and feed your life savings into a slot machine and you'll go just a little way toward making it even for two centuries of your inhumanity and greed.
Interstingly enough, there are four white societies that cannot be found anywhere but on this continent... French-Canadians (or Quebequis, but they are Canada's problem.), Cajuns, Amish, and Pennsylvania Dutch. The last three are considered "Unique Societies" within the US. Since they developed here and can be found no-where else as a society, then they would, technically, qualify as "Native American".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
helgrenze wrote:Unfortunately, the two go hand-in-hand. How can any official KNOW that some-one has hired illegals without determining the legal status of the employees?
Fair point. It's a matter of approach though, if you start with businesses suspected of employing illegals and then put it on them to demonstrate the process they use to ensure everyone working there is legally allowed to work in the US, compared to carding people pulled over for speeding.
Yes , But, being pulled over for Speeding is a crime, though a traffic misdemeanor, for which a person would have to furnish documentation (Drivers License, Proof of Insurance). Not having a DL or Insurance would place that person in the "reasonable Suspicion" catagory.
helgrenze wrote:
Interstingly enough, there are four white societies that cannot be found anywhere but on this continent... French-Canadians (or Quebecois, but they are Canada's problem.), Cajuns, Amish, and Pennsylvania Dutch. The last three are considered "Unique Societies" within the US. Since they developed here and can be found no-where else as a society, then they would, technically, qualify as "Native American".
They aren't unique societies, or native Americans. Not by definition. You might think of them in that fashion, but that is not relevant to a seemingly objective statement.
Additionally, the 'whiteness' of a society is wholly subjective. Cajuns are not all white, neither are Quebecois.
helgrenze wrote:Yes , But, being pulled over for Speeding is a crime, though a traffic misdemeanor, for which a person would have to furnish documentation (Drivers License, Proof of Insurance). Not having a DL or Insurance would place that person in the "reasonable Suspicion" catagory.
Yeah, crappy example on my part - once the cop has spotted a speeder there's no greater use of resources. It comes down to how many resources the local police is willing to use to follow up on reasonable suspicions, what about reports from locals?
sebster wrote:Your understanding of politics is awful, and you refuse to let it get better.
The Nazi party, or National Socialist German Workers' Party had at it's root some elements of socialism. They originally fit a strange place in German politics, aggressively opposed to the Socialists and the Conservatives, taking on a hyper-nationalist stance that placed the German worker as the victim of a range of internal and external factors. Well, that makes it sound somewhat reasonable, truth is they condemned both capitalism and communism as Jewish plots.
The socialist element of the party was united under Gregor Strasser, and argued for mass action to remove the Jewish dominated capitalist system. Their popularity should not be understated.
However, that element of Nazism stopped very dramatically in 1934, when the left wing element of the party, including Strasser, were assassinated by the right wing of the party. From then on the direction of the Nazi party was dedicated absolutely towards deadly suppression of any proponents of left wing politics.
Meanwhile the Nazi party continued to receive the support of the conservative parties of Germany, the first Nazi government was achieved as a coalition with conservative parties - which would be a strange achievement for a socialist party.
If you need any more evidence you only have to consider the original of the term Nazi. The Social Democratic Party of Germany were the Sozis, and as their opponents their opposition were given the name Nazis.
So, seriously, can you please stop with that nonsense once and for all.
Sorry, Sebby but your ignoring that Socialism is an all-encompassing term with a broad definition.
One of these definitions is when the economy is nationalized and is derived directly from the economic system that Adolph instituted and continued to use throughout the war. You seem to think that socialism is purely a leftist/liberal system. It is not. Many whom support the concept of socialism try to use a symantic double standard where if a liberal group supports the socialist ideal it is good, but if a conservative group does the same then they are fascist.
Thing is these terms are not mutually exclusive in that you can have a liberal fascist and conservative socialist, because not every leftist supports all socialist policies and not all conservatives support totalitarian systems. The definitions for both fascim and nationalized socialism describe systems that initially embrace both left and right ideals and then gravitate towards a totalitarian system. Seriously, look at your argument. You would have everyone believe that once Hitler came to power that he had all the liberals killed or removed leaving only conservatives. This would be a massive portion of the population and is utterly preposterous. Adolph, was to busy going after another massive portion of the population and I don't think you want to argue that they, exclusively, were the liberals.
Check out the journalist Otto D. Tolischus. He wrote an interesting book on how Hitler rose to power. Its been 20+ years since I read it but some of the key elements I remember were that it covered in depth, Hitlers rise to power through the use and exploitation of socialized programs that he instituted. That by nationalizing Germany's economy and creating public works programs, he pulled the German people out of their economic depression and put them to work. These people were so happy just to be working and eating that they followed him with little reservation.
Just because it reflects negatively upon a system that you hold as an ideal, you should not discredit yourself by denying what was and still is fact. The Nazi's were socialist. A hybrid middle form of socialist, but still socialist.
Now I return your last statement, paraphrased and in proper question form, "Can you stop all of this denying the facts nonsense once and for all? '.
That looks to be a gray area. Kinda like seeing some-one hitting a child. You can report it, but if the police do not see it happen or see any obvious evidence, there is little they can do.
Orkeosaurus wrote:The "but white people immigrated here at one point too" joke was old, like, ten pages ago.
Yet, for me, it's still funny.
It's like asking "What percentage white are you?" "If you're really white, where's your powdered wig and knee britches?" "Do you people still live in covered wagons?" "Do you feel that casino gambling in Las Vegas has helped the white race or is it just a bandaid?"
Point of fact, the amish dutch are a splinter group of a sect in southern Germany. While they've evolved since they split off, and developed an interesting variety of genetic diseases, they're not actually unique to North America.
I know. No matter how many of you we slaughtered, no one got the message and you just kept coming. If we're recinding the citizenships of illegal immigrants childern, and rounding up illegal immigrants, I'd like start with every white individual and put them on a boat back to Europe (everyone else, most of you seem ok, but I think we can all agree that the crazy WASPs got to go).
Thats what happens when you don't properly fund your homeland security budget.
Interstingly enough, there are four white societies that cannot be found anywhere but on this continent... French-Canadians (or Quebequis, but they are Canada's problem.), Cajuns, Amish, and Pennsylvania Dutch. The last three are considered "Unique Societies" within the US. Since they developed here and can be found no-where else as a society, then they would, technically, qualify as "Native American".
Excellent. I'm now politically correct. Get out of MY ancestral homeland all you evil peoples! Native rights!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:Hey, 100% of our military budget went toward homeland security. It wasn't exactly under funded.
No, that conflicts with out 'seven generations ahead' philosophy. Short term benefits for long term suffering is the white man's way. Do not give in to temptation.
Instead, open a casino and use their greed against them. It's hilarious to watch. And is funding us repurchasing our land, one plot at a time, if necessary.
No, that conflicts with out 'seven generations ahead' philosophy. Short term benefits for long term suffering is the white man's way. Do not give in to temptation.
Instead, open a casino and use their greed against them. It's hilarious to watch. And is funding us repurchasing our land, one plot at a time, if necessary.
Come on admit it, they got hosed on the funding depreciation methodology. Shareholder suits to follow.
BaronIveagh wrote:It's like asking "What percentage white are you?" "If you're really white, where's your powdered wig and knee britches?" "Do you people still live in covered wagons?" "Do you feel that casino gambling in Las Vegas has helped the white race or is it just a bandaid?"
There was an episode of Just Shoot Me where Mark Hamil bothers Finch all day with questions about his job.
focusedfire wrote:
One of these definitions is when the economy is nationalized and is derived directly from the economic system that Adolph instituted and continued to use throughout the war. You seem to think that socialism is purely a leftist/liberal system. It is not.
Actually, it is. Corporatism is the term that denotes the closest thing the right has to a socialist ideology.
The difference is evident in the approach to integration, and the manner in which state control manifests itself.
This is a common, American mistake. One I even made in this very forum, and I study politics for a living.
What used to be a 4 hour drive to the beautiful city of Winnipeg just on a whim and out of boredom (yes I'm somewhat eccentric) now becomes a major hassle (not to mention that's an expense I need to plan for this summer if I want to go to Canadia (passport that is).
They wouldn't let me in because I only had $14 cash on me last time I tried to cross. I had a brit passport and everything. Just going to see a friend, but they didn't let me cross because I wasn't going there to spend money. no wonder we hate canadia.
dogma wrote:
Actually, it is. Corporatism is the term that denotes the closest thing the right has to a socialist ideology.
The difference is evident in the approach to integration, and the manner in which state control manifests itself.
This is a common, American mistake. One I even made in this very forum, and I study politics for a living.
This gets into a tomato vs tomahto argument. Their is currently a double standard to the terminology depending upon whom is impllementing a given system. I disagree wth the mutable labling where a system or program is socialist until it is proposed or run by a conservative where it suddenly is fascist. Same system, same implementation, only difference is those in control.
Every major totalitarian government in the past 100 yeards has started by a bipartisan move towards socialized programs in conjunction with a xenophobic fear campain that placed the governmemt firmly in control of its people as opposed to the people controlling their government. This is what has made me uneasy with the current trend within this country. Just because we have a popular and "pretty" new figure head as president doesn't mean that the world should be any less concerned with the U.S.'s growing xenophobia and ever increasing police presence.
focusedfire wrote:Sorry, Sebby but your ignoring that Socialism is an all-encompassing term with a broad definition.
Sort of, at the broadest level, and the one needed to make Nazism a form of socialism, the term can be extended to any government that interferes in the market. Which makes every government of every Western country in the 20th century socialist. Even the presidency of Saint Reagan.
But as you would know, or at least should know, in other contexts words have very different understandings. When referring to the various governments of the 20th century we need to use a lot more detail than 'socialism is an all encompassing term with a broad definition that includes every government in the 20th century, including every major power in WWII'. It would be an extremely unproductive way to develop an understanding of history and economic systems.
Socialists attacked the socialists and totally kicked their ass, and then attacked the socialists and were doing really well until the socialists started winning, but then the socialists attacked the socialists on the other side of the world, prompting the socialists to declare war on the socialists, and from there it was a steady march to victory for the socialists over the socialists. Welcome to understanding history the focusedfire way.
Instead we look at the nature of intervention in the economy and its intended purpose, and assign broad categories to different types of government. Socialist governments become distinguished from Social Democratic governments, and in turn from Communist governments, Liberal Democracies and all the rest, and in turn considering that each of those categories is incredibly broad.
One of these definitions is when the economy is nationalized and is derived directly from the economic system that Adolph instituted and continued to use throughout the war. You seem to think that socialism is purely a leftist/liberal system. It is not. Many whom support the concept of socialism try to use a symantic double standard where if a liberal group supports the socialist ideal it is good, but if a conservative group does the same then they are fascist.
No, nationalisation of assets isn't enough to meet a useful definition of socialism, you're missing the primary distinction in why a country interferes in the economy. When interference is intended to benefit a group of have nots, it can be seen as social policy (whether it actually helps or whether the real have nots ever benefit is a whole other category of discussion). In the case of Nazi Germany, while difficult to categorise as the Nazis notably lacked coherent national strategy, the purpose of almost all nationalisation and public works projects were to develop the strength of the nation, economically or militarily, for the purpose of that strength alone. The benefit to the individual was at best a nice side effect, the point was national strength for the sake of national strength - and we call that fascism.
Seriously, look at your argument. You would have everyone believe that once Hitler came to power that he had all the liberals killed or removed leaving only conservatives. This would be a massive portion of the population and is utterly preposterous. Adolph, was to busy going after another massive portion of the population and I don't think you want to argue that they, exclusively, were the liberals.
No, dude. Stop right there. You've just said something really, really ridiculous. I did not say that Hitler killed the liberals, and left conservatives. Why did you write that? Up until that point I didn't think your argument was strong, but you seemed to be engaging in the topic honestly... then you go and throw that silliness in there.
Now, I did refer to the Night of the Long Knives, in which Hitler assassinated the other power blocs within the Nazi party, including the leaders of the socialist element. This is a basic, established fact, and I invite you to look up the Night of Long Knives and Gregor Strasser. It's an interesting piece of history. It's important to understanding the evolution of Nazism over it's short existance. It is not at all like that silliness you tried to claim I believed, so stop that.
Check out the journalist Otto D. Tolischus. He wrote an interesting book on how Hitler rose to power. Its been 20+ years since I read it but some of the key elements I remember were that it covered in depth, Hitlers rise to power through the use and exploitation of socialized programs that he instituted. That by nationalizing Germany's economy and creating public works programs, he pulled the German people out of their economic depression and put them to work. These people were so happy just to be working and eating that they followed him with little reservation.
Umm, infrastructure projects aren't a socialist thing. Every government builds roads. As a footnote, most public works were actually started under previous governments, though much of the benefit only came to recognised once Hitler took power.
focusedfire wrote:
This gets into a tomato vs tomahto argument. Their is currently a double standard to the terminology depending upon whom is impllementing a given system.
Sort of, there are differences in methodology. Don't listen to American rhetoric, it is vapid. I know I compared socialism and corporatism, but that was only done to refer to your argument.
focusedfire wrote:
I disagree wth the mutable labling where a system or program is socialist until it is proposed or run by a conservative where it suddenly is fascist. Same system, same implementation, only difference is those in control.
Not fascist, corporatist. Stop mixing terms.
Additionally, all labeling systems are mutable. When things are not the same they are referred to with different terms. If labeling systems were not mutable, they would be useless.
focusedfire wrote:
Every major totalitarian government in the past 100 yeards has started by a bipartisan move towards socialized programs in conjunction with a xenophobic fear campain that placed the governmemt firmly in control of its people as opposed to the people controlling their government.
Nope. South America disagrees, as do India and Iran.
sebster wrote:Sort of, at the broadest level, and the one needed to make Nazism a form of socialism, the term can be extended to any government that interferes in the market. Which makes every government of every Western country in the 20th century socialist. Even the presidency of Saint Reagan.
But as you would know, or at least should know, in other contexts words have very different understandings. When referring to the various governments of the 20th century we need to use a lot more detail than 'socialism is an all encompassing term with a broad definition that includes every government in the 20th century, including every major power in WWII'. It would be an extremely unproductive way to develop an understanding of history and economic systems.
Socialists attacked the socialists and totally kicked their ass, and then attacked the socialists and were doing really well until the socialists started winning, but then the socialists attacked the socialists on the other side of the world, prompting the socialists to declare war on the socialists, and from there it was a steady march to victory for the socialists over the socialists. Welcome to understanding history the focusedfire way.
Instead we look at the nature of intervention in the economy and its intended purpose, and assign broad categories to different types of government. Socialist governments become distinguished from Social Democratic governments, and in turn from Communist governments, Liberal Democracies and all the rest, and in turn considering that each of those categories is incredibly broad. .
Yes, the words can be used in different context. They can also describe the exact same thing that has two different names.
I find it interesting how the focus has been upon my few Nazi parrallel statements but that my more plentiful Iron curtain comments have been ignored. The point that I've been making is that the most powerful dictatorships in the past hundred years began with the nations moving initially to the left in order to gain control of the populace by taking over massive sections of the private sector then subsequently instituting the police state.
In response to your last line. The three major super-powers to emerge in the last hundred years that could be described by the governments you listed, with 2 of these 3 having gone the route of tyrrany and the third teetering on the brink.
sebster wrote:No, nationalisation of assets isn't enough to meet a useful definition of socialism, you're missing the primary distinction in why a country interferes in the economy. When interference is intended to benefit a group of have nots, it can be seen as social policy (whether it actually helps or whether the real have nots ever benefit is a whole other category of discussion). In the case of Nazi Germany, while difficult to categorise as the Nazis notably lacked coherent national strategy, the purpose of almost all nationalisation and public works projects were to develop the strength of the nation, economically or militarily, for the purpose of that strength alone. The benefit to the individual was at best a nice side effect, the point was national strength for the sake of national strength - and we call that fascism..
"Can be" is the operative term here, Meaning that while some may choose to not see it as such others can just as legitimatly can see it as such.
As to the rest of your comment, you know that Nations never do things out of altruism and that the very existence of true altruism is questionable. Nations don't feed their poor because it is good or right to do such, they do these things for internal security, public safety, to keep the populace productive which are all about national strength.
So taking my two above points, the the difference between socialism and fascism can be described as purely subjective.
sebster wrote:No, dude. Stop right there. You've just said something really, really ridiculous. I did not say that Hitler killed the liberals, and left conservatives. Why did you write that? Up until that point I didn't think your argument was strong, but you seemed to be engaging in the topic honestly... then you go and throw that silliness in there.
Now, I did refer to the Night of the Long Knives, in which Hitler assassinated the other power blocs within the Nazi party, including the leaders of the socialist element. This is a basic, established fact, and I invite you to look up the Night of Long Knives and Gregor Strasser. It's an interesting piece of history. It's important to understanding the evolution of Nazism over it's short existance. It is not at all like that silliness you tried to claim I believed, so stop that.
My apologies for misunderstanding but your comment about the Night of the Long Knives, but when read with the sentence that followed it seemed to imply such.
So with your statement as clarification, "Would you agree that Nazi Germany still contained a sizable number of socialists whom worked and contributed to the nation/society?
This question could then be rephrased to my asking, "Do you concede that the Nazi party and Nazi germany contained and were supported by socialist within the country?".
And yes, I am familiar with that momemt in history and find some interesting parallels between it and Stalins Great Purge, Lenin establishing the Cheka, and what Sen McCarthy was attempting with his investigations.
sebster wrote:Umm, infrastructure projects aren't a socialist thing. Every government builds roads. As a footnote, most public works were actually started under previous governments, though much of the benefit only came to recognised once Hitler took power.
Depending upon how they are implemented, yes they can be and in Nazi Germany's case were. When public works programs are created with the main idea of putting people to work and ingnore a civil contracting process in favor of being state run then they are very much a socialist program.
sebster wrote:Sort of, at the broadest level, and the one needed to make Nazism a form of socialism, the term can be extended to any government that interferes in the market. Which makes every government of every Western country in the 20th century socialist. Even the presidency of Saint Reagan.
But as you would know, or at least should know, in other contexts words have very different understandings. When referring to the various governments of the 20th century we need to use a lot more detail than 'socialism is an all encompassing term with a broad definition that includes every government in the 20th century, including every major power in WWII'. It would be an extremely unproductive way to develop an understanding of history and economic systems.
Socialists attacked the socialists and totally kicked their ass, and then attacked the socialists and were doing really well until the socialists started winning, but then the socialists attacked the socialists on the other side of the world, prompting the socialists to declare war on the socialists, and from there it was a steady march to victory for the socialists over the socialists. Welcome to understanding history the focusedfire way.
Instead we look at the nature of intervention in the economy and its intended purpose, and assign broad categories to different types of government. Socialist governments become distinguished from Social Democratic governments, and in turn from Communist governments, Liberal Democracies and all the rest, and in turn considering that each of those categories is incredibly broad. .
Yes, the words can be used in different context. They can also describe the exact same thing that has two different names.
I find it interesting how the focus has been upon my few Nazi parrallel statements but that my more plentiful Iron curtain comments have been ignored. The point that I've been making is that the most powerful dictatorships in the past hundred years began with the nations moving initially to the left in order to gain control of the populace by taking over massive sections of the private sector then subsequently instituting the police state.
In response to your last line. The three major super-powers to emerge in the last hundred years that could be described by the governments you listed, with 2 of these 3 having gone the route of tyrrany and the third teetering on the brink.
sebster wrote:No, nationalisation of assets isn't enough to meet a useful definition of socialism, you're missing the primary distinction in why a country interferes in the economy. When interference is intended to benefit a group of have nots, it can be seen as social policy (whether it actually helps or whether the real have nots ever benefit is a whole other category of discussion). In the case of Nazi Germany, while difficult to categorise as the Nazis notably lacked coherent national strategy, the purpose of almost all nationalisation and public works projects were to develop the strength of the nation, economically or militarily, for the purpose of that strength alone. The benefit to the individual was at best a nice side effect, the point was national strength for the sake of national strength - and we call that fascism..
"Can be" is the operative term here, Meaning that while some may choose to not see it as such others can just as legitimatly can see it as such.
As to the rest of your comment, you know that Nations never do things out of altruism and that the very existence of true altruism is questionable. Nations don't feed their poor because it is good or right to do such, they do these things for internal security, public safety, to keep the populace productive which are all about national strength.
So taking my two above points, the the difference between socialism and fascism can be described as purely subjective.
sebster wrote:No, dude. Stop right there. You've just said something really, really ridiculous. I did not say that Hitler killed the liberals, and left conservatives. Why did you write that? Up until that point I didn't think your argument was strong, but you seemed to be engaging in the topic honestly... then you go and throw that silliness in there.
Now, I did refer to the Night of the Long Knives, in which Hitler assassinated the other power blocs within the Nazi party, including the leaders of the socialist element. This is a basic, established fact, and I invite you to look up the Night of Long Knives and Gregor Strasser. It's an interesting piece of history. It's important to understanding the evolution of Nazism over it's short existance. It is not at all like that silliness you tried to claim I believed, so stop that.
My apologies for misunderstanding but your comment about the Night of the Long Knives, but when read with the sentence that followed it seemed to imply such.
So with your statement as clarification, "Would you agree that Nazi Germany still contained a sizable number of socialists whom worked and contributed to the nation/society?
This question could then be rephrased to my asking, "Do you concede that the Nazi party and Nazi germany contained and were supported by socialist within the country?".
And yes, I am familiar with that momemt in history and find some interesting parallels between it and Stalins Great Purge, Lenin establishing the Cheka, and what Sen McCarthy was attempting with his investigations.
sebster wrote:Umm, infrastructure projects aren't a socialist thing. Every government builds roads. As a footnote, most public works were actually started under previous governments, though much of the benefit only came to recognised once Hitler took power.
Depending upon how they are implemented, yes they can be and in Nazi Germany's case were. When public works programs are created with the main idea of putting people to work and ingnore a civil contracting process in favor of being state run then they are very much a socialist program.
focusedfire wrote:Yes, the words can be used in different context. They can also describe the exact same thing that has two different names.
No. The substance of the policies of Nazi Germany were not at all like the substance of Soviet Russia’s. It just can’t be said more clearly.
The point that I've been making is that the most powerful dictatorships in the past hundred years began with the nations moving initially to the left in order to gain control of the populace by taking over massive sections of the private sector then subsequently instituting the police state.
Look at the history of Franco’s Spain or Pinochet’s Chile, even Soviet Russia. Coups are responsible for far more dictatorships than governments expanding their power.
"Can be" is the operative term here, Meaning that while some may choose to not see it as such others can just as legitimatly can see it as such.
No. “Can be” means in different contexts different uses are preferred. While the broad definition can be valid, it’s quite useless as a means of discussing governments of the pre-war period, because everyone is socialist.
As to the rest of your comment, you know that Nations never do things out of altruism and that the very existence of true altruism is questionable. Nations don't feed their poor because it is good or right to do such, they do these things for internal security, public safety, to keep the populace productive which are all about national strength.
First up, if there’s no true altruism then how do explain the existence of soup kitchens?
Second up, the exact true motive at the heart of the policy maker, whether he genuinely cares about the working poor is just playing for their vote, doesn’t matter. What matters is the intended purpose of a nation building project. If road construction is undertaken to facilitate trade with other countries, it’s a very different thing to a road undertaken to allow for the transport of steel to arms manufacturers. The latter tends to result in the invasion of Germany. The former not so much.
So taking my two above points, the the difference between socialism and fascism can be described as purely subjective.
Sure, if you completely ignore or dismiss helping people as a motive, then some forms of socialism can begin to look vaguely like some forms of fascism. But ignoring that is a big problem.
The second issue is in thinking totalitarianism is somehow related to government works, as opposed to the level of governmental accountability, extent of civil liberties, nature of the political dialogue, separation of power and independence of the civil service – those things really matter in stopping the slide into totalitarianism – government spending is not really as much of a factor.
My apologies for misunderstanding but your comment about the Night of the Long Knives, but when read with the sentence that followed it seemed to imply such.
Cool. Sorry if I sounded a bit strong, it was just a really out there response to my point, and well, you know how Dakka goes. You gotta call things out early and loud here, or it just doesn’t go away.
So with your statement as clarification, "Would you agree that Nazi Germany still contained a sizable number of socialists whom worked and contributed to the nation/society?
This question could then be rephrased to my asking, "Do you concede that the Nazi party and Nazi germany contained and were supported by socialist within the country?".
I would dispute that point most strongly. Opposition to actual socialist parties was a cornerstone of the Nazis, the word Nazi comes from their opposition to the Sozis, there were violent street clashes nightly between the Nazis and the Sozis. As I pointed out before, there was a wing of the Nazi party that merged nationalism and anti-Semitism with socialist beliefs, and they were relevant to early policy formulation, but their leaders were assassinated by Hitler and the right wing of the party.
And yes, I am familiar with that momemt in history and find some interesting parallels between it and Stalins Great Purge, Lenin establishing the Cheka, and what Sen McCarthy was attempting with his investigations.
You think so? They all involved persecution of ideological opponents, but they were pretty different in method and motive.
Depending upon how they are implemented, yes they can be and in Nazi Germany's case were. When public works programs are created with the main idea of putting people to work and ingnore a civil contracting process in favor of being state run then they are very much a socialist program.
You think a road being publically built is meaningfully different to being privately built and publicly funded? I mean, yeah, on a point of efficiency it matters, but as a point distinguishing a right wing party from a left wing party?
@ Sebster-Psyc 101, there is no such thing as true altruism. People are purely self motivated and only help others because it makes them feel better, look better publically, or to achieve some other self serving goal.
It is this portion of the curriculum that allows people to spot first year psycology majors, ya know, by the perpetual hurt expressions on their faces.
I made a joke, but it is the serious study of human nature that has caused the concept of true altruism to become questioned.
Now to some of the above:
1)The substance of both Germany's and Soviet Russia's policies were to maintain an iron grip upon the populace while expanding the nations borders.
2)You missed the point of that sentence. You assumed that Nazi germany would be included but the three super-powers I was refering to were the U.S.S.R., Communist China, and the U.S.A.
To answer what you did post. Both the Russian Communists and the German Nazis came to power more by promising a populace disenfranchised by inneffective bureaucracies and promises of food and work than by strength of arms.
3)I dispute the everyone is socialist line because socialism has a clear and simple definition:
SocialismAny of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
You focus on the nations controlling planning the economy portion while ignoring the operative portion of state ownership.
4)(Skipping down to the last) It is the state ownership that differentiates between socialist and non-socialist systems. When the state takes control and does not allow for private civilian contracting and participation then the peogram by definition becomes socialist in nature.
Skipped the stuff in the middle because it would necessitate a seperate debate on the possibility of existence of true altruism. Are you comfortable with this pass on motives portion of our debate?I feel it would be a tree in a quagmire that bears little fruit.
focusedfire wrote:@ Sebster-Psyc 101, there is no such thing as true altruism. People are purely self motivated and only help others because it makes them feel better, look better publically, or to achieve some other self serving goal.
It is this portion of the curriculum that allows people to spot first year psycology majors, ya know, by the perpetual hurt expressions on their faces.
Feeling good because you’ve done something nice for someone else is altruism.
It seems you’re selfishness with self-interest. Self-interest is the idea that everyone does things for their own reasons, but it doesn’t mean those reasons are selfish, it refers to a CEO wanting to pay workers a Christmas bonus, while the shareholders might prefer to give money to build an orphanage.
Now to some of the above:
1)The substance of both Germany's and Soviet Russia's policies were to maintain an iron grip upon the populace while expanding the nations borders.
No, they really, really weren’t. To ignore ideology and the policies that ideology produced in practice in each country, and just say each group was attempting to enforce an iron grip is hopelessly simplistic. I mean, what have you read on early Soviet policy. They were some cruel bastards, but you can’t say they were simply operating to expand their power. They really believed in building a utopia, and this is reflected in policy. The ideology of the Nazis was different, and while they were probably even more cruel, their policies were markedly different.
2)You missed the point of that sentence. You assumed that Nazi germany would be included but the three super-powers I was refering to were the U.S.S.R., Communist China, and the U.S.A.
Heh, I did read that as including Nazi Germany. Mind you, I just raised an eyebrow at thinking you were including them, I didn’t comment on that point.
To answer what you did post. Both the Russian Communists and the German Nazis came to power more by promising a populace disenfranchised by inneffective bureaucracies and promises of food and work than by strength of arms.
Sort of, but that’s a pretty loose definition of the promises of each party. You’re making a constant mistake in this thread, insisting that a cat is just like a dog as they both have four legs. When it is pointed out that there are lots of other factors that make them very different, you just repeat that each has four legs.
The Nazis call to the workers was built around the idea that the foreign nationals, Jews and communists were keeping the German man down, and what was needed was a strong state to lead the German people to their dominant position in history. This included a promise of jobs and prosperity for the individual Germans, but it wasn’t the whole of the issue.
Now, ignoring that the Bolsheviks didn’t come to power under popular support but by coup, there platform was still fundamentally different to the Nazis. There the narrative was land owners and bourgeoisie were stealing the goods produced by the worker, and a revolution was needed to reallocate the means of production equally. It was not a nationalist but an internationalist movement.
Dogs and cats are very, very different things.
3)I dispute the everyone is socialist line because socialism has a clear and simple definition:
SocialismAny of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
You focus on the nations controlling planning the economy portion while ignoring the operative portion of state ownership.
Yeah, that’s a definition, too narrow for some purposes, too general for others. It also isn’t a particularly good definition, as it completely fails to distinguish a nation like Zimbabwe, where government control is purely for the benefit of the political elite, from an actual socialist state. It also fails to capture countries that personally identify as socialist, such as the Scandinavian countries.
It’s a reasonable definition for some purposes, but probably not for ours.
4)(Skipping down to the last) It is the state ownership that differentiates between socialist and non-socialist systems. When the state takes control and does not allow for private civilian contracting and participation then the peogram by definition becomes socialist in nature.
State ownership is a significant factor, but the state funding private contracts, only to see the completed road return to state hands, is not meaningfully different from state built roads. Certainly not in terms of defining national economic policy – China wouldn’t become capitalist because they opened road construction up to tender.
Skipped the stuff in the middle because it would necessitate a seperate debate on the possibility of existence of true altruism. Are you comfortable with this pass on motives portion of our debate?I feel it would be a tree in a quagmire that bears little fruit.
focusedfire wrote:@ Sebster-Psyc 101, there is no such thing as true altruism. People are purely self motivated and only help others because it makes them feel better, look better publically, or to achieve some other self serving goal.
Leave Nietzsche at home, and stop projecting your own inequities on the rest of us.
focusedfire wrote:
I made a joke, but it is the serious study of human nature that has caused the concept of true altruism to become questioned.
If you need to attach the word 'true' to another, then you aren't referring to what you believe you are. Altruism is altruism, and 'true' altruism is short hand for 'what I want altruism to be'.
Stop hurting logic.
focusedfire wrote:
3)I dispute the everyone is socialist line because socialism has a clear and simple definition:
sebster wrote:Feeling good because you’ve done something nice for someone else is altruism.
That is not the definition of altruism.
sebster wrote:It seems you’re selfishness with self-interest. Self-interest is the idea that everyone does things for their own reasons, but it doesn’t mean those reasons are selfish, it refers to a CEO wanting to pay workers a Christmas bonus, while the shareholders might prefer to give money to build an orphanage.
I will take it that you were trying to say that, "It seems that I am confusing selfishness with self-interest".
In response to that I bring the definition:
Altruism-Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
You are focusing on the unselfish portion of the definition while I am focusing on the selflessness portion. That is why I offered to pass on debating the topic and appreciate your acceptance of the pass. I think it would make for an interesting discussion in a thread of its own. Maybe when I have less to deal with IRL.
sebster wrote:No, they really, really weren’t. To ignore ideology and the policies that ideology produced in practice in each country, and just say each group was attempting to enforce an iron grip is hopelessly simplistic. I mean, what have you read on early Soviet policy. They were some cruel bastards, but you can’t say they were simply operating to expand their power. They really believed in building a utopia, and this is reflected in policy. The ideology of the Nazis was different, and while they were probably even more cruel, their policies were markedly different.
Lenins early establishment of the Cheka and his reasons for doing so had nothing to do with building utopia and everything to do with consolodating power.
sebster wrote:Sort of, but that’s a pretty loose definition of the promises of each party. You’re making a constant mistake in this thread, insisting that a cat is just like a dog as they both have four legs. When it is pointed out that there are lots of other factors that make them very different, you just repeat that each has four legs.
The Nazis call to the workers was built around the idea that the foreign nationals, Jews and communists were keeping the German man down, and what was needed was a strong state to lead the German people to their dominant position in history. This included a promise of jobs and prosperity for the individual Germans, but it wasn’t the whole of the issue.
Now, ignoring that the Bolsheviks didn’t come to power under popular support but by coup, there platform was still fundamentally different to the Nazis. There the narrative was land owners and bourgeoisie were stealing the goods produced by the worker, and a revolution was needed to reallocate the means of production equally. It was not a nationalist but an internationalist movement.
Dogs and cats are very, very different things.
Actually, they woulbd be best described as dogs of differing breeds and colour, but dogs none the less. They used the same formula to achieve popular support, just when it came time to demonize a particular group for tearing the country apart one group inserted the word Capitalist into their rhetoric while the other used the word Jew.
I'd like to take a moment here and clarify our stances. You are arguing the differences in Ideology between these groups while I am arguing their similarity in the mechanics of how they operated. Would you say that this is accurate?
sebster wrote:Yeah, that’s a definition, too narrow for some purposes, too general for others. It also isn’t a particularly good definition, as it completely fails to distinguish a nation like Zimbabwe, where government control is purely for the benefit of the political elite, from an actual socialist state. It also fails to capture countries that personally identify as socialist, such as the Scandinavian countries.
It’s a reasonable definition for some purposes, but probably not for ours.
The problem with disregarding definitions is that it breaks the ability to communicate through the written and spoken word. It prings us to an empasse.
4)(Skipping down to the last) It is the state ownership that differentiates between socialist and non-socialist systems. When the state takes control and does not allow for private civilian contracting and participation then the peogram by definition becomes socialist in nature.
State ownership is a significant factor, but the state funding private contracts, only to see the completed road return to state hands, is not meaningfully different from state built roads. Certainly not in terms of defining national economic policy – China wouldn’t become capitalist because they opened road construction up to tender.
If China allowed privatized contract bidding on state projects that woulb be a significant step towards capitalism.
dogma wrote:Leave Nietzsche at home, and stop projecting your own inequities on the rest of us.
Whoa, flame off Johnny Storm. No need to take this as a personal attack or to personally attack me. This is a seriously debatable concept that is questioned and studied in the field of psycology.
dogma wrote:If you need to attach the word 'true' to another, then you aren't referring to what you believe you are. Altruism is altruism, and 'true' altruism is short hand for 'what I want altruism to be'.
Stop hurting logic.
Not my terminology but the term used in course to question the existence of such in our daily reality. Now the term may be outdated and if it is, then please correct me. College for me is 2 decades in the past.
dogma wrote:Earlier in this thread you said that it does not.
Where? I have argued its use/misuse in the broader sense but the actual definition is quite clear. There is a difference between use and definition. You will find that my arguments stay with the definition.
Every time someone asks me if I can bum them a cigarette I become a socialist, and every time someone bums me one, I also become a socialist. When it gets to larger levels, and 'macro' economy levels it becomes more difficult to justify. I love the idea of saying "YOU ARE NOT MY PROBLEM! LEAVE ME ALONE!" but, face to face, on a local level, I cannot do that. I HAVE to care about other people's problems because it is a right thing to do, even if it inconveniences me. Socialism on the micro-scale works very well I have seen it in action back in my street tribe days... just yesterday I borrowed my neighbors ladder to fix my girlfriend's mom's roof for instance. He didn't charge me to use it he was just, well, nice. I didn't charge her for fixing the roof either it was just something nice to do for the lady. She fed me chicken. Later last night I brought him some chicken and bummed him a cig, etc. Sort of goes round in circles on a local level, it just gets complicated when the federal tendrils start digging into forcing everyone to behave in a nice neighborly way (which they, like me, may have been doing anyway) but forcing them to do it for people who aren't their neighbors who they have never met and who may just be taking advantage of them, that's when it becomes the government's domain, who have no trust whatsoever afforded to them, fo numerous reasons made obvious over the years.
If I trusted that every single person in the country would treat me the same as I treat my neighbor, then socialism would be great. Until that trust is evident (aka utopia) of course we will all remain scared of where our money is being taken from us and used towards. Personally I don't like buying tanks and missiles, training little teenage boys to be awesome and ready to kill, and hate that churches don't pay taxes too, but that's my beef I guess. Social programs work on a small local level, but like with everything LARGE in government, they become bogged down with each individual's sense of what is or is not a priority. Sorry but lots of federal programs (like buying tanks), or even town council meeting programs (like how much to raise the city dumpster fee)... are simply nothing I give a gak about. Does that make me a socialist? I would rather fix a roof, eat some chicken, and share some with my friendly neighbor.
Guitardian wrote:Every time someone asks me if I can bum them a cigarette I become a socialist, and every time someone bums me one, I also become a socialist. When it gets to larger levels, and 'macro' economy levels it becomes more difficult to justify. I love the idea of saying "YOU ARE NOT MY PROBLEM! LEAVE ME ALONE!" but, face to face, on a local level, I cannot do that. I HAVE to care about other people's problems because it is a right thing to do, even if it inconveniences me. Socialism on the micro-scale works very well I have seen it in action back in my street tribe days... just yesterday I borrowed my neighbors ladder to fix my girlfriend's mom's roof for instance. He didn't charge me to use it he was just, well, nice. I didn't charge her for fixing the roof either it was just something nice to do for the lady. She fed me chicken. Later last night I brought him some chicken and bummed him a cig, etc. Sort of goes round in circles on a local level, it just gets complicated when the federal tendrils start digging into forcing everyone to behave in a nice neighborly way (which they, like me, may have been doing anyway) but forcing them to do it for people who aren't their neighbors who they have never met and who may just be taking advantage of them.
Now is that socialism or is that charity Guitardian? Your instances are all voluntary. There is nothing voluntary about socialism.
The "You are not my problem, leave me alone!" crowd can be broken into several segments: the you segment; the I give but don't coerce me segment; and the "give a hand up not a hand out" segment. Of course there are mixes as well. I am the latter two and detest strongly people telling me what to do.
I suppose agreeing to a socialistic society implies that everyone has kind of mutually agreed to be charitable. That ain't gonna happen though I think. Good point frazz.
Here it is: We all want to take care of each other as best we can, if given the opportunity and resources to do so. I really believe that in the human spirit. People who become selfish or aggressive about who is the "alpha-male" in their own little world are only doing so because of a sense of self-preservation that is caused by having to live in a society which they work for, but does not always work for them. We get racism, gay-bashing, feminazis, real nazis little skinhead feths, all sorts of things most of us don't care about... but with LOUD voices.
Everyone wants a perfect society where they love and trust their neighbors to love and trust them. That has to be a decision of the people though. not the law. If the law creates a precedent for it, it will only become another brick on that pyramid of bitterness and hate and anger. I will be charitable because I WANT to not because I HAVE to.
I guess that makes me a socialist opposed to socialism?
focusedfire wrote:
This is a seriously debatable concept that is questioned and studied in the field of psycology.
It was about 50 years ago, but its not anymore. Game theory ended the debate.
focusedfire wrote:
Not my terminology but the term used in course to question the existence of such in our daily reality. Now the term may be outdated and if it is, then please correct me. College for me is 2 decades in the past.
The term is outdated because its fallacious. Its the definition of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and works against discovering the existence of a thing which could not reasonably exist in common situations. It does this by eliminating any instance in which any benefit of even ancillary association to the altruistic act from consideration.
In other words, true altruism does not exist, not because there is no altruism, but because our standard for what would constitute true altruism was unreasonable.
focusedfire wrote:
Where? I have argued its use/misuse in the broader sense but the actual definition is quite clear. There is a difference between use and definition. You will find that my arguments stay with the definition.
focusedfire wrote:
Yes, the words can be used in different context. They can also describe the exact same thing that has two different names.
For that to be true, the definition has to be murky.
However, there is a difference between use and definition, and it is relevant here. If the use is inconsistent with the definition, then the use is incorrect, but mass proliferation of the incorrect usage will affect the definition.
In this particular case, your definition is not consistent with numerous policies that are broadly considered socialist, such as redistributive taxation, because state ownership is a necessary contingency with respect to it. You cannot ignore necessary components of a definition when attempting to utilize a word; not without forcing yourself to change the definition. We could remove the need for ownership from definition, but doing so implies that all states which intervene in their economies through regulation, or even criminal prosecution, are socialist; rendering the definition useless.
As far you use of the word socialism to describe Nazi Germany, that is also inconsistent with your definition, as it deals in government ownership of the means of production. The Nazi German state did not own the means of production, it controlled them but it did not own them. Both are required for your definition to apply. Considering this in the light of my above point explains how, if Nazi Germany is to be considered socialist, all states would have to be considered socialist.
The entire argument, as presented in this thread, necessarily indicates that the definition is neither clear, nor consistently applied, and you'll find that whenever socialism is referenced in an academic text it is provided with a working definition. It is not a word that is used with any necessary specificity, as its historical use varies wildly.
dogma wrote:It was about 50 years ago, but its not anymore. Game theory ended the debate.
Game Theory has done no such thing. Game theory when applied to ethics and morality is still very much theory and very limited due to th inabilty to factor infinite variables.
dogma wrote:The term is outdated because its fallacious. Its the definition of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and works against discovering the existence of a thing which could not reasonably exist in common situations. It does this by eliminating any instance in which any benefit of even ancillary association to the altruistic act from consideration.
Your use of the "No true scotsman" is a very wordy prevarication.
The question of the existence of altruism is one of the contradiction of the definition. That what is to be a selfless act is always motivated by a very self based desicion.
I will offer to drop this portion of the debate based upon the impression that you seem to be taking this personally and that you seem unfamiliar with the concept. Yes the term had the word true in it but not all questions about the trueness of something are fallacious. This debate only becomes a "no true scottsman" scenario if you provide an instance of someone behaving altruistically/without self motivation and "I" then change the set pardigm's based off of the word true or have unfairly set the parameters originally. This debate is based purely upon the contradiction of personal free will and the concept of a selfless act.
dogma wrote:In other words, true altruism does not exist, not because there is no altruism, but because our standard for what would constitute true altruism was unreasonable.
Unreasonable? Unattainable is a more accurate word here because the definition is an irrevocable contradiction. Hey, I didn't write the definition.
Again, I offer to drop this as it is unlikely to move the dicussion forward or be productive.
dogma wrote:For that to be true, the definition has to be murky.
No, it does not. This fails to take into account the massive amount of mis-information on the subject that has been pumped out by various political groups.
dogma wrote:However, there is a difference between use and definition, and it is relevant here. If the use is inconsistent with the definition, then the use is incorrect, but mass proliferation of the incorrect usage will affect the definition.
So we don't attempt to correct but instead just dumb everything down?
dogma wrote:As far you use of the word socialism to describe Nazi Germany, that is also inconsistent with your definition, as it deals in government ownership of the means of production. The Nazi German state did not own the means of production, it controlled them but it did not own them. Both are required for your definition to apply. Considering this in the light of my above point explains how, if Nazi Germany is to be considered socialist, all states would have to be considered socialist.
And this statement ignores the production facilities seized from certain groups and operated by the Nazi State.
I think in the long run we are going to end up agreeing to disagree.
focusedfire wrote:
Game Theory has done no such thing. Game theory when applied to ethics and morality is still very much theory and very limited due to th inabilty to factor infinite variables.
All of ethics is predicated on theory, and theories can indeed invalidate one another through the application of logic.
What game theory does in this particular instance is illustrate that there must exist certain scenarios in which altruism is the only possible description of a possible outcome. The text book case being any instances in which a person sacrifices his life in the absence of social compulsion.
You don't need to account infinite variability, which doesn't exist anyway, you only need to display a single positive outcome given all relevant variables. And, if infinite variability did exist, it would be fully possible to account for it using game theory as there is no limit size of aggregated game.
focusedfire wrote:
The question of the existence of altruism is one of the contradiction of the definition. That what is to be a selfless act is always motivated by a very self based desicion.
That isn't a necessary contradiction, as it very widely with the accepted understanding of the self.
focusedfire wrote:
I will offer to drop this portion of the debate based upon the impression that you seem to be taking this personally and that you seem unfamiliar with the concept.
I've not taken anything personally.
focusedfire wrote:
Yes the term had the word true in it but not all questions about the trueness of something are fallacious. This debate only becomes a "no true scottsman" scenario if you provide an instance of someone behaving altruistically/without self motivation and "I" then change the set pardigm's based off of the word true or have unfairly set the parameters originally.
The term, and the concept it denotes, are inherently fallacious. Discussing 'true altruism' implies that there is some form of 'false altruism', which is nonsense. Either its altruism, or it isn't.
focusedfire wrote:
Unreasonable? Unattainable is a more accurate word here because the definition is an irrevocable contradiction. Hey, I didn't write the definition.
We're not talking about getting something, we're talking about defining something which is already there. Having defined 'true altruism' would not bring into reality. I mean, it would mean we had attained a definition, but that was assumed in the sentence you're referring to.
focusedfire wrote:
No, it does not. This fails to take into account the massive amount of mis-information on the subject that has been pumped out by various political groups.
Misinformation is still a component of defining a term. Words are created, and defined through use. That's why the first step in any argument is defining your terms.
focusedfire wrote:
So we don't attempt to correct but instead just dumb everything down?
There's no qualitative component. Correct only comments on the adherence of a thing to an agreed standard.
focusedfire wrote:
And this statement ignores the production facilities seized from certain groups and operated by the Nazi State.
The war economy was an anomalous component of the larger Nazi economy.
focusedfire wrote:
I think in the long run we are going to end up agreeing to disagree.
focusedfire wrote:That is not the definition of altruism.
It wouldn't be the the classical definition, no, as it would rely on the context of this conversation to make sense.
And yeah, I did leave out the word 'confusing', and yeah, I had forgotten about my response at the top of the thread by the time I agree with dropping it at the bottom. That's the product of writing a response in three minute spots when you get a spare second or two.
I do agree with dropping it, it would probably be useful in seeing the actual underlying reason for our very different worldviews, but it'd take a crazy long time to get there, and is probably left to another thread.
Lenins early establishment of the Cheka and his reasons for doing so had nothing to do with building utopia and everything to do with consolodating power.
Yeah, but again you're looking at the legs and thinking that represents the whole dog. Yeah, the establishment of the Cheka was a part of the consolidation of power, but consolidation of power wasn't everything that was going on. Look at agricultural policy, while both the Nazis and the Soviets wished to exert greater control over the population, the Nazis were content to tie farmers to the land (selling farm land was made illegal) and then dictate what was produced, when certain elements of production were deemed in the national interest. The welfare of the farmer was of marginal interest to the Nazis, and the welfare of the farmhand was all but irrelevant.
This is wildly different to the agricultural policies of the Soviets. The kulaks were targeted, stripped of their land, and often persecuted, while the land was evenly distributed among the peasant class. That wasn't enough, though, as each farm remained a private affair, and so collectivisation was undertaken, taking the land back off of the farmers and putting them to work on vast communal farms.
Actually, they woulbd be best described as dogs of differing breeds and colour, but dogs none the less. They used the same formula to achieve popular support, just when it came time to demonize a particular group for tearing the country apart one group inserted the word Capitalist into their rhetoric while the other used the word Jew.
That's a simplification of my summary of the two positions, and when you think about how simplified my summary was, it's no surprise it's left out a whole lot of detail.
I'd like to take a moment here and clarify our stances. You are arguing the differences in Ideology between these groups while I am arguing their similarity in the mechanics of how they operated. Would you say that this is accurate?
I'd say the mechanics of how they operated were very, very different. Note my example of agricultural policy above.
The problem with disregarding definitions is that it breaks the ability to communicate through the written and spoken word. It prings us to an empasse.
Sure, but the solution isn't to insist on single definitions for all situations. The solution is to spell out the definition used in a given instance, and make sure that the most appropriate term is used in that situation.
If China allowed privatized contract bidding on state projects that woulb be a significant step towards capitalism.
Compared to private ownership of the means of production and the right to travel freely within one's own country and provide one's labour and capital in whatever market best suits, I'd say it's quite irrelevant.
you segment; the I give but don't coerce me segment; and the "give a hand up not a hand out" segment. Of course there are mixes as well. I am the latter two and detest strongly people telling me what to do.
