Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Spacemanvic wrote: the difference being, I can go to a different company for my services (unless there is collusion between the company and government), whereas with government, you are stuck.
Or unless that company owns everything in the company town you live in, or is so big it holds an absolute monopoly on that service or product.
Unless maybe you have a government who can order such companies to split into smaller companies, or ensure abusive practices such as company towns cannot take place and/or are monitored to ensure they are not taking advantage...
Those in the middle, the producers (workers) are squeezed until they can provide no more and the system comes to a grinding halt as it has eaten itself to oblivion.
I think you have a massively skewed view of society.
Edit: Just remembered I was planning on commenting on the chap in the OP... what universe is that tool in? Because it sure isn't this one
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 20:19:45
Paradigm wrote: Socialism (and by that I mean socialism, not communism, Marxism-Leninism or Stalinism, which are all rather different kettles of only superficially similar fish) seems to be the antichrist of American politics even moreso than it is here, and I'd be interested to hear what about the ideology itself provokes such a vehement and defined response.
Blame the Cold War (Soviet Socialist Republics, remember?). We pretty much associated anything that wasn't pure capitalism with the devil, and because America is the good guy (and not the devil) we can't have any of that. Which worked out pretty well cause unionism and the idea workers rights have never been particularly popular over here to begin with.
Yeah, I get that it's a Cold War thing, and given the circumstances of that period, it's perhaps not unreasonable to have conflated the two in that specific context. But now we have the benefit of hindsight, and can see clearly that the USSR was no more Socialist than the Nazis (the point again being that having the word 'socialist' in the party name means very little), the notion that Socialist is somehow going to bring about the end of the world as we know it if even one person that believes in it doesn't have their credibility torn to shreds by the media and public perception strikes me as a little odd.
Surely enough time has passed now that people can realise that, as mentioned before, Stalinism and Socialism are entirely different things, and though one is indisputably abhorrent, the other is a viable and worthy ideology to at least be considered in the political dialogue? (and no, the latter is not Stalinism! ) Stalin has done more damage than anyone to the idea of socialism and left-wing politics in general, but pretty much everywhere else in the Western world has at least started to move on from that; yes, the media and politicians still throw hissy fits when the Greeks have the sheer cheek to elect a leftie President or the British public give Corbyn a mandate to take the Labour party further left, but it seems that if either of those things were to occur in America, there would by lynchings...
Come to think of it, I'd probably get lynched in America if I mentioned my views that, in the UK, are perfectly acceptable to discuss, or at least, not considered radical.
You'd think, but in US popular culture, America is always the hero. Always. And the rest of the world should be kissing our ass and thanking us for defending peace, liberty, and our right to do as we please (/hyperbole). The Cold War isn't an isolated event over here. It's part of the larger narrative of American Exceptionalism which is still very much alive. Capitalism and it's role as the best way to do anything because bootstraps and some such is a major part of that. Anything that suggests capitalism is part of the problem immediately runs into the wall of 'Murica' and has to work really hard to climb over that obstacle.
Socialism is a far less toxic word now than it used to be, especially on the left and increasingly among independents. But the Right, being the conservative end and all, is naturally going to cling much harder to the older notion.
Thanks for the explanation. So could one perhaps argue that the depth to which free-market ultra-capitalism is ingrained in the US national psyche is because as part of this 'narrative', there has never been anything but capitalism in the USA, and the only exposure to any kind of alternative has been through 'the Enemy', whether that happens to be the Brutal English Oppressors in the War of Independence or the Commie Scum in the 20th Century? Thus, capitalism and America become inseparable, and integral to each others existence?
Apologies for the tangent this is becoming, I just find this difference in political culture fascinating and since I don't know any Americans in real life, I relish the chance to discuss it.
Spacemanvic wrote:
Spoiler:
Paradigm wrote: Except it's not about liberal socialism, it's about how a group of racist, nationalistic, deranged and dangerous people were able to play on societal fears, desires and lack of other options to inspire and create hate, violence, fear, and all kinds of other terrible things that have nothing to do with liberalism, socialism, or any combination thereof, despite the lengths the speaker goes to to make that 'comparison'.
To give a more brief analysis than my last post, as a lot of others in the thread have now done, the guy in the video is talking a whole load of BS.
Purely out of interest, could you expand on this? Socialism (and by that I mean socialism, not communism, Marxism-Leninism or Stalinism, which are all rather different kettles of only superficially similar fish) seems to be the antichrist of American politics even moreso than it is here, and I'd be interested to hear what about the ideology itself provokes such a vehement and defined response.
Sure.
Using this definition as a starting point:
political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
As an individual, I do not adhere to this definition. Historically, governments as they evolve become increasingly abusive, incompetent and rife with nepotism. Same can be said about corporations. BUT, the difference being, I can go to a different company for my services (unless there is collusion between the company and government), whereas with government, you are stuck.
The "community" also leads to abuses, mob rule ensues. Just look at your common HOA filled with busy-bodies. Those with opinions outside of what is collectively held are stifled, pilloried. The drab samesness is what is valued. Individuals lose the desire to produce beyond what is expected because they lose incentive to do so. The only people to make out in this situation are those who leach off others, or those who are in power (government). Those in the middle, the producers (workers) are squeezed until they can provide no more and the system comes to a grinding halt as it has eaten itself to oblivion.
Anyway, this is my very slighted American POV of socialism. Which is why I asked for a European view.
Thanks for explaining. To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, when you see 'community', why do you immediately think 'government', and why does that immediately lead to thoughts of abuse, incompetence and nepotism? Would you call your current government abusive? They have just as much ability to control your way of life as a more socialist government; yes, you have a free choice of companies to pick from in ideal circumstances, but ultimately, they're still reliant on the government for that system to exist, and that is open to abuse. Officials can be paid off, or to go the other way, the government is free to introduce any checks it likes on a business's practice, socialist or not.
Likewise, could you not argue that those with opinions outside of the norm are already being ostracised? Take for example the political Left' what passes for a left-wing party in Europe would be laughed out of town in the US political system, and they're not even Left enough, many would argue. Take any issue; gun control, abortion, economics, politics; there is no feature of your current government, or of a socialist one, that prevents those with radically different views from facing a struggle to be heard. Your views happen to be within the 'drab sameness' (not meant in a derogatory way) so you don't notice it, but those with different views are facing the same difficulty in being recognised that you would in a society with different leanings. That's where societal norms come from, the masses; if you're Right in a Right society, you're part of that norm, if you're Left in a Right society you're not, and thus at a disadvantage. Someone Right in a Left society would have the same disadvantage, with no change in views necessary. It's all a matter of perspective.
And again, I'd point out that socialism (or rather socialist tendencies, which are far more likely in the 21st century) does not mean that everyone is being put to work in collective farms/factories, living in government housing, eating government food. In practical, all it means is that issues like the horrific imbalance of wealth, the exclusion of minorities, the demonising of the poor and the plight of the victims of the system are not ignored, and society as a whole is more egalitarian.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 20:44:05
Makes sense if viewed through the prism of an American, how does this play when viewed through a Eurocentric lens?
No, that's silly. Hitler was a far-right socialist, only if you count a very broad definition of socialist. Limited socialism for the aryans, slavery for the rest.
He did have national healthcare and education programs, maternal benefits and a national transport program. Life was probably pretty good for an aryan in nazi germany, up until '43 or so.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Paradigm wrote: So could one perhaps argue that the depth to which free-market ultra-capitalism is ingrained in the US national psyche is because as part of this 'narrative', there has never been anything but capitalism in the USA, and the only exposure to any kind of alternative has been through 'the Enemy', whether that happens to be the Brutal English Oppressors in the War of Independence or the Commie Scum in the 20th Century? Thus, capitalism and America become inseparable, and integral to each others existence?
I'd say that's a good way to put it, with a added understanding that 'capitalism' in this narrative has a distinctly present twist on it that has been painted over the past (where we were at times quite anti-capitalist) as part of modern popular history.
Apologies for the tangent this is becoming, I just find this difference in political culture fascinating and since I don't know any Americans in real life, I relish the chance to discuss it.
It's a pretty fascinating subject over here (and absurdly frustrating for obvious political reasons)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/03 20:56:32
Makes sense if viewed through the prism of an American, how does this play when viewed through a Eurocentric lens?
No, that's silly. Hitler was a far-right socialist, only if you count a very broad definition of socialist. Limited socialism for the aryans, slavery for the rest.
He did have national healthcare and education programs, maternal benefits and a national transport program. Life was probably pretty good for an aryan in nazi germany, up until '43 or so.
Anyone who agrees with him is a total fething idiot.
I keep hitting the exalt button, but it says it can only be done once. :(
Anyways, Crowder is like the younger version of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. Just saying things to get ratings from people who have absolutely no clue what is going on. wtf is Liberal Socialist anyways? Bernie is a Democratic Socialist.....
Makes sense if viewed through the prism of an American, how does this play when viewed through a Eurocentric lens?
No, that's silly. Hitler was a far-right socialist, only if you count a very broad definition of socialist. Limited socialism for the aryans, slavery for the rest.
He did have national healthcare and education programs, maternal benefits and a national transport program. Life was probably pretty good for an aryan in nazi germany, up until '43 or so.
*If you ignore all the bombs falling Germany.
Yes of course, but that only became a very real threat in '43 ish when the allies expanded their campaign to industrial areas (as opposed to specific sites) and civilian targets. That coupled with the increasing allied dominance of the skies made life pretty bad in Germany.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
To me this man sounds like someone who has never seen a history book in his entire life, missed all history classes in school and gets all of his knowledge of history and politics from radical fringe websites on the internet.
I would recommend to him and those that agree with him to read some actual mainstream scientific (that means peer-reviewed) works on the ideology and history of national socialism and fascism, as well as works on Marxist socialism and its two subideologies: revolutionary socialism and democratic socialism. Hell, you could just start by reading Mein Kampf and Das Kapital and already know that socialism and national socialism aren't even remotely close to each other ideologically. Saying they are is like saying Whales are fish because they have fins and live in the water. Just like whales share some things with fish (fins and living in water), Right-wing populists like Hitler often share a few ideas with left-wing populists (specifically, those ideas that appeal to poor, working class people). In everything else however, they are very, very different.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/03 22:19:23
There was nothing socialist whatsoever about Hitler's political philosophy. He was solidly in favour of big industry, on the basis it would be answerable to him, and he suppressed all the left-wing parties. He also suppressed all the right-wing parties, because he was a fascist and believed that he personally should be in charge of everything. This is the Fuhrer Prinzip, and it's completely illiberal too.
As far as US slavish devotion to unfettered capitalism goes, people should not forget that the US is the home of major anti-trust legislation and other capitalist control laws, plus the New Deal which helped get the economy out of the Great Depression by a huge programme of public works.
No, no he wasn't. Not even a little bit. He was a Fascist, just like his buddy Benito Mussolini, only he made Fascism work better in Germany than Benny did in Italy.
Fascism is an extreme-right political persuasion. As is the case with all political ideologies, it's less a line and more a circle, as totalitarianism, whether left or right, all looks pretty much the same.
Libertarianism is a political ideology for high school students and college freshmen. Much like Communism, it only works on a very small scale in a very small, tightly controlled group (ironic, that). One of the major problems with Libertarianism is that it ignores, on the national level, the need for public infrastructure and, of course, the need to pay for said public infrastructure. The average individual, or even group of individuals, lack the funds, the means and the ability to build a highway system, bridges, roads, etc. all of which are necessary for the transport of goods and materials required for an industrialized society.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Libertarianism is a political ideology for high school students and college freshmen. Much like Communism, it only works on a very small scale in a very small, tightly controlled group (ironic, that). One of the major problems with Libertarianism is that it ignores, on the national level, the need for public infrastructure and, of course, the need to pay for said public infrastructure. The average individual, or even group of individuals, lack the funds, the means and the ability to build a highway system, bridges, roads, etc. all of which are necessary for the transport of goods and materials required for an industrialized society.
But..but.. Liberty! Freedom!...um, bootstraps!.... uh, er, secret muslims!
I find Libertarianism highly amusing... or I did, until my poor dear old mother-in-law was waylaid into paranoid racism and by her insane libertairan boyfriend.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
As my Poly Sci Professor once said "Political ideologies are based on Utopianism". Rarely are the actual effects as important as the idea of them, to the holders.
The world would always be better if people just did X.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Gregor Strasser was actually a socialist nazi. He believed Jews were bad not because of their blood, but because they were capitalists. It was basically socialism, but with a heavy dose of ‘the jews are at the centre of it all’.
Hitler hated the gak out of Strasser. But for a long time Hitler needed him, because the Nazi movement rather strangely had two completely opposed sets of policies. On the one hand they hated socialism, the brownshirts fought regular street battles with the socialist party. But on the other hand Strasser and his brother led a faction of the party that believed in workers rights, and wanted to use industrial action to improve the lives of everyday citizens. Both groups were at least agreed on ultra-nationalism and hatred of the Jews, so that bridged the gap, more or less, for a while.
Anyhow, the two fought regularly and it was clear that it was going to force a divide in the party sooner or later. Hitler wasn’t one to let problems fester, and so in 1933, as soon as he felt comfortable enough in his position he had Strasser arrested and then murdered in his jail cell. Which showed people in Germany in 1933 that Hitler really didn’t have any time for Socialist Nazism.
If there was any doubt, then the rounding up of socialists in concentration camps probably should have made it obvious to everyone.
Anyhow, this thing about Hitler being socialist comes up all the time, and at first it was interesting to debate against something that had a couple of technical truths, but missed so much of the bigger picture. Imagine if a friend told you Michael Jordan was a famous baseball player. It’s kind of true, he was famous, and he did play baseball professionally for a while there. But it’s also really wrong and clueless, so the first time you hear this you might laugh, then try to correct your friend. But then imagine that despite you explaining why that statement was so silly, your friend keeps repeating that nonsense over and over again.
And then you found out there’s a whole strain of really crappy baseball historians who repeat this and loads of other bits of nonsense. At the same time they’re claiming Michael Jordan, they’re pretending A-Rod* wasn’t a baseballer at all because there’s a picture of him hitting a golf ball one time. You’d quickly realise these people actually have zero interest in history, or in reality for that matter. They’re just playing a stupid game where they try to score points for their sport by claiming athletes people like while palming off sporting villains to other sports. Baseball is best because we've got Jordan but don't have Rodriguez.
Well that’s how this Hitler was a socialist thing works. And in the end I've realised that explaining the economic divisions within the Nazi party, the conflicts that produced, and the eventual brutal resolution in favour of Hitler's right wing corporatist model, just won't achieve anything. Because this has nothing to do with history as it actually was, it's just a game of writing a new history to make people think their ideology is best ideology.
*A-Rod is disliked isn’t he? I know he got done for drugs, so I assume he’s a bit of villain, but I know almost nothing about baseball.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/04 02:19:17
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
*A-Rod is disliked isn’t he? I know he got done for drugs, so I assume he’s a bit of villain, but I know almost nothing about baseball.
Yankee fans loved him... but, he's a pariah to non-Yankee fans.
But that's okay... he'd be like:
Spoiler:
Ha! That gif is awesome. Anyway, look at me, making baseball analogies and getting the baseball bits almost right.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Kilkrazy wrote: There was nothing socialist whatsoever about Hitler's political philosophy. He was solidly in favour of big industry, on the basis it would be answerable to him, and he suppressed all the left-wing parties. He also suppressed all the right-wing parties, because he was a fascist and believed that he personally should be in charge of everything. This is the Fuhrer Prinzip, and it's completely illiberal too.
As far as US slavish devotion to unfettered capitalism goes, people should not forget that the US is the home of major anti-trust legislation and other capitalist control laws, plus the New Deal which helped get the economy out of the Great Depression by a huge programme of public works.
The New Deal didn't get even come close to getting us out of the Great Depression.
The Japanese were "kind enough" to "help" us out of that mess on 7 December 1941. The temporary switch over to a wartime economy and resulting austerity measures was what got us out of the Depression, and helped lay the foundation for the post-war "boom years" (after the normal, brief slump during the switch back to a peacetime economy).
The New Deal did, however, have a positive effect on national morale, and a handful of good things that became long term (like Social Security). However, a lot of bad came out of it too.
I also disagree about Hitler being in favor of Big Industry. Adolf Hitler wasn't a capitalist (the NSDAP hated the capitalists as much as anybody else on their long list of enemies). Hitler was a collectivist, just a slightly different breed than the communists. All of Nazi Germany's private corporations were private on paper only. Everything relating to the industry and economy of Germany was under de-facto control of the State. Everything was for the furthering of the goals of the Third Reich, and whims of Hitler and the Party. So, yeah. The Third Reich was, for all intents and purposes, socialist economically. It was just run under a veneer of "conservatism" to keep the support of the Prussian military class that ran the military, and the Junkers class (Germany's equivalent to landowning aristocracy, many of whom were among the captains of industry).
However, to get back to the main topic, I'm surprised that this Vlogger hasn't taken up the cudgels against the NRA. After all, they have National and Association in their name, so that makes them socialist.
Or perhaps it's the opposite. The NRA are socialist, but because they support guns for all, they are good socialists, and therefore must not be spoken of in polite company because everyone kno sociaiism == evil.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Everything relating to the industry and economy of Germany was under de-facto control of the State. Everything was for the furthering of the goals of the Third Reich, and whims of Hitler and the Party. So, yeah. The Third Reich was, for all intents and purposes, socialist economically.
Actually, what you wrote here is pretty much a summation of facism, not socialism. Yes, Hitler's people had set up many social welfare programs but government control of almost every aspect of society was nearly absolute. And the economy of Germany at the time was a wartime economy including confiscating (stealing) everything of value from every country they invaded. It was never anything like a peacetime socialist economy.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It was just run under a veneer of "conservatism" to keep the support of the Prussian military class that ran the military, and the Junkers class (Germany's equivalent to landowning aristocracy, many of whom were among the captains of industry).
At first, but this veneer disappeared once Hitler consolidated control and began killing his enemies.
Seems like I see something everyday comparing someone to Hitler. I seen Trump, Bernie, Hillary, Cruz, ect meme's comparing them to Hitler. I guess it's the popular thing to do these days.
Spacemanvic wrote: I was hoping for some enlightened conversation. To Paradigm and da boss, thank you, I wanted to see what the take was from those in Europe and you have provided some insight.
To the others, well, thanks for posting I suppose.
Here is some enlightened conversation. Genocide is not equal to raising taxes - so using the word persecution to lump them together is disingenuous. There are really only 2 ends of the political spectrum and everyone is going to land somewhere on the line so it really is a poor gauge of anything.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Chute82 wrote: Seems like I see something everyday comparing someone to Hitler. I seen Trump, Bernie, Hillary, Cruz, ect meme's comparing them to Hitler. I guess it's the popular thing to do these days.
One should almost never take people comparing things to Hitler seriously. In 99.9% of all cases, any comparisons to Hitler are absurd and ridiculous, not to mention completely irrelevant. It makes the person making the comparisons look like a silly fool, like the guy in the OP's video.
Oh, and please beware of people who like dogs. Hitler liked dogs too.
Chute82 wrote: Seems like I see something everyday comparing someone to Hitler. I seen Trump, Bernie, Hillary, Cruz, ect meme's comparing them to Hitler. I guess it's the popular thing to do these days.
One should almost never take people comparing things to Hitler seriously. In 99.9% of all cases, any comparisons to Hitler are absurd and ridiculous, not to mention completely irrelevant. It makes the person making the comparisons look like a silly fool, like the guy in the OP's video.
Oh, and please beware of people who like dogs. Hitler liked dogs too.
