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.
Crowder is a tool who uses lies and manipulation and sheer stupidity to make his point. When he was on youtube, he told me(cause I was a follower) "Repuplicans are always right, we need to ignore them[democrats] must be ignored"
Sounds like the ramblings of someone with a very clear agenda more than willing to twist facts to make a hyperbolic point to me.
For a start, comparing persecution of the Jews with a perceived/potential persecution of the ultra-rich is just disingenuous, particularly the '1%' point. The Jews were less than 1% of German society (a fact I'd like to check, but can't at the moment), which is not at all the same as being the most wealthy 1% (ie. the '1%ers'); the former case saw a minority group made a scapegoat for ecomic hardship because of existing racial tensions, the fact they were very easy to target and because they provide a common enemy used to unite the non-Jewish population; the latter case sees the richest being blamed for the problems in society not because they are a minority or because they are easy targets (in right-wing American circles, from what I gather it's far easier to blame the unemployed and the working class for the economic situation, because they're obviously not trying hard enough) but because at worst, they are the ones that actually, provably caused the problems, or at best because they are the ones that could do something about it and don't. The fact they are a 'minority' (and the use of that particular word is misleading too, it creates divisions due to its modern connotations) is neither here nor their, they are tangibly responsible. Had it been the '5%', or the 17% or the '57%', they would still be equally responsible, and blaming them would be equally justified.
Then there's the casual glossing over of how Hitler repressed freedom of speech, particularly of the moderate right and the extreme left, manipulated or outright broke the democratic system the speaker is trying to pin him to, persecuted far more groups than just the Jews for purely ideological reasons... oh, and had a foreign policy that is practically the definition of nationalist fascism (the placing of one's nation above all others, uniting common-language populations into one nation, gaining power and territory required for self-sufficiency at the expense of everyone else).
This whole thing seems to be built on the principle of taking the words National and Socialist in the Nazi party name at face value, and using them to liken Sanders and any Liberals to Hitler, without considering that, shock horror, those words might have just been a ploy to appeal to a society that did have strong nationalist and socialist feeling, albeit not to any kind of extreme.
It would be equivalent to saying that the Scottish National Party are functionally Nazis since they are a nationalist party with socialist tendencies..(now let's hope Cameron's press guys aren't trawling internet forum sites for hyperbole to use when the SNP next come into the news... )
Even if Hitler was a liberal socialist, what exactly would it prove? That murdering lunatics come from all persuasions?
This is beside the point that no serious academic who knows what they were talking about would accept that definition of Hitler's views, which are seen as far right populism pretty much...everywhere.
But even assuming he WAS a liberal socialist, so what? We can go find some evil capitalists too, does that mean capitalism is inherently evil?
It's a useless debating tactic used to smear opponents and convince the gullible.
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.
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.
There is no "Conversation" here to be "enlightened" Crowder is manipulatingfact and using scare tactics cause he is afraid of socialism.
Considering what you posted initially I have trouble believing that, or at the very least you aren't cognizant enough for such a thing or you wouldn't have posted that. Either way you ensured that it was impossible which makes the flailing cries of "aw shucks" seem either disingenuous or incredibly naive. Possibly both.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Bernie Sanders = stupid, but there is a thread for that.
Care to expound on your views re: the video you posted?
You seem to agree so it would be nice to hear what you think.
Sure. I think socialism is wrong, but so is absolute capitalism. I want as little government intrusion in my life and the lives of others as possible. I am Libertarian.
That said, I agree with the video insomuch that a strong authoritarian government leads to massive abuse. In this case, liberal socialism. I could see abuse occur in a strong nationalist "right" authoritarian government. Take the current US election. Hillary is a has-been joke, Sanders is a near senile gakker, Rubio is an establishment plant, and Cruz while closer to what I want, Im not entirely onboard with. And Trump, trump is empty platitudes rousing up the masses with nationalist fervor.. I dont trust him.
So this video is about liberal socialism, and where it leads. Its focus is is from the perspective of America's definition of socialism. I asked for its European interpretation.
As to the brevity of my original post, why expound on a question that stands on it's own, in context with the attached video?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 18:56:42
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 19:03:55
Spacemanvic wrote: I could see abuse occur in a strong nationalist "right" authoritarian government.
Such as, perhaps, friggin' Nazi Germany? Hitler isn't considered right-wing because of his economic policies, he's considered right-wing because he was a reactionary conservative promising to "restore Germany's greatness". The entire basis of Nazism is the struggle of races, whereas communism and socialism is based on the struggle of classes. The core concepts of the ideologies are entirely different. There are no "Untermenschen" in socialist ideology, whereas in Nazism it's the entire raison d'être of the ideology.
So this video is about liberal socialism, and where it leads.
No, it isn't. It's about someone who doesn't understand what he's discussing trying to link his political opponents to Hitler. It's the very incarnation of Godwin's Law. Hitler sent socialists to the gas chambers and declared war on the Soviet Union for ideological reasons. It takes a very special kind of delusion to claim that this was due to him being a liberal socialist.
Spacemanvic wrote: Its focus is is from the perspective of America's definition of socialism.
What is "America's definition" of socialism? Because if it is "anything I disagree with politically" then sure, Hitler was a Socialist. Then again, so is the guy in the video, so YMMV on that definition.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
It's all gone a bit Mitchell and Webb come to think of it:
Spoiler:
The video in the OP is pretty much exactly that, but in real life... which is a pretty scary thought. Since a fair few posters seem to be aware of/familiar with the presenter of that video, is this par for the course for his stuff? Is he usually this overblown and misleading in his assertions? From the comments in this thread, I'd assume he is.
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.
Of course, the unspoken irony of this conversation is that no country in the 1930's and 1940's was more like Nazi Germany than the United States of America. And no, I'm not talking about FDR or the New Deal, I'mtalkingaboutawholelotofothergak.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/02/03 19:27:16
Bottom line - anyone who uses Hilter as a reference to compare, measure, or otherwise juxtapose ANYONE who isn't Hitler himself is an donkey-cave who's trying to manipulate you and likely has ulterior motives that are nowhere near altruistic.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/03 19:31:16
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.
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.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
)
