Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, yeah, but I posted more videos *in total*.I hadn't known that there was a competition between us . I only post videos as I deem to be properly necessary , not in order to try to one up anyone else .
I hadn't known that there was a competition between us . I only post videos as I deem to be properly necessary , not in order to try to one up anyone else .
It was two large German companies, Krupp and I.G. Farben, that bailed out the Nazi Party when it went broke in 1932.
If you look at actual history and see what fascists actually did, you would see that they did support the business class and ruthlessly targeted the working class.
You are just refusing to thunk farther than “state control”.
Also, socialistic is not a word that is actually used to describe anything.
Deutschmania wrote:In which of these dictonomous categories would you place liberal socialism?
And , it seems to me that the basic definition that free market classical liberal conservatives have of socialism is simply a combination of dirigisme with planisme . As you should be able to see , these are French rooted words ; so such concepts did not originate in Germany . Also there was a huge gap between Hitler , and the Strassers , as to what the National Socialist economy should entail . https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists , https://www.thoughtco.com/guns-or-butter-the-nazi-economy-1221065 , https://www.thoughtco.com/was-adolf-hitler-a-socialist-1221367 , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties , https://arplan.org/category/people/gregor-strasser/ , https://arplan.org/category/people/otto-strasser/
Senter wrote:Well, in the first place I completely reject Ludwig von Mises and anything he says. I'm no genius but I can refute everything I've seen him say with a few facts.
Both his alternatives for "socialism" are references to state capitalism. Neither one is actually socialism, which is a socioeconomic system in which the working class owns and actively runs and controls the MoP. But in all the examples you listed in your post the state owns and dictates to workers. That is not liberation of workers!
At this point most of the opposition would turn to dictionary definitions of socialism. If that's what you want to do, please do.
Rancid wrote:The second form of "communism" sounds like China. That is, it's not really communism, more like state managed capitalism.
Saeko wrote:Saying that the Nazi and Soviet form of economic organization are the same because they both involve the use of the state to enforce economic dictates is as retarded as saying that Capitalism and Feudalism are the same because both systems use the state to enforce private property rights.
Julian658 wrote:Same old:
Socialism can only be imposed by coercion and by a repressive authoritarian government.
Doug64 wrote:Not at all, it can be created (socialism)by democratically elected governments with the support of their citizens. Good examples are the wartime fascism/socialism of WWI & WWII US and WWII Great Britain (I don't know enough about economics in Great Britain during WWI to have an opinion). The problem is maintaining that fascism/socialism after the crisis is over--there you need a repressive authoritarian government, and in all three cases thanks to our embedded Democratic institutions and traditions those that would have liked to maintain that socialism weren't in position to do so when most citizens decided it was time to shut it down.
Of course they weren't the same, any more than you could say that Maoism and Leninism are the same--but they're both forms of Communism, just like Facism and Communism are both forms of socialism.
Not at all, it can be created by democratically elected governments with the support of their citizens. Good examples are the wartime fascism/socialism of WWI & WWII US and WWII Great Britain (I don't know enough about economics in Great Britain during WWI to have an opinion). The problem is maintaining that fascism/socialism after the crisis is over--there you need a repressive authoritarian government, and in all three cases thanks to our embedded Democratic institutions and traditions those that would have liked to maintain that socialism weren't in position to do so when most citizens decided it was time to shut it down.
OK, let's play out your hypothesis. Assume we have a referendum: Socialism versus capitalism and socialism wins by 65%.
What them? How about the other 35% that prefer capitalism? Will the government allow them to keep their private property and allow them to continue to be capitalists? Or will they have to agree to nationalization of their private enterprises? I would think that if you really want socialism you would need coercion and oppression of business owners.
Just make it clear that the current business owners need to get the fuck out of the way -- done.
I am glad someone finally admitted that socialism can only be implemented with coercion.
Oddly enough, yes, I'm going to turn to a dictionary definition of socialism: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government." That "usually" is important, because you have to have that centralized government for any form of socialism above the village level and whoever calls the shots are the true owners. And no, I'm not going to buy an argument that because every form of socialism above the village level has involved state control by the central government it isn't really socialism. And note that "state control" is true even at the village level when you define "state" as "the adults as a body."
Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler—although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion—and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long-standing hatred—the Jews—and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps.https://www.thoughtco.com/was-adolf-hitler-a-socialist-1221367 Much of the arguments made in the American Thinker article linked to by @Doug64 are association , and authority fallacies . And also , the claim made by the above referenced article that Islamists , whose economics in my opinion is best comparable to distributism , are also left-wing is ludicrous . Just because a movement is anti-capitalist , doesn't automatically make them revolutionary left , from a global standpoint . I think that what everyone from Hitler to the Islamists have had in common was their support for productive capitalism , as opposed to spectuative investment , and the financial markets . http://www.planck.org/publications/Financial-Capitalism-vs-Productive-Capitalism/ But if this makes them " socialist " , then so was the economy of South Korea , especially in regards to Saemaul Undong . Finishing out my response , and in friendly competition with @ckaihatsu , here are a series of videos .
But in the USSR and China socialism was never attained. The functional relationship between the worker and top management remains no different than it is in capitalism.
Finishing out my response , and in friendly competition with @ckaihatsu , here are a series of videos . UMrYyPJI1BA F_6ZDXkbaxE hUFvG4RpwJI YHAN-RPJTiE
Doug64 wrote:Back to the dictionary again, this time for Capitalism: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." The more it's "state managed" the less it's Capitalism, though I would add "controlled" to "owned," if I didn't replace it entirely. Note that "managed" isn't the same as "regulated," such as those laws required for Capitalism to function such as enforcement of contracts.
Rancid wrote:Things like capitalism and communism are a continuum, a spectrum. Sooo yea, china is more like a state managed capitalist country (private citizens do in fact own the means of production, so long as they don't piss off the CCP). The Chinese play the global capitalism game better than anyone else at that.
...because a full description cannot by any means be given by a ‘definition’ but only by ‘developing the essence of the matter’
The Formulas of the Improvisers Among the improvisers who seek to deny the capitalist nature of German economy, a few have hastily read Marx in order to cull from his works some definition of capitalism which is no longer applicable to the Third Reich. In the main their procedure comes down to defining capitalist economy as a “market economy.” Then they conclude: Since prices in Germany are determined not by the automatic laws of the market but by state decrees, therefore the economy is no longer capitalist. To be sure, the intervention of the state into the sphere of circulation affords certain supplementary channels for the manipulation of prices. But there is essentially nothing new in this. For almost half a century monopolies and cartels have precisely set themselves the task of converting free trade into its opposite. Are monopolies then “non-capitalist” enterprises? The formula of the improvisers is false because they attempt to define capitalism by seeking its essential characteristics in the sphere of circulation.
Marxism teaches us that a correct definition of capitalism can be established only by seeking out the essential relations in the sphere of production, which, in turn, determines those in the sphere of circulation.
The distinction between this humanist reading and the circulationist reading still may seem trivial. After all, SNLT only exists because we produce for exchange. Exchange plays a vital role in the process of regulating labor in a capitalist economy where private labors happen in relative isolation from each other. However the distinction becomes more crucial once we consider the nature of labor in the state-planned economies of the USSR. Soviet economists claimed to operate under the law of value, to produce commodities, similarly to capitalism. However they also claimed that they were doing so consciously, using the law of value to their advantage, as a conscious tool of state planning. This meant, according to Soviet economists, that while other categories of capitalist production may have been at play, labor was directly social. It was directly social because it was planned by people, not blind economic forces. This was meant to prove the socialist nature of their state-planning.10
But if we understand indirectly social labor to be the result of socially necessary labor time then it does not matter whether this labor’s social nature is realized by a market or by a plan. What gives it its indirectly social nature is the fact that one hour of my work is not worth as much as another’s. Labors are not treated equally. Instead a process of social averaging takes place which rewards some labors and punishes others. The mechanism which realizes or reinforces this does not alter matters. This argument has been used to argue that the USSR was actually a state-capitalist society, not a communist society. Such a claim requires an empirical analysis of the organization of the USSR, something outside the topic of this book. [cite mh and ticktin]
This method of starting from principles (instead of abstracting them in the course of theoretical work) was essentially the same as starting from abstract definitions, into which the facts are then ‘fitted’. (An example of such a method would be that commonly used to ‘prove’ that the USSR is ‘capitalist’. A fixed definition of capitalism is erected – one involving wage labour and commodity production for instance. Certain ‘facts’ are then taken from the USSR – where undoubtedly wage labour and commodity production exist, and on this basis the USSR is ‘shown’ to be capitalist.)
ckaihatsu wrote:To be fair, I've heard some claims that even under Stalin the workers on the ground were allowed workplace-scale collectivization, within the USSR, but all *project-level* decision-making and edicts came down from the Stalinist bureaucratic elites.
You're basically correct, though.
We did our duty No, you did not. Oath of Enlis[…]
You literally justified not counting votes because[…]
Okay, and I have a small request -- could you inc[…]