[Unthinking Majority]

Socialism is quite different to national socialism. One is subordinating personal interests for the good of all fellow workers, the other is subordinating personal interests for the good of the nation as a whole.

[FiveofSwords]

The word "national" in "national socialist" refers to nationalism.

Also, national socialism refers to Nazism, and it's actually against Communism.

Finally, modern China has a mixed economy, so it's not Nazi.

For a state to declare that it is interested in the welfare of the han Chinese ethnicity necessarily implies that it is nationalist.

Based on what the words are supposed to mean, I think it should be immediately obvious that all economies are necessarily mixed. In fact it is so obvious that I don't see why the label 'mixed economy' exists at all...it is useless. No economy cannot be mixed. And so of course natsoc Germany was mixed. No economy was ever not mixed nor could it ever be conceivable otherwise.

[FiveofSwords]

Socialism is quite different to national socialism. One is subordinating personal interests for the good of all fellow workers, the other is subordinating personal interests for the good of the nation as a whole.

Whenever people use the word 'worker' when discussing such stuff my eyes kinda glaze over. In the current era this word just doesn't seem to have any meaning. Without question the 'workers' ...that is something like the proletariat...factory workers, people mining or farming, etc. Fared far better in a national socialist country than they did in a communist country. Working conditions were absolutely brutal in 1930s Russia and also in 1930s UK. If you were a factory worker you would be most comfortable in natsoc germany.Germany. but that is because a worker in Germany would also be german...and the state decided its responsibility was to care for germans.

Whenever workers are provided a choice between national socialism and international socialism, they prefer national socialism. This is just a proven observable fact. This fact deeply troubled the 'marxists' in the 1930s and they always felt a bit insecure and inadequate because of it.

Despite all their rhetoric about how much they loved 'workers'...the ussr was so brutal to workers that it is difficult to imagine that this was not a feature rather than a bug. Certainly the systemic brutality of stuff like holodomor was perfectly conscious and planned.

[Potemkin]

I still think that Haggis shit from Scotland is revolting. Lol. So there!

*gasp* You take that back!

And I doubt your mother will ever know how to make a proper mofongo.

Well, okay, I’ll give you that one. Lol.

[Rich]

Also, the german national socialists identified far more relevant economic concerns than the Marxists did...which is why THEIR version of socialism made the german economy strong, while the issr always had a relatively weak and inefficient economy. Most important, for example, the German socialist eliminated rent seeking...the practice of making money simply because you have money (or stock shares or land you can rent out). They created an economy where everyone's money came simply from their own work. Marxists were unable to achieve that.

OK so this is interesting, but then

Do we want Nazis on Pofo? :?:

You come in with this. Now I'm guessing that you @Rugoz and I both share a deep scepticism about these claims that the Nazis eliminated rent seeking. In fact I suspect that we both share the view that far from decreasing rent seeking the Nazis increased it. That the Nazis increased the number of unproductive and counter productive actors in the system not reduced them. Yet your immediate instinct is to get the the person banned.

By banning belief systems you don't eliminate them, you give them succor. You give the impression that you have no answers to their arguments.Hard leftists in the universities have been seeking to ban anyone that disagreed with them for decades, but it was after 9/11 that the knee jerk banning culture really spread to the main stream. The Bush administration and Tony Blair required that every public intellectual fall in line behind their idiotic simple minded terrorist narrative. And in the aftermath of 9/11 all the sheeple went along with them. Their narrative was so fragile that they could not brook any serious debate. 20+ years on I would ask whether this anti free speech authoritarianism has really served us well.

[FiveofSwords]

OK so this is interesting, but then

You come in with this. Now I'm guessing that you @Rugoz and I both share a deep scepticism about these claims that the Nazis eliminated rent seeking. In fact I suspect that we both share the view that far from decreasing rent seeking the Nazis increased it. That the Nazis increased the number of unproductive and counter productive actors in the system not reduced them. Yet your immediate instinct is to get the the person banned.

By banning belief systems you don't eliminate them, you give them succor. You give the impression that you have no answers to their arguments.Hard leftists in the universities have been seeking to ban anyone that disagreed with them for decades, but it was after 9/11 that the knee jerk banning culture really spread to the main stream. The Bush administration and Tony Blair required that every public intellectual fall in line behind their idiotic simple minded terrorist narrative. And in the aftermath of 9/11 all the sheeple went along with them. Their narrative was so fragile that they could not brook any serious debate. 20+ years on I would ask whether this anti free speech authoritarianism has really served us well.

Well as antifa thought leaders have themsrlves explained many times, you cannot really allow nazis into discussions because they are very persuasive and make very good arguments and so any forum which allows them inevitably becomes a lot more nazi itself.

I can confirm from my own experience on the internet that this is generally true. Any platform that doesn't go out of its way to ban 'nazis' inevitably becomes very 'nazi' in a few months.

Now of course the 'nazis' would tend to argue that this is because their ideas are actually true, and the truth is more persuasive. That does seem like the most parsimonious explanation. Antifa tries to frame it as if 'nazis' have some magic powers of mind control or something...kinda like how Hitler 'brainwashed' all the germans very rapidly despite having no media control (until after his election).

Anyway...it is currently possible, albeit difficult, to get actual answers about what the economy under the third Reich was like. Yes, they did effectively abolish rent seeking. The stock market was effectively abolished, for example. Land speculation was very strictly regulated and disincentivized. Etc. The total wealth of Germany at that time was extremely closely tied to how much productive work was actually happening, rather than the manipulation of abstract digits in some wall street computer, for example. This was the real diving force behind the 'economic miracle' of Germany. Naturally some people will say Germany made all its money by stealing gold teeth from jews...I guess you can try to believe that is possible if you want.

[Rich]

Well as antifa thought leaders have themsrlves explained many times, you cannot really allow nazis into discussions because they are very persuasive and make very good arguments and so any forum which allows them inevitably becomes a lot more nazi itself.

Well as I've argued in the WW2 thread, at its core I don't believe that German Nazism was about changing either the economic system or the social system, I also don't believe it was about defending German culture. Sure the Nazis genuinely had those sentiments, they genuinely had those beliefs, but the root of Nazism was their experience of the First world War.

I believe the core of the Nazis just loved the armed forces, their experience of World War I, gave them meaning, or in the case of Nazis like Himmler who were too young to fight, they got that experience indirectly thorough the recollections of others. Many militaries fail, but when they go right they can give an experience of collective struggle, solidarity and meaning, that is almost impossible to replicate in peace time. Successful miilitaries are by their very nature strongly socialist. This is why we see some of the earliest socialist ideas emerging in the English Civil war and why the French Revolution and the succeeding Napoleonic wars were such a breeding ground for socialist and communist ideas.

[Tainari88]

Well as I've argued in the WW2 thread, at its core I don't believe that German Nazism was about changing either the economic system or the social system, I also don't believe it was about defending German culture. Sure the Nazis genuinely had those sentiments, they genuinely had those beliefs, but the root of Nazism was their experience of the First world War.

I believe the core of the Nazis just loved the armed forces, their experience of World War I, gave them meaning, or in the case of Nazis like Himmler who were too young to fight, they got that experience indirectly thorough the recollections of others. Many militaries fail, but when they go right they can give an experience of collective struggle, solidarity and meaning, that is almost impossible to replicate in peace time. Successful miilitaries are by their very nature strongly socialist. This is why we see some of the earliest socialist ideas emerging in the English Civil war and why the French Revolution and the succeeding Napoleonic wars were such a breeding ground for socialist and communist ideas.

That is an interesting premise. But according to many, the origin of Communism in Europe were the French Enlightenment ideas.

The Conspiracy of the Equals (French: Conjuration des Égaux) of May 1796 was a failed coup d'etat during the French Revolution. It was led by François-Noël Babeuf, who wanted to overthrow the Directory and replace it with an egalitarian and proto-socialist republic, inspired by Jacobin ideals.

In terms of the birth of Communist thought Rich? Probably Babeuf aka Gracchus was the first one. The Conspiracy of Equals is the core of Communism. Before Karl Marx and all the rest who wanted to bring a more scientific spin on the reasons behind why capitalist societies needed a good analysis for the theory. Das Kapital was that analysis of Capital.

But the origin was Babeuf from the French Enlightenment.

Was Babeuf a military man? No.

So no the origin of communist thought was not the military.

The concept of equality for all people is the core of the far left. The idea of class clings to all of capitalism. It has always been so. You have to have innate inequality in order to make capitalism function. And the society and economy falls in line accordingly. That is the core 'dialectical materialism' concept in action.

@Potemkin likes explaining the differences.

However, the military had been around before Communism and before capitalism. You could say the military started when a group of teen male hunter-gatherers decided they needed to bind together and go out there and cooperate to do different tasks as a group to be successful in defending a certain territory from other tribes or groups encroaching on their food sources. Lol. Rank had to do with how good you were at delegating authority within the group. Usually, older hunters were chosen to say who gets to do which function to reach the goal. They had more real-life experience and would commit fewer errors was the logic eh?

[Tainari88]

*gasp* You take that back!


Well, okay, I’ll give you that one. Lol.

I am not taking it back. Boiled oats with salt and water in a gray watery sheep's stomach does not appeal to me.

Look:

If you have a land full of wool and sheep and you got to get some eats because things are dire.....you do the Haggis. That is an adaptation to the land on display eh?

[ingliz]

@Tainari88

I don't know why you have taken against haggis. It's just a sausage with a sheep's stomach casing made with the cheapest ingredients (offal and animal feed) and lots of pepper.

[Tainari88]

@Tainari88

I don't know why you have taken against haggis. It's just a sausage with a sheep's stomach casing made with the cheapest ingredients (offal and animal feed) and lots of pepper.

You like it Ingliz?

No, Ingliz I do have a right to my own food preferences. Haggis I do not like. But @Potemkin likes it. Food of the Gods he calls it. Lol. I love teasing him about it. He likes Black English Tea too. I wonder if he takes it with milk and sugar as well?

Speaking of food. Time for breakfast. Mexicans love tacos de canasta for breakfast. Not me. Today I am going for a fruit and veggie smoothie and something simple eh.

Now, that total breakdown of Hitler as a degenerate was quite detailed.

But you got to realize that people often worship leaders who's feet are made of clay eh?

They even buy gold sneakers from some of them to help them feel like they are helping out.

[ingliz]

@Tainari88

No, but I will eat it.

I will eat most things except tripe. And it's not that I haven't tried it. The rubbery texture in the mouth and a faint whiff of cow shit is a turn-off for me although some consider it a delicacy.

p.s. Yes, I know the haggis casing is technically tripe, but it's not expected you eat it.

[FiveofSwords]

Well as I've argued in the WW2 thread, at its core I don't believe that German Nazism was about changing either the economic system or the social system, I also don't believe it was about defending German culture. Sure the Nazis genuinely had those sentiments, they genuinely had those beliefs, but the root of Nazism was their experience of the First world War.

I believe the core of the Nazis just loved the armed forces, their experience of World War I, gave them meaning, or in the case of Nazis like Himmler who were too young to fight, they got that experience indirectly thorough the recollections of others. Many militaries fail, but when they go right they can give an experience of collective struggle, solidarity and meaning, that is almost impossible to replicate in peace time. Successful miilitaries are by their very nature strongly socialist. This is why we see some of the earliest socialist ideas emerging in the English Civil war and why the French Revolution and the succeeding Napoleonic wars were such a breeding ground for socialist and communist ideas.

Well thats strange

[Tainari88]

@Tainari88

No, but I will eat it.

I will eat most things except tripe. And it's not that I haven't tried it. The rubbery texture in the mouth and a faint whiff of cow shit is a turn-off for me although some consider it a delicacy.

p.s. Yes, I know the haggis casing is technically tripe, but it's not expected you eat it.

You and I feel exactly the same about tripe. I agree with the reasons for not liking it. Interestingly one the dishes that are iconic to Mexican cuisine is made from cow's tripe. It is called Menudo.

I have always hated it. But the Mexicans say nothing is better for curing a hangover than Menudo.

No, thank you.

There were no cows before the Spanish brought cows to Mexico. No horses either. Sheep or domestic pigs either.

There were guajolotes. Turkeys in English. Or pavos in Spanish. Guajolote is the Nahuatl word for Turkey.

A very American bird.

A small list of Mexican origin foods or plants.

Today's food staples native to the land include corn (maize), turkey, beans, squash, amaranth, chia, avocados, tomatoes, tomatillos, cacao, vanilla, agave, spirulina, sweet potato, cactus, and chili pepper.

People often do not realize that diversity of everything is about pleasing the palate too. They think purity of anything is preferable. It is not. It is often the wrong approach to almost everything humans have accomplished in this world. Most port cities are about a lot of different ethnic groups trading, communicating and interacting to the point of creating a more flexible and adaptable civilization. The ideas of only one race, one ethnicity and one group having all the answers in the world without needing the others? Is false.

Many believe in false stuff. It is easier to deal with. Again, they want a neat package when the world of humans is messy.

[Unthinking Majority]

Without question the 'workers' ...that is something like the proletariat...factory workers, people mining or farming, etc. Fared far better in a national socialist country than they did in a communist country. Working conditions were absolutely brutal in 1930s Russia and also in 1930s UK. If you were a factory worker you would be most comfortable in natsoc germany.Germany. but that is because a worker in Germany would also be german...and the state decided its responsibility was to care for germans.

Except for Jewish Germans or anyone in Germany who wasn't pureblood white "aryan". Then the "aryan Germans" were sent to their deaths because their nutty leader wanted to annex every country around him and rule the world for his own race. Not the best working conditions now is it?

Whenever people use the word 'worker' when discussing such stuff my eyes kinda glaze over. In the current era this word just doesn't seem to have any meaning.

By worker I mean "someone who collects a wage or salary", and in the class sense yes the "proletariat" the Marxists call them. It's not difficult to understand.

Whenever workers are provided a choice between national socialism and international socialism, they prefer national socialism. This is just a proven observable fact. This fact deeply troubled the 'marxists' in the 1930s and they always felt a bit insecure and inadequate because of it.

Despite all their rhetoric about how much they loved 'workers'...the ussr was so brutal to workers that it is difficult to imagine that this was not a feature rather than a bug. Certainly the systemic brutality of stuff like holodomor was perfectly conscious and planned.

Sorry to burst your bubble but national socialists and communists are a bunch of nutters and idealistic fools divorced from reality. Their foolishness has driven many countries into the ground and killed many millions and made many millions of others suffer.

Cuba isn't even communist anymore, they now have private property rights, free-market rights, foreign capitalist investment, more freedom of movement. They have universal healthcare, but so does Canada.

[Rich]

Except for Jewish Germans or anyone in Germany who wasn't pureblood white "aryan".

Well to be fair the Nazis didn't insist on pure blood Aryanism. The Nazis never argued that Germans were pure blood Aryans like the Norwegians. And Austrian Germans were seen as even less pure blood than German Germans. The Nazis also Germanised a considerable number of Poles, who I'm sure weren't beleived to be pure Aryan. Hitler seemed to believe himself of Bavarian ethnicity rather Austrian, but still I think Bavarians were considered less pure than north Germans, maybe less pure even than the Dutch.

[FiveofSwords]

Except for Jewish Germans or anyone in Germany who wasn't pureblood white "aryan". Then the "aryan Germans" were sent to their deaths because their nutty leader wanted to annex every country around him and rule the world for his own race. Not the best working conditions now is it?



By worker I mean "someone who collects a wage or salary", and in the class sense yes the "proletariat" the Marxists call them. It's not difficult to understand.


Sorry to burst your bubble but national socialists and communists are a bunch of nutters and idealistic fools divorced from reality. Their foolishness has driven many countries into the ground and killed many millions and made many millions of others suffer.

Cuba isn't even communist anymore, they now have private property rights, free-market rights, foreign capitalist investment, more freedom of movement. They have universal healthcare, but so does Canada.

Jews were not considered German and the nsdap primary concern was germans.

[FiveofSwords]

Well to be fair the Nazis didn't insist on pure blood Aryanism. The Nazis never argued that Germans were pure blood Aryans like the Norwegians. And Austrian Germans were seen as even less pure blood than German Germans. The Nazis also Germanised a considerable number of Poles, who I'm sure weren't beleived to be pure Aryan. Hitler seemed to believe himself of Bavarian ethnicity rather Austrian, but still I think Bavarians were considered less pure than north Germans, maybe less pure even than the Dutch.

Lol...what? The Germans did consider themselves to be aryan.

[Tainari88]

Jews were not considered German and the nsdap primary concern was germans.

Hmm, are you a Holocaust denier? Yes or no?

You can keep dodging questions. It is no skin off of my nose.

[Unthinking Majority]

Jews were not considered German and the nsdap primary concern was germans.

No shit. They exterminated them.