Socialism in action

[7djengo7]

But to call this incident an example of "socialism " shows just how clueless the poster of this thread is about politics .

Then why don't you please just share with us something you consider to be an example of socialism?

 

[ok doser]

The horn rarely engages in discussion

He's more of a hit and run kind of poster

 

[7djengo7]

What's the difference between corporate power and governmental power, practically speaking?

But, don't you profess to favor what you call "governmental power" over what you call "corporate power"?

 

[George Affleck]

What makes you think that in the long term greedy algorithms yield the best quality of life? Private companies and industry has a pretty bad track record, for example, with environmental impact. What's the difference between corporate power and governmental power, practically speaking?

In a word? Freedom.

Private enterprise competes for your business. Government agencies legislate your business and give no choice.

(This is not to say that government does not have a place in regulating safety or quality)

 

[7djengo7]

No. Fascism is fascism. Without getting to spergy about fascism vs Fascism, Fascism is a specific ideology with its own ideas on how to organize and maintain society. It isn't just a collection of stuff liberals and communists don't like.

You're exactly right to say that fascism "isn't just a collection of stuff liberals and communists don't like"! For, indeed, fascism is a collection of stuff liberals and communists truly love, and desire to implement, as far as they can.

 

[George Affleck]

The horn rarely engages in discussion

He's more of a hit and run kind of poster

That's because the facts are not on his side. If he had any he would be duty bound to express them. It's just easier to be socialist mouthpiece than someone who carefully considers the facts.

we wouldn't want him getting "spergy" now would we?

 

[Supremum]

If I have to deal with too much more literal Dinesh d'Souza-tier historical nonsense I swear I'm going to have an aneurysm.

There is no such thing as a right wing fascist.

There's a reason it's referred to as the Third Position. The whole point is that it's neither left nor right, but pulls ideas from both sides.

Fascism is socialism - that's why they called it the German Nationalist Socialist Party. Mussolini was a revolutionary socialist/communist who led the upstart National Fascist Party in Italy.

Fascism and national socialism are both rejections of Marxism. The national socialists called themselves that in order to trick people into coming to their meetings early on. They used the color red for the same reason. Mussolini was a Marxist intellectual who was turned into an anti-Marxist, anti-intellectual by the depravity of the communists and anarchists in Italy and Spain.
The point here being: Marxism, Fascism, national socialism, classical liberalism etc. aren't just opinions on tax rates or the optimum amount of government interference in the marketplace. They're complete worldviews, and if you don't hold the worldview of a communist or a fascist then you aren't one.

Open borders, medicare for all, free university, fascism, racism will lose the election big time.

Open borders absolutely will win elections going forward. Demographics are turning texas and Florida blue right now. We lost California a decade ago because if this. The people coming here will vote according the their ethnic interests.

As racism declined in the South, it became more and more Republican which it mostly is now.

Has no one ever explained the southern strategy to you before?

Most people today believe that the civil rights movement in the 1960's was led by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans.

In reality it was led by communists and opposed by American patriots.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Voting Rights Act of 1965; and the fair housing bill of 1968 were all passed because the Republicans passed them through.

Gee, thanks for destroying the country, republicans.

There are many in those minorities who are waking up to this problem. The same is true of those at the southern border and the American native populations.

Just out of curiosity, if every "minority" group in the U.S. votes in the upcoming election exactly as they always have, will you be willing to reexamine your starting point?

 

[Supremum]

In a word? Freedom.

Freedom is gay.

Private enterprise competes for your business. Government agencies legislate your business and give no choice.

(This is not to say that government does not have a place in regulating safety or quality)

Power is power, though, dude. That's my point. The idea that private enterprise is somehow cleansed of nefarious or antisocial goals by profit motive is naive.

For, indeed, fascism is a collection of stuff liberals and communists truly love, and desire to implement, as far as they can.

Really? You think liberals want to pull prostitutes off the streets and punish the people who forced them into prostitution? You think liberals want to end the widespread dissemination of pornography? Say what you will about the national socialists, but this whole transgender reassignment surgery thing started in Berlin in the 1920s. And guess what? The SA put a stop to it. They beat the pervert Magnus Hirschfeld within an inch of his life and set fire to all of his "work." Would liberals like that? Were the Nazis "liberal" like that?

But, don't you profess to favor what you call "governmental power" over what you call "corporate power"?

Not really, I just don't see a practical difference. Throw me in jail, destroy my bank account, similar outcomes.

 

[George Affleck]

Freedom is gay.

Brilliant comeback.

Power is power, though, dude. That's my point. The idea that private enterprise is somehow cleansed of nefarious or antisocial goals by profit motive is naive.

No, that's not a point. You are pretending that 12 independent health insurance companies will not compete against each other for your business but are really one powerful entity like a government agency. That's a false comparison typical of shallow thinking.

Really? You think liberals want to pull prostitutes off the streets and punish the people who forced them into prostitution? You think liberals want to end the widespread dissemination of pornography? Say what you will about the national socialists, but this whole transgender reassignment surgery thing started in Berlin in the 1920s. And guess what? The SA put a stop to it. They beat the pervert Magnus Hirschfeld within an inch of his life and set fire to all of his "work." Would liberals like that? Were the Nazis "liberal" like that?

1. Learn to argue without flying off in every direction.

2. Liberals want control of every detail of life to shape and manage thinking from cradle to grave and eventually create zombies without the power or will to resist. Outward violence is delayed for another day when complete control is reached. For now it is enough to teach young girls they have the right to terminate life, to encourage the false freedom of immorality, to stifle freedom of speech, to stifle freedom of religion and thought, to rewrite history and corner the education system, to incite anarchy, to soften borders, to attack the constitution, to abandon inner cities...the list goes on.

Three times more people die from suicide than gun violence. Do liberals put 3 times more effort into solving suicide than lobbying for gun control? No - because it will not get them votes.

You can't have control and liberty at the same time. History proves that illusive dream to be just another fake news item.

 

[George Affleck]

“Fascism
The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.
1.”Everything in the state”. The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
2.”Nothing outside the state”. The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
3.”Nothing against the state”. Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.
The use of militarism was implied only as a means to accomplish one of the three above principles, mainly to keep the people and rest of the world in line. Fascist countries are known for their harmony and lack of internal strife. There are no conflicting parties or elections in fascist countries.”

 

[George Affleck]

It is common to believe that Nazi Germany was a form of capitalism, which is what the communists and marxists have claimed because they did not want to be associated with Hitler. The basis for this was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.


But private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and the actual substance of ownership resided in the German government. It was the German government and not private owners that exercised all of the actual powers of ownership. The state decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be sold, as well as what prices would be charged and the salaries that would be paid. They also decided what profit the private owners would receive.

This was de facto government ownership adhering to the basic collectivist principles of the Nazis that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. This is nothing less than full-blown socialism.

 

[ok doser]

It is common to believe that Nazi Germany was a form of capitalism, which is what the communists and marxists have claimed because they did not want to be associated with Hitler. The basis for this was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.


But private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and the actual substance of ownership resided in the German government. It was the German government and not private owners that exercised all of the actual powers of ownership. The state decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be sold, as well as what prices would be charged and the salaries that would be paid. They also decided what profit the private owners would receive.

This was de facto government ownership adhering to the basic collectivist principles of the Nazis that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. This is nothing less than full-blown socialism.

To be fair, FDR did something similar

 

[George Affleck]

To be fair, FDR did something similar

Absolutely. The democrats ruled the government from 1933 to 1953.
Why would they not push through many socialist programs.
That time period is when Americans learned about the free lunch.

This is not to say that, for the time, some policies were not without an upside. They did cure some of what was ailing America and later aided in the war effort.
But the democratic socialists of today are standing on the shoulders of those who set the bar back then and they are now coming up with new ideas to deepen the socialist grip on the U.S. They want the noose to get tighter. Trump wants to loosen it and he's got the harder job. It's a lot harder to get liberties back once they are lost.

I often wonder how long FDR would have kept America out of the war had Japan not done the world the favour of attacking Pearl Harbor?
It is interesting that he had to fire JFK's father as ambassador to Britain based on his antisemitism and anti-war rhetoric. And a young JFK admired the way fascism was uniting Germany.

 

[Gary K]

So Lincoln blocked ports of a foreign nation, got it. And that never causes war.

So, your game is deliberate obtuseness.

Lincoln blockaded southern ports after the war had already begun. The south had already fired on Sumter days earlier, and the Confederate government had already been formed. It was open armed rebellion before Lincoln declared the blockade. Get your facts straight.

I find it interesting that you defend the confederacy and in so doing defend the indefensible, slavery. You defend, in your attitude and ideology, the supposed right of one man to enslave another saying the slaver's supposed right to do what he wanted was greater than the right of his slaves to be free. The slave's right to be free is on the moral side of the argument. The slaver's argument is on the immoral side of the argument. You're making the same argument slave owners made prior to the Civil war: that they had the right to do what they wanted to in their own state, which was to deprive others of their liberty. No one has that right. It's a satanic fallacy as he is the originator of that kind of thinking.

The following is a letter from Lincoln to his friend Joshua Speed who was a slave owner. That you believe the man who wrote this letter was a tyrant is incomprehensible to me.

DEAR SPEED:—You know what a poor correspondent I am. Ever since I received your very agreeable letter of the 22d of May, I have been intending to write you an answer to it. You suggest that in political action, now, you and I would differ. I suppose we would; not quite as much, however, as you may think. You know I dislike slavery, and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. So far there is no cause of difference. But you say that sooner than yield your legal right to the slave, especially at the bidding of those who are not themselves interested, you would see the Union dissolved. I am not aware that any one is bidding you yield that right; very certainly I am not. I leave that matter entirely to yourself. I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations under the Constitution in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down and caught and carried back to their stripes and unrequited toil; but I bite my lips and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip on a steamboat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were on board ten or a dozen slaves shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me, and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio or any other slave border. It is not fair for you to assume that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. I do oppose the extension of slavery because my judgment and feeling so prompt me, and I am under no obligations to the contrary. If for this you and I must differ, differ we must. You say, if you were President, you would send an army and hang the leaders of the Missouri outrages upon the Kansas elections; still, if Kansas fairly votes herself a slave State she must be admitted or the Union must be dissolved. But how if she votes herself a slave State unfairly, that is, by the very means for which you say you would hang men? Must she still be admitted, or the Union dissolved? That will be the phase of the question when it first becomes a practical one. In your assumption that there may be a fair decision of the slavery question in Kansas, I plainly see you and I would differ about the Nebraska law. I look upon that enactment not as a law, but as a violence from the beginning. It was conceived in violence, is maintained in violence, and is being executed in violence. I say it was conceived in violence, because the destruction of the Missouri Compromise, under the circumstances, was nothing less than violence. It was passed in violence because it could not have passed at all but for the votes of many members in violence of the known will of their constituents. It is maintained in violence, because the elections since clearly demand its repeal; and the demand is openly disregarded.
You say men ought to be hung for the way they are executing the law; I say the way it is being executed is quite as good as any of its antecedents. It is being executed in the precise way which was intended from the first, else why does no Nebraska man express astonishment or condemnation? Poor Reeder is the only public man who has been silly enough to believe that anything like fairness was ever intended, and he has been bravely undeceived.
That Kansas will form a slave constitution, and with it will ask to be admitted into the Union, I take to be already a settled question, and so settled by the very means you so pointedly condemn. By every principle of law ever held by any court North or South, every negro taken to Kansas is free; yet, in utter disregard of this,—in the spirit of violence merely,—that beautiful Legislature gravely passes a law to hang any man who shall venture to inform a negro of his legal rights. This is the subject and real object of the law. If, like Haman, they should hang upon the gallows of their own building, I shall not be among the mourners for their fate. In my humble sphere, I shall advocate the restoration of the Missouri Compromise so long as Kansas remains a Territory, and when, by all these foul means, it seeks to come into the Union as a slave State, I shall oppose it. I am very loath in any case to withhold my assent to the enjoyment of property acquired or located in good faith; but I do not admit that good faith in taking a negro to Kansas to be held in slavery is a probability with any man. Any man who has sense enough to be the controller of his own property has too much sense to misunderstand the outrageous character of the whole Nebraska business. But I digress. In my opposition to the admission of Kansas I shall have some company, but we may be beaten. If we are, I shall not on that account attempt to dissolve the Union. I think it probable, however, we shall be beaten. Standing as a unit among yourselves, You can, directly and indirectly, bribe enough of our men to carry the day, as you could on the open proposition to establish a monarchy. Get hold of some man in the North whose position and ability is such that he can make the support of your measure, whatever it may be, a Democratic party necessity, and the thing is done. Apropos of this, let me tell you an anecdote. Douglas introduced the Nebraska Bill in January. In February afterward there was a called session of the Illinois Legislature. Of the one hundred members composing the two branches of that body, about seventy were Democrats. These latter held a caucus in which the Nebraska Bill was talked of, if not formally discussed. It was thereby discovered that just three, and no more, were in favor of the measure. In a day or two Douglas's orders came on to have resolutions passed approving the bill; and they were passed by large majorities!!!! The truth of this is vouched for by a bolting Democratic member. The masses, too, Democratic as well as Whig, were even nearer unanimous against it; but, as soon as the party necessity of supporting it became apparent, the way the Democrats began to see the wisdom and justice of it was perfectly astonishing.
You say that if Kansas fairly votes herself a free State, as a Christian you will rejoice at it. All decent slaveholders talk that way, and I do not doubt their candor. But they never vote that way. Although in a private letter or conversation you will express your preference that Kansas shall be free, you would vote for no man for Congress who would say the same thing publicly. No such man could be elected from any district in a slave State. You think Stringfellow and company ought to be hung; and yet at the next Presidential election you will vote for the exact type and representative of Stringfellow. The slave-breeders and slave-traders are a small, odious, and detested class among you; and yet in politics they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters as you are the master of your own negroes. You inquire where I now stand. That is a disputed point. I think I am a Whig; but others say there are no Whigs, and that I am an Abolitionist. When I was at Washington, I voted for the Wilmot Proviso as good as forty times; and I never heard of any one attempting to un-Whig me for that. I now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery. I am not a Know-Nothing; that is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty,—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

Mary will probably pass a day or two in Louisville in October. My kindest regards to Mrs. Speed. On the leading subject of this letter I have more of her sympathy than I have of yours; and yet let me say I am,
Your friend forever,
A. LINCOLN.

And that letter was written by a man who said that if slavery wasn't wrong, then nothing is ever wrong. He shows absolutely no tendencies towards being tyrannical. I have a large collection of his writings and he shows no tendency towards that in any of them.

 

[Right Divider]

So, your game is deliberate obtuseness.

Lincoln blockaded southern ports after the war had already begun. The south had already fired on Sumter days earlier, and the Confederate government had already been formed. It was open armed rebellion before Lincoln declared the blockade. Get your facts straight.

Lincoln provoked the attack. It's well known to everyone but you.

I find it interesting that you defend the confederacy and in so doing defend the indefensible, slavery.

You are a liar. I was NOT defending the indefensible and your FALSE accusation is lie.

Lincoln was a ruthless tyrant by any normal standard. And he we NO friend of the slaves. The myth that he was the "great emancipator" is a widely believed falsehood.

 

[Gary K]

Lincoln provoked the attack. It's well known to everyone but you.


You are a liar. I was NOT defending the indefensible and your FALSE accusation is lie.

Lincoln was a ruthless tyrant by any normal standard. And he we NO friend of the slaves. The myth that he was the "great emancipator" is a widely believed falsehood.

So says the guy who has made nothing but assertions accompanied by zero evidence for his assertions and has been shown to factually incorrect multiple times.

So long.

 

[Right Divider]

So says the guy who has made nothing but assertions accompanied by zero evidence for his assertions and has been shown to factually incorrect multiple times.

So long.

Good riddance false accuser (i.e., liar).

 

[Gary K]

Good riddance false accuser (i.e., liar).

And still not one iota of evidence for your position.

 

[Right Divider]

And still not one iota of evidence for your position.

I don't dialog with liars, I put them on my ignore list.

 

[George Affleck]

I don't dialog with liars, I put them on my ignore list.

You don't dialog at all. You make childish, unfounded statements and don't support them.