Final-Fan said:
o_O.Q said:
" Socialism is far from the only motivating factor that causes people to want to regulate stuff and nationalize stuff. Among the other motivations that exist is totalitarianism, which I assert is a political concept the Nazis adhered to."
socialism is not a motivation its a method
the desire for equality for example is a motivation that can lead to socialism being implemented... as we are seeing now
and as i have said already socialism and totalitarianism are not exclusive to each other
"Nazis regulated some stuff and nationalized some stuff, and also privatized some stuff. "
what did the nazis privitise? and if you repeat that they privitised businesses that they then controlled then i'm going to have to have to start assuming you are trolling as you have accused me of doing
"Socialists often want to regulate stuff, and sometimes nationalize stuff. "
in this context what is the difference?
"The fact that Nazis regulated stuff and nationalized stuff is not good evidence that they were socialist. "
on the scale that they did? yes, yes it is in combination with the entitlements they produced for citizens which again were all socialist in nature, they weren't about encouraging free enterprise or self determination but about regulation and handouts from the government
"So you're saying a state that is both totalitarian and capitalist, for example, is totally impossible?"
the definition for totalitarianism is
"a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state."
the definition for socialism is
a 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.
capitalism
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
the point i'm making is that both socialism and totalitarianism are predicated on state control/regulation whereas capitalism is about free enterprise
i'm not going to be dishonest though and state it couldn't happen because it could if resources became too concentrated into one business but obviously its far more likely to be born out of socialism
" You are confusing the GOAL and the METHOD. "
jesus christ i stated both the goal and the method... its right there
GOAL - "That sounds just like socialism which demands that no one in a community have private property for the purpose of generating profit"
METHOD - "therefore subjugates them to the power of the state and how the state decides to alot resources to them"
why did you have so much trouble understanding something so simple
furthermore why are you arguing so desperately to defend something you don't seem to understand... the rich capitalists who funded marx and told him to put this bilge out are laughing in their high chairs puffing on their big cigars at this shit
"Let's say a state pushing vegetarianism outlaws meat and a farmer who sells vegetables to people is happy because it helps his livelihood."
do i really need to outline why its nonsensical to compare an ideology to a job?
if the farmer is only happy because its his livelihood then its not relevant obviously... is he happy because he hates meat sellers? because he likes exerting control over what people are allowed to eat?
""Can you at least agree with me that the name "National Socialists" (Nazi) cannot be presumed to indicate whether the new leadership was socialist after kicking out the old socialist leadership?"
This question says, can't we agree that THE NAME, THE NAME AND ONLY THE NAME YOU FUCKING FOOL is no reliable indicator? "
so you're asking me to disassociate their title from their actions? and you think that makes sense?
if i call someone you are unfamiliar with a fool what is your first question in response going to be? what is going on in your brain man? lol
look at what you have to do to yourself to justify this nonsense lmao
"YOU FUCKING FOOL"
you see that right there? that's frustration
|
If you think I've said, at any point, that totalitarianism and socialism are mutually exclusive then you can just stop reading right now. I'm serious, there's no point.
"the point i'm making is that both socialism and totalitarianism are predicated on state control/regulation whereas capitalism is about free enterprise"
And the point I was making is that if it's possible to be totalitarian and capitalist then it's obviously possible for a certain type of totalitarianism to be in conflict with socialism. This is what I meant earlier when I said
|
3. "if a state is acting in ways entirely consistent with totalitarianism but in ways that are frequently inconsistent with socialism"
|
and you said
| totalitarianism is not inconsistent with socialism so you've already started this wrong |
because apparently I can't possibly paint a picture so clear that you can see it without me having to lead you up to it by the nose. Even if, for the sake of argument, the Nazis were both totalitarian and socialist your objection is STILL wrong because the claim that you made was that it was categorically impossible to have totalitarianism that was in conflict with socialism. If that wasn't what you meant to say, then fuck you.
BTW, "That sounds just like socialism which demands that no one in a community have private property for the purpose of generating profit" The total abolition of private property doesn't sound like a Nazi ideological position to me. I would be happy to be proven wrong there but if I am right then this is at best a senseless strawman argument; which pretty much sums up my feelings about a lot of what you've said these past couple of days. This is a very specific question of fact that you should be able to answer.
The Nazis were fanatically anti-Communist. Not just Soviets. I dunno why you're pulling Karl Marx into this when the 1932 Nazi platform included "12. Eliminate the Marxist threat."
| so you're asking me to disassociate their title from their actions? and you think that makes sense? |
Yes, that is exactly what I am asking. I think it makes sense in the context of "political party that gets a complete change of leadership but keeps the old name" to say, "Hey, maybe it's fucking possible, just possible mind you, that the values and ideals expressed by the founders of the party that got kicked out weren't so important to the new leadership and they just kept the name because they weren't totally opposed to it and didn't want to have to rebrand themselves. Maybe they just didn't care. Or maybe they still had those ideals, but we shouldn't just make that assumption based on the name that they didn't have any hand in creating."
The Republican Party and Democratic Party of the USA have undergone radical changes to their ideology (most notably, in recent history, 1960-1970) but they didn't change their names. Not the best example because both parties still claim to value democracy and republicanism, but still, do you see where I'm going here?
| if i call someone you are unfamiliar with a fool what is your first question in response going to be? |
I don't know everything about you, but I am not totally unfamiliar with you. I think it's not completely outrageous to form an opinion on someone after several thousand words of conversation.
| you see that right there? that's frustration |
Yes. Yes it fucking is. Do you know why we never got around to "what is the ratio of socialist vs. non-socialist vs. anti-socialist policies enacted by the Nazi Party" that you wanted to do and accused me of ignoring? Well, the reason, which I believe I have mentioned before or at least alluded to, is because it was utter torture trying to get you to dialog on simple questions that you either flat-out could not understand or refused to properly answer. The road you wanted to go down is so open-ended and historically complex that I knew there was little chance to do it justice in those circumstances. (Did every single thing the German government did reflect the wishes of the Nazi Party? Is discouraging smoking socialist or just solid health policy? Is it socialist when the USA or the individual states discourage smoking on the grounds of the public health and the cost to society of the medical consequences? Is it socialist to even hold tobacco producers accountable for the damage?) I think you wanted a mindless list-war, no, I think you expected the mindless vague list you started with to be the be-all and end-all.
I'm mostly done with this, but I'll keep riding it into the ground for now. How low can you go? Is there any limit to your failure to parse logic?
|
"because the claim that you made was that it was categorically impossible to have totalitarianism that was in conflict with socialism. "
you quoted the claim i made right above this
"totalitarianism is not inconsistent with socialism so you've already started this wrong"
so essentially you're taking what i've said and disregarded it to put words in my mouth lmao
" it's obviously possible for a certain type of totalitarianism to be in conflict with socialism"
instead of writing a book to dance around the issue why not come right out and give a clear concise explanation of what you are talking about? as i have since the beginning?
then after you've done that actually show how its relevant in any way to what i'm talking about
my claim is that the nazis were socialist because of their policies, if you disagree and think they were capitalist totalitarians then explain your reasoning for holding that position
"The total abolition of private property doesn't sound like a Nazi ideological position to me."
the nazis controlled what types of businesses were allowed to exist, profit in areas outside of their predetermined scope was not allowed as you yourself posted
"private property rights were conditional upon following the economic priorities set by the Nazi leadership""
"Hey, maybe it's fucking possible, just possible mind you, that the values and ideals expressed by the founders of the party that got kicked out weren't so important to the new leadership and they just kept the name because they weren't totally opposed to it and didn't want to have to rebrand themselves."
so what? do you have a crystal ball to go back in time and read their minds for their intent? no? then what is relevant?
" Maybe they just didn't care. Or maybe they still had those ideals, but we shouldn't just make that assumption based on the name that they didn't have any hand in creating."
i'm not making assumptions on their intent
i don't give a fuck about their intent partially because i cannot determine it and mostly because its irrelevant
what is relevant is what they did
"I don't know everything about you, but I am not totally unfamiliar with you."
you're either playing dumb or missing my point which was that the first question you would ask is "why are you giving him that title? what did he do to deserve that title"
"Is discouraging smoking socialist or just solid health policy?"
how do you enforce health policy?
if you control and regulate through government what is allowed to be produced then yes i'd say that's socialist
"Is it socialist when the USA or the individual states discourage smoking on the grounds of the public health and the cost to society of the medical consequences? Is it socialist to even hold tobacco producers accountable for the damage?"
yes to all why do you think it should be your place to decide what people can do with their bodies?
why do people that stupidly wreck their bodies believe that they should be entitled to free healthcare?
well its because both groups know that they can look to government to steal or control other people but their stupidity blinds them to the fact that government will eventually turn around and do the same to them
"I think you wanted a mindless list-war, no, I think you expected the mindless vague list you started with to be the be-all and end-all."
uh yeah, in order to categorise things... we kind of have to look at their features
the fact that you are admitting at this point that you don't care to assess the characteristics they possessed showed you never had an interest in an honest discussion to begin with
Last edited by o_O.Q - on 06 September 2018
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
