Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu
Latest users (2): spneil, youregaylol, anonymous(17).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #8104 - thezillis (09/03/2012) [-]
why do so many of my american brothers think of socialism as if it was a nazi regime?
it might not be perfect,but it's not that bad. seriously. ive heard people using socialism as an insult. its fucking RETARDED.
our country is gonna go nowhere if we dont let go of this fucking black and white wolrdview
User avatar #8120 to #8104 - techketzer (09/03/2012) [-]
"why do so many of my american brothers think of socialism as if it was a nazi regime? "
Maybe because it was called Nationalsocialism?
Maybe because it fucking is?

A truly socialist society is a fucking Orwellian nightmare state.
Ever read Animal Farm? It's frighteningly accurate and still just scratching the surface.
User avatar #8199 to #8120 - Slipperynuts (09/04/2012) [-]
Yes, because if it has socialism in the name then it is definitely socialism. Just like how the Democratic Republic of North Korea is 100% democratic
User avatar #8204 to #8199 - techketzer (09/04/2012) [-]
Good thought, but here you happen to be wrong.
National-Socialism is exactly what it says on the tin.

mises.org/daily/1937
This article explain in great detail.
User avatar #8178 to #8120 - deltadeltadelta (09/04/2012) [-]
This is a teenager's opinion.

National Socialism was the German variant of Fascism. The economic system of Fascism is corporatism. National Socialism was Fascism caked in racism.

The title "National Socialist Party" was to try and endear and win German workers over to the party, despite it being anything but socialist.

Use Wikipedia.
User avatar #8205 to #8178 - techketzer (09/04/2012) [-]
It is not an opinion, we are talking about definitions and observable facts here.
National-Socialist Germany was a socialist state for various indisputable reasons.

I want to share this excellent article with you, too: mises.org/daily/1937
You will clearly see where I'm coming from when you've read it.

And please stop with this fascism nonsense. Fascism was a statist movement in Italia, abused by Soviet propaganda bureaus in order to veil the disillusioning degree of similarity between Soviet-pattern socialism and Nazi-pattern socialism.
User avatar #8214 to #8205 - deltadeltadelta (09/04/2012) [-]
You linked me to a Libertarian website.

What you're saying makes no sense. Corporatism was invented by the Soviets to distinguish themselves from the Nazis? Are you nuts? Must be if you're a Libertarian.
User avatar #8216 to #8214 - techketzer (09/04/2012) [-]
I linked you to a brilliant, fact-bound and highly detailed article, you goddamn bigoted idiot. If you think yourself too high to read it, fine, your fucking loss.

Not my fault if you're too thick or indoctrinated to understand me, but I'll make the effort and rephrase it for you: The very notion of National-Socialism supposedly being fascist is a baseless claim made by Soviet propaganda in order to cover up they were fighting a bitter war against the fellow socialist state of NS Germany.
User avatar #8219 to #8216 - deltadeltadelta (09/04/2012) [-]
I'm not wasting my time reading libertarian nonsense. I read enough of it when I was a teenager.

What you're saying is complete utter bullshit. National Socialism was very much a variant of Fascism. It wasn't something concocted by the Soviets you loon.

Wikipedia, first line:
National Socialism (common English short form Nazism, German: Nationalsozialismus) was the ideology of the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany.[1][2][3][4] It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
#8220 to #8219 - techketzer (09/04/2012) [-]
No, you'd rather waste it on wikipedia, I see. Nice going falling for 60+ years old Soviet propaganda. You seriously give me back faith in mankind.

Alright, so if NS Germany was fascist/corporatist, then how the fuck comes that the government told the "corporations" what they had to produce when, how much of it to what quality, how many workers they got for it, how much the "corporations" would be payed by the government and how much the workers would be payed in return?

Price and wage controls introduced in 1936 transferred all substantive rights of ownership from the private owners to the government. Those "corporations" were private in name only. They were de-facto state enterprises in all but name.

Now what's Socialism?
Let's look at your precious wikipedia:
"Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises [sic!]."


Burn, bitch.
User avatar #8228 to #8220 - deltadeltadelta (09/04/2012) [-]
If you believe an article from a Libertarian website over Wikipedia, than I'm not going to bother trying to argue with you.
User avatar #8229 to #8228 - techketzer (09/04/2012) [-]
Just because I'm curious, have you ever heard of historical evidence and actual research?
User avatar #8230 to #8229 - deltadeltadelta (09/04/2012) [-]
Apparently you haven't as you get your information from ideological blogs.

Wikipedia is a wonderful tool. Anyone that demeans its value is a buffoon that doesn't like their narrative contradicted by facts.
#8232 to #8230 - techketzer (09/04/2012) [-]
The year 1936 also represented a turning point for German trade policy. Hjalmar Schacht was replaced in September 1936 by Hitler's lieutenant Hermann Göring, with a mandate to make Germany self-sufficient to fight a war within four years.[17] Under Göring imports were slashed. Wages and prices were controlled – under penalty of being sent to the concentration camp. Dividends were restricted to six percent on book capital. And strategic goals to be reached at all costs were declared: the construction of synthetic rubber plants, more steel plants, automatic textile factories.[17]   
   
   
The British Marxist historian Timothy Mason, who was a leading expert on the economic history of Nazi Germany argued that after the 1936 economic crisis, a "primacy of politics" prevailed with business interests being subordinated to the Nazi regime. In a 1966 essay, Mason wrote "that both the domestic and foreign policy of the National Socialist government became, from 1936 onward, increasing independent of the influence of the economic ruling classes, and even in some essential aspects ran contrary to their collective interests" and that "it became possible for the!! National Socialist state to assume a fully independent role, for the "primacy of politics" to assert itself!!"[36]   
   
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Pre-war_economy:_1933.E2.80.931939   
   
I repeat myself: Burn, bitch.
The year 1936 also represented a turning point for German trade policy. Hjalmar Schacht was replaced in September 1936 by Hitler's lieutenant Hermann Göring, with a mandate to make Germany self-sufficient to fight a war within four years.[17] Under Göring imports were slashed. Wages and prices were controlled – under penalty of being sent to the concentration camp. Dividends were restricted to six percent on book capital. And strategic goals to be reached at all costs were declared: the construction of synthetic rubber plants, more steel plants, automatic textile factories.[17]


The British Marxist historian Timothy Mason, who was a leading expert on the economic history of Nazi Germany argued that after the 1936 economic crisis, a "primacy of politics" prevailed with business interests being subordinated to the Nazi regime. In a 1966 essay, Mason wrote "that both the domestic and foreign policy of the National Socialist government became, from 1936 onward, increasing independent of the influence of the economic ruling classes, and even in some essential aspects ran contrary to their collective interests" and that "it became possible for the!! National Socialist state to assume a fully independent role, for the "primacy of politics" to assert itself!!"[36]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Pre-war_economy:_1933.E2.80.931939

I repeat myself: Burn, bitch.
User avatar #8234 to #8232 - deltadeltadelta (09/04/2012) [-]
You're an idiot.

1) You don't seem to comprehend what you're reading.
2) You don't know what corporatism is.
3) It refers to trade policy. To create self-sufficiency for the coming war. Furthermore...
4) By the late 1930s, the aims of German trade policy were to use economic and political power to make the countries of Southern Europe and the Balkans dependent on Germany. The German economy would draw its raw materials from that region, and the countries in question would receive German manufactured goods in exchange. Already in 1938, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece transacted 50% of all their foreign trade with Germany.[40] Throughout the 1930s, German businesses were encouraged to form cartels, monopolies and oligopolies, whose interests were then protected by the state.[41] In his book, Big Business in the Third Reich, Arthur Schweitzer notes that:
Monopolistic price fixing became the rule in most industries, and cartels were no longer confined to the heavy or large-scale industries. [...] Cartels and quasi-cartels (whether of big business or small) set prices, engaged in limiting production, and agreed to divide markets and classify consumers in order to realize a monopoly profit.[42]
As big business became increasingly organized, it developed an increasingly close partnership with the Nazi government. The government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies, and, in exchange, business leaders supported the government's political and military goals.[43]
#8236 to #8234 - techketzer (09/04/2012) [-]
1) No. You don't seem to comprehend.
2) I wouldn't even have to know what corporatism is in order to prove that NS Germany was a de-facto socialist state.
3) As I said, you don't seem to comprehend what you just read. I even underlined the juicy bits, but you seem intent on missing them. Your problem.
4) The topic is NS economy, not the economies of NS allies. Fail.

This is getting better by the minute.
User avatar #8238 to #8236 - deltadeltadelta (09/04/2012) [-]
By the look at the thumbs, you're the one that's being embarrassed, buddy.

1) I can comprehend the wiki article just fine.
2) See, you're flashing your ignorance. You don't care what I say, what anyone says because to you, right-wing = good, and left-wing = bad, thus Nazism must be left-wing.
3) You underlined parts you don't understand and you took them out of context, then you ignored the part of the wiki article I provided. You underlined "subordinated", "ruling classes" and "primary of politics".
4) Did you read it all? Maybe you didn't stop at the first two lines, maybe you just choose to ignore it.

You're likely a white male, under 25, socially awkward and a virgin. That's the stereotypical Libertarian.
#8281 to #8238 - techketzer (09/05/2012) [-]
Fuck thumbs. Have you seen the retards that distribute them? Thumbs are not an argument in the least.

1) You obviously cannot.
2) The irony is priceless. You're missing me by a mile. I do not even distinguish between those illusory terms right- and left-wing.
3) You merely failed to comprehend the common meaning of what I underlined. Did you out of stupidity or on purpose?
4) Of course I did, I wouldn't miss a good laugh.

Stick your ad-hominem argument. Stick it. You should be fucking ashamed to sink to that level. Also, looking at the demographics of FJ, you just went with the sure guess. Pathetic. No further comment.

Look, let me try again, as dumbed down as I can possibly make it:
The argument is simple as can be: Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production, for example through the ownership of these means by the state. In NS Germany, the state controlled and de-facto owned the means of production. Therefore, NS Germany was a socialist state.
The logic connection is the most simple and non-complex imaginable.
This isn't about good or bad, this is about definitions.
User avatar #8146 to #8120 - Slipperynuts (09/04/2012) [-]
Orwell was a socialist. I don't think he would appreciate using his name to attack a system he supported.
User avatar #8147 to #8146 - techketzer (09/04/2012) [-]
I don't actually give a damn about Mr. Orwell's personal beliefs.
On the contrary, I'd delight in turning a socialists work into a weapon to tear that totalitarian madness-ideology into shreds.
User avatar #8136 to #8120 - natedizzie (09/03/2012) [-]
So true It's like the Govt's read animal farm and 1984 and said hey thats not a bad idea
User avatar #8115 to #8104 - natedizzie (09/03/2012) [-]
When America started people worked hard for everything i.e. Irish immigrants, chinese immigrants.
They worked for everything they owned. They worked hard so that their children had a better opportunity. and this cycle continued.
So Since we learn this from history people believe that people should still work for what they want and not have it handed to them.
What socialism says to those Americans that still believe this is those who work hard must give up part of what they worked for for the man that didn't work for it.
Essentially I'm a farmer and I grow corn This year i worked hard planted three fields and after feeding my family i have lots of corn left over. In America now I would sell it make money and help my family. in socialism the government would remove what they deem extra and give the rest to people they feel need it.
Now to people this seems necessary for everyone to live a good life.
And this would work if it only happened to people who truly need that help
But as its been proven people wont want to work and be handed everything and it crushes economies.
Now lets go back to the farmer Since I just had my excess crop removed with no return of profit I decide next year I'll just plant enough for my family well now the government doesn't have excess corn to take so they dip into his families corn for the people in need now putting his family in trouble and needing help.

Thats how I see it atleast Its good for people that truly need help but is corrupted by those that want a handout
#8112 to #8104 - repostsrepost (09/03/2012) [-]
Socialism and fascism in terms of domestic economic policy are incredibly similar. Fascists do support a totalitarian state that manages every aspect of the peoples' lives and a police state that brutalizes its people. That may or may not exist in a socialist state. There are many socialist states that have that and there are socialist states that don't. As for why Americans hate socialism, America was founded on individual liberty and limited government authority, making it incompatible with socialism, which is why no socialist dare call themselves a socialist, they just call themselves liberal because it sounds nicer come election day.
#8110 to #8104 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/03/2012) [-]
it is because the us education is shit, and socialism gets boiled down to communism, which is then interlinked with USSR. Our hated dead enemy that we can't take a second not to piss on its grave
User avatar #8121 to #8110 - techketzer (09/03/2012) [-]
The USSR were a socialist state, for your information.
#8108 to #8104 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/03/2012) [-]
thank you. As a Norwegian citizen (socialist heaven) I hear this all the time from US citizens. Annoying as fuck
 Friends (0)