In an earlier debate, Burritolunch described Nazism as Socialism
He did that
Side Score: 6
|
 |
He really did do that
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
|
He DID that …. for a VERY short time. It took Dubya 8 years to go from a booming economy … to a busted economy. Hitler did it in a shorter time. That is, if you don't count his years of "struggle" to get there. I believe, AFTER he gassed or shot every "socialist" of ONE kind, he started his "Nationalist SOCIALIST (NAZI) Party. The USSR had IT'S "Socialist Party" (Communists). Some of the Netherlands countries have THEIR "Socialist Parties. There have been, and ARE a LOT of DIFFERENT socialist parties. If they are not a democratic form of socialism, they just don't work. If the system doesn't have a MIX of capitalism/socialism it doesn't work. Hitler controlled BOTH (government control!) It didn't work. I'm NOT a "socialist". I know the advantages of capitalism. I also know that UNCONTROLLED capitalism leads to an oligarchy where the majority of a country's money (power) is held by a relative few. Sound familiar?? THAT leads to lower wages (for more profit), and a people who struggle paycheck to paycheck … sound familiar?? We NEED democracy where THE PEOPLE (ALL of them) allow but control, somewhat, the capitalism while we pay attention to the "social side". ;-) Actually, I've been thinking lately that the "Yang Gang" has something to think about. With job after job falling to robots and "self driving" trucks, etc., the Guaranteed wage is not that far out. We, the PEOPLE should be able to invest IN each and EVERY robot or piece of automation and get our paychecks from what THEY do. THAT would be a democratic/capitalist/socialistic living we could ALL enjoy! But we have to get rid of the Nationalist Socialist Party of Capitalists that is forming under Trump. :-) Side: He did that
2
points
There have been, and ARE a LOT of DIFFERENT socialist parties. The problem with socialism was that far right dictators who needed either a voting majority or an army to acquire power realised pretty quickly they could manufacture one by pretending to be a socialist. Hence began this cycle of the same far right idiots using these instances to try to discredit socialism itself rather than discredit the people selling socialism. Side: He did that
0
points
He DID that …. for a VERY short time. What? Lol. No I fucking didn't. Nazism is the literal political opposite of socialism. They are the north and south poles of politics. Nazism is a form of fascism in which there is a strict government hierarchy and one supreme leader. Socialism is essentially an intellectualised form of anarchaism in that it rejects all forms of hierarchical leadership and proposes a state without a central government. Side: He did that
Naziism: The principles and practices of the NATIONAL SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY under Adolph Hitler from 1933 to 1945. That's the definition I base my remarks on. Anyone in this democracy that wishes to consider a different definition is allowed, under our Constitution, to think differently. I will NOT be changing MY definition, as, I live under the same Constitution ... at least until, and IF Trump is elected again. Side: He did that
1
point
Naziism: The principles and practices of the NATIONAL SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY under Adolph Hitler from 1933 Listen Alfie. Just because the Nazis put the word "socialist" into their name does not mean that you should believe them. They murdered every socialist they could get their hands on, openly declared their goal as the total eradication of communism from Europe and tried to invade Russia. The name "national socialist" was an oxymoronic gambit Hitler played during his early years when he was desperate to acquire power in Germany and needed the help of communist voters. It frankly beggars belief that anybody on Earth would be stupid enough to fall for Nazi propaganda 80 years after it was first invented. "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?" "I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists." https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/ There is Hitler, quite frankly admitting that he has hijacked socialism and redefined it to mean what he personally wants it to mean. In 1923. Side: He really did do that
I'm sorry you think I'm stupid enough to fall for Nazi propaganda. I gave you the definition of what I'm calling NATIONAL Socialism. That's what it is called in several dictionaries, so, the dictionary people must be just as stupid as I am ... which puts me in pretty good company. Since Hitler "highjacked socialism" and named it what he wanted, and it is in the history books as such, I think I'll remain with my stupid way, and go by the book(s). I totally dislike Hitlers (redefined) National socialism, as it is called. I totally dislike communistic socialism, I think we should stick with the socialism the U.S. has done well with since it became GREAT, and I think we could use a "touch" more, along with some REGULATED capitalism, ALL in a bundle under a democracy. You go along with your theory, I like mine .... stupid as you might think it is. ;-) Side: He did that
|
2
points
In an earlier debate, Burritolunch described Nazism as Socialism I literally described it as state capitalism, and you have cut out that part of my quote because you're a deceitful, boring little extremist troll. Go away you stupid idiot. State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, wage labor and centralized management) State capitalism has also come to be used sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses. Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism' to economies such as that of the United States, where large enterprises that are deemed "too big to fail" receive publicly funded government bailouts that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws, and where private production is largely funded by the state at public expense, but private owners reap the profits.[13][14][15] This practice is in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.[16] Side: He really did do that
|
