4,747 Forum Posts by "Slizor"
Except, $500 billion still doesn't justify a minute kickback that you can't prove for a finite amount of oil that hasn't lowered gas prices here in the states which you conveinently can't/won't figure into your little conspiracy claim.
$500 billion for access to Iraq's oil reserves that are currently worth $11 trillion. Not a bad deal, considering America is already spending $1.3 billion on oil imports every single day and, if prices rise as expected, Iraq's oil will be worth a lot more in the future.
Wow, haven't seen an argument over Iraq in a while.
We went to war based on the fact that the head U.N. weapons inspector (Hans Blix) stood before the UN Security Council in late 2002 and stated as follows,
"During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called, full, final and complete. Regrettably, much of these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated.
Such was the situation at the end of 1998, when inspectors left Iraq. The many question marks are documented in a report to the Council early in 1999 (S/1999/94) and in the so-called Amorim Report (S/1999/356). To these question marks, nearly four years without any inspection activity have been added."
This doesn't show any violation of resolution 1441. 1441 was passed in 2002 and this is referring to 1991-1998.
Why would America go to war in 2003 based on the fact that Iraq probably had WMDs in the period 1991-1998? Seems a bit of a gap there.
This was in lieu of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 demanding that Saddam disarm or else action would be taken against him to force disbarment, the 11th such resolution.
But it doesn't justify actions taken outside the UN structure
"12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter."
Resolution 1441 puts the authority for deciding if Iraq is in breach in the hands of the UN Security Council, whereby they will stop being 'seized of the matter' and 'convene immediately on receipt of a report' concerning interference with inspectors and consider 'serious consequences' for Iraq.
The international community had no reason to believe Saddam had disarmed (it had not a damn thing to do with Al Queda or 9/11, no matter how often you liars repeat yourselves thinking it to be true), and we acted appropriately. Now get over yourselves.
Resolution 1441 was not about having disarmed, but allowing inspectors.
@UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof'
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N 02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement
Woo! We're coming back up in the world. Go Team GB! Beat those damn Aussies!
As always econmic reasoning fails to reasonably support its premises (or even identify them.)
My source WSJ online requires subscription) and some think the rich should give the poor free money through an inefficient medium known as the government. So by this, someone making a million dollars a year might pay 30,000 dollars, or 3% of their wage to go towards welfare.
I'm sorry, I missed the bit where there were the comparative statistics for the efficiency of government (/different government systems) compared with the efficiency of business. Seems to me like you just assumed, based on your ideological stance, that government is comparatively inefficient.
Now the government will control that money, hire people to find qualified poor people, use up the million dollar mans taxes, and the poor people end up with only a percentage of the taxes paid.
Fuzzy wording. Only a percentage of taxes paid? Like 100%? Also, in hiring civil servants the government is creating jobs and stimulating the economy.
Now because the taxes are virtually being wasted
Huge jump in logic there. You're made it seem that $3,000 has become $3 without actually using any stats or logic.
we have to assume that the rich man could better invest that 30,000/year in capital, and his wealth, as well as GDP, will expand and a higher rate. A simplified calculation of GDP=Consumption+Investments+Government Spending+Exports-Imports
Then we must assume that a higher investment amount will lead to higher growth, as compared to an increase in government spending. It's just how it works, hence why the private sector runs itself far more smoothly than sectors with government regulation.
That's circular reasoning. You started with the belief that government is inefficient and business is efficient then said "It's just how it works" and then come to the conclusion that government is inefficient and business is efficient.
I thought this thread was about proof, not about ideology.
Let's not just pick on them...the Africans, the Indians (in India) ,check out the amount of kids in many Central & South American countries... You get everybody on board with that idea...I think not.
Seems like there is some link between the level of economic development and the growth in population (it doesn't even seem like, there is.)
Maybe the best solution would be creating an equitable world order.
At 7/26/08 08:19 PM, Christopherr wrote: China did this, and I don't consider them a very green state.
They are actually fairly green. I mean, it's easy to point to their level of pollution, the rise in coal-fired power plants and the projected growth in energy consumption but I would always consider that part of industrial development - Britain, for instance, polluted tons during the industrial revolution, with trees becoming soot-blackened and smog across major industrial cities. If you look at China's long-standing energy conservation policies, its focus on renewable energy sources and the level of per capita energy consumption compared to other states, then it looks fairly green.
Blacks you need to stop playing the damn race card. Slavery was disbanded 100 years ago and you still hold on to it. I could understand if you were still in slavery but you have your freedom as whites, hispanics everyone.
You do realise that there are many people still alive in the US that remember (and a fair few who would have supported) segregation?
Civil rights movement....anyone?!
At 7/22/08 05:39 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote: I've seen forceful Christian indoctrination in my school and neighborhood. I don't see anyone complaining. Religion breeds indoctrination.
Amen.
Education is the teaching of your beliefs. Indoctrination is the teaching of things that you don't believe in.
"Like OMG, do you not see how schools are brainwashing our kids into believing in gravity??!?!?"
Sodding Hell, I waste a lot of my time, but I don't think I've ever done anything constructive with it.
At 7/16/08 12:05 PM, therealsylvos wrote:At 7/15/08 11:53 PM, Imperator wrote: Now for the next obvious question:I think slizor does and really means it, the rest are just wannabees.
Who are the idiots scoring [-10,-10] ?
My results tend to depend on a few questions and the strength of my response. Like I'm not really sure how to respond to "a genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies." Deciding on the definition of a free market doesn't really apply to me, but if it said "Do you think the government should intervene in the economy?" then it's an easy response. Also, "a significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." I can accept that that is an advantage of a dictatorship but still not support the idea of a dictatorship.
Anyhow, here's me again
Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.49
Relatively stable result.
At 7/4/08 09:55 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:At 7/4/08 09:03 AM, Slizor wrote: Yup. Cheap oil is one of the main premises of the current global capitalist order. Altering that premise will have significant effects on the current system and could lead to a reappraisal of economic theory (it's not very likely considering the abstractness of economic theory, but it could do.)Meh, I don't think oil costs will grow so much as to have a significant effect on world trade; govt barriers are a much stronger problem.
Wah? The continued oil price rises are certain to have an affect on world trade. Firstly, the rise of oil prices is hurting all the major economies of the world
Anyhow, my original argument wasn't that oil price rises would dampen world trade, but instead that they would end up reordering world trade. If the price of oil continues to move in the upward direction the "efficiency" of transporting things halfway across the globe comes into question and having developing countries producing things on your doorstep (such as Mexico) becomes attractive.
What economic theories are you talking about?
Just orthadox neo-classical economics and its theory based, pretty much entirely, on the efficiency of capitalism purely because they externalise the costs of everything - environmental damage, resource costs, infrastructure costs, etc.
Just to throw another relevant issue into the mix, what affect does the high price of energy have on this view? Are we talking about a world that will increasingly move towards a regional specialisation production system, or does the theory hold up above energy concerns?Me no comprende what you're trying to signify.
Do you mean that increased oil prices will increase transport costs, and therefore impede specialization?
Yup. Cheap oil is one of the main premises of the current global capitalist order. Altering that premise will have significant effects on the current system and could lead to a reappraisal of economic theory (it's not very likely considering the abstractness of economic theory, but it could do.)
System that allows specialization (sunny places focus on agriculture - labor intensive industries divert to highly populated member states) of free trade areas, thereby lowering costs.
Just to throw another relevant issue into the mix, what affect does the high price of energy have on this view? Are we talking about a world that will increasingly move towards a regional specialisation production system, or does the theory hold up above energy concerns?
There's so many things to love about this re-occuring debate. Firstly, there's the insistence that the political economy of a country wholly determines their standing in the world - so, for example, the USA is successful because it is a "free-market capitalist economy." It's not to do with resources, or wars or imperial dominance, or any other historical facts, it's the system. Similarly, any countries that fail, such as the USSR, the problem is attributed again to the system, rather than any histoircal facts like the economic devastation of the Second World War, moving into the huge military spending of the cold war era and the continued push to be a superpower, prior to having developed the required economic base for superpower status eroding the Soviet system.
Secondly, I love how all sides argue over the definitions of Communism. You have one side that will exclude any country from being Communist because it didn't follow the Marxist stages of production, you have another side that will argue that no country has been Communist because the states didn't achieve the communist ideals. The best side is the side that sees China's growth and success and decides that China is now no longer Communist. I think my favourite bit about this side is that it's generally supported by people who argue such things as the US's economy is socialist because it involves a level of government control, it's like they want to have their cake and eat it!
Thirdly, I love how people try to attack Communism with ill-defined and much-abused ideas such as Human Rights and Freedom. I mean, the US, and a number of other Western states, violate a number of "human rights" and have economic policies that constrain the freedom of the poorest in society. From where can you get a moral highground to criticise another system for not fufilling these things that you think are so vital?
One of the problems with freedom of the press is it means that crap newspapers can repeatedly harp on about "political correctness" to the point where its seen as a mainstream issue. Actually read the article here;
The first line is reporting a claim (that they were told to leave) made by the Christians
It also states that it was by a Police Community Support Officer (who are generally quite inexperienced)
It then says that there was a row occuring, not that they were just told to leave for no reason
It later says that the Christians want an apology and (more importantly) damages. Damages for having to leave an area?!
And it lastly says that "The spokeswoman added that following the investigation the PCSO had been offered "guidance around what constitutes a hate crime as well as his communication style"." Which means that the Police force (and the British state) do not consider distributing Christian leaflets in an Muslim area to be a hate crime, but do think that it's probably not advisable.
Jesus fucking wept.
I suggest everyone actually looks at the link that Jizzlebang came up with. Because the meaning of the word has changed in the past 150 years the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not what it would, at first, appear to mean. In fact, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" can be democratic.
true but considering our physical girthyness given the other countries on the list petite nature i would say that remains a fairly bloated charge.
That is one small element, in fact it's something I already recognised. However, claiming that 70% more energy is used per capita solely on the basis that the country is larger is absolute bullshit. Unless you want to somehow reason that Americans commute between each coast every day.
(manufacturing, extraction, transportation, and crafts) 22.6% of our economy with $1.14 trillion in yearly exports.The reason the US has the ethos it does is because of savvy handling of oversea oil assets.Erm...no. It's more to do with the huge historical endowment of oil that the US developed off the back of, the weakness of Congress in standing up to sectional interests, the physical size of America and the extraordinary power of the oil lobby. All these have created a unsustainable American petrosociety that would prefer to attempt to continue to feed its addiction (as President Bush called it) rather than deal with it.
You are actually going to have to make points to get me to respond to them, not just quote a statistic.
http://www.genencor.com/cms/connect/gene ncor/media_relations/news/frontpage/gen_renewable fuel substitutes is where its at.It's really not. Putting aside the other issues, such as food security, there would have to be a huge commitment to using and producing biofuels that would also require significant infrastructure changes and investment.
pressrelease_413_en.htm
"Joint Venture Combines Companies' Strengths in the Development and Deployment of Second Generation Ethanol from Non-Food Feedstocks to Address $75 Billion Market Opportunity"
SWiSH. lol
You're not seriously suggesting that that will cover US usage of oil? Even if Bush fufills his ambitious 20-20 plan (20% of oil to be biofuel by 2020), which this is part of, there is still a huge way to go to come even close to addressing the long term problems of American oil dependence. And then we still have the other factors.
Oh, and please stop thinking that little points derail my argument. Politics is multi-casual and multi-faceted, if you continue to highlight single issues then you will continue to miss the bigger picture.
Perfectly put. With communism in theory It works. However communism didn'nt kill millions of innocent people for no apparent reason. OK Stalin had a good go but it was never of the scale of the death camps.lulz, not including wars hitler was responsible for about 11 million deaths.
Stalin like 60 million.
Not even the Black Book of Communism attributes that many to Stalin and that's hugely questionable in its methodology.
This is repeated to many times:
IF IT DOES NOT WORK In PRACTICE IT IS A FLAWED THEORY.
So please stop claiming its a fine theory.
Not just the poster, but everyone.
What examples are there of an industrial proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing a workers' republic? What examples are there of a communist revolution in an advanced capitalist democracy? I.e. What examples of communism are there?
That really is the problem. We have built a majority of our infrastructure around the notion of cheap oil. Some of your solutions are just not feasible. Many of our cities are in a budget crisis right now... there is no way they can completly revamp their public trans system! And to try to rebuild? Not going to happen. Imagine all the oil that would be consumed just to make one sprawling city more like tokyo.
I'm fully aware that its not going to happen for three reasons. Firstly, there is no political will to revamp the ideology that dominates the US (mass-consumer Capitalism) and a lack of understanding that a non-renewable resource is not a sound basis for an economy in the long term. Secondly, there is the problem of the decentralised US state and the seperation of powers between the states and the federal government. Thirdly, there is the oil lobby, who will continue in their policy of increasing domestic US oil consumption.
Feasibility is a different matter. Budget crises can be overcome by political will or by creating a non-half-arsed welfare state. Either would free up money for a revival of US public transport systems.
As for urban sprawl, communities can be reoriented to being more local. Granted, it's harder than it sounds and dealing with it will take a lot of time, but it is possible.
Also, many people can not afford to purchase a new vehicle. The article was talking about 15 dollar a gallon gas in the next 2 to 5 years. The changes you are talking about will take generations.
An almost complete change in the carstock can happen in around 20 years. I think I read that in the Cheney Report.
Finally, to just quit driving so much is difficult when our country has been doing it for so long. Its like switching from internet porn to a Victorias Secret catalog. I think people will stop driving when it gets to that point though.
All it needs is a political will and available alternatives to driving.
living beyond our means, that oil has fueled our economy too not just our SUV's.
There has been huge inefficency in the use of oil that has left significant weaknesses in the US economy. The US currently consumes about 70% more energy per capita than any other developed nation, which has now left it reliant on imported oil for over half of its consumption needs.
The reason the US has the ethos it does is because of savvy handling of oversea oil assets.
Erm...no. It's more to do with the huge historical endowment of oil that the US developed off the back of, the weakness of Congress in standing up to sectional interests, the physical size of America and the extraordinary power of the oil lobby. All these have created a unsustainable American petrosociety that would prefer to attempt to continue to feed its addiction (as President Bush called it) rather than deal with it.
the taxation of fuel would just burden the American economy further and promote bloated government spending.
The taxation of fuel would drive home the reality that a sustainable economy can not be built on an unsustainable fuel - it will promote the creation of a sustainable American economy and society which would set the US in good sted for the future.
renewable fuel substitutes is where its at.
It's really not. Putting aside the other issues, such as food security, there would have to be a huge commitment to using and producing biofuels that would also require significant infrastructure changes and investment.
The (American) solution is to move away from the ridiculous levels of oil consumption by promoting more fuel efficient cars, increasing taxes on oil to a level similar to the rest of the developed world, fundamentally reorganising cities based on the concept of urban sprawl and investing in public transport. Essentially, America has been living beyond its means (in domestic oil production) for many years now and it really needs to solve its addiction to oil.
The main thing is obviously public pressure, but there's another facotr that I think could make a difference. If The US, or some of Britain's other allies, were to start pushing us to make these changes would this not force our hand on the issue?
Why would the US do that? If they pushed us to modernise and become more representative in our democracy, then they would be exposing themselves to calls to modernise and become more representative in their democracy.
Can we all just agree to ignore Kleinhans? Because I really want to reply to some of the points made against him, but don't want in any way to help the idiot - it's not fair!
Link to wikipedia, and the site says "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed."
That's because the nazi "third way" wasn't between communism and capitalism, but between right and left. The third way saw itself as getting things done.
No, it's because people dispute the view that fascism opposed free market capitalism and they question the sources used there. It says on the talk page, so don't try to lever your ideas into a gap that doesn't exist.
Where are your facts?See above, platform of the nazis, platform of fascism, etc?
You know, the stuff none of you fools has had the temerity to address?
You have given "facts" about Nazism, but not about socialism. To support your argument you need both, not just a claim that the Nazi party platform is the same as socialism. Look, I can make a similar argument.
"
"Our five tasks are:
(i) To restore the health of our economic and social life, by controlling inflation and striking a fair balance between the rights and duties of the trade union movement.
(2) To restore incentives so that hard work pays, success is rewarded and genuine new jobs are created in an expanding economy.
(3) To uphold Parliament and the rule of law.
(4) To support family life, by helping people to become home-owners, raising the standards of their children's education, and concentrating welfare services on the effective support of the old, the sick, the disabled and those who are in real need.
(5) To strengthen Britain's defences and work with our allies to protect our interests in an increasingly threatening world.
This is the strategy of the next Conservative government."
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/man/c on79.htm
OMG, that sounds like new pseudofascisitic nonneoneoliberal nihilism to me! "
That's not a use of facts and evidence to back up an argument, that is commentary on a document which is then confused with being an argument. If I provided a good definition of " new pseudofascisitic nonneoneoliberal nihilism" and then compared that with the Conservative 1979 election manifesto, drawing out the similarities (and noting the differences, if there are any) then I could be said to have made an argument about how the Conservative 1979 election manifesto was based on/influenced by/similar to " new pseudofascisitic nonneoneoliberal nihilism."
I could equally just quote the same stuff that you have used back at you and then say "doesn't sound like socialism to me!" Each position would have the same backing and would utilise the same "facts", yet be completely different. I did mention this before, but you just ignored it and called me a moron, so I think the above illustration should help you with getting information into your thick thick skull.
Offer evidence against your unsupported point?How about one of the points of the Nazi part's 20 point platform?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Fasc ism (since you like Wiki so much)
"...that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens... the abolition of all incomes unearned by work... the ruthless confiscation of all war profits... the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations... profit-sharing in large enterprises... extensive development of insurance for old-age... land reform suitable to our national requirements...[52]"
HOLY CRAP! THAT'S SOCIALISM!
No, it's fascism. This is the point that you've been missing, you have not provided a definition of socialism, merely stated that the Nazi Party platform "sounds like socialism to me".
What, for asking for your definition? Shocking isn't it.OK chuckles. You (or someone stupid like you) claimed capitalism was to blame for starvation. This was in response to acknowledging socialism was to blame for millions of deaths by forcing their populous to starve.
Actually, I said
"Out of interest, has anyone thought to count the deaths that stem from the current global capitalist system? I'm not talking genocide here, but about people who starve to death, etc because of the capitalist system."
It's important to note this because I was no where near close to saying that capitalism enforced starvation, but was actually asking about deaths that happen not through intent, but through a lack of intent (i.e. situations where action is possible to stop death, but is not taken because the state, following capitalism, has assigned the problem as a personal, private matter.)
So,2,200,000 deaths a year.Or 4.2 million so far this year. Now obviously these are global statistics so will include non-capitalist countries as well, but you get the gist of my argument.
I asked for a single ONE example of capitalism doing the same thing. None of you could provide it. Why? It doesn't exist.
You confuse not having done something with being unable to do something. I didn't give you any examples because I wanted the way clear to drive my point home. However, because you didn't provide a definition of the capitalist world you have left yourself significant (but incorrect) squirm space to exclude deaths in countries that you do not consider to represent capitalism.
You're simply not intelligent enough to debate me.
HAHAHA.
So you call me a right winger, attack my integrity, and defile my character.
Hahahaha (not as big as laugh as your last "point", although I am amused that you included "call me a right winger" - it's like a kid going to the teacher and saying "he called me short!")
Meanwhile, your stupid ass can't be bothered to debate teh dozens of points I put up the prove Hitler was a socialist.
Without any "proof" of what socialism is.
Piss off lightweight.
Actually I'm a welterweight. If I drop a few pounds I could get down to a super lightweight.
Oh, wait! You're talking about me intellectually and on this board? Well, let's see. 8 years here, 2 degrees in Politics.....hmmm.
What the fuck are you on? Don't spout fucking drivel at me and then say "Next?" like you've dismissed my point entirely. Fascism is a political ideology in its own right and is not a part of socialism. For fuck's sake, look at the foundations of fascism - it considers itself a "third way" between Marxism and Capitalism, is nationalistic and virulently anti-communist.Drivel?
Yes. Drivel. Now fuck off if you can't be arsed to address my points. I'm not some 14 year old that you feel you can dismiss out of hand.
Fascism claimed to be a bridge between partisan politics. It NEVER claimed to be a bridge between capitalism and socialism, but between right and left, rich and poor.
I'm sorry, you're too stupid to respond with fact. Try again?
Where are your facts?
And where did the Nazis declare that all property belongs to the state? I thought the one piece of evidence you had dredged up had said that the state would control property, as most economies did during WW2.That was before WW2. Offer evidence. Jesus.
Offer evidence against your unsupported point?
No it wasn't, it was based on inequality - particularly between the races.And communism was based on equality for the WORKING class. Marx and the Communists were disdainful of the "burgoius".
Irrelevant. You've offered no bridge between the points and I'm not filling in the gaps for you.
Oh yes, I can make statements too. Next?Yours aren't based on fact and are therefore wrong.
You haven't done anything of the sort. You have pulled up the "Nazi Party Economic Platform" (from somewhere) and then said that it sounded the same as socialism. You haven't brought up a socialist platform and then offered a comparison between the two, so don't try and bullshit me by saying you offered a comparative analysis that I chose to respond with "nu uh." You've failed to offer a definition of socialism and have a shite argument because of it.Holy fuck, you're an idiot.
HAHA. To quote cellardoor, you're a fucking coward. If you can't be bothered to even engage with my arguments then fuck off. Simple as.
Answer my first question, what is your definition of the "capitalist" world? Does it include all the countries where starvation and disease are still commonplace, or have you left them out of your definition?Again, holy fuck, you're an idiot.
What, for asking for your definition? Shocking isn't it.
At 5/13/08 07:15 AM, Slizor wrote:Hahahahaha! WolvenBear just wants to think that the right-wing has never done anything bad and that the left-wing is the embodiement of evil.This is what's called "changing the subject". Offering no fact, and claiming me foolish to boot.
Man, that's pathetic.
You're a moron Slizor.
*Yawn* People tend to change the subject (as you have done) in an effort to avoid points, not answer points and then remark.
It doesn't need to be exact; in your point of view, social sciences do not exist, you restrict the classification of science to math, chemistry... and that's it.
Expecting linear relations throughout all the world, is not only impossible, but also, I'd dare say, pathological.
I work with the wiki definition "In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research."
And no, I don't think "social sciences" do exist, I think they are areas of study rather than "sciences".
hahahaha, Economics is not an exact science, Economists don't give yes/no answers most of the times.
Theory says it is not, but we don't live on theory, we have to analyze the situation, consider the theories, and then act.
I agree, with one modification
"Economics is not a science." As soon as economic variables can be isolated and tested I will retract that statement, but currently economic systems have far too many unfixed variables to claim that economics is anywhere near a science.
And the effort to brand Nazis as right winger is both a historical distortion and a slander to TODAY'S right wingers.
Hahahahaha! WolvenBear just wants to think that the right-wing has never done anything bad and that the left-wing is the embodiement of evil.
Man, that's pathetic.
At 5/10/08 06:37 AM, Slizor wrote: Nazis were fascists, not the other way round (i.e. you can be a fascist without being a nazi) and the words are not synonyms.If all fascists are socialists and all nazis are fascists...it doesn't mean all socialists are nazis. But it does mean all nazis are socialists.
What the fuck are you on? Don't spout fucking drivel at me and then say "Next?" like you've dismissed my point entirely. Fascism is a political ideology in its own right and is not a part of socialism. For fuck's sake, look at the foundations of fascism - it considers itself a "third way" between Marxism and Capitalism, is nationalistic and virulently anti-communist.
And the destruction of the bourgeoisie? The advancement of Unionism? Equality between the sexes and the classes?There was no "LIMITED". Decreeing that all property belongs to the state is socialism.
I thought not. Limited social programs do not equal socialism.
Actually it's extreme nationalisation, which would be a socialist policy, but could also be the policy of other ideologies.
And where did the Nazis declare that all property belongs to the state? I thought the one piece of evidence you had dredged up had said that the state would control property, as most economies did during WW2.
The Nazi platform was based on equality. Next?
No it wasn't, it was based on inequality - particularly between the races.
Oh yes, I can make statements too. Next?
No it's not. It's based on the idea that inequality between the classes continues to exist on the basis of the means of production being privately owned.No. It's based on the fact that the platform of the socialists and fascists was identical. I have offered proof. You claimed "nu uh".
You haven't done anything of the sort. You have pulled up the "Nazi Party Economic Platform" (from somewhere) and then said that it sounded the same as socialism. You haven't brought up a socialist platform and then offered a comparison between the two, so don't try and bullshit me by saying you offered a comparative analysis that I chose to respond with "nu uh." You've failed to offer a definition of socialism and have a shite argument because of it.
Sorry, what definition of the Capitalist world are you using? One that only includes first world countries?Claim a meaningful amount of "capitalist" deaths and I will provide a larger list of people who died by tripping and drowning in grape jelly.
Answer my first question, what is your definition of the "capitalist" world? Does it include all the countries where starvation and disease are still commonplace, or have you left them out of your definition?
The argument keeps popping up because it's true. Jesus. What kind of a stupid counter argument is "nu uh, they were fascists"? Fascists were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS.
Nazis were fascists, not the other way round (i.e. you can be a fascist without being a nazi) and the words are not synonyms.
The idea that the fascists were pro-business and anti-worker is a fabrication. They demanded wage controls, limited work hours, free health and child care.
And the destruction of the bourgeoisie? The advancement of Unionism? Equality between the sexes and the classes?
I thought not. Limited social programs do not equal socialism.
Likewize, painting Nazis as capitalists is based on the absurd idea that unless the state owns and runs the business itself that it is a free market.
No it's not. It's based on the idea that inequality between the classes continues to exist on the basis of the means of production being privately owned.
Sounds like socialism to me. The difference between state owned and state run is so small as to be irrelevant.
Which is the problem, you don't know what socialism is or what it aims to do.
Out of interest, has anyone thought to count the deaths that stem from the current global capitalist system? I'm not talking genocide here, but about people who starve to death, etc because of the capitalist system."OK fine, sure millions died of deliberate state CAUSED food shortages, but surely, somewhere, a handful of people died of insufficient funds because of capitalism right?" Moral equivalence of the worst variety. Starvation is next to unknown in the capitalist world. Capitalism has next to eliminated hunger, poverty and disease. Yet everyone maligns it as eeeevil.
Sorry, what definition of the Capitalist world are you using? One that only includes first world countries?
Ah, the old "National Socialists were Socialist" argument. I've always wondered why this keeps cropping up, considering that it's glaringly obvious that the Nazis were fascists who advocated a union between the state and business (with the workers silently forgotten.) I think it stems from the view that there is this "pure" idea of capitalism (where there is a completely free market) and anything that involves the state in any way shape or form is socialist. Sadly, this dichotomy is incorrect and the argument is founded on a basic fallacy (it's not "capitalism", so it's socialism) that works on ill-defined and ill-understood concepts.
Out of interest, has anyone thought to count the deaths that stem from the current global capitalist system? I'm not talking genocide here, but about people who starve to death, etc because of the capitalist system.
*waits for excuses for these deaths and people defending the system by generating positions that, in fact, make them hypocrits*
