Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 2/26/10 02:21 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 2/25/10 07:15 AM, Jako-inc wrote: I have, a lot.

And yet you still haven't managed to see a system built on competitiveness is actually a BRILLIANT thing?

No it isn't. Sure competitiveness inspires (or rather enforces) productivity (theoretically). But it also inspires us to hate everyone that is above us or could get above us, just to get more money to buy stuff we don't need, supposedly making us happy.
A company as rich as coca-cola has a fuck load of money because it's the most eager to get ahead, and exploit peoples desires through advertising, not because its the most relevant product in our lives or the best drink mankind has ever seen.

---

At 2/27/10 09:44 PM, Jako-inc wrote:

A company as rich as coca-cola has a fuck load of money because it's the most eager to get ahead, and exploit peoples desires through advertising, not because its the most relevant product in our lives or the best drink mankind has ever seen.

A company as rich as rich as coca-cola has a fuck load of money because it makes the best products for the people. Plenty of people are as eager as coca-cola, but not as many are as rich.

Capitalism is a system that encourages people to be productive and rewards them based on ability. It is a brilliant idea.

BTW how does capitalism cause hate. Competition does not cause hate. Have you ever played a sport and hated the people on the other team simply because you were competing against them. And why would you hate everybody higher up than you. People generally emulate people better than they are and why would anyone hate what they hope to become? It doesn't make sense.

---

At 2/27/10 09:44 PM, Jako-inc wrote:

No it isn't. Sure competitiveness inspires (or rather enforces) productivity (theoretically). But it also inspires us to hate everyone that is above us or could get above us, just to get more money to buy stuff we don't need, supposedly making us happy.

If i lived in a society where equality was legislated I really could not feel respect for anyone, I would always live feeling like everyone around me was either a sucker or a parasite. It would be an incredibly bitter way to live.

In a really free society I would not have any problem with someone wealthier than myself, Whatever they did they either performed a labor service or expressed some entrepreneurial forsight that satisfied the unsatisfied wants of society better than myself, which is why people were willing to pay more for those services.

We can debate whether the goods and services in question are actually worth what people are paying for them, much of it is a matter of perception, and sometimes our sense of something's value is inflated because we think merely having it will impress OTHERS. Part of the reason people don't simply buy the cheapest good available, even if that good is as high quality as another good, is the fear that other people might regard their 'thrift' as being stingy and therefore value social prestige over the money they lost from paying extra.

But that's a social problem, not an economic one. The only solution is to convince everyone to become some sort of Objectivist-Spok-person that would completely remove emotions from the equation.

---

Well we are not 100% capitalist, for the fact that the government has regulations on business, (to what extent is arguable but they still exist.) I say each system has its strengths and weaknesses (I personally dislike fascism, and communism was original created as a way for everyone to be equal, in practice it is not the case.) I think any American can see the faults of our system today, (health care crisis etc etc) and socialism destorys competition which creates higher prices. (a reason why trusts between companies are banned.)

---

A number of people on this thread are espousing a position based on market fundamentalism: the idea that the free market can solve all economic or social problems, the idea that laissez-faire economics somehow make everything just and right. The theory that the competition in a capitalist system will always maximize production, give the most "deserving" people the most wealth, give the most benefit to society is an idea that looks good on paper, but fails in real life; the same way, I would argue, that communism looks good on paper but fails in real life.
Here are a few examples of the problems a "free" market causes:
-A factory, under a totally free market, would be allowed to employ whatever methods it found most effective in manufacturing; even if this involved pumping harmful chemicals into the air, damaging the environment and causing health problems and reduced quality of life for nearby residents.
-Economic regulation also includes saftey and health regulation. Without it, we would have more children's toys made with lead paint, tainted food, ineffective medication etc.
-Free market economics encourages companies to make risky investments in order to maximize profit, and allows them to grow big enought to severely damage the whole economy when they crash (see the recession_
-A laissez-faire market encourages to pay workers as little as possible and treat them as poorly as possible, leading to near-slave labor, child labor (see the 1800s)
-Unregulated markets encourage and almost inevitably cause monopolies, allowing companies to raise prices, reduce quality, and generally do whatever they want.

Now, I am likely to recieve a flurry of idealistic replies along the lines of "the unscrupulous companies would be boycotted" or "they should start their own business," but in truth, the real world simply doesn't work like that, the same way that a communist could argue ideally for the strenghths of communism, but the system is inevitably exploited. The fact is that a lone individual or grassroots group will never be as powerful as a multi-billion dollar corporation. The companies have the money, the power, and they have more influence in our government and lawmaking that most would like to admit (see the Republican party).
Pure capitalism will never create the social justice its proponents extol. Compare an heir of a wealthy CEO and the opportunities they have, vs. a poor inner city child growing up among crime and violence, whose parents will not have enough money to afford college for their child. Excluding an incredible stroke of luck, the latter person will never do even a fraction as well in life as the former. Observe periods in the past when capitalism has been allowed to go unchecked: such as the early industrial revolution, when the average worker labored long hours around dangerous machinery for meager pay with little to no healthcare. Observe the capitalistic influences behind the slave trade, and the occurance of debt-slavery and sharecropping. Pure capitalism does not work.

---

I don't think that all fascists are supposed to be opposed to socialism, I know a guy who believes in fascism but thinks socialism is an ok system

---

At 3/11/10 09:52 PM, ChickenReaper wrote: I don't think that all fascists are supposed to be opposed to socialism, I know a guy who believes in fascism but thinks socialism is an ok system

Fascism is not opposed to socialism. Fascism necessarily includes a "national socialist" economic system, a fascist version of socialism. However, fascism must be opposed to communism.

---

At 2/21/10 01:48 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 2/20/10 09:08 PM, Warforger wrote: IMO how economies succeed and fail has little to do with which form it is, it moreover has to do with opportunity, do you have something foreign nations want? How is the will of your people? What is the quality of the land? etc. While some forms of economy are better in some situations then others, in general it has those factors in mind (i.e. if you don't have anything foreign nations want that much then a Capitilist economy kinda fails)

I mean yeah, the reason Hong Kong is so amazingly prosperous is because of their natural resources, and has NOTHING to do with them having the freest economy in the world amirite?

Come back to me when your report on prosperous Niger is finished, and Sierra Leone, and Liberia, and Haiti. This was my point, the economy has little to do with the actual form, just how the people use it, although this has to do with how much trade there is, if the country has a commodity everyone wants then its going to get an actual income, if it doesn't then its just going to be heavily unstable and be a shitty country forever until some mineral deposits or oil is found, even then as Africa has showed us this isn't even the gateway to a good economy, if its unstable economy is down the drain. For example, China has Communism, it also has something all the Western countries want: Workers, it is stable, countries in Africa however, have been dependant on diamonds and oil to bring them riches, due to instability the economy is shit, some countries don't have these and become shit without violence.

---

At 3/14/10 03:29 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/13/10 12:08 AM, Warforger wrote: Come back to me when your report on prosperous Niger is finished, and Sierra Leone, and Liberia, and Haiti.

Well for one thing, a lot of countries are inherently screwed. Niger for example is landlocked, making economic development very difficult.

Not Sierra Leone or Liberia.

At 3/14/10 03:29 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Secondly, the country is under military rule, making it very univiting for foreign companies to start business there etc.

Ah, but its Capitilist, so it must be prospering

At 3/14/10 03:29 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: In short, there are countries that can't really be prosporous. Those that can however are ALWAYS more prosperous with economic freedom and smaller government.

Like China, oh oops sorry, I forgot Capitilist China was incredibly weak and poor

At 3/14/10 03:29 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

This was my point, the economy has little to do with the actual form, just how the people use it,

How can you possibly expalin the fact that Hong Kong wasn't prosperous UNTIL it became economically free? Was this just some grand coincidence?

Hong Kong is a city, cities don't usually have there own mines, farms etc. they can't sustain themselves or go and do the China dance of build the Capitilist products, its like Singapore, they have to rely on buisness. This further proves my point, its not the system, its the people, if the nation is small like Hong Kong (which IIRC isn't economiclly free anymore due to being Chinese territory now) they have to rely on a smart population to be able to get workers etc. If the country is vast and its economy relies on agriculture or other back breaking work, its generally better to have Socialism, if its incredibly unstable best to have Communism.

---

At 2/28/10 01:57 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: yeah it forces people to be innovative and productive IF THEY WANT TO BE SUCCESSFUL

Not really. It forces people to be resourceful, but that doesn't always turn out to be to universally positive ends. The idea of capitalism is to assert personal interests and sustain personal gain for as long as possible. The best way to assure permanent gains is to create a system that is resistant to change and intent on keeping the established order at the cost of innovation or production, especially if it means not getting the largest slice of the pie.

but do you think that people should be able to be successful without working hard?

Then why do we have celebrity actors and athletes in this country? Per hour 'worked', they make much more money than the average person. Capitalism isn't about working hard, it's a system of perceived value that rewards your work based on how valuable it is deemed in relative terms.

---

Look at Norway, they are a socialist democracy. It has the one of the best HDI reports in this world, people are rich and are living happily ever after. The economic crisis hasn't even touched us, and for the head of state the king doesn't do jack shit, he opens the meatings for the real politicians. I say fuck ur capitualism, marxism ftw.

---

At 3/16/10 06:11 AM, hengen wrote: Look at Norway, they are a socialist democracy. It has the one of the best HDI reports in this world, people are rich and are living happily ever after. The economic crisis hasn't even touched us, and for the head of state the king doesn't do jack shit, he opens the meatings for the real politicians. I say fuck ur capitualism, marxism ftw.

HDI is a very poor measurement of development. The only real variable on it for advanced economies is how many people are enrolled in schools. Every other value is effectively 100%. It doesn't deal with happiness

Because there's not many people and you have a lot of oil. Remove the oil and your economy would crash.

False, recession hurt Norway.

Really, a country awash with oil profits can't advise nations which rely on technological innovations.

---

At 3/16/10 08:33 PM, Ytaker wrote:

At 3/16/10 06:11 AM, hengen wrote: Look at Norway, they are a socialist democracy. It has the one of the best HDI reports in this world, people are rich and are living happily ever after. The economic crisis hasn't even touched us, and for the head of state the king doesn't do jack shit, he opens the meatings for the real politicians. I say fuck ur capitualism, marxism ftw.

HDI is a very poor measurement of development. The only real variable on it for advanced economies is how many people are enrolled in schools. Every other value is effectively 100%. It doesn't deal with happiness

Because there's not many people and you have a lot of oil. Remove the oil and your economy would crash.

False, recession hurt Norway.

Really, a country awash with oil profits can't advise nations which rely on technological innovations.

Norway actually has enough factories and already stored the oil profits, if all the oil were to suddently disappear we would still be fine for years to come. Also everyone gets free school untill they are 16, pluss u get free college aswell! Suck it u capitualist pig!

---

At 3/16/10 06:11 AM, hengen wrote:

Norway actually has enough factories and already stored the oil profits, if all the oil were to suddently disappear we would still be fine for years to come. Also everyone gets free school untill they are 16, pluss u get free college aswell! Suck it u capitualist pig!

Well, you'd have mass unemployment, and due to your socialism, it would take a very long time to get better- weak labour markets are a common problem. My main point is that countries with large populations, and ones which don't simply rely on the age old art of digging or drilling valuable things out of the ground, couldn't do what you do- we have limits on our money based on our creativity and productiveness, and how hard we work. If we had as many public services as you, our government would run out of money, and collapse. Norway is indeed trying to move towards market values, and other sorts of energy, in readiness for when it runs out of energy.

Besides, Norway has serious issues. Due to the massive welfare state, you have one of the worst (in terms of overdoses, deaths) drug situations on the continent. You also have a massive prostitution problem, and a human sex slave problem. The government is currently trying to crack down on both. It's one of the most expensive places to live in the world, and you have some very regression sales taxes that hurt your poor people.

Also, Norway isn't communist. While you have extensive government ownership of industries, you have religious freedom, free speech, ownership of private industries (the government only owns about 35% of the economy, far off communism which tends to own closer to 90-95%)

---

At 3/12/10 11:06 PM, IAmTheDarkWizard wrote:

At 3/11/10 09:52 PM, ChickenReaper wrote: I don't think that all fascists are supposed to be opposed to socialism, I know a guy who believes in fascism but thinks socialism is an ok system

Fascism is not opposed to socialism. Fascism necessarily includes a "national socialist" economic system, a fascist version of socialism. However, fascism must be opposed to communism.

The only common ground that fascism and socialism have is that they're opposed to the laissez-faire capitalism. The similarities stop there though. "National Socialism" is contradictory. Socialism is by nature an internationalist philosophy.

When Hitler went into politics, he was originally infiltrating the DAP- German Worker's Party- on behalf of the state. They added "National Socialist" as more of a gimmick to attract and steal working class support from the Social Democrats and the Communist Party. Hitler mentions in Mein Kampf and other places that if he regretted using the term "National Socialism" because by and large the Nazis were opposed to socialism in any form, Marxist or not.

The OP is correct though. I still see a lot of confusion with people not understanding what "socialism" is, what "communism" is, and what "fascism" is. The terms are used too loosely by pundits.

---

Man, if you ask me, I think them damn liberals oughta need to stop having their panties in a bunch, as well as all these hippie liberal gay activists. well not activists, mainly the liberal radical protesters. I think they should all just chill the fuck out, and watch some Fox News. And if that doesn't work, sacrifice some goats to Satan. Its really good for your soul. Not many people know that. Make sure when you do, to put the dead goat on a pentagram drawn in goat blood, with lit candles in the pentagram corners. Yeah, also Hitler had some great Ideas. If he killed all the Jews, we wouldn't be getting ripped off today from Jewish bankers or lawyers. Also, we wouldn't have had to put up with Jerry Seinfeld. That guy is such an unfunny Jew.

---

At 3/19/10 04:10 PM, MercZ wrote:

The only common ground that fascism and socialism have is that they're opposed to the laissez-faire capitalism. The similarities stop there though. "National Socialism" is contradictory. Socialism is by nature an internationalist philosophy.

So, communism, highly insular, jingoistic, and ultranationalist, isn't socialist? Socialism of the past had been heavily focused on class. However, a lot of people noted the massive, fanatical support a country had, and wanted to build a socialism around that. War was also popular back then- you can see FDR's decleration of war on the depression. While (most) people didn't like the mass deaths and famines things, the idea of a country united, bureacratic tape cut for the greater good, getting things done because they have to be done, it was like wank material for socialists. Building on Wilson's war socialism.

When Hitler went into politics, he was originally infiltrating the DAP- German Worker's Party- on behalf of the state. They added "National Socialist" as more of a gimmick to attract and steal working class support from the Social Democrats and the Communist Party. Hitler mentions in Mein Kampf and other places that if he regretted using the term "National Socialism" because by and large the Nazis were opposed to socialism in any form, Marxist or not.

The OP is correct though. I still see a lot of confusion with people not understanding what "socialism" is, what "communism" is, and what "fascism" is. The terms are used too loosely by pundits.

They were all pretty socialist. Hitler was never particularly coherent, but it was perfectly matched with their policies. The reason they changed their name was to make it more obvious who they supported, but they had to back it up. They did, and they got a lot of socialists. And antisemetists.

If you look at Hitler's 25 points, they're pretty socialist. Reading them, you get four points. He loved war, he loved socialism, he hated jews and he hated capitalism.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak; with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property, instead of responsibility and performance". Hitler

No surprise. Artists tend to be left wing.

If a person calls themselves a fascist, or a socialist, that's the best sort of hint as to whether they are. Hitler did. His main difference from communists is that he didn't advocate the government stealing all property.

---

To your comment about "communism" being ultra-nationalistic, militaristic, etc.... That's going off the assumption that the "Communist" states that we've had were even Marxist in any nature.

Most accredited people who have studied politics and history know there is a world of difference between fascism and Marxist policy.

Class is a distinction that goes beyond national lines. If you'll pull your head out of the ground and look in a history book, you'll see that the movement united people from various countries before World War I broke out.

As for your piss-poor example of the New Deal, socialism is not reforming or regulating capitalism. If you're going off that idiotic presumption that the New Deal and FDR were socialist, you are already building a poor argument.

Socialists were on the whole OPPOSED to FDR and the New Deal. They only supported some of his public work programs for the sake of employment, like anyone else did.

Seriously, who fed you that trash? Are you so close-minded? (Well, this is newgrounds...). The head of the Socialist Party at the time, Norman Thomas, said in response to FDR's alleged "socialism", that if it had in fact been the case he had to have "carried it out on a stretcher", because in the end it was not their ideal.

And I see you are going on the whole "National Socialism" must be socialism. You look at any time Hitler made mention of socialism, it was often at rallies. The platform- their way to advertise to the electorate.

Why? The whole thing was a ploy to steal working class votes from the Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party. The woring class, by and large, was dissatisfied with the current economic conditions. You look later on in Hitler's history and you can see he was greatly

Why is it, if Hitler was truly socialist, that many of the first political opponents that were removed came from the social democrats and communist party within Germany?

To be honest, I began to disregard your post when you said most artists are left wing. Either you love getting fed information Beck and Limbaugh, or trolling. I don't know.

---

The problem with the rather silly idea that fascism is opposed to socialism...is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the fascist governments were socialist. The Nazi party were the National Socialists. Mussolini was a devoted socialist his entire life.

This site offers more difference between socialism and fascism than there really is:
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism /socfasc.html

But hammers home the point. They're not really all that different.

Facism was state run, privately owned business. The state made EVERY decision. You may own your company, but yo will run it how we like! By contrast, Communism took it over directly. These are mild differences. And when viewed in the "left/right" spectrum, it is clear that both ideologies are leftist.

---

At 3/17/10 04:14 AM, hengen wrote: Norway actually has enough factories and already stored the oil profits, if all the oil were to suddently disappear we would still be fine for years to come. Also everyone gets free school untill they are 16, pluss u get free college aswell! Suck it u capitualist pig!

Well, the free schooling has certainly done wonders here. This is a gramatical and spelling nightmare.

YAY SOCIALISM!

---

At 3/19/10 09:43 PM, Ytaker wrote: So, communism, highly insular, jingoistic, and ultranationalist, isn't socialist?

Communism is anti-nationalistic in the extreme. A communistic society doesn't even have a state, how could it be nationalistic or jingoistic? Communism is anti-imperialism, anti-nationalism, pro-internationalism.

"Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems with the capitalist market economy and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism."

I don't know what insular means in this case, could you explain?

Also, it should be noted that nazi germany was a state-capitalistic country, that actively destroyed unions and removed the rights of the proletariat. How is that in any way socialistic?

If you look at Hitler's 25 points, they're pretty socialist. Reading them, you get four points. He loved war, he loved socialism, he hated jews and he hated capitalism.

Hitler was a major state capitalist.

Also, looking at his points right now, 4 and by extention 5-10, are anti-socialistic in that they are highly nationalistic. 11-14, 17 have some relation to socialism, but since the government in nazi germany weren't run by the people it's still only so-and-so. 16 is against the very fundamentals of socialism, mechanically establishing a socioeconomic class is about as far away from socialism as you can get. The rest of the points really has nothing to do with socialism.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak; with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property, instead of responsibility and performance". Hitler

Yeah.
"We are the only real democracy in the world." Vladimir Putin (not word for word, but that's about what he said). Just because someone says something, especially a politician, doesn't mean it is that way.

No surprise. Artists tend to be left wing.

Whether left-wing or not is another question, but since left-wing vs. right-wing is very loosely defined, it's not really important either.

If a person calls themselves a fascist, or a socialist, that's the best sort of hint as to whether they are. Hitler did. His main difference from communists is that he didn't advocate the government stealing all property.

Putin calls himself a democrat and says all other countries have lesser democracies than russia. Hitler also said several times that socialists are enemies of the state, and went out of his way to make sure they were killed.

---

I personally believe that communism in theory is an ideal system of living. However, communism in practice has yet to become the ideal society that Marx envisioned e.g. Soviet Union under Stalin with the purges etc.... and later on in the USSR with the corruption and poor living standards which led to its demise.

---

At 3/21/10 02:00 AM, MercZ wrote: To your comment about "communism" being ultra-nationalistic, militaristic, etc.... That's going off the assumption that the "Communist" states that we've had were even Marxist in any nature.

Not much of an assumption. "The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."

His aim was to create a better society by transferring control from money users to money makers. He did this by advocating they take control of every facet of society. He didn't realize the obvious thing. Most people don't care about politics, very few people have the skill to do well in it, and the most important skills are lying, murder, and manipulation. As such, always, what happens is a small group of (coercive) people take control. And you have communism. A small group of people with authoritarian control. For the people, the workers, of course.

Most accredited people who have studied politics and history know there is a world of difference between fascism and Marxist policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_fr om_authority

Cite proof. One forms a brutal authoritarian police state government, with a huge state apparatus, control of most businesses, extreme racism, and was started with a mix of revolution and vote manipulation, the other forms a brutal authoritarian police state government, with a huge state apparatus, control of all businesses, extreme racism, and was started with a revolution?

Class is a distinction that goes beyond national lines. If you'll pull your head out of the ground and look in a history book, you'll see that the movement united people from various countries before World War I broke out.

Your point?

As for your piss-poor example of the New Deal, socialism is not reforming or regulating capitalism. If you're going off that idiotic presumption that the New Deal and FDR were socialist, you are already building a poor argument.

Socialism is about control of the economy by some sort of community (government, workers, etc)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/s ocialism

It's possible to take any of a huge number of positions, along the free market/socialist axis. A major component of the new deal was setting prices, wages, and working hours, and vastly increasing the power of unions (ground up socialism). Support for small businesses is now, and always will be very high, so socialists often try to work with them.

Socialists were on the whole OPPOSED to FDR and the New Deal. They only supported some of his public work programs for the sake of employment, like anyone else did.

Not really. Look say, at the history of the socialist party of america. After the new deal, their membership dropped to about 20%, because it was radically popular among them. They defected to the democrat party, with the urging of many of their leaders, like David Dubinsky, a commited socialist.

Seriously, who fed you that trash? Are you so close-minded? (Well, this is newgrounds...). The head of the Socialist Party at the time, Norman Thomas, said in response to FDR's alleged "socialism", that if it had in fact been the case he had to have "carried it out on a stretcher", because in the end it was not their ideal.

He was quite bitter. He'd lost a lot of support to FDR. As historian Paul Berman said "President Franklin D. Roosevelt lifted ideas from the likes of Norman Thomas and proclaimed liberal democratic goals for everyone around the world". He used Henry Rosner, who'd formed the 1932 socialist party platform, to help him make his policies.

And I see you are going on the whole "National Socialism" must be socialism. You look at any time Hitler made mention of socialism, it was often at rallies. The platform- their way to advertise to the electorate.

Why? The whole thing was a ploy to steal working class votes from the Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party. The woring class, by and large, was dissatisfied with the current economic conditions. You look later on in Hitler's history and you can see he was greatly

Why is it, if Hitler was truly socialist, that many of the first political opponents that were removed came from the social democrats and communist party within Germany?

Three reasons. He believed they promoted class conflicts at the expense of national unity. He was hostile to their lack of support of germanism in austria. And most importantly, he believed they were controlled by the jews. The last one was the most important one. He believed the same about communism. He was a antisemitic socialist.

Besides, being ideologically similar to another party just means you have to kill them harder. They're stealing your, ones who are ideologically aligned with you, votes and recruits.

To be honest, I began to disregard your post when you said most artists are left wing. Either you love getting fed information Beck and Limbaugh, or trolling. I don't know.

You disregarded my post because of a mild joke on artists being left wing? How immature?

"Communism is anti-nationalistic in the extreme. A communistic society doesn't even have a state, how could it be nationalistic or jingoistic? Communism is anti-imperialism, anti-nationalism, pro-internationalism."

Not what happened in soviet russia, and every other communist society ever. Do you believe that communist russia wasn't socialist? War, hate, and motherland russia.

"I don't know what insular means in this case, could you explain?"

Russia tried to become economic self-sufficient, avoiding trade, the binding force for most international organizations, and also banned people from migrating in and out of the place, so Russians couldn't mix and breed with other nations, promoting extreme nationalism. Based on communist principles. Marx calls for "Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels".

"Also, looking at his points right now, 4 and by extention 5-10, are anti-socialistic in that they are highly nationalistic. 11-14, 17 have some relation to socialism, but since the government in nazi germany weren't run by the people it's still only so-and-so. 16 is against the very fundamentals of socialism, mechanically establishing a socioeconomic class is about as far away from socialism as you can get. The rest of the points really has nothing to do with socialism"

Nationalism can be socialistic. Socialism just means some group owns business. Nothing that says you can't wage war. You can define socialism to only mean your super special type, but you won't be reflecting reality.

16. Ignore the word middle class. He's going to take land away from big business, and communalize it, so that people can rent it and then work to supply the state with goods.

So yeah, generally very socialist. Those weren't his only, or indeed, his main concerns. His main concern was killing jews.

"We are the only real democracy in the world." Vladimir Putin (not word for word, but that's about what he said). Just because someone says something, especially a politician, doesn't mean it is that way."

You're not actually addressing the quote. Hitler explained why he was a socialist, Vladmir Putin didn't demonstrate why he was a democrat, and you have to admit, it's clear Hitler believed he was a socialist.

"Putin calls himself a democrat and says all other countries have lesser democracies than russia. Hitler also said several times that socialists are enemies of the state, and went out of his way to make sure they were killed."

They are a democracy, at least. I didn't say Hitler was a great socialist. And, Hitler went out of his way to kill lots of people. It was what he did. He went out of his way to kill Nazis, even, in the night of long knives.