• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Infowars Interviews a Socialist - "You people have worms in your brains."

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Victorian Gray said:
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.What the fuck is it with people and fucking history these days. The Nazis were *not* socialists. The right has been running from the nazis since ww2 and it's fucking disgusting how much success they've had in the decades since. Educate yourself using something other than Wikipedia because this crap stinks to the heavens.
Click to expand...

What about the Nazis excludes them from being socialists? Did the Nazi government not control and manage the distribution of wealth?
 
realibrad said:
Wrong again. You are viewing it from the perspective of how its often pitched today. Socialism in fact does not require redistribution of wealth to the poor. Its simply that the means of production including profits are controlled by the state. You do not know what you are talking about.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Click to expand...
Indeed, either way they still took and redistributed wealth so he is wrong on both counts.
 
People think they are richer than they are, so they vote for policies that favor the rich but actually hurt and undermine themselves.

It's the great illusion of grandeur.

And its sort of the reason why we need something more than just "wealth re-distribution". We need a maximum money allowed per year to be set at 100 times the poverty limit.

So say the poverty limit is 12,000 this year for 1 person.. so the maximum a person can make in a year would be $1,200,000.

Who can complain about that?
 
realibrad said:
Wrong again. You are viewing it from the perspective of how its often pitched today. Socialism in fact does not require redistribution of wealth to the poor. Its simply that the means of production including profits are controlled by the state. You do not know what you are talking about.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Click to expand...
I'd put up the argument that the second definition where there is no private property doesn't apply to Nazi Germany then. Fine though, I'd agree their economic policy could be considered a form of socialism.
tygeezy said:
What, with facts? Sorry if they are inconvenient.
Click to expand...
That the Jewish population was the 1% of Germany? That's just not true. Here's a link with a little on it. I'd have more but I literally just returned my history textbook.

EDIT: Here's the quote;
What’s more, Nazi ideology held that Jews were particularly wealthy citizens of Germany, despite the reality that the majority of Jewish families fell somewhere in the middle class, Hayes says. Not only would the 1938 edict return wealth to non-Jewish citizens, whom Nazis considered to be the rightful owners, it would also encourage more Jews to leave the country, another of Hitler’s goals at that point.
Following the April 1938 property registry, Jewish citizens faced an increasing number of economic laws that chipped away at their livelihood. They lost allowances and exemptions for having children, and were forced into the highest tax bracket regardless of their income
Click to expand...
 
Bubbleawsome said:
I'd put up the argument that the second definition where there is no private property doesn't apply to Nazi Germany then. Fine though, I'd agree their economic policy could be considered a form of socialism.
That the Jewish population was the 1% of Germany? That's just not true. Here's a link with a little on it. I'd have more but I literally just returned my history textbook.
Click to expand...
A lot of the Jewish population was wealthy. Their wealth was taken and redistributed. We;re splitting hairs here if we want to get technical about 1 %. The point being, the Nazis did take and redistribute wealth.
 
tygeezy said:
A lot of the Jewish population was wealthy. Their wealth was taken and redistributed. We;re splitting hairs here if we want to get technical about 1 %. The point being, the Nazis did take and redistribute wealth.
Click to expand...
Yes but not because of their wealth? It was because of a deep hatred for them as a people. They didn't take money from rich Germans to redistribute.
 
tygeezy said:
I'm under no obligation to prove anything to you. My past presentation in this thread should be evidence enough that i've attempted good faith discussion.

Moving on...
Click to expand...

Of course you aren't because if you actually had to prove the bullshit you spew you'd be wrong.

Keep on moving on.
 
Bubbleawsome said:
I'd put up the argument that the second definition where there is no private property doesn't apply to Nazi Germany then. Fine though, I'd agree their economic policy could be considered a form of socialism.
Click to expand...

Its an economic system. In what other way do you define socialism that conflicts with Nazis?
 
Bubbleawsome said:
Yes but not because of their wealth? It was because of a deep hatred for them as a people. They didn't take money from rich Germans to redistribute.
Click to expand...
Germany's economy was still reeling from depression following the war. Why does the intent matter when there is no way a conservative policy would ever favor redistribution of wealth. That is a left wing policy through and through.
 
tygeezy said:
Germany's economy was still reeling from depression following the war. Why does the intent matter when there is no way a conservative policy would ever favor redistribution of wealth. That is a left wing policy through and through.
Click to expand...

intent matters because they were redistributing wealth to create and sustain an ultra-nationalist war machine to fight wars among nations, not to create a utopian society of happy workers
 
I see tygeezy is quite busy today getting owned in a lot of threads.

Protip: If you're going to make a claim, do not just spout talking points you've heard. Fact check the facts you're going to use to support your argument.

Protip #2: When a fact you have claimed is proved incorrect, own it. Do not simply side slip into another argument or move the goal post.
 
tygeezy said:
Authoritarianism is on the left. The further you go to the right the less government thus less authoritarianism. It's popular to say that the Nazi's and Italians were far right dictatorships, but they have way more in common with the far left. The National Socialist Workers Party. Mussolini was a socialist.
Click to expand...

so it's in the name it must be so? holy shit what are you 3 years old. how do you feel about Buffalo Wings? What about Chicken of the Sea?

holy fuck batman.
 
PixelSquish said:
so it's in the name it must be so? holy shit what are you 3 years old. how do you feel about Buffalo Wings? What about Chicken of the Sea?

holy fuck batman.
Click to expand...

A good dissection of this utter bullshit here:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

More here:

http://www.newsweek.com/nazis-democrats-socialists-alt-right-650572

Some people are simplistic fools with no understanding of history, or politics. Thus they are easily fooled by wing-nut talking points that teach them the literal opposite of reality.
 
PixelSquish said:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/
Click to expand...

What a horrible little article. They did nothing but say that what drove the Nazis were their desire for power and the hatred of Jews. It does not explain how they were not socialists, just that what mainly defined them was their fascism. Nazism was not socialism, but the economic system they set up was socialist.

The idea that fascism is in conflict with socialism is stupid. Socialism is the centralized economic control by the state. Socialism does not lead to Nazism and Nazism does not lead to socialism. Does not mean you cannot have both.
 
realibrad said:
Its an economic system. In what other way do you define socialism that conflicts with Nazis?
Click to expand...
That socialism requires no land be privately owned, which is in your own link. So, based on the differing definitions of Socialism Nazis fall in or out of the category.
tygeezy said:
Germany's economy was still reeling from depression following the war. Why does the intent matter when there is no way a conservative policy would ever favor redistribution of wealth. That is a left wing policy through and through.
Click to expand...
Except it totally would. A popular strategy to use by conservative viewpoints (again, I'm talking classical conservatism) is that the new is taking something from you. Whether it's wealth, autonomy, or something else. The Nazi propaganda machine worked based on the 'new' (Jews) taking the wealth away from the 'you' (Germans). What is the solution to the problem? Taking it from the people that have stolen it. Is someone steals your wallet and you take it back from them that isn't wealth distribution, it's taking back what is yours.
 
tygeezy said:
I was careful to chose a place where the likelihood is nill. I have the safe stable job, my wife to be has the high risk, high reward tech startup gig. I was in a situation where I needed to prioritize my health. I'm happy we have that freedom in America.
Click to expand...

Low energy beta
 
Amused said:
I see tygeezy is quite busy today getting owned in a lot of threads.

Protip: If you're going to make a claim, do not just spout talking points you've heard. Fact check the facts you're going to use to support your argument.

Protip #2: When a fact you have claimed is proved incorrect, own it. Do not simply side slip into another argument or move the goal post.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you needed glasses or what, but you guys are doing mental gymnastics to prove that wealth redistribution isn't left wing after previously incorrectly stating that the Nazis didn't redistribute wealth thus weren't socialists. Yeah sure sounds like an ass kicking to me, but you're getting the sides confused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top