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

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Well, I'm sure that there must be a university with library and history department somewhere near that he can visit if he truly wants some answers.

On a side note, this made me dig out some old boxes of papers and I ended up reading a bunch of stuff from my old historiography courses on the war and the nazis. They weren't in my area of specialization but were damned interesting and some of the best courses I had the good luck to get in to.

Lol wait, I'm not worth the time to explain, but, my position is worth of you going back and doing research? lol okay guy.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Again, how is it I am not worth the effort, but worthy enough for you to respond to me? Seems strange.

The Nazis had a socialist economy. Hitler supported huge social projects, instituted national services, and prohibited farmers from selling their land.

Now, if you want to argue that Hitler and the Nazis used the state to accomplish their goals, that is true, but it does not mean they did not have a socialist economy. I do not disagree that the goal of the Nazis was first and foremost about gaining power. Its just that Capitalism and even Communism is ultimately mutually exclusive to that. Capitalism means the state could not own things that the Nazis wanted to own, and Communism would mean the people owned everything and again, that goes counter to what the Nazis wanted. But, to say that the Nazis were not socialists is flat out wrong.

Feel free to explain why, but, like I said before, you will lash out or do something other than explain how I am wrong.

University, good librarian, talk to a couple of profs in the History dept.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Lol wait, I'm not worth the time to explain, but, my position is worth of you going back and doing research? lol okay guy.

Actually, I read that stuff for pleasure. You simply reminded me that I still had the stuff packed away. It also had pretty much nothing to do with 'nazis are socialists' bull. The stuff I was looking at mostly related to the Holocaust.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,541
16,330
146
Again, how is it I am not worth the effort, but worthy enough for you to respond to me? Seems strange.

The Nazis had a socialist economy. Hitler supported huge social projects, instituted national services, and prohibited farmers from selling their land.

Now, if you want to argue that Hitler and the Nazis used the state to accomplish their goals, that is true, but it does not mean they did not have a socialist economy. I do not disagree that the goal of the Nazis was first and foremost about gaining power. Its just that Capitalism and even Communism is ultimately mutually exclusive to that. Capitalism means the state could not own things that the Nazis wanted to own, and Communism would mean the people owned everything and again, that goes counter to what the Nazis wanted. But, to say that the Nazis were not socialists is flat out wrong.

Feel free to explain why, but, like I said before, you will lash out or do something other than explain how I am wrong.

My work has been done for me. That's why I posted the links. The utterly fabricated idea that the Nazis were "socialist" has been long debunked and not worthy of debate, just a link to the information that debunks it.

And no, having government infrastructure programs is not "socialist" unless you're a libertarian and then any government at all is "socialist."

Understand this: ALL means of production in Nazi Germany were private. Very few things were government run. Infrastructure, some public transport, some medicine (paid for, not run) and education.

Nazi Germany was a fascist, nationalist, authoritarian state with strong crony capitalism.

Your claim has been utterly debunked. Multiple people have explained it to you and you have a plethora of valid, high integrity links to explain it to you.

What you're doing now is no longer debating. You're clinging to a misconception and claiming validity where none exists. You have been shown the information that corrects your misconception and deny it. Any further interaction would be pointless. It is pointless to discuss anything with an individual who denies reality itself.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
My work has been done for me. That's why I posted the links. The utterly fabricated idea that the Nazis were "socialist" has been long debunked and not worthy of debate, just a link to the information that debunks it.

And no, having government infrastructure programs is not "socialist" unless you're a libertarian and then any government at all is "socialist."

Government infrastructure programs are inherently socialist. It does not mean that if you have some it turns you into a socialist country, but, the act itself is socialist. At no point did I say it was the sole measure of a socialist country.

Understand this: ALL means of production in Nazi Germany were private. Very few things were government run. Infrastructure, some public transport, some medicine (paid for, not run) and education.

This is false. Evidence of this being false comes from VGs own paper.

"This question obviously has something to do with the problem of how to interpret the relationship between state and industry during the Third Reich. The debate about that problem dates back to the beginning of the National Socialist dictatorship itself. Today many historians think that the Nazi state played a primary role, largely depriving companies of the opportunity to make autonomous decisions".

One of the things the Nazi state did was to leave ownership of farm land to the farmers, but the farmers could not sell that land. They could work it and decide what to do on the land, but, if the state felt it was being mismanaged they could take it and give it to someone else, or, leverage the state power to make the person do better.

Nazi Germany was a fascist, nationalist, authoritarian state with strong crony capitalism.

Yes to everything but capitalism. Feel free to explain why you think it was capitalist.

Your claim has been utterly debunked. Multiple people have explained it to you and you have a plethora of valid, high integrity links to explain it to you.

No. What has happened is that people have told me I was wrong, and posted links. I went and read through those sources and explained why I felt their position was not supported by the sources. For your Snopes link, I explained how they did not explain how Nazi Germany was not Socialist. What they did was to say that the Nazi government was mainly about other things, which is true, but they did not address the economic structure.

What you're doing now is no longer debating. You're clinging to a misconception and claiming validity where none exists. You have been shown the information that corrects your misconception and deny it. Any further interaction would be pointless. It is pointless to discuss anything with an individual who denies reality itself.

Wrong again. I am explaining my position and why I think others are incorrect. Any time I have been challenged I have replied and explained more. I have not avoided anything and my position is in agreement with most historians on this. Ill post this part again for you.

Today many historians think that the Nazi state played a primary role, largely depriving companies of the opportunity to make autonomous decisions
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Actually, I read that stuff for pleasure. You simply reminded me that I still had the stuff packed away. It also had pretty much nothing to do with 'nazis are socialists' bull. The stuff I was looking at mostly related to the Holocaust.

Oh, so you have the reason behind you think I am wrong, but, you only have time to reply to me and talk to others, but not enough to explain the knowledge you already have? Can you explain why you think it would not be worth it to you to explain and convey the knowledge you have beyond "its not worth it"?
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Oh, so you have the reason behind you think I am wrong, but, you only have time to reply to me and talk to others, but not enough to explain the knowledge you already have? Can you explain why you think it would not be worth it to you to explain and convey the knowledge you have beyond "its not worth it"?

It's ok, I agree. The sky is purple.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,541
16,330
146
Government infrastructure programs are inherently socialist. It does not mean that if you have some it turns you into a socialist country, but, the act itself is socialist. At no point did I say it was the sole measure of a socialist country.



This is false. Evidence of this being false comes from VGs own paper.

"This question obviously has something to do with the problem of how to interpret the relationship between state and industry during the Third Reich. The debate about that problem dates back to the beginning of the National Socialist dictatorship itself. Today many historians think that the Nazi state played a primary role, largely depriving companies of the opportunity to make autonomous decisions".

One of the things the Nazi state did was to leave ownership of farm land to the farmers, but the farmers could not sell that land. They could work it and decide what to do on the land, but, if the state felt it was being mismanaged they could take it and give it to someone else, or, leverage the state power to make the person do better.



Yes to everything but capitalism. Feel free to explain why you think it was capitalist.



No. What has happened is that people have told me I was wrong, and posted links. I went and read through those sources and explained why I felt their position was not supported by the sources. For your Snopes link, I explained how they did not explain how Nazi Germany was not Socialist. What they did was to say that the Nazi government was mainly about other things, which is true, but they did not address the economic structure.



Wrong again. I am explaining my position and why I think others are incorrect. Any time I have been challenged I have replied and explained more. I have not avoided anything and my position is in agreement with most historians on this. Ill post this part again for you.

Sigh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichserbhofgesetz

You do realize there is a difference between socialization, and authoritarian dictatorship rule, right???
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Sigh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichserbhofgesetz

You do realize there is a difference between socialization, and authoritarian dictatorship rule, right???

Again, you are just posting links. Sigh indeed. Here is another link that expands upon yours and validates my position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsnährstand

The Reichsnährstand had legal authority over everyone involved in agricultural production and distribution. It attempted to interfere in the market for agricultural goods, using a complex system of orders, price controls, and prohibitions, through regional marketing associations.[2] Under the “Hereditary Farm Law of 1933” (Reichsnährstandsgesetz), farmers were bound to their land since most agricultural land could not be sold.[4] The law was enacted to protect and preserve Germany’s smaller hereditary estates that were no larger than 308 acres. Below that acreage, farmlands could “not be sold, divided, mortgaged or foreclosed on for debt.”[5] Cartel-like marketing boards fixed prices, regulated supplies and oversaw almost every facet in directing agricultural production on farmlands.[6] Besides deciding what seeds and fertilizers were to be applied to farmlands, the Reichsnährstand secured protection from selling foreign food imports inside Germany, and placed a “moratorium on debt payments.”[7]

As the scope and depth of the National Socialists command economy escalated, food production and rural standard of living declined. By autumn of 1936, Germany began to experience critical shortages of food and consumer goods,[8][9] despite the spending of billions of Reichsmarks on price subsidies to farmers.[10] Germans were even subjected to rationing of many major consumer goods, including “produce, butter and other consumables.”[11] Besides food shortages, Germany began to encounter a loss of farm laborers, where up to 440,000 farmers had abandoned agriculture between 1933 and 1939.[12]

So, now that you have my link, and validation that agriculture market was socialized, do you want to retract your "sigh" comment? I bet you dont.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,541
16,330
146
Again, you are just posting links. Sigh indeed. Here is another link that expands upon yours and validates my position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsnährstand



So, now that you have my link, and validation that agriculture market was socialized, do you want to retract your "sigh" comment? I bet you dont.

I ask again, do you understand the difference between socialization and authoritarian dictatorship?

To you, it seems, any and all "control" is socializing. Therein lies your problem.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
I ask again, do you understand the difference between socialization and authoritarian dictatorship?

To you, it seems, any and all "control" is socializing. Therein lies your problem.

Yes, and I answered this before. One is a political structure, the other is an economic structure. That is why there is something called Authoritarian Socialism. Did you not know that was a thing? I think your problem is seeing Authoritarian and Socialism as mutually exclusive. They are not and are often combined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism

And no, not all "control" is socialism. Socialism is not inherently bad or good, and neither is Capitalism. I am not using Socialism as a pejorative. I am not saying Socialism equals Nazism either. I am saying that the Nazi state used Socialism as its economic structure for its purpose of centralizing power. Nazism does not explicitly require Socialism, but, they did use that for their economy.

So, you posted a link which meant nothing without the context of my link which clearly established that the agricultural market was socialized. You now seem to have tried to position Authoritarian and Socialism as mutually exclusive. I'm sure you wont change your position, but it is right in front of you.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,541
16,330
146
Yes, and I answered this before. One is a political structure, the other is an economic structure. That is why there is something called Authoritarian Socialism. Did you not know that was a thing? I think your problem is seeing Authoritarian and Socialism as mutually exclusive. They are not and are often combined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism

And no, not all "control" is socialism. Socialism is not inherently bad or good, and neither is Capitalism. I am not using Socialism as a pejorative. I am not saying Socialism equals Nazism either. I am saying that the Nazi state used Socialism as its economic structure for its purpose of centralizing power. Nazism does not explicitly require Socialism, but, they did use that for their economy.

So, you posted a link which meant nothing without the context of my link which clearly established that the agricultural market was socialized. You now seem to have tried to position Authoritarian and Socialism as mutually exclusive. I'm sure you wont change your position, but it is right in front of you.

Good gawd projectionism is strong with you.

The problem is, the facts are right in front of you. You're the one denying the opinion of multiple experts, displaying heavy Dunning Kruger to fit a narrative you need to believe to confirm your own bias.

Fact: "Nazis were socialists" is a canard used by those seeking to defame socialism... and ironically enough, by those who adhere to nationalism/authoritarianism themselves.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Good gawd projectionism is strong with you.

The problem is, the facts are right in front of you. You're the one denying the opinion of multiple experts, displaying heavy Dunning Kruger to fit a narrative you need to believe to confirm your own bias.

Fact: "Nazis were socialists" is a canard used by those seeking to defame socialism... and ironically enough, by those who adhere to nationalism/authoritarianism themselves.

Again, you have yet to explain how I am wrong. The Nazis had a Socialist economy. The multiple experts you cite think that the Nazis had a Socialist economy, it's just that they do not think Socialism is what defines them. Hitler would gladly take up any tool if it furthered his power. Hell, he really only latched onto Jews because it was politically expedient. His history was filled with Jews he liked. He even made the Jewish doctor that saved his mother's life a protected person that was to be left alone by the paety.

So, Socialism was not really part of Nazi ideology, but, it was a useful tool for gaining even more power.

As I said before, Socialism is not Nazism and Nazism is not Socialism. But, to say the Nazis did not have a Socialist economy is absurd.