Yagoda

What is a Socialist economy? Planned? Ddidnt the National Socialists have a Planned Economy, state enterprises and control over all private enterprises? Were not the industrialists forced to adhere to the National Socialist line? All economic systems have variations. Is the USA capitalist system the same as Germany's? May I assume you have read the National Socialist Party Program?

Thanks for proving me right. BTW, who were the enemies in Mussolinis Fascist Italy?

Your contention is that National Socialist Germany was not a Socilaist economy? How do you justify that statement?

Socialist economy? What countries have a Socialist economy and not massmurder?

Translation: I cant argue because Im not smart enough so I will just spew vituperation.

Translation: Yagodas right, Im wrong, so I will just spew hate as my ilk does.

What facts?

Translation: I can dispute the points being made, so Ill just toss out some Communist propaganda. Tell us what made National Socialist ideology "right wing"?

More National Socialist drivel from the AN dunce in chief. Your point is beyond stupid. Did not the Bolsheviks fight and murder the Menshiviks?

Oh I love it. The Socialists are out defending their movement. Lots of rage and hate being spewed, Trump and MAGA brought up of course, so lets find the few points being made: Point: All of the Precepts of Socialism are based on community. Without belaboring the poor grammar that shows you arent quite 8th grade, and without noting that with your first sentence you hoisted yourself on your own petard of spelling, tell us what the definition should be? Clearly you admit the point, that Socialism is collectivism Point: The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, indeed all the Socialist partys, believed in the dictatorship of the "workers and peasants" where all would live in peace and harmony, from each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need. .Again the "simplistic" response, but again, you admit the point is correct. The spelling comment is ironic, I left out an apostrophe, you left out a pronoun. Perhaps before you criticize spelling, you should not make 3rd grade grammar mistakes. So looks like there isnt any dispute about the first two points I made. Point: In order to achieve this utopia, the "class enemy" must be fought and defeated and the instruments of oppression (bourgoiuse captialist government) overthrown in a revolutionary mass movement. In Bolshevik terms, that revolution is to be led by the "vanguard", the elightened activists. To what extent do the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks differ? Enlighten us as to what Socialist movements my point does not apply to? Maoism? Tell us what Socialist movement does not have an "enemy". Btw Sweden isnt Socialist. Try to do a bit of research. Social Democracy and Socialism are different. But hey, looks like this Point is grudgingly agreed to. Point: The National Socialists beleived in the racial community of all Germans, an Aryan volksgemeineshaft. They were opposed to and fought the existing bourgeouise government, which was viewed as a tool of the racial enemy, and as such the National Socialists were revolutionary. But no dispute as to the point. Getting good here, loads of agreement. Point: Both philosophies were revolutionary. Revolution is a tool of the left. Feel free to read the dictionary definition of revolution. You spelled Thetcherite wrong. Folks that complain about others spelling should us spell check themselves. But rather than belabor this point, I would note that we have agreement that the Left uses revolution, and both Socialists and National Socialists were revolutionary, right? Point: Both philosphies had enemies. The Bolsheviks, for example, had the bourgeoise and capitalists. The National Socialists, had the Jews What is the relevance of your argument? Do you disagree that the groups in question had enemies? Evidently not. And how is my Post related to Christmas? So far, so good, he agrees with me. Now we get to the part where he destroys himself. Point: Both philosophies were similar economicaly. Socialism entails the State the owning the means of production. National Socialism was hybrid, private ownership under the direction of the state for the benefit of the state was permitted, and the government owned other economic concerns (viz, the SS economic empire). Both philosophies were "mass movements". Everything was to be a benefit to either the "people" or the "volk". Notice: not one point I made here was disputed. He goes off on to some rant about the mechanics of how the ownership of private and state enterprises were organized and then admits that "private" industry was a willing participant in National Socialism. Most importantly, he does NOT DENY that in all Socialist systems, private property does not exist. Btw, how does the Gulag differ from the DWB? And tell us how you conclude that Hitler did not care for "the Volk"? Point: The very fact of their revolutionary nature demonstrates that National Socialism is left wing. In terms of political analysis, the American revolutionaries were left wing, as they were opposed to the traditional conservative monarchal order and sought to ultimately impose a new system. A revolution that seeks restoration of the existing order would be a counter revolution. Are you disgreeing with the point that the National Socialists sought to overthrow the existing order? The last point is telling: What does he give us: No denial of the fact that Socialism mandates mass murder, just a litany of every one else who commits mass murder. Premise: Socialism in all its variants has as its goal a collective society. National Socialism had as its goal a collective Aryan society. Human beings arent collective and as a result, not all humans will fall into line and be collective. They must be killed in order to fullfill the Socialist dream.

Noticed the following; no refutation of any facts presented, no attempt to construct a meaningful argument in opposition, cutting and pasting unknown comments from someone else, and insults. Typical National Socialist Behavior.

Excellent. Another Socialist that now recognizes what he is.

Well we know you cant lol. You arent smart enough to outargue an idiot.

I realize its difficult to compete, tho I thought your lot were the elite intellectuals

Translation: I cant argue the point, so I insult, redux.

No answer to the question at issue tho.

Really? So you dont see the correlation between the Socialist ideal and mass murder? Can you name a Socialist regime that hasnt engaged in mass murder? Pol Pot was a Socialist too, btw.

Fat chance LOL. You wish though. I bet the Western Provinces would be happy to apply for individual statehood. After all, Canada is not much of anyhting without the USA. Thats why they are continually running whimpering and begging commercials at a million a pop all over Fox News.

Oh look, the biggest hater on this Forum spewing his lying propaganda again. Have you no shame?

Cant argue against my analysis can you? What facts am I seeking to rewrite? This is the Political Soapbox, are you saying that my subject isnt topical? And how can it be a troll if its the truth? You surely arent disputing it, and none of your ilk have..

The best part is that after two days and two pages, no one has even attempted to refute my argument. Happy New Year

I used to live out there, fabulous area but the lesser amount of road traffic makes the incipient race car drivers crazy.

Translation: You are right in your analysis and I cant argue against it.

If you were smart enough, you would have come up with it first. But imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery. Thanks for your admiration

Well I know I wont get cogent arguments from those who arent