1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

In the USA, anything labeled "public" is most likely socialis features. Examples are public libraries, public schools, public hospitals, and public streets. Also most police and firefighting departments are socialist features.

Absolutely not. Such services well predate Marx and are a function of an orderly functioning polity. Rome had public libraries.

Absolutely so. Public libraries, public parks, public streets, etc.,  are provided to all for no fee for their use. They are paid for, of course, by the government, which is funded by taxes. I don't know why you think socialism started with Marx. Socialism is, IMO, the way humans used to live together, like the American Indian. They lived in a tribe, and all those in the tribe contributed to the general welfare and their needs were provided for. That's socialism in a nutshell. 

50 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Absolutely so. Public libraries, public parks, public streets, etc.,  are provided to all for no fee for their use. They are paid for, of course, by the government, which is funded by taxes. I don't know why you think socialism started with Marx. Socialism is, IMO, the way humans used to live together, like the American Indian. They lived in a tribe, and all those in the tribe contributed to the general welfare and their needs were provided for. That's socialism in a nutshell. 

Rousseau. Existence as a savage requires community. We aren't savages and civilization proves that.

 

But even the Sioux had a social and political hierarchy 

1 hour ago, AndreasHG said:

 

Ukrainian welcomed the Nazis only because they were coming from years of hunger, misery and death, under the Russian yoke.

They assumed that nothing could be worse than Russia's rule.

Fill the void that constitutes your abysmal ignorance by learning what the Holodomor was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

 

Translation: it's ok to herd Jewish women and children into antitank ditches because the Russians were worse

6 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Translation: it's ok to herd Jewish women and children into antitank ditches because the Russians were worse

I don't think my English needs translation.
Also, because something always seems to get lost in your translations. 
See a psychiatrist. The problem lies in the cavity where the brain of human beings is usually located. Try to understand what has replaced the brain in your cavity.

24 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Rousseau. Existence as a savage requires community. We aren't savages and civilization proves that.

 

But even the Sioux had a social and political hierarchy 

We are savages, maybe more so than at any other time in human history. We are knowingly destroying the Earth's environment without giving it a second thought. It's all about me, me, me!

Yes, the Sioux and most other American Indian tribes had a social and political hierarchy. From what I've read, they had a socialist-style economy and a monarchical government. 

4 hours ago, Yagoda said:

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

The specific place and time where I spent my youth had an economy that leaned heavily socialist but was still primarily capitalist.  Most utilities were owned by the regional or local government.  Electric, telephone, water, sewage, regional bus routes, trash collection, home and auto insurance, schools, colleges and technical schools were all owned and operated by the governments.  The largest regional employer was an agricultural buyer/seller that was owned and operated by the growers (more socialist than capitalist).

 

There was one mass murder during the decades that the above description held.  A paranoid schizophrenic killed 9 of 10 members of a family after he claimed to have battled with the devil.  The crime was obviously not related to the political or economic structure of the region.

21 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The specific place and time where I spent my youth had an economy that leaned heavily socialist but was still primarily capitalist.  Most utilities were owned by the regional or local government.  Electric, telephone, water, sewage, regional bus routes, trash collection, home and auto insurance, schools, colleges and technical schools were all owned and operated by the governments.  The largest regional employer was an agricultural buyer/seller that was owned and operated by the growers (more socialist than capitalist).

 

There was one mass murder during the decades that the above description held.  A paranoid schizophrenic killed 9 of 10 members of a family after he claimed to have battled with the devil.  The crime was obviously not related to the political or economic structure of the region.

And where was that?

Trump posts removed.

Not every thread is about Trump.

17 hours ago, WDSmart said:

We are savages, maybe more so than at any other time in human history. We are knowingly destroying the Earth's environment without giving it a second thought. It's all about me, me, me!

Speak for yourself, I ain't any part of your 'we'.

17 hours ago, WDSmart said:

We are savages, maybe more so than at any other time in human history. We are knowingly destroying the Earth's environment without giving it a second thought. It's all about me, me, me!

Yes, the Sioux and most other American Indian tribes had a social and political hierarchy. From what I've read, they had a socialist-style economy and a monarchical government. 

A climate cultist too I see. So you admit the Sioux werent Socialist. How about the Iroquois Confederation?

 

You could actually posit that all the savages are on the left and/or Socialists. Clearly illustrated in arts and culture. Megan the Stallion vis a vis Bach

17 hours ago, WDSmart said:

We are savages, maybe more so than at any other time in human history. We are knowingly destroying the Earth's environment without giving it a second thought. It's all about me, me, me!

Yes, the Sioux and most other American Indian tribes had a social and political hierarchy. From what I've read, they had a socialist-style economy and a monarchical government. 

Its Asia mostly, but nobody is stopping them. If the elite controlled media really wanted change they could do it

Next personal attack will get the poster a day off. Discuss the topic in a polite and civil way please.

On 1/2/2025 at 12:48 PM, Yagoda said:

That makes no sense. Social Democracy was that essentially developed by Bismarck, it does not require volksgemeinschaft nor  class differentiation and does not philosophically reject individualism. Socialism mandates collectivism.

Genrikh Yagoda, you’ve conflated the terms "community" and "collectivism" while focusing on irrelevant historical figures like Bismarck to muddy the waters.
 

Let’s cut to the chase: your ultimate goal here is a bait-and-switch attempt to deflect attention away from the rise of white nationalist and authoritarian movements now gaining power, and to falsely project their characteristics onto the opposing social democrats?

10 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Genrikh Yagoda, you’ve conflated the terms "community" and "collectivism" while focusing on irrelevant historical figures like Bismarck to muddy the waters.
 

Let’s cut to the chase: your ultimate goal here is a bait-and-switch attempt to deflect attention away from the rise of white nationalist and authoritarian movements now gaining power, and to falsely project their characteristics onto the opposing social democrats?

Lookie, ANs own Great Kreskin, the mind reader.

 

The ultimate goal here is to educate those who havent really thought much about it. Like you.

 

Tell us what "white nationalist" movements are gaining power. Tell us what the philosophical difference is between communism and collectivism.

5 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Lookie, ANs own Great Kreskin, the mind reader.

 

The ultimate goal here is to educate those who havent really thought much about it. Like you.

 

Tell us what "white nationalist" movements are gaining power. Tell us what the philosophical difference is between communism and collectivism.

 

It’s becoming pretty clear you’re more interested in deflecting than actually addressing facts.
 

Now, you’re switching from community to communism vs. collectivism -- save that for a new topic, maybe Part Three: The Return of the Bait-and-Switch.
 

Your post here seems more like a collection of propaganda than a real debate, using tactics like Non Sequitur, Deflection, Question-Begging, and False Equivalence, rather than actual logic.
 

You state your ultimate goal is to educate, yet you’re responding to my valid questions with more questions.

Is that how an educator engages in a real debate -- or are you just trying to avoid addressing the core issue by paraphrasing and deflecting?

20 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

It’s becoming pretty clear you’re more interested in deflecting than actually addressing facts.
 

Now, you’re switching from community to communism vs. collectivism -- save that for a new topic, maybe Part Three: The Return of the Bait-and-Switch.
 

Your post here seems more like a collection of propaganda than a real debate, using tactics like Non Sequitur, Deflection, Question-Begging, and False Equivalence, rather than actual logic.
 

You state your ultimate goal is to educate, yet you’re responding to my valid questions with more questions.

Is that how an educator engages in a real debate -- or are you just trying to avoid addressing the core issue by paraphrasing and deflecting?

The translation of that diatribe: You win, Ill just insult

18 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

The translation of that diatribe: You win, Ill just insult

You are projecting.

Funnily, I thought you were the one avoiding the point and throwing insults, as has been your modus operandi here.

Obviously, this is your last resort, as you have nothing else -- a subliminal acknowledgment of my superior intelligence. 

Bye I will be looking forward to Part Three.

On 12/31/2024 at 11:55 AM, Yagoda said:

All of the Precepts of Socialism are based on community.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. 

 

Both philosophies were revolutionary. Revolution is a tool of the left.

Both philosphies had enemies. The Bolsheviks, for example, had the bourgeoise and capitalists. The National Socialists, had the Jews.

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"

 

The very fact of their revolutionary nature demonstrates that National Socialism is left wing.

 

The fact that National Socialists are also Socialists is amply demonstrated by the foregoing.

 

Socialism in all its forms mandates mass murder because of its disregard of human nature.

I put this at about the level of a 12 year old giving a social studies report and I would give it a C-

2 minutes ago, EveryG said:

I put this at about the level of a 12 year old giving a social studies report and I would give it a C-

And you cant dispute any of it

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

And you cant dispute any of it

Nonsense does not need disputed 

For somebody to confuse Fascism & Socialism shows their lack of understanding of history. Although this is understandable because in the modern era Communist China has morphed into a Fascist State.

14 hours ago, EveryG said:

Nonsense does not need disputed 

Translation: That which I am incapable of understanding is "nonsense"

4 hours ago, Tailwagsdog said:

For somebody to confuse Fascism & Socialism shows their lack of understanding of history. Although this is understandable because in the modern era Communist China has morphed into a Fascist State.

Im waiting for you to debate the points.

 

But I guess you cant.

14 hours ago, LosLobo said:

You are projecting.

Funnily, I thought you were the one avoiding the point and throwing insults, as has been your modus operandi here.

Obviously, this is your last resort, as you have nothing else -- a subliminal acknowledgment of my superior intelligence. 

Bye I will be looking forward to Part Three.

Subliminal LOL.

 

Another lightweight humiliates himself. Bet you dont even know who Adolfs political heroes were.

Some troll posts have been removed...... 

3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Subliminal LOL.

 

Another lightweight humiliates himself. Bet you dont even know who Adolfs political heroes were.

Eva Braun...😘

Do you actually believe the total nonsense that you write

   

On 1/5/2025 at 8:51 AM, Yagoda said:

Translation: That which I am incapable of understanding is "nonsense"

Your posts are one logical fallacy after another, this one being the appeal to ignorance, which is the entire MAGA approach to the world. 

 

You are simply attempting a revisionist history based on your political views, not on history at all. Your entire first post is based on the Historian's fallacy and Presentism. Let me show you:

On 12/31/2024 at 11:55 AM, Yagoda said:

All of the Precepts of Socialism are based on community. Hasty Generalization, "ALL" is hardly true and you have not listed a single precept. 

 

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. Hasty Generalization, plus it's just a dumb statement that they ALL "believed in" dictatorship, as if it's a religion  This is a completely nonsensical line of thought that has no basis in reality.

 

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. This only applies to the Bolsheviks even though you will try to make apply to a Boogeyman later. 

 

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. Here is where you are redefining terms to suit your needs so you can later draw a false conclusion...the idea  that the Germans racism is "community" based and equivalent to the Socialist community sharing of the means of production is, quite frankly, beyond just a stretch...it's just dumb. 

 

Both philosophies were revolutionary. Revolution is a tool of the left. Historians of the American Revolution might disagree with you. 

Both philosphies had enemies. The Bolsheviks, for example, had the bourgeoise and capitalists. The National Socialists, had the Jews.

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).  A series of False Equivalences

Both philosophies were "mass movements". Everything was to be a benefit to either the "people" or the "volk" The US Constitution starts with "We the People...".... do you yet begin to see how logically incoherent your post is?

 

The very fact of their revolutionary nature demonstrates that National Socialism is left wing. That left wing American Revolution, seeking to benefit the people... 

 

The fact that National Socialists are also Socialists is amply demonstrated by the foregoing. Yes, because words always mean the same thing  in every context all the time without exception, also known as the Definist Fallacy

 

Socialism in all its forms mandates mass murder because of its disregard of human nature. According to your "foregoing" logic, this would include the left wing American founders who engaged in revolution in order to benefit the people, who are definitely socialists because they also had an enemy (chose one: the British, the native populations, etc)

So, there...I have demonstrated how your post is complete and total nonsense. You will no doubt come back and move all of your goalposts to argue how the US is different. Again, just continuing your series of one logical fallacy after another. 

2 hours ago, EveryG said:

   

Your posts are one logical fallacy after another, this one being the appeal to ignorance, which is the entire MAGA approach to the world. 

 

You are simply attempting a revisionist history based on your political views, not on history at all. Your entire first post is based on the Historian's fallacy and Presentism. Let me show you:

So, there...I have demonstrated how your post is complete and total nonsense. You will no doubt come back and move all of your goalposts to argue how the US is different. Again, just continuing your series of one logical fallacy after another. 

Try reformatting and I will answer you LOL.

 

Tell us where you got the terms Historians fallacy and Presentism, and define them for us too.

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Try reformatting and I will answer you LOL.

You seem to be under the impression that I am interested in your response- let me assure you I am not. My previous post was for people who may have mistakenly thought you wrote something serious- I demonstrated clearly that what you wrote was incoherent nonsense, superficial, and the pointless ramblings of a political sycophant. You can't handle my point, which is that by the logic of your OP, the entire foundation of the US was also equivalent to socialism. I'm not making that argument, but it shows how flawed what you originally wrote is. None of your points add up to the conclusion- not even close. 

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Tell us where you got the terms Historians fallacy and Presentism, and define them for us too.

The irony of you asking for clear definition of common terms when you seek to distort commonly known terms in your op is hysterical. I do not have time to explain logic to those who have demonstrated already they do not comprehend it....try using Google. 

 

I find it comical that anyone would think your original post has anything close to a substantial argument. Take any statement you made, but just as an example saying "Revolution is a tool of the left" when the country you claim to be so proud of was born of revolution. The OP is completely ridiculous on its face, worthy of nothing but mockery.