Post
Topic
Board Politics & Society
Re: Bernie Sanders is the Frontrunner for the Dems
by
Spendulus
on 02/03/2020, 00:05:55 UTC

This is an article that claims the Nazis were not socialists.

https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

This is an article that claims the Nazis were socialists.

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

I tend toward the latter.

yea I know. it's always the same source, the propaganda from the think tanks.
The author doesn't even provide bibliographic references. why to worry?

"But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936."

this is anti liberal, but not socialist. the author states that this kind of control makes the state "owner" of the means of production. this is a lie. corporations did not hand over their profits to the government. it's easy to fall into traps if you don't know the concepts.

I stick to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the historians, the Academy, my decades of studies.
It's not exactly a choice like fruit juice or soda: "I choose to consume this one!"

Deutsche Welle has recently published series of articles to belie this wave of fake news from think tanks. Highly recommended.



btw do you know what is really amazing about these think tanks? this part:

"Mises Institute is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent the law allows. Tax ID# 52-1263436"

Billionaries "donate" to this cause (their own cause) and get tax breaks. They deliver you propaganda for their cause and indirectly YOU PAY for it. When money is lacking for universal medicare, for example. It's being spent at the golf club of those who delivered you this article.

If you want to argue against the logical argument, by all means do so. Nothing in your reply indicates you are capable of doing that, even if willing to. By the way, when you present a logical argument, it is capable of standing alone, and not requiring references. However, as I earlier mentioned, without precise definitions, none of this chatter is meaningful.

What it amounts to may be no more than "Socialists" not liking to be damaged by comparison with negatives being included in their definition of a word. But, then, there really are many very negative examples of socialism, aren't there? What's one more?

And this is no different than attempts to blur meanings and babble about "democratic socialism."

Anyway, I'm not particular interested in your misunderstandings about "think tanks," or the Mises Institute, or any other that seem to not buttress your opinions.