Socialism is simply central planning! Yes it's used to describe government nationalizing private enterprise and redistribution of wealth. Its main principle is the central planning
Democrats would do well to follow socialist ideas. I hope that in the time between your post of this video and today, 2 1/2 years, that you have learned a lot more about the benefits of socialism than you once knew.
This kid is just another sniveling lib. I don't advocate bad language but this kid is crying the blues about people calling him names and he's saying that he's only young and learning. Well, here's some news. Learning is life long. Age is not an issue here. Anyone who spews the trash that this kid is talking is fair game for criticism. This kid is a typical brainwashed misguided liberal obamazombie. He's endorsing Obama, but Herman Cain or Tim Pawlenty are the real presidential candidates.
That definition of socialism is just one type. Democratic socialism is distinctly different from this. The most important tenant of democratic socialism is the democratization of the economy, where-in workers make the decisions along with their bosses democratically. We do not advocate the dismantling of democracy, but rather, it's expansion into the workplace, along with some social programs like healthcare and education. That is democratic socialism, and it is certainly NOT evil.
@merchan5967 What's a democratic socialism? I thought socialism was democratic by itself. There's no need in expanding democracy to the work place. That was socialist ideal all along.
"workers make the decisions democratically" - that's the very definition of it.
@SloveintzWend Well the type of socialism referred to in this video is called state socialism, in which the means of production are owned not by workers, but by the government. Really though, you are right. "state socialism" can more appropriately be call Bolshevism because it empowers government, rather than workers. This precludes it from being true socialism. That is what most people do not understand. Socialism is not about the government, it is about workers. So I stand corrected. Thanks.
do you even know what communism is. Communism has no government, no capital, and no nations. Socialism is not communism, learn the difference. The parties call themselves communist as they believe one day the can lead a nation and the world that way. You need an English lesson.
do you even know what communism is. Communism has no government, no capital, and no nations. Socialism is not communism, learn the difference. The parties call themselves communist as they believe one day the can lead a nation and the world that way. You need an English lesson.
Yet the industry collapsed and was bailed out with your (well, your parents' anyways) money. What amount of control does the government have on tennis shoes? Next to none, they hardly bother with them. Have you heard of any tennis shoe crises lately?
10. I think Barack Obama's stunning (lack of) success has done enough here that I don't need to touch on that.
Or how about the FDIC, which guarantees that the government will hand the banks money if they manage themselves poorly, at taxpayer expense? Or what of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? These held or guaranteed the vast majority of the bad mortgages. And, who ran them? The government. So, no, the government has much control of banking (like the Community Redevelopment Act, which encouraged banks to make bad loans to people who couldn't afford them, so long as those people were black or brown).
All of them had the power to stop the bad practices. So, if government is so beneficient, why didn't they? Also, if you know anything (I can't assume you do as I do not personally know you) about banking, you'll know that by and large, interest rates are their most important "prices" on their "goods/services." Who sets these rates, the banks? Nope. The Federal Reserve, an agent of the government (which was lobbied for by banks before its 1913 creation).
9. As far as banking goes, I'm sorry my friend but you are speaking directly out of your ass (forgive this limited instance of profanity). The banking industry has been the single most government-cozy business in America for over 100 years. If you think the government has or had no control over banking, ask yourself this: were their government regulators of banking prior to our crisis? Well, yes of course. There were at least half a dozen.
People who don't own the property they are using quickly use it as much as possible, before others do. This is called the Tragedy of the Commons. For simple proof, examine ranchers on public land, or overfishing. The government "must" regulate these areas only because the government has prevented private property. If property rights were actually respected and defended environmental problems would be far less problematic. For good info on this, look up Walter Block on environmental economics.
8. Environmental damage is a violation of property rights. This is axiomatically true, since pollution is a damage, and damages are a violation of property. Once, pollution was grounds for a lawsuit (during the 1800s). This changed when the courts began ruling in the 1800s that the growth of industry was good, so individuals who were damaged by industry would just have to suck it up. In reality, private owners have incentive to treat their property well, and sue people who damage it.
Had they been forced to do so, they would have starved. Same goes for minimum wage. If indeed the minimum wage is such a lovely and workable idea, why not make it 100 dollars an hour so we can all enjoy wealth and privelege? The answers here, I think are self evident, but if you doubt me (which I hope you do) then read into Thomas Sowell's economics books. "Basic Economics" by Sowell is a wonderful, interesting, and thoroughly readable book.
Government has no such check, because they simply take what they want--er, what is in the best interests of the people they're stealing from, of course.
7. Investigate your supposedly beneficient social "reforms." The 40-hour workday, for example. Tell me, if the government can introduce meaningful reform, why didn't they pass the 40-hour workday in 1800? Well, the answer is obvious. In 1800, there wasn't enough capital to allow people to work only 40 hours a week.
. Yes, companies exist to make money, but this is a good thing. Money is a socially-created good that allows easy determination of the value of goods and services. If someone makes a lot of money in the market, its because people are voluntarily giving it to them. Why? Becaue those people value the goods and services that the person or company provides. If they don't value them anymore, they stop making money (for example, no one values typewriters anymore, so they went out of business).
Why? Because the government then provided "quality testers" to ensure no bad meat was to be passed on to the consumer, and this was done at *taxpayer* expense. Previously, companies had to pay for this, but wonderfully, the government would now rob the consumer at the behest of the meatpackers' balance line.
5. As far a "corruption" goes, corruption can only exist where power exists. Gov't corruption cannot be avoided because the government is a monopoly. More gov'tm more power more corrupt.
4. There were indeed monopolies in the Gilded Age, but as basic economics can tell you, true monopolies can only be formed with state power (and most were in the Gilded Age). Was there bad meat? Some, yes of course. But really investigate Upton Sinclair's work "The Jungle," and you will find that it was written after most meatpackers had already improved their standards of their own accord. The subsequent "regulation" that you laud, was actually lobbied for *by the meatpackers themselves*.
Now when a business wants the government to protect it, it lobbies on behalf of the "consumer," but of course we are not the benefactors.[I would suggest reading F.A. Hayek if you care to learn about government-business partnerships and the harm they bring. Again, available on Mises.org for free.]
How about the manifold government subsidies for railroads in general, or for canal building? What of the government-granted monopolies on ferry transport? What of government-set shipping prices? What of the government closure of the Pony Express to end its competition with the Post Office? What of the high tariff rate specifically designed to protect American industry? Though you might not call these "regulations," they are, they simply were more overt than now.
3. It is outright falsehood to say the Gilded Age involves a hands-off period of government. Your government-provided textbooks might tell you this (hmmm, I wonder why?) but it is patently untrue. Ask your history teacher this: if the government didn't intervene in the economy during the Gilded Age, how do you explain the Union-Pacific transcontinental line, fully financed by the federal government?
They were ardent supporters of combining the power of big business with the state. If you care for proof, read into John Dewey, a leading progressive thinker of the time (yes, he also invented the library organization system). So, in a way, you're right, we don't have socialism we have corporatism. But the difference is minute, and if you really think it isn't, consider that the most famous corporatists were the fascists, and they openly proclaimed themselves socialists in their party titles.
2. Much of what we have in this country could be described as corporatism, which is the system favored by the fascists of Italy, and subsequently also of Germany and several other European states. This model was in vogue throughout the early 20th century, and the fascists were actually inspired by the American "triumphs" of combining big business with the state during WWI, under the Progressives. Read up on your beloved Progressives that supposedly ended the Gilded age.
Government taxes and regulations are a violation of this exclusive use, and thus confer upon government de facto ownership, if not de jure. This of course implies that both parties are socialists, which indeed they are. Murray Rothbard or John Locke are good sources to begin with here [You said you were trying to learn, if you really intend to learn, these works are readily available on Mises.org for free.]
Each one of these are owned and operated directly by the government, so in the strictest sense, we DO have socialism. Also, even in those areas where supposedly freedom persists, government "regulation" is still socialism, and here's why: ownership can be defined simply as the exclusive right to use. If this exclusive right is violated (for example, if a woman is raped or your TV is stolen) then someone else has violated the owner.
2. Your definition of socialism is technically correct. Your interpretation, however, is incomplete. You posit that Democrats and Republicans are not socialists because they do not support overt control of capital (businesses, for simplification) by the state. Well, the Post Office, the roads, the military, fire departments, police departments, schools, and now GM, health-care, and the college loan industry, are all directly owned and operated by government.
You're both right and wrong. I will post this in parts, since there is a cap.
I will address your video chronologically:
1. You're right, YouTube posters are overwhelmingly underwhelming; they seem to be 50% mean, 49% uninformed, and 1% seem to sometimes make sense. I hope you will count me among these lucky few.
When i first watched this i had no intent in calling you anything rude but i felt intimidated soooo with that in mind... YOUR A FUCKING MORON YOU SOUND LIKE A MAN!!... p.s you seem very intelIgent and i wish you the best in whatever you want to take on =D.
"Politics" not "Poloctics" - Obama is a corporatist anyway, not a socialist. In any case, when you have the government having a say in any form of economics, it's disasterous. When a government controls prices, controls salaries, controls tax breaks for certain types of companies and not for others, when government bails out companies, it's socialism. I lived in the socialist country of France for many years and there is NO customer service. Imagine the DMV and Post office service everywhere!
Socialism isn't a type of government. Communism is the government, socialism discusses more economic not political. Though if you want to speak of socialism, & how "evil" it is, then name some, hm, was the writer of the pledge evil? he was a socialist. Were civil rights leaders evil? Many of them were admitted socialist. Were past presidents who wanted equality for all evil? Debs was defeated for that very thing. If we must speak of socialism, let us speak of the positive socialist as well.
Socialism is NOT a type of government. A high school government class would teach you that.
Also, a decent Economics class (most likely a college class) will teach you why the Great Depression really happened...
And the government should NEVER be in charge of picking winners and losers in business - that is a major form of socialism, albeit in its early, festering stages.
No, you think that all forms of socialism theorized in the history of man are where the government controls the economy directly. Read a book you didn't get from a public school.
socialism is democratic though. just like under capitalism, you vote, the only difference is that you arent forced to vote for corporate puppets, but actual working class people with qualifications other than their pocket books
"With too little controls, the banks made terrible mortgage deals"
No, they were forced by the Community Reinvestment Act to give mortgages to poor people. Bankers knew this was a bad risk, so they tried to find ways to mitigate the risk. Then, when people couldn't pay their mortgages, was the blame put on stupid regulations? Was it put on people who took on mortgages they couldn't afford? No. They blamed the banks. It's like blaming a kid for doing what his parents made him do.
The reason that Democrats get called socialists is because they share the basic principle as the socialists: namely, that it's the government's job to make sure everyone has a certain minimum standard of living. Those who call themselves socialists differ from Democrats only in the degree to which they think the government should be involved in the economy. It's a difference in degree, not in principle. In effect, Democrats are socialists who lack the courage of their convictions.
There's truth to that...but the Republicans are often called fasicst because they share a liking for some of the basic principals of fascism: a world that is run by large corporations; playing on people's emotions with super nationalistic rhetoric, backed by sometimes fanatical patriotism...the old, if you're not for what we believe, you're not a real patriot, etc. Fascists have also used religion, if it serves their purpose (see Franco, even Hitler & Mussolini).
"basic principals of fascism: a world that is run by large corporations"
In every fascist regime de facto control over the economy has fallen in the hands of the government, to a few select but replaceable business leaders.
However, the concept of corporatism has nothing to do with your rabid modern day obsession with large business corporations, and in fact Noam Chomsky supports a form of coproratism himself, ie syndicalism.
No, the most misused word is liberalism. The democrats are not socialist, but the democrats are what in Europe would be called social democrats. That in practice means that you do want to own parts of the means of production, like schools, and you do want to control the rest, because you think politicians are better at running companies, like banks, than businessmen are. As you say, you want controls. That is NOT liberal. That *is* social democracy.
Suggestion: Question what you've been taught, as much as you probably will question my statements. There are other explanations for the problems we have today.
You don't know what Socialism means or is which is why you cannot explain why "controls" are not Socialist. Its also why you cannot explain that Nationalization (which Obama did and the Dems fully support) is fascism, or accurately refute it.
Socialization is socialism, while Nationalization is fascism. The difference between socialism and fascism is rooted in the building of a mythological base (hence Obama worship). All collectivism believes the gov should push "social goals." Yes you did.
Under the Nazis & Italian fascists, there was very little nationalization of industry. Hitler was actually funded by wealthy capitalists (Emil Kirdorf, Albert Voegler, Fritz Thyssen, Krupp Steel, etc.). He paid them back by outlawing unions on 5/2/33, then setting up the Nazi Labor Front, which FAVORED MANAGEMENT. According to Braun, "The German Economy in the 20th Century," the nazis actually kept taxes low, while wages for working class fell 25% between 1933-38. Nazis not true socialists.
You can regulate captialism? really? Socialism is govt control? Who would call China communist now? It is economy is under state capitialism. Kid your pol partys are both on the right wing of the pol spectrum. Time to hit the books and take some lessons in Marxist thinking and you will learn that it is the working class that is control, not the gov or the ruling class.
this kid does make alot more sense than alot of grown people on youtube. to all the people saying because he is a kid he doesnt know anything you are gravely mistaken. do not assume because somebody is a kid they are stupid, like 100 years ago men assumed women were stupid because they were women. im glad somebody has chosen to show the differences to people to stop these hysterical conservatives calling anything that disagrees a "socialist"
While I see what you are trying to do. I feel you still have a lot to learn grasshopper. Socialism does not happen over night. We are ON THE ROAD TO SOCIALISM. It is progressive. I would advise you to listen to some Ron Paul interviews on socialism.
Please for our countries sake think for yourself and question authority. The most addictive and abused drug is power.
You know, the reason behind the banks giving out bad loans ("toxic" loans) is because the democratic run govenrment told these banks that if they didn't give out these loans then they'd have more and more regulations and so on..
oh and by the way...to think that it's possible for humans to cause such an increase in pollution or to change the weather, whether it's warmer or cooler, is a completely rediculous. We as humans do not have that much power or ability to influence a change in weather
hey KID! are u watching the news these days?? why is big brother buying up the banks and real estate industry and the treasury!!!!!! SOCIALISM IS BUYING UP ALL THE GOVERMENT.
1964 Brazil — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of J Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty in history. General Branco will create Latin Americas first death squads, or bands of secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these communist are no more than Brancos political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death squads.
1965 Indonesia — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor, General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being "communist." The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.
Dominican Republic — A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the countrys elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.Greece — With the CIAs backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.
1970 Cambodia — The CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people.
1971 Bolivia — After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.
1973 Chile — The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin Americas first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.
Angola — Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.
1980 El Salvador — The Archbishop, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter to stop aiding the government slaughtering his people.Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader R DAubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war.CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the gov with overwhelming military and intelligence superiority.CIA death squads roam the countryside. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.
1953 Iran CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.
1954 Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.
1957-197 Laos — The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine" of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIAs army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II.
1959 - Haiti, The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes," who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal human rights record.
1963 Dominican Republic — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta. Ecuador — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.
hmms, democrats vs libertarians, libertarians vs conservatives, conservatives vs facists. I don't care for any of them, nationalize the industry and take it over. Its our best bet for a stable economy, that WILL create welfare.
I'm glad someone else recognizes that a socialist government is one that exercised absolute control rather than the in between of capitalism and communism that most people think.
Very good, well delivered. I would make one distinction though, the recent actions of the gov't giving billions to bankers, has nothing to due with socialism. It gives no control to the people and large profits are still being distributed to an elite class. It is crony capitalism at the best, or an attempt to sabotage Obama's presidency at the worst. Beware of those like heatsketch, from checking his friends it is apparent that he is a Libertarian, the worst of the rightists.
And yea, I am a socialist. But beware of the Libertarians, they don't know their political right from left and commonly try to twist statistics and facts. It is common for them to argue that the Nazis were leftist and Hitler a Socialist, complete BS. I heard someone once call them "Paultards" I just call them Stateless-Neocons. Also, while it is common for lay people to mix in the social factors when talking about right and left, it is not technically correct.
The absolute determiner of right and left is the position that one takes as to the ownership and distribution of capital and the means of production. The dems are to the left of the Republicans, but this is not because of their social position. After all they were also to the Left even when they were still backing American Apartheid in the 50s. They are to the left because of their support of social programs an other measure aimed more at the people than the republican business attitude.
Although it is rare now, there is the example of Steven Crane, the author of "The Red Badge of Courage" who was a socialist but a terrible bigot, conversely there are those today that have quite liberal social views but are economically social Darwinists. These later are the Libertarians. But their social views do not make them "left". These are two separate and distinct scales, and the social one probably shouldn't even be described as right or left.
I have to blame some of my colleagues here for not really making that distinction well enough in school. The absolute definer of the political spectrum being, in the general sense, how one feels about capitalism, it is somewhat a taboo subject here in the States, even in the higher educational levels, and I would not be surprised if even some of your teachers mixed the two improperly. And finally sorry for going long, anyway, good job, keep up the critical thinking, but enjoy life. :)
The Nazi Party is socialist because socialism is defined like democratskids said in his video is absolute control over the means of production. During the period leading up to 1939 the Nazi Party nationalized its entire industry for the fueling of the war machine. As stated before this is a major quality of socialism. By no means however is this government associated more with liberals than conservatives. It is a completely different government than those policymakers use in America.
So, what you're trying to tell me is that the political party that started the greatest, most destructive war in history to rid the world of the perceived menace of communism, the party that hunted and killed its own socialist citizens, just for being socialist, was a socialist party? Hitler a socialist? WOW - what a case of self hatred. Remember what Niemoller said, "First they came for the Socialists..." Sorry, no gold star for you. The academic definition of the spectrum is as I described.
The Nazi's only nationalized those parts of industry that it felt was vital to the war effort, and even not all of those either. Vereinigte Stahlwerks and Krupp are the best known examples, but most of German business remained in private hands and made handsome profits. For a good history of the German ecomony, and why they did what they did, please read "The Wages of Destruction" By Adam Tooze.
Communism(Marxism) is a brand of socialism. So is the Nazi party. The fact they are socialist and not capitalists is even apparent in their name. Nazi as referred to in the German language is the National Socialist German Workers Party. Notice the socialist part of the name. In fact Hitler himself stated "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system". I'm sorry but no gold star for you either.
Please, didn't you check and see; I'm a history teacher you know. I've even taught a WWII course at the College level. You are wrong, Hitler co-opted some of the popularist socialist rhetoric to steal some of their adherents and split the leftist parties. But it was just propaganda. To argue that just because the word socialist is part of their name it must be so; is simplistic. Hitler had socialists hunted and killed first, even before race,
and he purged all socialist elements remaining within the party itself during the "Night of the Long Knives" once he had power and no longer needed them. As is typical with Hitler, his words, and especially his public words, often mean little. "We have no further territorial ambitions" Remember that one? His actions, in hunting the socialists and destroying the socialist parties speak louder.
(3/4) The German economy remained a capitalist one throughout the war with large stockholders and individuals making great profits. Remember that Ford operated plants in Germany throughout the war that remained in private hands. As a matter of fact Hitler kept a large portrait of his personal hero, Ford the racist capitalist, behind his desk in his personal study.
It was the industrialists and the capitalists that financed the party through donations before '33; this was because of the Nazis' well understood opposition to Socialism. The "Socialist" argument for Hitler does not stand up to deeper investigation. By its very nature fascism is diametrically opposed to socialism.
It has been my experiance that if something is named something than it usually is said thing. For instance a cat is a cat, make sense. If you are referring to Hitler's purging of the communist populous as his "fight against socialism that is easy to explain. Socialist governments can fight other socialist governments. If you remember the conflict between the USSR and China.
Both had nearly identical governments yet experienced conflict. Hitlers campaign against socialism as you call it was in reality just a campaign to oust Russian influence in Germany. Nazis are still socialists. Now when you said Hitler idolized Ford that could be attributed to Ford being the father of manufacturing and Hitler admiring that factor given that manufacturing was the base of their socialist economy.
Now when you stated that fascism is apposed to socialism I have to disagree. Consider the USSR which is regarded as the base socialist state. The USSR opened many concentration camps especially during Stalin's purges. The USSR opposed other cultures and races which it censored by use of concentration camps, refusing work, and moving pure Soviet citizens into those areas to dilute the populace. They were also expansionist like the Germans and oppressed many of their satellite state neighbors.
Michael Parenti does a good examination of the "Gulag" system in his book "Blackshirts and Reds" Among other misconceptions that it points out is the fact that even at its height during WWII the Soviet prison system was much smaller than that claimed by western propagandists, and certainly incarceration rates were generally lower than the current imprisonment rate of the US which has the highest rate, per capita and in overall numbers.
Once again you point to superficial semantics but the deeper examination does not give credence to the argument. The US in the 19th century was expansionist, diluted its minorities and had concentration camps. (reservations) That didn't make it socialist. You can disagree, but you are wrong. Other than Hitler himself the person most responsible for the Nazi economy was Hjalmar Schacht, hardly someone that could be accused of any socialist leanings.
I started this thread merely to encourage a young student in his video endeavors, not to try over come the misconceptions of every amateur historian. Please read the Tooze book I mentioned previously. Shirers "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" would also be a good start. From "From Yalta to Berlin" by W.R. Smyser is valuable for its fair treatment in its examination of the Eastern block states and the problem they faced.
That you call yourself a teacher of history doesn't mean everyone else is amateur. Do not degrade this debate to petty insults. I never said racism was attributed solely to socialism. I merely stated that the USSR and Nazi Germany have many similarities. As for your statement about Soviets not exercising concentration estimates. Conservative estimates report that during Stalin's purges 10% of the Russian population was sent to work camps. In addition many who spoke out against the government
were sent to mental institutions where they were injected with drugs that caused the "patient" to lose roughly 40 IQ points. I guess they figured that citizens couldn't revolt if they were legally retarded. No the Soviets were just as brutal as the Germans, they just committed though brutal actions over a longer period of time.
Please read more about Hjalmar Schacht. For starters he was involved in policy making in prewar periods. He was also never a member of the Nazi Party. Although he helped to improve the German economy (mainly through inflationary policy) which he was revered for. He was later ousted and sent to a concentration camp in the wake of the Four Year Plan which called for the nationalization and isolation of the German economy which by the way is considered a socialist policy.
"In 1993, for the first time, several historians gained access to previously secret Soviet police archives and were able to establish well-documented estimates of prison and labor camp populations. They found that the total population of the entire gulag as of January 1939, near the end of the great purges was 2,022,976." Michael Parenti, "Blackshirts and Reds" P79.
That is hardly 10%, and as stated the incarceration rate in the US is much higher than the soviet rate was. We are now approaching the 10% level here and add 1,000 new prisoners each week.
Again, one could draw superficial similarities between any two countries in any particular era. I'm not here to debate. This is not an issue in the academic world. I know what I state is correct and I have the academic degrees to back it up.
Schacht's role is much more complicated than you infer. You really should not use Wiki as a source. Schacht started playing a role in Nazi politics when he started to appear on stage with Hitler in '31. His retirement was due to Hitler's desire to go to war at all costs and forego any real economic recovery. This was also the reason for the "Four Year" plans. they were not socialist in nature, but simply vicious expedient militaristic measures taken against a war reluctant nation.
"To be sure, crimes of state were committed in communist countries and many political prisoners were unjustly interned and even murdered. But the inflated numbers offered by cold-war scholars serve neither historical truth nor the cause of justice but merely help to reinforce a knee-jerk fear of those terrible reds."
Now by "the end of the great purges" do you mean those "political prisoners" that weren't executed or worked to death? After that fact you still have the persecution of intellectuals and the censoring of ideas which both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had in common. Censorship after all is a trait inherent in all socialist governments. If not please name one.
I'm well aware that you are a history teacher. This video has 380 views so its repetition falls on few ears. As for your statements on capitalist pig Hjalmar Schacht. The fact is he was out of the political arena after Hitler enacted the Four Years Plan. Now when you say Hitler decided to go to war at all costs and forgo economic opportunity I'm guessing you acknowledge that he had full control over the economy, a major trait of socialism.
I feel the labeling of Nazis as rightists is in reality an attempt to stick conservatives with a tar baby. I'm beginning to think you just hate capitalism.
The Great Purges refers to a particular historical period during which Stalin fell victim to his paranoia and Reinhardt Heydrichs intrigues to plant evidence of a coup. And yes, Stalin was far from a saint, even most from the far left will argue that he hurt and set back socialism. Im guessing that you dont really know what Socialism is: Please go to the SPUSA web site and read their platform.
But nevertheless the supposed huge gulag system of the USSR doesnt stand up to scrutiny. Upon examination their overall incarceration rates, except for particular periods; the purges, the war, are on average the same or less as other western democratic countries of the time. If you are claiming mass executions of millions than where is the physical evidence? If not the present govt, than certainly the Yeltsen Govt would have had an interest in discrediting Communists.
Thats because there is no such evidence and there never was. You are an unfortunate victim of the continuing propaganda that was initially disseminated during the cold war.
Hitler had total control over every aspect of government that he wished. You are confusing totalitarianism with socialism. Totalitarianism is a major tenet of fascism, i.e. the leadership principle. The dictatorial nature that appeared in the Soviet style states was an aberration caused from their being immediately attacked upon being formed. What Parent calls Siege Socialism, but it is not part of its tenets. Socialism is a workers democracy.
Dont bother have to mention the dictatorship of the proletarian I suspect that you will misinterpret it. We now live in the era of the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. It is a metaphor; the dictatorship of the proletarian merely refers to the time when the workers have control and not the moneyed elites. This is a democratic control through workers councils and democratic govt. That the principles were perverted by some, either because of circumstances or personality,
does not change the conflicting nature between socialism and fascism. And just to return to Stalin for a time, his control was never as absolute as was Hitlers, he still had the Politburo and the Party regulars to answer to. True, he abused his power and subdued many of his enemies even by murder, but his situation was much more complicated than Hitlers. When the Germans attacked, Stalin feared that the Politburo would remove him from power.
He feared this because they had the real power to do this. And once Stalin was gone, the politburo regained any of its power that it did loose. The Soviet Union was more democratic than you probably perceive. The politburo members were voted out of office with a greater frequency than those in our house and senate.
As to censorship; there are many different forms of censorship and there is much censorship here also, so perhaps it should be argued that it is a trait of all govts. But Im not an anarchist I think we need a little higher level of Govt, at least for a while. But there is censorship here. Ask Greg Palast the reporter. Or consider the story of the Reagan campaign members, including Bush 41, meeting with the Iranians to have them hold onto the hostages until after the election.
Do you really think it was a coincidence of fear that made that Iranians release them right upon Reagans election? It was convenient that they also started to get all those spare parts for their equipment too? Reagan committed treason why is that censored? Yes the Soviets censored some stuff, but mainly they censored well funded western propaganda. How much do you not know?
As to naming a country that even you could probably admit fits your criteria is Venezuela. Dont bother to mention the TV stations that are going to loose their licenses. They were manipulating reports and advocating the violent overthrow of the elected govt on their broadcasts. If a TV station did what they did in the US they wouldnt have been on as long as they were in Venezuela.
Their licenses were allowed to run out and were not removed, if that was in the US advocating against either Bush or even now Obama, Im sure they would be off the air immediately. Really, what you are stating is just rehashed cold war propaganda, you really dont know what socialism is or what it was like in the Soviet Union. The Nazis are rightists, the historical community is clear on this. To try to claim otherwise is a misinterpretation on your part.
What I don't get is why the KGB needs a whole entire department with tens of thousands of employees named the Department of Disinformation. They also had Division 5 of the 1st Directorate devoted to assassinations and sabotage. If they are as innocent as you say than why would they employ those services.
And as for your assumption of Soviet Russia being democratic. You failed to mention the Premiers choose who sits on the politburo which means they can remove anyone who disagrees with them. The problem with socialism is that its contributors fail to realize that everyone follows incentives, including government officials. Socialism is like that evil corporation times a thousand. When you centralize power those hungry for it will follow it. I wish this wasn't so.
As for Venezuela they are relatively new and the full extent of their crimes haven't all been accounted for but here's your evidence of censorship, Article 147: "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light." There is more if you want to read the article,
Hmm, I wonder how many employees are in the US spy agencies. And even if there was a Dept of Misinformation, and the source for this seems to come from a single defector in the 70's, but even if there was, so what? Don't you think the US didn't do it more? Same for assassinations; the list of US/western assignations would be much too long to list here. All you said proves nothing.
And I don't know where you get your information from but the Politburo proper was elected by the members of the central committee of the party, which was itself elected by party members, not appointed by anyone. And it came and went during four periods, it is less important than the Supreme Soviet. Anyway, that's what I meant to say: that the Supreme Soviet had a greater turnover rate. And don't give me any "rubber stamp" crap, the same could be said of the corporatist parties here.
"Recently, The Washington Post, published yet another article attempting to reinforce the false accusations repeated over and over again by State Department officials. The Post has been the media most frequently utilized to reiterate U.S. foreign policy towards Venezuela and its editorial board is unquestionably anti-Chávez. Remember, The Post figured prominently on the list of media utilized by Reich's Office of Public Diplomacy to disseminate
(4/8) "black propaganda" attempting to smear the Nicaraguan Governments reputation in the 1980s. It appears as though such efforts have been revived in the case of Venezuela.
An article by Jackson Diehl, "Chávez's Censorship: Where Disrespect Can Land You in Jail" (Washington Post, Monday, March 28, 2005, p.A17), attempts to convince readers that a reformed Penal Code in Venezuela is somehow a repressive tool of an authoritarian regime.
Diehl references Article 147: "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light." Yet this journalist fails to mention U.S. laws on the same subject matter, which are actually much stricter and truly repressive.
Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 871, "Threats Against the President or his Successors" provides for up to five years of prison for any kind of "threat" against a U.S. President, Vice-President, his spouse or any one in the succession line who could become President, which includes a grand portion of Congress. Section 871 has been used to jail individuals for telling a U.S. President he "sucks".
informing a President that, "God will hold you to account, Mr. President", or for wearing "anti-war" or "anti-Bush" t-shirts. And lest we forget the more than 1800 protestors jailed during the August 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City for the crime ofprotesting the president."
You can't just say the CIA assassinated thousands of people you need evidence even if it is just one defector. I also think there is more than a fine line between "threats" and "disrespectful" speech. I liked the video but have a few questions namely, if "capitalists" are taking advantage of workers in the C+L+S model then why do the workers work for the "capitalists"?
I graciously refer you to the posts by my comrade AnarchistUndergound2 who has already listed a few of the CIA crimes earlier, but there are of course more. The assignation program Operation Phoenix in Vietnam. Thousands of innocent people were killed on information gained through torture; shit they were throwing people from helicopters to threaten the other captives. The US intelligence agencies had a hand in Hugo Chavez's kidnapping.
Which probably would have also turned to murder had not the coup plotters lost their nerve when the people arose in mass support of Chavez. I'm glad you liked the video, Brendan does good work, you should check out his other stuff if you get the chance. The people work for the capitalists because in the capitalist system you have little other choice.
It is the capitalists that control the means of production and the access to recourses, and therefore access to a majority of the jobs. There are places such as Argentina, were this has been changing. There we are seeing the successful takeover of companies that were going to close by their employees and they then run them as cooperatives. But it has been a struggle, both legally and even sometimes physically.
What is required is a sort of mass action and a change in thought that hasn't quite occurred here yet. But thanks to the Neo-Liberal policies that have brought home to us the consequences of their unfettered capitalism in the form of the current crisis that may change. Perhaps, or perhaps it will take an even worse crises, there is so much capitalist dogma here.
PS - watch brendan's vid "Ker-Plunk" its F*ing funny, but be sure to turn the Closed Captions to "on"
Wm. Shirer, in that great book THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, points out that Hitler was on the extreme right. That doesn't mean right as in conservative...many rightists have used big gov't to protect the large landowners & industrialists. ALL SOCIAL CLASSES existed under Hitler, who outlawed unions in '33. Nazis were fanatical NATIONALISTS (true socialists & commies are internationalist), with extreme patriotic fervor & racism...hardly traits of the left, socialists, commies, etc.
The country wasn't even that right wing under bush. Socially conservative, yes, but fiscally, in foreign policy and in the utter size of the government, he was a leftist. Government spending has increased massively in the U.S.A and Obama wants to spend even more.
Non-defense related spending rose by 25%, the largest increase in 30 years. He is as left as clinton. People just don't see that because he is against gay marriage.
And pre-emptive invasions are not something a right wing government would ever do.
Right wing is incompatible with such large government. They can call themselves right wing, but that doesn't make it true. North Korea is calls itself a "democratic republic", but that doesn't make it either of those.
First of all, Clinton wasn't that left. Second, Bush is totally right wing. I don't just mean gay marriage. I'm talking about abortion, intelligent design, the way he wants to educate children, the economy (the bail out is of course a socialist exception) every other view is in opposition with mine. It is true that Republicans want to shrink govt, yet they always grow it. I don't call that them being left, I call that them being hypocrites. Never say that Bush is like me.
Exactly. They are hypocrites. Because while they are republicans, they are not conservatives. The Republican party stopped being conservative a long time ago.
Clinton wasn't far left. He was regular left. I liked clinton. I didn't agree with everything he did (things like the kosovo NATO mission). George Bush also isn't far left. But he is left wing, and farther left than most republicans (mccain is the same way).
Being against gay marriage and abortion and being for creationism (intelligent design is a weasel word designed to take people off guard and make them thing there is something intelligent about creationism) are typically considered right wing positions, but they aren't right wing. Religious issues like that aren't confined to the political spectrum, they are just typically taken by republicans.
As for the economy, Bush was a leftist, but isntead of giving government breaks to the little people, he gave them to corrupt business men. He's a rich mans socialist, as opposed to a poor mans socialist.
McCain used to be farther left than most Republicans. I believe he is now, again. However, over the past years, he's been changing his views to fit with the hard core Republicans. There's no such thing as a rich man's socialist. Socialism stops social classes. What Bush did was define them more.
I didn't mean he's an actual socialist or he wants actual socialism. He utilizes socialist tactics and policies to achieve his own selfish ends, at the expense of the people.
McCain possibly used to be a real conservative, but the fact that he changed his tune so easily for the election throws his entire political history into question.
And the hard core republicans are anything but conservative
The government has a terrible record handling money. Half that 700 billion given to CEO's is going in the pockets of the shareholders. What a wonderful use of taxpayer money.
Medicare is a festering pit.
Social Security has basically been lost.
And people want to trust a bumbling, incompetant government, full of bloodsucking, greedy politicians, with more of their money? It's madness.
Even if Obama is different than the rest (I don't believe he is), he won't be able to control the 600 others
Everything you said their is totally true, besides the last thing. I think that this corruption began easily and can end easily. All we need is a strong president who is not willing to compromise on these subjects, really. I do not know if Obama will do this. But I am definitely sure he will be better than the Republicans who started most of those problems.
It's been corrupt for more than a century, horribly corrupt for at least 4 1/2 decades, and it has become so entrenched you can't just get rid of it, especially when one party has the majority, the power they will get to enact whatever comes their way in the house and senate will be too great a temptation to resist.
I know a little socialism is good. If there is a government that works, there has to be mild socialism. I'm not an anarchist; we need government. Its when the government starts monitering individual behaviour, telling me how much and what I can smoke, telling me I have to wear a helmet or a seatbelt, telling me what I can use to grow plants, etc. These laws are already in place. I don't want more tiny steps towards socialism, I want to get rid of these arbitrary laws we already have
You are correct, democrats themselves are rarely socialist. The democratic leadership, on the other hand, Pelosi, Reid and Dean, and Obama as well, are extremely socialist (the fact that they haven't been able to implement all their plans does not mean they aren't)
Still, you seem much more well spoken and intelligent than most kids your age who I know or talk to. I vehemently disagree with most of what you say, but I have to give you respect for that.
I read all your comments. I do not believe that Pelosi and Obama are socialist, although they do have some socialist ideas. Some of the greatest institutions in this country are socialist, for example, the public library system. I think that the countries with the best health care systems have socialized medicines. Now, socializing medicine isn't enough, because it can be totally unfair. The government has to come up with as fair of a plan as they can.
Right, I don't want to be forced to pay for a heavy smoker's bill. However, I do believe that every single person deserves and should have a health care plan. Everyone. No exceptions. In Obama's plan, if you like your health care plan, you keep it. If you don't you get a new better one. If your eployer isn't supplying you any coverage, he or she is forced to. I think that is totally fair and right.
You are one of the first conservatives (at least I think you are) that sees that a little socialism is good. You mentioned two more of the important socialist establishments we have. However, I do not believe that with a modified socialism (like Barack's health care plan) freedom is taken. You are not forced to go to a certain doctor. You can always pay a little more to have better treatment. Still, everyone gets coverage. That's not taking away freedom. It's giving help.
It won't take freedom away right away. But down the road it will. For example, in Canada (and some places in the U.S, massachusetts comes to mind) they banned Trans Fats, because they are unhealthy and put an undue strain on health care. KFC no longer tastes good (because their recipe depended on trans fats) so now I no longer eat at what was once my favorite restaurants. All because of socialised health care.
Socialism isn't reached with leaps and bounds, but baby steps
It's these arbitrary laws that bother me. It's not the principle of giving everyone health care that bothers me. It is an inherently noble plan. It's the implementation that brings problems, both in cost and laws. Face it, with socialised health care, laws restricting freedoms are inevitable, because if it's all about being fair, smokers and fat people and people who don't wear helmets biking, etc, etc, will have their individual sovereignty (something I believe in strongly) impeded.
I live in Canada, so I know the fallacy of socialised medicine. How would you like to wait a year and a half to receive treatment for a spinal disk herniation (an extremely painful condition that makes it excrutiating to even sit, let alone stand) only to be bumped down the waiting list for a fucking hockey player?
The more socialism there is in any given country or state or w/e, the less freedom the people have. This is true of everywhere it has been tried, with no exceptions
There is nothing wrong with mild, contained socialism for things that everyone legitimately needs. The police force and firefighters come to mind. Health care does NOT fall into this category. Why should everyone else contribute to my future health care, which will be massive because I'm a heavy smoker? People who never smoked have to pay for my own self inflicted miseries?
Obama isnt a socialist? What about the fact that he twice (in 2001 and 2003) claimed that he wished that he would use the courts and legislation to redistribute capital. That is socialism. Not to mention the fact that his two self proclaimed mentors were a communist(frank marshall davis) and a racist socialist (wright). He surrounds himself with self proclaimed marxists (ayers is one example), his campaign offices are adorned by posters of che. He reeks of socialism.
you like being told what to do
promometalmedia 1 week ago
Socialism is simply central planning! Yes it's used to describe government nationalizing private enterprise and redistribution of wealth. Its main principle is the central planning
wordfaith77840 4 months ago
Democrats would do well to follow socialist ideas. I hope that in the time between your post of this video and today, 2 1/2 years, that you have learned a lot more about the benefits of socialism than you once knew.
Keep up the good work, and keep learning!
tabhorian 9 months ago
This kid is just another sniveling lib. I don't advocate bad language but this kid is crying the blues about people calling him names and he's saying that he's only young and learning. Well, here's some news. Learning is life long. Age is not an issue here. Anyone who spews the trash that this kid is talking is fair game for criticism. This kid is a typical brainwashed misguided liberal obamazombie. He's endorsing Obama, but Herman Cain or Tim Pawlenty are the real presidential candidates.
gfp163 9 months ago
That definition of socialism is just one type. Democratic socialism is distinctly different from this. The most important tenant of democratic socialism is the democratization of the economy, where-in workers make the decisions along with their bosses democratically. We do not advocate the dismantling of democracy, but rather, it's expansion into the workplace, along with some social programs like healthcare and education. That is democratic socialism, and it is certainly NOT evil.
merchan5967 10 months ago
@merchan5967 What's a democratic socialism? I thought socialism was democratic by itself. There's no need in expanding democracy to the work place. That was socialist ideal all along.
"workers make the decisions democratically" - that's the very definition of it.
SloveintzWend 9 months ago
@SloveintzWend Well the type of socialism referred to in this video is called state socialism, in which the means of production are owned not by workers, but by the government. Really though, you are right. "state socialism" can more appropriately be call Bolshevism because it empowers government, rather than workers. This precludes it from being true socialism. That is what most people do not understand. Socialism is not about the government, it is about workers. So I stand corrected. Thanks.
merchan5967 9 months ago
you're great. keep up the good work.
claywoman 10 months ago
do you even know what communism is. Communism has no government, no capital, and no nations. Socialism is not communism, learn the difference. The parties call themselves communist as they believe one day the can lead a nation and the world that way. You need an English lesson.
Britt599 11 months ago
do you even know what communism is. Communism has no government, no capital, and no nations. Socialism is not communism, learn the difference. The parties call themselves communist as they believe one day the can lead a nation and the world that way. You need an English lesson.
Britt599 11 months ago
Yet the industry collapsed and was bailed out with your (well, your parents' anyways) money. What amount of control does the government have on tennis shoes? Next to none, they hardly bother with them. Have you heard of any tennis shoe crises lately?
10. I think Barack Obama's stunning (lack of) success has done enough here that I don't need to touch on that.
SuperBob478 1 year ago
Or how about the FDIC, which guarantees that the government will hand the banks money if they manage themselves poorly, at taxpayer expense? Or what of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? These held or guaranteed the vast majority of the bad mortgages. And, who ran them? The government. So, no, the government has much control of banking (like the Community Redevelopment Act, which encouraged banks to make bad loans to people who couldn't afford them, so long as those people were black or brown).
SuperBob478 1 year ago
All of them had the power to stop the bad practices. So, if government is so beneficient, why didn't they? Also, if you know anything (I can't assume you do as I do not personally know you) about banking, you'll know that by and large, interest rates are their most important "prices" on their "goods/services." Who sets these rates, the banks? Nope. The Federal Reserve, an agent of the government (which was lobbied for by banks before its 1913 creation).
SuperBob478 1 year ago
9. As far as banking goes, I'm sorry my friend but you are speaking directly out of your ass (forgive this limited instance of profanity). The banking industry has been the single most government-cozy business in America for over 100 years. If you think the government has or had no control over banking, ask yourself this: were their government regulators of banking prior to our crisis? Well, yes of course. There were at least half a dozen.
SuperBob478 1 year ago
People who don't own the property they are using quickly use it as much as possible, before others do. This is called the Tragedy of the Commons. For simple proof, examine ranchers on public land, or overfishing. The government "must" regulate these areas only because the government has prevented private property. If property rights were actually respected and defended environmental problems would be far less problematic. For good info on this, look up Walter Block on environmental economics.
SuperBob478 1 year ago
8. Environmental damage is a violation of property rights. This is axiomatically true, since pollution is a damage, and damages are a violation of property. Once, pollution was grounds for a lawsuit (during the 1800s). This changed when the courts began ruling in the 1800s that the growth of industry was good, so individuals who were damaged by industry would just have to suck it up. In reality, private owners have incentive to treat their property well, and sue people who damage it.
SuperBob478 1 year ago
Had they been forced to do so, they would have starved. Same goes for minimum wage. If indeed the minimum wage is such a lovely and workable idea, why not make it 100 dollars an hour so we can all enjoy wealth and privelege? The answers here, I think are self evident, but if you doubt me (which I hope you do) then read into Thomas Sowell's economics books. "Basic Economics" by Sowell is a wonderful, interesting, and thoroughly readable book.
SuperBob478 1 year ago
Government has no such check, because they simply take what they want--er, what is in the best interests of the people they're stealing from, of course.
7. Investigate your supposedly beneficient social "reforms." The 40-hour workday, for example. Tell me, if the government can introduce meaningful reform, why didn't they pass the 40-hour workday in 1800? Well, the answer is obvious. In 1800, there wasn't enough capital to allow people to work only 40 hours a week.
SuperBob478 1 year ago
. Yes, companies exist to make money, but this is a good thing. Money is a socially-created good that allows easy determination of the value of goods and services. If someone makes a lot of money in the market, its because people are voluntarily giving it to them. Why? Becaue those people value the goods and services that the person or company provides. If they don't value them anymore, they stop making money (for example, no one values typewriters anymore, so they went out of business).
SuperBob478 1 year ago
Why? Because the government then provided "quality testers" to ensure no bad meat was to be passed on to the consumer, and this was done at *taxpayer* expense. Previously, companies had to pay for this, but wonderfully, the government would now rob the consumer at the behest of the meatpackers' balance line.
5. As far a "corruption" goes, corruption can only exist where power exists. Gov't corruption cannot be avoided because the government is a monopoly. More gov'tm more power more corrupt.
SuperBob478 1 year ago
4. There were indeed monopolies in the Gilded Age, but as basic economics can tell you, true monopolies can only be formed with state power (and most were in the Gilded Age). Was there bad meat? Some, yes of course. But really investigate Upton Sinclair's work "The Jungle," and you will find that it was written after most meatpackers had already improved their standards of their own accord. The subsequent "regulation" that you laud, was actually lobbied for *by the meatpackers themselves*.
SuperBob478 1 year ago
Now when a business wants the government to protect it, it lobbies on behalf of the "consumer," but of course we are not the benefactors.[I would suggest reading F.A. Hayek if you care to learn about government-business partnerships and the harm they bring. Again, available on Mises.org for free.]
SuperBob478 1 year ago
How about the manifold government subsidies for railroads in general, or for canal building? What of the government-granted monopolies on ferry transport? What of government-set shipping prices? What of the government closure of the Pony Express to end its competition with the Post Office? What of the high tariff rate specifically designed to protect American industry? Though you might not call these "regulations," they are, they simply were more overt than now.
SuperBob478 1 year ago
3. It is outright falsehood to say the Gilded Age involves a hands-off period of government. Your government-provided textbooks might tell you this (hmmm, I wonder why?) but it is patently untrue. Ask your history teacher this: if the government didn't intervene in the economy during the Gilded Age, how do you explain the Union-Pacific transcontinental line, fully financed by the federal government?
SuperBob478 1 year ago
They were ardent supporters of combining the power of big business with the state. If you care for proof, read into John Dewey, a leading progressive thinker of the time (yes, he also invented the library organization system). So, in a way, you're right, we don't have socialism we have corporatism. But the difference is minute, and if you really think it isn't, consider that the most famous corporatists were the fascists, and they openly proclaimed themselves socialists in their party titles.
SuperBob478 1 year ago
2. Much of what we have in this country could be described as corporatism, which is the system favored by the fascists of Italy, and subsequently also of Germany and several other European states. This model was in vogue throughout the early 20th century, and the fascists were actually inspired by the American "triumphs" of combining big business with the state during WWI, under the Progressives. Read up on your beloved Progressives that supposedly ended the Gilded age.
SuperBob478 1 year ago
Government taxes and regulations are a violation of this exclusive use, and thus confer upon government de facto ownership, if not de jure. This of course implies that both parties are socialists, which indeed they are. Murray Rothbard or John Locke are good sources to begin with here [You said you were trying to learn, if you really intend to learn, these works are readily available on Mises.org for free.]
SuperBob478 1 year ago
Each one of these are owned and operated directly by the government, so in the strictest sense, we DO have socialism. Also, even in those areas where supposedly freedom persists, government "regulation" is still socialism, and here's why: ownership can be defined simply as the exclusive right to use. If this exclusive right is violated (for example, if a woman is raped or your TV is stolen) then someone else has violated the owner.
SuperBob478 1 year ago
2. Your definition of socialism is technically correct. Your interpretation, however, is incomplete. You posit that Democrats and Republicans are not socialists because they do not support overt control of capital (businesses, for simplification) by the state. Well, the Post Office, the roads, the military, fire departments, police departments, schools, and now GM, health-care, and the college loan industry, are all directly owned and operated by government.
SuperBob478 1 year ago
You're both right and wrong. I will post this in parts, since there is a cap.
I will address your video chronologically:
1. You're right, YouTube posters are overwhelmingly underwhelming; they seem to be 50% mean, 49% uninformed, and 1% seem to sometimes make sense. I hope you will count me among these lucky few.
SuperBob478 1 year ago
When i first watched this i had no intent in calling you anything rude but i felt intimidated soooo with that in mind... YOUR A FUCKING MORON YOU SOUND LIKE A MAN!!... p.s you seem very intelIgent and i wish you the best in whatever you want to take on =D.
02082005433 1 year ago
"Politics" not "Poloctics" - Obama is a corporatist anyway, not a socialist. In any case, when you have the government having a say in any form of economics, it's disasterous. When a government controls prices, controls salaries, controls tax breaks for certain types of companies and not for others, when government bails out companies, it's socialism. I lived in the socialist country of France for many years and there is NO customer service. Imagine the DMV and Post office service everywhere!
nellieou 1 year ago
Comment removed
nellieou 1 year ago
Socialism isn't a type of government. Communism is the government, socialism discusses more economic not political. Though if you want to speak of socialism, & how "evil" it is, then name some, hm, was the writer of the pledge evil? he was a socialist. Were civil rights leaders evil? Many of them were admitted socialist. Were past presidents who wanted equality for all evil? Debs was defeated for that very thing. If we must speak of socialism, let us speak of the positive socialist as well.
waxxjf 1 year ago
Socialism is NOT a type of government. A high school government class would teach you that.
Also, a decent Economics class (most likely a college class) will teach you why the Great Depression really happened...
And the government should NEVER be in charge of picking winners and losers in business - that is a major form of socialism, albeit in its early, festering stages.
pieinurface11 1 year ago
Democrats are fascist-lite. Obama is just a repackaged, more intelligent form of Bush.
Supporting them is simply propping up a corrupt, failing system. Go red.
MrRedFredSaid 2 years ago
No, you think that all forms of socialism theorized in the history of man are where the government controls the economy directly. Read a book you didn't get from a public school.
BobTheSocialist 2 years ago
Not all Democrats are socialists.
BobTheSocialist 2 years ago
Socialism can be where the people control the means of production. It doesn't have to be the state..."socialism" is a very broad term.
BobTheSocialist 2 years ago
I am 13, and I watch your videos. Still, I disagree almost everything you agree with. Socialism also means this health care reform that Obama wants.
agarrett707 2 years ago
socialism is democratic though. just like under capitalism, you vote, the only difference is that you arent forced to vote for corporate puppets, but actual working class people with qualifications other than their pocket books
GenitalMutilation666 2 years ago
Exactly, I couldn't have put it better myself
haMMy27691 2 years ago
I can't determine your gender.
JHBowden79 2 years ago
"With too little controls, the banks made terrible mortgage deals"
No, they were forced by the Community Reinvestment Act to give mortgages to poor people. Bankers knew this was a bad risk, so they tried to find ways to mitigate the risk. Then, when people couldn't pay their mortgages, was the blame put on stupid regulations? Was it put on people who took on mortgages they couldn't afford? No. They blamed the banks. It's like blaming a kid for doing what his parents made him do.
nine9s 2 years ago
The reason that Democrats get called socialists is because they share the basic principle as the socialists: namely, that it's the government's job to make sure everyone has a certain minimum standard of living. Those who call themselves socialists differ from Democrats only in the degree to which they think the government should be involved in the economy. It's a difference in degree, not in principle. In effect, Democrats are socialists who lack the courage of their convictions.
nine9s 2 years ago
There's truth to that...but the Republicans are often called fasicst because they share a liking for some of the basic principals of fascism: a world that is run by large corporations; playing on people's emotions with super nationalistic rhetoric, backed by sometimes fanatical patriotism...the old, if you're not for what we believe, you're not a real patriot, etc. Fascists have also used religion, if it serves their purpose (see Franco, even Hitler & Mussolini).
ciraldofan 2 years ago
"basic principals of fascism: a world that is run by large corporations"
In every fascist regime de facto control over the economy has fallen in the hands of the government, to a few select but replaceable business leaders.
However, the concept of corporatism has nothing to do with your rabid modern day obsession with large business corporations, and in fact Noam Chomsky supports a form of coproratism himself, ie syndicalism.
smoochym 2 years ago
Moreover, it's often claimed Mussolini is the father of Fascism, and his life story certainly highlights it's socialist origins.
His parents were socialists, he was named after socialists, he started a socialist newspaper, he joined the socialist party of Italy etc.
His only problem was that it wasn't nationalistic enough, hence Fascism.
smoochym 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check Out My Channel to Hear What Socialists Have to Say.
ClevelandFIST 2 years ago
No, the most misused word is liberalism. The democrats are not socialist, but the democrats are what in Europe would be called social democrats. That in practice means that you do want to own parts of the means of production, like schools, and you do want to control the rest, because you think politicians are better at running companies, like banks, than businessmen are. As you say, you want controls. That is NOT liberal. That *is* social democracy.
So socialism is the second most misused word.
regebro 2 years ago
Why should government officials be allowed to choose which businesses fail & which get "saved." A formula for corruption.
Without government protection, no abusive monopoly can survive. Too much incentive for competitors to offer a better alternative.
If individuals owned the land & waterways, there would be incentive to protect it from polluters.
Banking industry is one of the most regulated industries. When one regulates entire industries, mistakes are large in scale, & thus devastating.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
Suggestion: Question what you've been taught, as much as you probably will question my statements. There are other explanations for the problems we have today.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
You don't know what Socialism means or is which is why you cannot explain why "controls" are not Socialist. Its also why you cannot explain that Nationalization (which Obama did and the Dems fully support) is fascism, or accurately refute it.
Socialization is socialism, while Nationalization is fascism. The difference between socialism and fascism is rooted in the building of a mythological base (hence Obama worship). All collectivism believes the gov should push "social goals." Yes you did.
TheAtomicpope 2 years ago
Under the Nazis & Italian fascists, there was very little nationalization of industry. Hitler was actually funded by wealthy capitalists (Emil Kirdorf, Albert Voegler, Fritz Thyssen, Krupp Steel, etc.). He paid them back by outlawing unions on 5/2/33, then setting up the Nazi Labor Front, which FAVORED MANAGEMENT. According to Braun, "The German Economy in the 20th Century," the nazis actually kept taxes low, while wages for working class fell 25% between 1933-38. Nazis not true socialists.
ciraldofan 2 years ago
You can regulate captialism? really? Socialism is govt control? Who would call China communist now? It is economy is under state capitialism. Kid your pol partys are both on the right wing of the pol spectrum. Time to hit the books and take some lessons in Marxist thinking and you will learn that it is the working class that is control, not the gov or the ruling class.
radoa1 2 years ago
this kid does make alot more sense than alot of grown people on youtube. to all the people saying because he is a kid he doesnt know anything you are gravely mistaken. do not assume because somebody is a kid they are stupid, like 100 years ago men assumed women were stupid because they were women. im glad somebody has chosen to show the differences to people to stop these hysterical conservatives calling anything that disagrees a "socialist"
amness1a 2 years ago
LOL. Socialism will only cost you all your rights the U.S. Consitution protectes.
Tabooga65 2 years ago 2
While I see what you are trying to do. I feel you still have a lot to learn grasshopper. Socialism does not happen over night. We are ON THE ROAD TO SOCIALISM. It is progressive. I would advise you to listen to some Ron Paul interviews on socialism.
Please for our countries sake think for yourself and question authority. The most addictive and abused drug is power.
guitboxfiddler 2 years ago
This kid has more sense then a lot of adults I know.
smezec 2 years ago
You have much to learn.
Auggie56 2 years ago
You know, the reason behind the banks giving out bad loans ("toxic" loans) is because the democratic run govenrment told these banks that if they didn't give out these loans then they'd have more and more regulations and so on..
oh and by the way...to think that it's possible for humans to cause such an increase in pollution or to change the weather, whether it's warmer or cooler, is a completely rediculous. We as humans do not have that much power or ability to influence a change in weather
taylor22222222 3 years ago
hey KID! are u watching the news these days?? why is big brother buying up the banks and real estate industry and the treasury!!!!!! SOCIALISM IS BUYING UP ALL THE GOVERMENT.
fireamracing 3 years ago 2
This trend continues - The USA is no different from any other genocidal imperialist power in history.
AnarchistUndrground2 3 years ago
1964 Brazil — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of J Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty in history. General Branco will create Latin Americas first death squads, or bands of secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these communist are no more than Brancos political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death squads.
AnarchistUndrground2 3 years ago
1965 Indonesia — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor, General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being "communist." The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.
AnarchistUndrground2 3 years ago
Dominican Republic — A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the countrys elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.Greece — With the CIAs backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.
AnarchistUndrground2 3 years ago
1970 Cambodia — The CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people.
AnarchistUndrground2 3 years ago
1971 Bolivia — After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.
AnarchistUndrground2 3 years ago
1973 Chile — The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin Americas first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.
AnarchistUndrground2 3 years ago
Angola — Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.
AnarchistUndrground2 3 years ago
1980 El Salvador — The Archbishop, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter to stop aiding the government slaughtering his people.Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader R DAubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war.CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the gov with overwhelming military and intelligence superiority.CIA death squads roam the countryside. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.
AnarchistUndrground2 3 years ago
Go back to North Korea!
68mofa 3 years ago
1953 Iran CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.
AnarchistUndrground2 3 years ago
1954 Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.
AnarchistUndrground2 3 years ago
1957-197 Laos — The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine" of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIAs army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II.
AnarchistUndrground2 3 years ago
1959 - Haiti, The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes," who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal human rights record.
AnarchistUndrground2 3 years ago
1963 Dominican Republic — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta. Ecuador — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.
AnarchistUndrground2 3 years ago
hmms, democrats vs libertarians, libertarians vs conservatives, conservatives vs facists. I don't care for any of them, nationalize the industry and take it over. Its our best bet for a stable economy, that WILL create welfare.
Gufberg 3 years ago
I'm glad someone else recognizes that a socialist government is one that exercised absolute control rather than the in between of capitalism and communism that most people think.
zjbell01 3 years ago
Very good, well delivered. I would make one distinction though, the recent actions of the gov't giving billions to bankers, has nothing to due with socialism. It gives no control to the people and large profits are still being distributed to an elite class. It is crony capitalism at the best, or an attempt to sabotage Obama's presidency at the worst. Beware of those like heatsketch, from checking his friends it is apparent that he is a Libertarian, the worst of the rightists.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
And yea, I am a socialist. But beware of the Libertarians, they don't know their political right from left and commonly try to twist statistics and facts. It is common for them to argue that the Nazis were leftist and Hitler a Socialist, complete BS. I heard someone once call them "Paultards" I just call them Stateless-Neocons. Also, while it is common for lay people to mix in the social factors when talking about right and left, it is not technically correct.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
The absolute determiner of right and left is the position that one takes as to the ownership and distribution of capital and the means of production. The dems are to the left of the Republicans, but this is not because of their social position. After all they were also to the Left even when they were still backing American Apartheid in the 50s. They are to the left because of their support of social programs an other measure aimed more at the people than the republican business attitude.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
Although it is rare now, there is the example of Steven Crane, the author of "The Red Badge of Courage" who was a socialist but a terrible bigot, conversely there are those today that have quite liberal social views but are economically social Darwinists. These later are the Libertarians. But their social views do not make them "left". These are two separate and distinct scales, and the social one probably shouldn't even be described as right or left.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
I have to blame some of my colleagues here for not really making that distinction well enough in school. The absolute definer of the political spectrum being, in the general sense, how one feels about capitalism, it is somewhat a taboo subject here in the States, even in the higher educational levels, and I would not be surprised if even some of your teachers mixed the two improperly. And finally sorry for going long, anyway, good job, keep up the critical thinking, but enjoy life. :)
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
The Nazi Party is socialist because socialism is defined like democratskids said in his video is absolute control over the means of production. During the period leading up to 1939 the Nazi Party nationalized its entire industry for the fueling of the war machine. As stated before this is a major quality of socialism. By no means however is this government associated more with liberals than conservatives. It is a completely different government than those policymakers use in America.
zjbell01 3 years ago
So, what you're trying to tell me is that the political party that started the greatest, most destructive war in history to rid the world of the perceived menace of communism, the party that hunted and killed its own socialist citizens, just for being socialist, was a socialist party? Hitler a socialist? WOW - what a case of self hatred. Remember what Niemoller said, "First they came for the Socialists..." Sorry, no gold star for you. The academic definition of the spectrum is as I described.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
The Nazi's only nationalized those parts of industry that it felt was vital to the war effort, and even not all of those either. Vereinigte Stahlwerks and Krupp are the best known examples, but most of German business remained in private hands and made handsome profits. For a good history of the German ecomony, and why they did what they did, please read "The Wages of Destruction" By Adam Tooze.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
Communism(Marxism) is a brand of socialism. So is the Nazi party. The fact they are socialist and not capitalists is even apparent in their name. Nazi as referred to in the German language is the National Socialist German Workers Party. Notice the socialist part of the name. In fact Hitler himself stated "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system". I'm sorry but no gold star for you either.
68mofa 3 years ago
(1/4)
Please, didn't you check and see; I'm a history teacher you know. I've even taught a WWII course at the College level. You are wrong, Hitler co-opted some of the popularist socialist rhetoric to steal some of their adherents and split the leftist parties. But it was just propaganda. To argue that just because the word socialist is part of their name it must be so; is simplistic. Hitler had socialists hunted and killed first, even before race,
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(2/4)
and he purged all socialist elements remaining within the party itself during the "Night of the Long Knives" once he had power and no longer needed them. As is typical with Hitler, his words, and especially his public words, often mean little. "We have no further territorial ambitions" Remember that one? His actions, in hunting the socialists and destroying the socialist parties speak louder.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(3/4) The German economy remained a capitalist one throughout the war with large stockholders and individuals making great profits. Remember that Ford operated plants in Germany throughout the war that remained in private hands. As a matter of fact Hitler kept a large portrait of his personal hero, Ford the racist capitalist, behind his desk in his personal study.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(4/4)
It was the industrialists and the capitalists that financed the party through donations before '33; this was because of the Nazis' well understood opposition to Socialism. The "Socialist" argument for Hitler does not stand up to deeper investigation. By its very nature fascism is diametrically opposed to socialism.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
It has been my experiance that if something is named something than it usually is said thing. For instance a cat is a cat, make sense. If you are referring to Hitler's purging of the communist populous as his "fight against socialism that is easy to explain. Socialist governments can fight other socialist governments. If you remember the conflict between the USSR and China.
68mofa 3 years ago
Both had nearly identical governments yet experienced conflict. Hitlers campaign against socialism as you call it was in reality just a campaign to oust Russian influence in Germany. Nazis are still socialists. Now when you said Hitler idolized Ford that could be attributed to Ford being the father of manufacturing and Hitler admiring that factor given that manufacturing was the base of their socialist economy.
68mofa 3 years ago
Now when you stated that fascism is apposed to socialism I have to disagree. Consider the USSR which is regarded as the base socialist state. The USSR opened many concentration camps especially during Stalin's purges. The USSR opposed other cultures and races which it censored by use of concentration camps, refusing work, and moving pure Soviet citizens into those areas to dilute the populace. They were also expansionist like the Germans and oppressed many of their satellite state neighbors.
68mofa 3 years ago
These are all qualities which resemble the Nazi way of thinking.
68mofa 3 years ago
(1/3)
Michael Parenti does a good examination of the "Gulag" system in his book "Blackshirts and Reds" Among other misconceptions that it points out is the fact that even at its height during WWII the Soviet prison system was much smaller than that claimed by western propagandists, and certainly incarceration rates were generally lower than the current imprisonment rate of the US which has the highest rate, per capita and in overall numbers.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(2/3)
Once again you point to superficial semantics but the deeper examination does not give credence to the argument. The US in the 19th century was expansionist, diluted its minorities and had concentration camps. (reservations) That didn't make it socialist. You can disagree, but you are wrong. Other than Hitler himself the person most responsible for the Nazi economy was Hjalmar Schacht, hardly someone that could be accused of any socialist leanings.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(3/3)
I started this thread merely to encourage a young student in his video endeavors, not to try over come the misconceptions of every amateur historian. Please read the Tooze book I mentioned previously. Shirers "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" would also be a good start. From "From Yalta to Berlin" by W.R. Smyser is valuable for its fair treatment in its examination of the Eastern block states and the problem they faced.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
That you call yourself a teacher of history doesn't mean everyone else is amateur. Do not degrade this debate to petty insults. I never said racism was attributed solely to socialism. I merely stated that the USSR and Nazi Germany have many similarities. As for your statement about Soviets not exercising concentration estimates. Conservative estimates report that during Stalin's purges 10% of the Russian population was sent to work camps. In addition many who spoke out against the government
68mofa 3 years ago
were sent to mental institutions where they were injected with drugs that caused the "patient" to lose roughly 40 IQ points. I guess they figured that citizens couldn't revolt if they were legally retarded. No the Soviets were just as brutal as the Germans, they just committed though brutal actions over a longer period of time.
68mofa 3 years ago
Please read more about Hjalmar Schacht. For starters he was involved in policy making in prewar periods. He was also never a member of the Nazi Party. Although he helped to improve the German economy (mainly through inflationary policy) which he was revered for. He was later ousted and sent to a concentration camp in the wake of the Four Year Plan which called for the nationalization and isolation of the German economy which by the way is considered a socialist policy.
68mofa 3 years ago
(2/3)
"In 1993, for the first time, several historians gained access to previously secret Soviet police archives and were able to establish well-documented estimates of prison and labor camp populations. They found that the total population of the entire gulag as of January 1939, near the end of the great purges was 2,022,976." Michael Parenti, "Blackshirts and Reds" P79.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(3/3)
That is hardly 10%, and as stated the incarceration rate in the US is much higher than the soviet rate was. We are now approaching the 10% level here and add 1,000 new prisoners each week.
Again, one could draw superficial similarities between any two countries in any particular era. I'm not here to debate. This is not an issue in the academic world. I know what I state is correct and I have the academic degrees to back it up.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
Schacht's role is much more complicated than you infer. You really should not use Wiki as a source. Schacht started playing a role in Nazi politics when he started to appear on stage with Hitler in '31. His retirement was due to Hitler's desire to go to war at all costs and forego any real economic recovery. This was also the reason for the "Four Year" plans. they were not socialist in nature, but simply vicious expedient militaristic measures taken against a war reluctant nation.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(1/2)
"To be sure, crimes of state were committed in communist countries and many political prisoners were unjustly interned and even murdered. But the inflated numbers offered by cold-war scholars serve neither historical truth nor the cause of justice but merely help to reinforce a knee-jerk fear of those terrible reds."
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
Now by "the end of the great purges" do you mean those "political prisoners" that weren't executed or worked to death? After that fact you still have the persecution of intellectuals and the censoring of ideas which both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had in common. Censorship after all is a trait inherent in all socialist governments. If not please name one.
68mofa 3 years ago
I'm well aware that you are a history teacher. This video has 380 views so its repetition falls on few ears. As for your statements on capitalist pig Hjalmar Schacht. The fact is he was out of the political arena after Hitler enacted the Four Years Plan. Now when you say Hitler decided to go to war at all costs and forgo economic opportunity I'm guessing you acknowledge that he had full control over the economy, a major trait of socialism.
68mofa 3 years ago
I feel the labeling of Nazis as rightists is in reality an attempt to stick conservatives with a tar baby. I'm beginning to think you just hate capitalism.
68mofa 3 years ago
(1/11)
The Great Purges refers to a particular historical period during which Stalin fell victim to his paranoia and Reinhardt Heydrichs intrigues to plant evidence of a coup. And yes, Stalin was far from a saint, even most from the far left will argue that he hurt and set back socialism. Im guessing that you dont really know what Socialism is: Please go to the SPUSA web site and read their platform.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(2/11)
But nevertheless the supposed huge gulag system of the USSR doesnt stand up to scrutiny. Upon examination their overall incarceration rates, except for particular periods; the purges, the war, are on average the same or less as other western democratic countries of the time. If you are claiming mass executions of millions than where is the physical evidence? If not the present govt, than certainly the Yeltsen Govt would have had an interest in discrediting Communists.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(3/11)
Thats because there is no such evidence and there never was. You are an unfortunate victim of the continuing propaganda that was initially disseminated during the cold war.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(4/11)
Hitler had total control over every aspect of government that he wished. You are confusing totalitarianism with socialism. Totalitarianism is a major tenet of fascism, i.e. the leadership principle. The dictatorial nature that appeared in the Soviet style states was an aberration caused from their being immediately attacked upon being formed. What Parent calls Siege Socialism, but it is not part of its tenets. Socialism is a workers democracy.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(5/11)
Dont bother have to mention the dictatorship of the proletarian I suspect that you will misinterpret it. We now live in the era of the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. It is a metaphor; the dictatorship of the proletarian merely refers to the time when the workers have control and not the moneyed elites. This is a democratic control through workers councils and democratic govt. That the principles were perverted by some, either because of circumstances or personality,
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(6/11)
does not change the conflicting nature between socialism and fascism. And just to return to Stalin for a time, his control was never as absolute as was Hitlers, he still had the Politburo and the Party regulars to answer to. True, he abused his power and subdued many of his enemies even by murder, but his situation was much more complicated than Hitlers. When the Germans attacked, Stalin feared that the Politburo would remove him from power.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(7/11)
He feared this because they had the real power to do this. And once Stalin was gone, the politburo regained any of its power that it did loose. The Soviet Union was more democratic than you probably perceive. The politburo members were voted out of office with a greater frequency than those in our house and senate.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(8/11)
As to censorship; there are many different forms of censorship and there is much censorship here also, so perhaps it should be argued that it is a trait of all govts. But Im not an anarchist I think we need a little higher level of Govt, at least for a while. But there is censorship here. Ask Greg Palast the reporter. Or consider the story of the Reagan campaign members, including Bush 41, meeting with the Iranians to have them hold onto the hostages until after the election.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(9/11)
Do you really think it was a coincidence of fear that made that Iranians release them right upon Reagans election? It was convenient that they also started to get all those spare parts for their equipment too? Reagan committed treason why is that censored? Yes the Soviets censored some stuff, but mainly they censored well funded western propaganda. How much do you not know?
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(10/11)
As to naming a country that even you could probably admit fits your criteria is Venezuela. Dont bother to mention the TV stations that are going to loose their licenses. They were manipulating reports and advocating the violent overthrow of the elected govt on their broadcasts. If a TV station did what they did in the US they wouldnt have been on as long as they were in Venezuela.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(11/11)
Their licenses were allowed to run out and were not removed, if that was in the US advocating against either Bush or even now Obama, Im sure they would be off the air immediately. Really, what you are stating is just rehashed cold war propaganda, you really dont know what socialism is or what it was like in the Soviet Union. The Nazis are rightists, the historical community is clear on this. To try to claim otherwise is a misinterpretation on your part.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
What I don't get is why the KGB needs a whole entire department with tens of thousands of employees named the Department of Disinformation. They also had Division 5 of the 1st Directorate devoted to assassinations and sabotage. If they are as innocent as you say than why would they employ those services.
68mofa 3 years ago
And as for your assumption of Soviet Russia being democratic. You failed to mention the Premiers choose who sits on the politburo which means they can remove anyone who disagrees with them. The problem with socialism is that its contributors fail to realize that everyone follows incentives, including government officials. Socialism is like that evil corporation times a thousand. When you centralize power those hungry for it will follow it. I wish this wasn't so.
68mofa 3 years ago
As for Venezuela they are relatively new and the full extent of their crimes haven't all been accounted for but here's your evidence of censorship, Article 147: "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light." There is more if you want to read the article,
68mofa 3 years ago
washingtonpost/wp-dyn/articles/A5755-2005Mar27.html
68mofa 3 years ago
One of my favorite parts of the cold war since I bathe in its propaganda youtubewatch?v=mJ2iiKzVYA0.
68mofa 3 years ago
(1/8)
Hmm, I wonder how many employees are in the US spy agencies. And even if there was a Dept of Misinformation, and the source for this seems to come from a single defector in the 70's, but even if there was, so what? Don't you think the US didn't do it more? Same for assassinations; the list of US/western assignations would be much too long to list here. All you said proves nothing.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(2/8)
And I don't know where you get your information from but the Politburo proper was elected by the members of the central committee of the party, which was itself elected by party members, not appointed by anyone. And it came and went during four periods, it is less important than the Supreme Soviet. Anyway, that's what I meant to say: that the Supreme Soviet had a greater turnover rate. And don't give me any "rubber stamp" crap, the same could be said of the corporatist parties here.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(3/8)
From, venezuelanalysis(dot)com
"Recently, The Washington Post, published yet another article attempting to reinforce the false accusations repeated over and over again by State Department officials. The Post has been the media most frequently utilized to reiterate U.S. foreign policy towards Venezuela and its editorial board is unquestionably anti-Chávez. Remember, The Post figured prominently on the list of media utilized by Reich's Office of Public Diplomacy to disseminate
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(4/8) "black propaganda" attempting to smear the Nicaraguan Governments reputation in the 1980s. It appears as though such efforts have been revived in the case of Venezuela.
An article by Jackson Diehl, "Chávez's Censorship: Where Disrespect Can Land You in Jail" (Washington Post, Monday, March 28, 2005, p.A17), attempts to convince readers that a reformed Penal Code in Venezuela is somehow a repressive tool of an authoritarian regime.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(5/8)
Diehl references Article 147: "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light." Yet this journalist fails to mention U.S. laws on the same subject matter, which are actually much stricter and truly repressive.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(6/8)
Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 871, "Threats Against the President or his Successors" provides for up to five years of prison for any kind of "threat" against a U.S. President, Vice-President, his spouse or any one in the succession line who could become President, which includes a grand portion of Congress. Section 871 has been used to jail individuals for telling a U.S. President he "sucks".
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(7/8)
informing a President that, "God will hold you to account, Mr. President", or for wearing "anti-war" or "anti-Bush" t-shirts. And lest we forget the more than 1800 protestors jailed during the August 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City for the crime ofprotesting the president."
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(8/8)
So were just down to giving video posts.
Well here.
watch?v=uXSGYeppeH4&feature=channel_page
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
You can't just say the CIA assassinated thousands of people you need evidence even if it is just one defector. I also think there is more than a fine line between "threats" and "disrespectful" speech. I liked the video but have a few questions namely, if "capitalists" are taking advantage of workers in the C+L+S model then why do the workers work for the "capitalists"?
68mofa 3 years ago
(1/4)
I graciously refer you to the posts by my comrade AnarchistUndergound2 who has already listed a few of the CIA crimes earlier, but there are of course more. The assignation program Operation Phoenix in Vietnam. Thousands of innocent people were killed on information gained through torture; shit they were throwing people from helicopters to threaten the other captives. The US intelligence agencies had a hand in Hugo Chavez's kidnapping.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(2/4)
Which probably would have also turned to murder had not the coup plotters lost their nerve when the people arose in mass support of Chavez. I'm glad you liked the video, Brendan does good work, you should check out his other stuff if you get the chance. The people work for the capitalists because in the capitalist system you have little other choice.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(3/4)
It is the capitalists that control the means of production and the access to recourses, and therefore access to a majority of the jobs. There are places such as Argentina, were this has been changing. There we are seeing the successful takeover of companies that were going to close by their employees and they then run them as cooperatives. But it has been a struggle, both legally and even sometimes physically.
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
(4/4)
What is required is a sort of mass action and a change in thought that hasn't quite occurred here yet. But thanks to the Neo-Liberal policies that have brought home to us the consequences of their unfettered capitalism in the form of the current crisis that may change. Perhaps, or perhaps it will take an even worse crises, there is so much capitalist dogma here.
PS - watch brendan's vid "Ker-Plunk" its F*ing funny, but be sure to turn the Closed Captions to "on"
Rundstedt1 3 years ago
Wm. Shirer, in that great book THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, points out that Hitler was on the extreme right. That doesn't mean right as in conservative...many rightists have used big gov't to protect the large landowners & industrialists. ALL SOCIAL CLASSES existed under Hitler, who outlawed unions in '33. Nazis were fanatical NATIONALISTS (true socialists & commies are internationalist), with extreme patriotic fervor & racism...hardly traits of the left, socialists, commies, etc.
ciraldofan 3 years ago
The country wasn't even that right wing under bush. Socially conservative, yes, but fiscally, in foreign policy and in the utter size of the government, he was a leftist. Government spending has increased massively in the U.S.A and Obama wants to spend even more.
heatsketch 3 years ago
McCain was not a leftist. Government spending increased because he went the fascist way and got us into a pointless war.
Democratskids 3 years ago
Bush you mean?
Non-defense related spending rose by 25%, the largest increase in 30 years. He is as left as clinton. People just don't see that because he is against gay marriage.
And pre-emptive invasions are not something a right wing government would ever do.
Right wing is incompatible with such large government. They can call themselves right wing, but that doesn't make it true. North Korea is calls itself a "democratic republic", but that doesn't make it either of those.
heatsketch 3 years ago
First of all, Clinton wasn't that left. Second, Bush is totally right wing. I don't just mean gay marriage. I'm talking about abortion, intelligent design, the way he wants to educate children, the economy (the bail out is of course a socialist exception) every other view is in opposition with mine. It is true that Republicans want to shrink govt, yet they always grow it. I don't call that them being left, I call that them being hypocrites. Never say that Bush is like me.
Democratskids 3 years ago
Exactly. They are hypocrites. Because while they are republicans, they are not conservatives. The Republican party stopped being conservative a long time ago.
Clinton wasn't far left. He was regular left. I liked clinton. I didn't agree with everything he did (things like the kosovo NATO mission). George Bush also isn't far left. But he is left wing, and farther left than most republicans (mccain is the same way).
heatsketch 3 years ago
Being against gay marriage and abortion and being for creationism (intelligent design is a weasel word designed to take people off guard and make them thing there is something intelligent about creationism) are typically considered right wing positions, but they aren't right wing. Religious issues like that aren't confined to the political spectrum, they are just typically taken by republicans.
heatsketch 3 years ago
As for the economy, Bush was a leftist, but isntead of giving government breaks to the little people, he gave them to corrupt business men. He's a rich mans socialist, as opposed to a poor mans socialist.
heatsketch 3 years ago
McCain used to be farther left than most Republicans. I believe he is now, again. However, over the past years, he's been changing his views to fit with the hard core Republicans. There's no such thing as a rich man's socialist. Socialism stops social classes. What Bush did was define them more.
Democratskids 3 years ago
I didn't mean he's an actual socialist or he wants actual socialism. He utilizes socialist tactics and policies to achieve his own selfish ends, at the expense of the people.
McCain possibly used to be a real conservative, but the fact that he changed his tune so easily for the election throws his entire political history into question.
And the hard core republicans are anything but conservative
heatsketch 3 years ago
The government has a terrible record handling money. Half that 700 billion given to CEO's is going in the pockets of the shareholders. What a wonderful use of taxpayer money.
Medicare is a festering pit.
Social Security has basically been lost.
And people want to trust a bumbling, incompetant government, full of bloodsucking, greedy politicians, with more of their money? It's madness.
Even if Obama is different than the rest (I don't believe he is), he won't be able to control the 600 others
heatsketch 3 years ago
Everything you said their is totally true, besides the last thing. I think that this corruption began easily and can end easily. All we need is a strong president who is not willing to compromise on these subjects, really. I do not know if Obama will do this. But I am definitely sure he will be better than the Republicans who started most of those problems.
Democratskids 3 years ago
It's been corrupt for more than a century, horribly corrupt for at least 4 1/2 decades, and it has become so entrenched you can't just get rid of it, especially when one party has the majority, the power they will get to enact whatever comes their way in the house and senate will be too great a temptation to resist.
heatsketch 3 years ago
I know a little socialism is good. If there is a government that works, there has to be mild socialism. I'm not an anarchist; we need government. Its when the government starts monitering individual behaviour, telling me how much and what I can smoke, telling me I have to wear a helmet or a seatbelt, telling me what I can use to grow plants, etc. These laws are already in place. I don't want more tiny steps towards socialism, I want to get rid of these arbitrary laws we already have
heatsketch 3 years ago
You are correct, democrats themselves are rarely socialist. The democratic leadership, on the other hand, Pelosi, Reid and Dean, and Obama as well, are extremely socialist (the fact that they haven't been able to implement all their plans does not mean they aren't)
Still, you seem much more well spoken and intelligent than most kids your age who I know or talk to. I vehemently disagree with most of what you say, but I have to give you respect for that.
heatsketch 3 years ago
I read all your comments. I do not believe that Pelosi and Obama are socialist, although they do have some socialist ideas. Some of the greatest institutions in this country are socialist, for example, the public library system. I think that the countries with the best health care systems have socialized medicines. Now, socializing medicine isn't enough, because it can be totally unfair. The government has to come up with as fair of a plan as they can.
Democratskids 3 years ago
Right, I don't want to be forced to pay for a heavy smoker's bill. However, I do believe that every single person deserves and should have a health care plan. Everyone. No exceptions. In Obama's plan, if you like your health care plan, you keep it. If you don't you get a new better one. If your eployer isn't supplying you any coverage, he or she is forced to. I think that is totally fair and right.
Democratskids 3 years ago
You are one of the first conservatives (at least I think you are) that sees that a little socialism is good. You mentioned two more of the important socialist establishments we have. However, I do not believe that with a modified socialism (like Barack's health care plan) freedom is taken. You are not forced to go to a certain doctor. You can always pay a little more to have better treatment. Still, everyone gets coverage. That's not taking away freedom. It's giving help.
Democratskids 3 years ago
It won't take freedom away right away. But down the road it will. For example, in Canada (and some places in the U.S, massachusetts comes to mind) they banned Trans Fats, because they are unhealthy and put an undue strain on health care. KFC no longer tastes good (because their recipe depended on trans fats) so now I no longer eat at what was once my favorite restaurants. All because of socialised health care.
Socialism isn't reached with leaps and bounds, but baby steps
heatsketch 3 years ago
It's these arbitrary laws that bother me. It's not the principle of giving everyone health care that bothers me. It is an inherently noble plan. It's the implementation that brings problems, both in cost and laws. Face it, with socialised health care, laws restricting freedoms are inevitable, because if it's all about being fair, smokers and fat people and people who don't wear helmets biking, etc, etc, will have their individual sovereignty (something I believe in strongly) impeded.
heatsketch 3 years ago
I live in Canada, so I know the fallacy of socialised medicine. How would you like to wait a year and a half to receive treatment for a spinal disk herniation (an extremely painful condition that makes it excrutiating to even sit, let alone stand) only to be bumped down the waiting list for a fucking hockey player?
The more socialism there is in any given country or state or w/e, the less freedom the people have. This is true of everywhere it has been tried, with no exceptions
heatsketch 3 years ago
There is nothing wrong with mild, contained socialism for things that everyone legitimately needs. The police force and firefighters come to mind. Health care does NOT fall into this category. Why should everyone else contribute to my future health care, which will be massive because I'm a heavy smoker? People who never smoked have to pay for my own self inflicted miseries?
heatsketch 3 years ago
Obama isnt a socialist? What about the fact that he twice (in 2001 and 2003) claimed that he wished that he would use the courts and legislation to redistribute capital. That is socialism. Not to mention the fact that his two self proclaimed mentors were a communist(frank marshall davis) and a racist socialist (wright). He surrounds himself with self proclaimed marxists (ayers is one example), his campaign offices are adorned by posters of che. He reeks of socialism.
heatsketch 3 years ago