Ocasio-Cortez tweets and other news

This is a point we've discussed in this here thread. Hitler HATED socialism and socialists. The only reason he used the word for the name of his party was that socialism was very popular in the world at the time and he wanted to sell his party as a workers party. This isn't disputed. Hitler loathed the very idea of socialism which makes sense since socialism in its purest form is making everyone equal. Do you really think that Hitler was about that? What socialist policies did Nazi Germany have? I challenge you to actually bring some up. I know a bit about this and I know that the Nazis were social darwinist, as is evident in their social ideology, and thought the weak should perish. They also hated the previous Weimar Republic which was a lot more socialist and had welfare policies... You really think they (Nazi's) were for welfare policies? They did have some social policies, but, compared to FDRs America? If you're going to say Nazi Germany was socialist then I'd argue that America at the time was also a socialist nation.

Also, if you are saying that the Nazi's were socialist (which I disagree with) because they had a mixed model then you can't then claim that mixed economies are not socialism.

But again, I don't think they were socialists at all. If you care to read a good summary about it...here you go...
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/
"The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality."

Our businesses are actually already pretty political, no? We've certainly had businesses taking political stands before...I mean, the past year we've had people burning NIKEs and throwing out their Gillette razors...

Also, we have corporations literally paying politicians to support their causes...so I think it's far too late to complain about not wanting our businesses to be political. They are. Not only do they openly support political causes but they can also put money behind those causes. This is not just like the Koch brothers...but Chick Fil A for a while put money behind anti-LGBT groups...millions behind the cause of opposing same-sex marriage...sounds pretty political to me...

Also, I don't think anyone here is asking for private businesses to be taken over by the government. I think what people want is a better safety net personally, then not be wage slaves, if you work a full time job you should be able to live comfortably and be able to handle a $400 emergency...and not debt slaves after coming out of college, that would be nice too...and oh yeah...I keep asking this question and no one answers it...Why the Flip do prisons make profit off of prison labor? This is slavery. You can argue that people 'deserve' it since they are prisoners but then again...this means the prisons have an incentive to lock up people and keep them locked up...

Ah, I see you then also think Norway is socialist and that mixed economies are socialist? America also has a mixed economy and I doubt Norway or the Nordic countries are due for failure anytime soon.

 

Hitler wasn’t a socialist. He hated socialists.

Large scale refugee immigration from the Middle East into Western Europe has been an absolute disaster.

The meaning of modern socialism doesn’t seem to be understood well based on its use in this thread.

Also I don’t know any Democrats that like China or their government or leaders. The same is true with North Korea and Russia.

 

I am on the move so not a lot of time to reply but socialism is a selling point. What you get is not what you pay for. See: the Nazis. These wonderful ideas always turn sour because if the human element and power dynamics. Things socialists love to ignore in order to write fantasy utopias where everyone is equal. Sorry but some pigs are more equal than others.

Also you are mad if you think making companies into government run hell holes is wise. Absolutely mad. I acknowledged there is a political connection already but you want to make it worse. Go on ahead and see how that works out.

 

Spoiler

Her nose looks normal to me. But those eyes...

She knows how to speak to people's emotion which is a gift. She has it. But she routinely Trumps facts. Meaning she just kind of pulls them out of her pocket. She may mature into a more skilled speaker. Or just continue to fly by the seat of her pants.

 

It's too early to do an extensive line by line reply, so I'm just going to paste this in here, and hope it makes sense.

******

BruceAndre said: ↑

Until the recent Muslim (ahem) "migration," Nordic countries were very ethnically homogeneous. Still are, despite the (ahem) migration.

What does the (ahem) mean here? Isn't it simply immigration?


No, it isn’t “simply immigration.” There are at least a handful of left wing agendas going on, that are exerting a “pull” to bring in immigrants: a) import more workers to boost taxes to pay for social programs. Those programs are beginning to fail due to lack of funding, due to declining fertility b) import more workers to vote for the party that will keep social programs going and expanding, because the original or native population does not support such programs c) import peoples who will undermine the original culture of that nation, because the original culture is “racist/oppressive.” In the case of the US, we can see it in the wall debate. In the case of Europe, NGOs go out to the poorer countries and tell potential migrants where to go to receive welfare benefits, how to get there etc. This is well documented in the “Strange Death of Europe” book.

This can't be discounted when talking about national healthcare systems.

A national healthcare system is much more feasible (although I won't say desirable) when you have an affluent, homogenous population -- like the Scandinavian/Nordic countries.

When you have large heterogeneous populations, with varying income levels, you are going to have multiple and varying health care challenges, which tax and burden the system more, making a national healthcare system less feasible (and less desirable I would say).

On it's face, this makes no sense.
Essentially: if everyone is a similar race (i.e. white), healthcare is easier. How on earth is this true? I'm open to seeing evidence, if there is any.

Okay. Here’s an example: a certain race gets sickle cell disease/anemia. I’m pretty sure it’s only that race that suffers from that disease. So here we have an example of a racial biological difference, that has nothing to do with past real or perceived grievances.

And that’s just one example. If I put my mind to it, I bet I could come up with a number of other examples of racial differences that are simply due to biological differences. So, clearly, there are varied health/healthcare outcomes among racial groups, that have nothing to do with “institutional oppression/racism” or the like. My main point in all this is that I hope someday we can being to talk about these kinds of things without someone screaming “racist/Nazi.”

Also, that’s what I mean by “race realism.” There are at least some basic biological differences between the races, that have nothing to do with real or perceived discrimination/oppression.

Are you saying that Scandinavian nations have fewer poor people, and therefore healthcare is easier to provide? If so, why do these so-called "socialist" nations have so few poor people?

That would take a long essay to fully cover. But as I think has been discussed elsewhere in D&D, most of these Scandinavian countries are not out and out communist/socialist. Rather, they have a strong free market and economy which in turn enables them to have huge welfare states. Norway is the classic example. Its oil production (most notably, among other things) enables that country to have an expansive social welfare state.

In turn, since it is an affluent country, its (native) people are generally healthier. If the (native) people are healthier, they burden the healthcare system less, which enables it to keep going. It’s generally true that the more you burden a system, the more likely it is to break down.

Now, these countries are starting to import more immigrants from the 3rd world and poorer countries, just to have more workers and more taxpayers, due to declining fertility (and the reason for that is another whole debate).

Thing is, these “new arrivals” are not always ready to participate in a modern economy, and they have health challenges the native/original population does not have; so they place excessive burdens on the welfare/social system almost right from the start. And that’s to say nothing of increasing crime/rape/assault etc.

So, yes, when the Scandinavian populations were smaller, more affluent, and more homogeneous, it made a strong welfare state more viable (again, I won’t say “desirable”).

Are there so few wealthy people in America, that it can't afford universal healthcare? What does that say about American so-called "wealth"?

When everyone pays into a universal healthcare system, the costs per capita are so low that the lower middle class can afford it, and it's not expensive to assist the poor with it.

There’s a lot to unpack here, and frankly it would also take another long essay to do so, which I don’t have the time for and maybe you don’t wish to read. But I think it’s a fallacy (or at least questionable) to describe the US a “rich country” when we’re 21 trillion in debt.

Yes, a lot of Americans have a decent amount (or at least some) disposable income. But since we are 21 trillion in debt, many of those same Americans think it’s a horrific idea to launch yet another government social program, that will increase the debt even further.

You mention a universal health care system, and suggest that costs will be low. But inevitably, the government will be involved, and here’s the thing – the government cannot do much of anything efficiently. Its needs for more revenue will never cease, and never decrease. That’s how we are 21 trillion in debt. Some say “universal health care will lower costs.” Unfortunately, that’s not the track record of the federal government.

I could keep going on this point, but taxpayers are getting increasingly tired of funding other people’s lives, and very often, their poor life choices that burden an already over-burdened health care system.

And yes, race realism is a thing. [Internet breaks and Clutchfans D&D implodes]

"I just directly said that brown people are poor and make it impossible for us to have nice things, but I'm not a racist" is a thing.

And see, that type of snarky comment is exactly why I made that post. I’ve explained my view of “race realism” above. Yes, some people start to get into IQ questions as well, and I think that’s a legitimate question too. But let’s leave that alone for right now.

My main point is that we cannot have an honest and real dialogue about race and related issues if we ignore basic biological differences; and someone screams “OMG racism” every time the discussion starts. (BTW, did I say “brown” anywhere? No, I didn’t. You imputed that to me.)

And if we can’t have a “real” discussion, then really we are just expelling CO2 and not getting much of anywhere.

 

I think Hitler was a socialist: National Socialist party and all.

Here's the difference with the communists: the communists want to benefit "the workers" (an economic class) while Hitler wanted to benefit a certain racial class.

But they both wanted to use big government to benefit certain groups, at the expense of other groups. That's socialism.

The question is, and the difference is, "who do you want to use big government to benefit?" A racial class or an economic class?

 

Hehe. "OMG Racism." Typical PC/NPC response. See my reply to Nolen if you are interested in having a legitimate discussion without bringing the "feels" into it.

 

Spoiler

 

What are you reading that makes you think the Nazis were socialists? Do you understand that Hitler purged socialists from the German political system including sending most of them to labor camps? Socialists were the Nazis number two enemy just behind Jews.

 

Can you name Nazi Germany policies that were socialist?

 

Read what I said closer. I just said he was using it as a selling point... but you don't get what you pay for.

 

First of all, name me an art school dropout who isn't a resentful socialist scum bag. Second, let's get into some Hitler shall we?

Spoiler

Winston Churchill would disagree with the lot of you.

• "Fascism was the shadow or ugly child of communism… As Fascism sprang from Communism, so Nazism developed from Fascism. Thus were set on foot those kindred movements which were destined soon to plunge the world into more hideous strife, which none can say has ended with their destruction."

But don't take his word for it.

Spoiler

• "We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism! We are against Marxism, but for true socialism! We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature! We are for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party!" Written by Joseph Goebbels and Mjölnir, Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, 1932). Translated as “Those Damned Nazis,” (propaganda pamphlet).

But let's keep going. Here are some high-level nazis talking about nazism.

Spoiler

• "Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight."
  • Joseph Goebbels, as quoted in The New York Times, “HITLERITE RIOT IN BERLIN: Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler and Lenin,” (Nov. 28, 1925) p. 4.

• "We and we alone [the Nazis] have the best social welfare measures. Everything is done for the nation. . . .The Jews are the incarnation of capitalism"
  • As quoted in I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1942-1945, Victor Klemperer, Vol. 2 , Random House, Inc. (2001) p. 317. Goebbels’ “Our Socialism” editorial was written on April 30, 1944.
  
  
• When [Hitler] talked of National-Socialism what he really meant was military-Socialism, Socialism within a framework of military discipline or, in civilian terms, police-Socialism.
  • Ernst Hanfstaengl, Hitler: The Memoir of a Nazi Insider Who Turned Against the Führer, New York: NY, Arcade Publishing, 2011, pp. 70-71
• Yes, from the Right we shall take nationalism, which has so disastrously allied itself with capitalism, and from the Left we shall take Socialism, which has made such an unhappy union with internationalism. Thus we shall form the National-Socialism which will be the motive force of a new Germany and a new Europe.
  • Gregor Stresser as quoted in Hitler and I, Otto Stresser, Boston: MA, Houghton Mifflin Company (1940) p. 9
• We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system!
  • Gregor Strasser, “Thoughts about the Tasks of the Future,” June 15, 1926. One-page talking points memo sent to Nazi leaders.
• The Capitalist system with its exploitation of those who are economically weak, with its robbery of the workers labour power, with its unethical way of appraising human beings by the number of things and the amount of money he possesses, instead of by their internal value and their achievements, must be replaced by a new and just economic system, in a word by German Socialism.
  • Gregor Strasser, Tradition & Revolution: Collected Writings of Troy Southgate, editors: Patrick Boch, Jacob Christiansen and John B. Morgan, UK, Arktos Media (2010) p. 66

And from the big man himself:

Spoiler

• The National Socialist State recognizes no ‘classes’. But, under the political aspect, it recognizes only citizens with absolutely equal rights and equal obligations corresponding thereto.
  • Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement, chapter 12 (1926)
• Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism.
  • Adolf Hitler "Why We Are Anti-Semites," August 15, 1920 speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus. Hitler gave this speech a number of times in August of 1920 to members of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Translated from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 16. Jahrg., 4. H. (Oct., 1968), pp. 390-420. Edited by Carolyn Yeager. [3]
• We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.
  • Adolf Hitler as quoted in Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography, John Toland, New York: NY, Anchor Books, 1992, p. 224. Quote is from a speech at the Clou restaurant center on May 1, 1927. Hitler is paraphrasing Gregor Strasser’s one-page Nazi talking points memo from June 15, 1926.
• Since we are socialists, we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism… How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist!
  • Adolf Hitler, "Why We Are Anti-Semites," August 15, 1920 speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus. Translated from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 16. Jahrg., 4. H. (Oct., 1968), pp. 390-420. Edited by Carolyn Yeager. [4]
• This German Volksgemeinschaft is truly practical socialism and therefore National Socialism in the best sense of the word. Here everyone is obligated to carry his load.
  • Adolf Hitler, as quoted in Stagnation and Renewal in Social Policy: The Rise and Fall of Policy Regimes, editors: Martin Rein, Gøsta Esping-Andersen, and Lee Rainwater (1987) p. 63.

• After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.
  • Adolf Hitler according to Otto Wagener in Hitler Memoirs of a Confidant, editor, Henry Ashby Turner, Jr., Yale University Press (1985) p. 288
  Did he "privatize" some things later on after he rose to power? Yeah, sure. He ran a mixed model for the sake of making his economy the way it needed to be to wage one of the most insane wars in history. But don't sit here and lie that Hitler wasn't a socialist.

 

I don't EVER want to hear pushback on Trump/Hitler comparisons when its getting used here for a freaking freshman Congress woman out of New York.

You know who the opposition was to Hitler, and Franco pre-WW2.... ANTIFA. The same left wing uprising that you Trump nuts obsess over. Hitler was a right wing strongman who ran as a populist for working class white Germans who were aggrieved by minority groups & other "Vermin" who they blamed for German's hardships coming out of WW1.

The insane comparison to modern Democratic Socialist forms of governing are stupid & ignorant. The only groups that Democratic Socialists share grievance towards are billionaires, corporatists, and racists. There is reason to blame the billionaires, and corporations.... there is no reason to blame the "vermin" in our society. THAT is the difference between the blame game that both political movements provide. The only thing similar is there is a blame game rather than a "let capitalism figure it out" structure.

................

I'm personally a Democratic Capitalist. I think we have a great constitution and wonderful structure of governance. Even in a Capitalist government & society we still have to rely on Socialist infrastructure for the elements of society that we need them. We NEED socialism for our fire fighters, our military, our police, etc. and with the costs the way they are, I do believe it is unsustainable if we DO NOT move towards a socialist form of HEALTH INSURANCE... not necessarily health care in general (only govt. doctors, etc.). The insurance pool absolutely needs to be socialist in nature, and is not sustainable in a pure capitalist form.

We need a few leaders like Bernie, AOC, etc. to make the argument for Socialist elements to supplement our Capitalist infrastructure so we can get consensus on moving elements to socialist where Capitalism is no longer sustainable.

I think Bernie & co. are great for our Democracy. They add value as long as they are pushing and passing legislation within the confines of our Constitution.
..................................

Donald Trump and the fascist race baiting wannabe autocratic leaders we have in this country have absolutely no place in Democracy.... PERIOD

 

Our Constitution is the framework for Democracy .. PERIOD.

Socialists in government leadership work fine as long as their legislation and laws passed follow the Democratic Constitution. I don't know why that's so damn controversial. FDR ran our country just fine as what would be a hard core Socialist in today's political environment. He did well because he followed the Constitution.

NOBODY is suggesting we ditch the Constitution or to override it with a power grab. Only one I see overreaching the Constitution right now is the fat Cheeto man sitting in the White House who refuses to even open the government unless the co-equal branch of government submits to his political will.

You want to talk about WW2 Type Facism... look at your own Freaking president.

Call me when AOC or Bernie disregard our Democratic Constitution.

 

You didn't read up in this thread. I am talking about how Hitler used socialism to rise to power and ultimately go into full tyrant mode. It is a springboard for fascism (read my first quote about that). My point is that the leftist politicians use socialism as a tool to get power and then ultimately will abandon that because humans are fickle, greedy, nasty monsters when given too much power. Calm down.

Also antifa is deplorable. You should be ashamed for framing them in a positive light. They are thugish violent idiots who use the very same fascist tactics they claim to oppose. Also they are terrorists.

 

I will defend Trump on this one and get called a conservative, but explain how Trump is like a WW2 Fascist. I don't think you can actually make a clear comparison and you are running off your anger.

 

Yes... Hitler used the German form of governance to his advantage and found the loop holes to power grab. Mainly the loop holes around use of military force to invade Poland among other war crimes.

Hitler did not have a constitution like ours with the checks and balances we have, or are supposed to have to limit the power of the presidency. There's not evidence to suggest that the political leanings of a Socialist in our government equals a higher risk of violating the Constitution. FDR is the most extreme example of a Socialist serving in a much higher position of office than Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. The Constitution held.

I never said anything positive about ANTIFA. ANTIFA is an excuse that Facists have used in the past to grab military power, and I'm sure Trump is the type of president who would LOVE for Antifa to be a bigger deal today so he can weaponize them. Its the absolute worst reaction to a fascist autocratic leader you can possibly conceive.

So no... I do NOT approve of Antifa movements. They are counter productive, and serve for nothing more than to give people like Bobby talking points about Liberals.

 

Wait...you want me to take the word of Joseph Goebbels...noted propagandist and liar?

You've revealed just what I said, that they used the term socialism to sell their party as a 'workers' party...but it wasn't socialist, even whatever source you're quoting says that after Hitler rose to power things changed and he started privatizing things. Because he sold the people socialism then did something else entirely...

Hitler and the Nazi's were famous for their lies and propaganda. That was their entire thing. Lying and propaganda and yet that's all you have to back your claims?

Not only that, some of these quotes are wrong and not true and come from Strasser and not Hitler.
Read it yourself if you are interested in the truth...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-nazis-capitalist-system/

The paraphrase is from a man Hitler had assassinated...
'By the early 1930s Strasser was head of the Nazi political organization and second only to Hitler in power and popularity. As leader of the party’s left wing, however, he opposed Hitler’s courting of big business as well as his anti-Semitism and instead favoured radical social reforms along socialist lines. He finally resigned his party offices in 1932. Hitler was able to avert large-scale losses in membership after Strasser’s defection, and, after Hitler’s accession to the chancellorship, Strasser lost almost all of his influence. He was murdered on Hitler’s orders during the [Ernst] Röhm purge of 1934.'

I ask for policy and how their government was actually run. Not that Hitler wanted to be for all people and claimed to be socialist, Hitler claimed to be many things to get power, that's how he did it.

 

Fair enough on Antifa, you just sounded like one of their sympathizers. My mistake. But I do think your opinion of Trump as a Hitler figure sounds like a fever dream and your trust in a constitution is ignoring the fact that to take power Hitler scared people into abandoning their government. The same can be done anywhere, including the United States with the right conditions and events. There are plenty of ways the Constitution is being ignored today: Free Speech zones is just one example. But moving on, there is no reason to worry about Trump being Hitlery. I would however advise you not to dismiss the thread and what we were talking about. I was just trying to provide some examples of NAZI rhetoric and show that they were very much socialists until they had their power. The same thing happened with the USSR. It is a pattern. 1. Socialism is attractive to low education voters, IE the proletariat 2. They hoist the politicians into power. 3. Profit. 4. Use force to maintain power. The proletariat be damned.

AOC wants to do some social programs but I am not really focusing in on her. I am on a tangent regarding why I think socialism just doesn't work. I honestly don't take her seriously yet since she is a first year congress woman. I guess when she gets a second term I will pay more attention to her