What lessons can Americans learn from Sweden's Democratic Socialism

[nota]

Originally Posted by Fast Freddy 944

lol!

you have no idea or ideals but can LOL at what exactly ?

[island911]

nota, have you ever considered that you do NOT have a firm grasp on reality?

So much HATE!

"CorpRAT ..RightWing...

just WOW.

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by nota

fidel overthrew a CIA and mob supported rightwing dictator
che was a supporter killed in a later revolt that failed against an other rightwinger

Fidel is an oddball in that list. Before he came to power he went to lengths to make people think on one side was not a communist, yet to others (notably Che) that he was.

Initially he was keeping ties with the CIA and the CIA kept an open scenario that they might be able to work with him AFTER coming to power since well, he really wasn't a communist at least not openly. Hell Fidel got guns from the CIA via Sturgis who later on became a Watergate Burglar !!

So if anything, Fidel was , above all an opportunist.

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by svandamme

same kind of nonsense as those who think Hitler was left wing because the word "socialism" is found in National Socialism..

Somehow they get all fixated on that socialism word, but fail to understand that in language you can have combinations that change the meaning of the second word.

Like "anti skid" means to prevent skidding, not actually skidding
Same with national-socialism, the opposite. of socialism.. eg Far Right

Stalin was as left as they come.. that he was power corrupted like nobodies business doesn't change that

The national in national socialism better translates today to ethnic.

A socialism on ethnic lines.

The Stalinists wanted one over all.
The NAZI's were more diverse in their idea of world governorship.

How that fits in left or right, I dunno.
Both were socialist in economic structure.

Hitler's regime kept the idea of "god"; but the regime worked to acquire total power in order dictate that "god".
Those in any religion that did not put the state first, bye bye.
IE - A "god" that served the head of state's purposes.

The Stalinist took a position where the state should be "god" directly.

[nota]

Originally Posted by svandamme

Fidel is an oddball in that list. Before he came to power he went to lengths to make people think on one side was not a communist, yet to others (notably Che) that he was.

Initially he was keeping ties with the CIA and the CIA kept an open scenario that they might be able to work with him AFTER coming to power since well, he really wasn't a communist at least not openly. Hell Fidel got guns from the CIA via Sturgis who later on became a Watergate Burglar !!

So if anything, Fidel was , above all an opportunist.

you know my point was Batista's political position as a rightwing dictator being a necessary precondition to a commie take over

not about fidel who we know was a sneaky commie

[nota]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

The national in national socialism better translates today to ethnic.

A socialism on ethnic lines.

The Stalinists wanted one over all.
The NAZI's were more diverse in their idea of world governorship.

How that fits in left or right, I dunno.
Both were socialist in economic structure.

BS nothing but pure BS
nazi's did not make one corpRAT LIKE KRUP OR SEAMENS state owned
hitler was supported by the capitalists who feared the commies

sorry but history is not something you can distort to fit your fears

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by nota

bs nothing but pure bs
nazi's did not make one corprat like krup or seamens state owned
hitler was supported by the capitalists who feared the commies

Sorry but history is not something you can distort to fit your fears smilewavy

+1

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

The national in national socialism better translates today to ethnic.

A socialism on ethnic lines.

The Stalinists wanted one over all.
The NAZI's were more diverse in their idea of world governorship.

How that fits in left or right, I dunno.
Both were socialist in economic structure.

Hitler's regime kept the idea of "god"; but the regime worked to acquire total power in order dictate that "god".
Those in any religion that did not put the state first, bye bye.
IE - A "god" that served the head of state's purposes.

The Stalinist took a position where the state should be "god" directly.

There was nothing socialist bout Naziism or it's economic structure. not one thing about it was socialist.
Socialism was Hitlers mortal enemy.. he hated it as much as he hated jews if not more.

He did everything opposite of what socialisms/communism would do

He did not nationalize anything, not even at the peak of his power or in the depth of the war.
Socialists/communists do the opposite. They take ownership and run it as part of government.. Hitler didn't. In fact he typically would pitch competitors against each other in competitions for his designs the Tiger Tank and Porsche turret are an example of that

Socialists typically also don't exclude foreigners or different populations
Hitler did, he excluded jews , gypsies, anybody with a disability , not very social.

The ONLY reason he had the term "Socialism" in "National-Socialism" is for marketing purposes.. he used it to convince the German workers that it would be something that would make them better off.

Obviously they got scammed, because in the end they were drafted to go fight in the east, while able workers were brought in from occupied territories as forced workers.
Again, not very social to bring in foreigners to take your job while you are forced to go fight commies in the east.

To say Nazism was left wing and socialist.. is to make a fool of yourself, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the terms and of history.

[thor66]

Denmark Rules

Sweden Drools

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by svandamme

....

It isn't private ownership if the government can take it without reinbursement.
Which is why so many stayed silent.
They knew that they didn't own their property, or their business.
And if they disagreed with the powers at be, any part, or all of it, could go goodbye.

Either system is fooling the people but in different ways:
The NAZI's pretended you owned property, unless.
The Stalinists pretended everyone shared ownership in everything, unless.
Both set prices, set wages, and had severe penalties for black market activities.

It is like putting different fiberglass bodies on a VW pan and claiming they are different cars.

As to left/right, I have no say.
They are words with little meaning I can extract via context other than that those that identify with one tend to use the other to describe their percieved villians.
It once had clearer meaning in the period before the reign of terror.

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by nota

...

do you have a point ?

The only point I want to make is that you can't engage in a political conversation without insulting people.

This thread is not in PARF. If you want to insult people you should start a thread in PARF.
- Or maybe the Mods should move this on to PARF.

Regardless your attitude is the problem.

EDIT: And for the record... The Nazis were extreme Right Wing. I just started a thread in PARF about this.

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

It isn't private ownership if the government can take it without reinbursement.
Which is why so many stayed silent.
They knew that they didn't own their property, or their business.
And if they disagreed with the powers at be, any part, or all of it, could go goodbye.

Either system is fooling the people but in different ways:
The NAZI's pretended you owned property, unless.
The Stalinists pretended everyone shared ownership in everything, unless.
Both set prices, set wages, and had severe penalties for black market activities.

It is like putting different fiberglass bodies on a VW pan and claiming they are different cars.

As to left/right, I have no say.
They are words with little meaning I can extract via context other than that those that identify with one tend to use the other to describe their percieved villians.
It once had clearer meaning in the period before the reign of terror.

And yet none of that changes the simple fact that Nazi's were not socialists in any way shape or form.
That they "could" take something without reimbursement simply means it was a totalitarian regime.. not that it was socialist.

And btw..
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-confiscated-half-billion-dollars-private-property-during-wwi-180952144/



You make the car analogy.. well, It would be a Porsche 356 to a Trabant.
One has a steel unibody with a 1300cc flat4, the latter has a FG/steel Duraplast body and a 500cc 2 stroke I2 . It's not potatoes potato's but Potatoes Tomatskies

If you think Nazi's were socialists, then You might as well start buying Trabants at 356 prices.. I'm sure some people will be very happy with you buying em like that.

And btw, the Allied governments also worked against black markets , with ration cards ..If a ration card isn't a price fix, then I don't know what is.. So there goes that argument out the window.
That they didn't use draconian punishments for black market simply means they weren't a totalitarian regime, it doesn't mean they were, or weren't socialist..

[island911]

Originally Posted by svandamme

And yet none of that changes the simple fact that Nazi's were not socialists in any way shape or form.....

Other than the name?

"Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party

And that they brought on price and wage controls? - the antithesis of free markets.


IOW, What you claim is ridiculous on it's face.

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by island911

Other than the name?

A National-Socialist is as much a socialist as an anti-rollbar is meant to roll your car

Ffs.. seriously.. READ MORE BOOKS on the subject.

[island911]

Originally Posted by svandamme

A National-Socialist is as much a socialist as an anti-rollbar is meant to roll your car

Ffs.. seriously.. READ MORE BOOKS on the subject.

Wow. Quite the retort thar. - "nu-uh" and a "U so unread stoopid"

And what of the price and wage controls they brought in 1936?

[island911]

Let's get into the economics.. Businesses pOwned by the Nazi Govt.

[svandamme]

Still doesn't make em socialist.. they were ANTI anything socialist or communist.
Why do you think they banned the unions??

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/today-in-labor-history-nazis-destroy-unions/

It was one of the first things they did when they got to power : Get rid of unions.

[svandamme]

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18283879/nazism-socialism-hitler-gop-brooks-gohmert


"Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a “people’s community” — the volksgemeinschaft — that would bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity. Thus, he would use the unifying aspects of “National Socialism” to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the German state."

Hitler himself said :
"“Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.”"

[island911]

Unions? The Nazi Party WAS the union.

meh - you compare them to some ideal Socialist model so you can say SEE, NOT Socialists.

But they were totalitarians who used socialist ways to get control over the masses. Not all socialist ways, but none the less...

[island911]

"Auto Union was considered to be firmly embedded in the Nazi regime"