1049: "Bookshelf"

[HugoSchmidt]

Okay, then, what "many" policies did they enact that "are called" Socialist?

Oh, for chrissakes...

How many times do I need to go over this?

25 point plan of the Nazi party:

1 We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.
2 We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.
3 We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.
4 Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.
5 Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.
6 The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.
We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favour of the party without regard to character and fitness.

7 We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.
8 Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.
9 All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.
10 The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.
Therefore we demand:
11 That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
12 Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13 We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14 We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15 We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
16 We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalisation of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small trades people, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17 We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
18 We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
19 We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.
20 In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
21 The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centres, by prohibiting juvenile labour, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

22 We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.
23 We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:
(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.
(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.
(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.
Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

24 We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.
The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the principle:
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
25 In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.
The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.
The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

Run the stuff in bold past any US conservative and they'll call that "socialism". It's not, but it is close. It's kindred.

Also, please remember the eugenics was unquestionably a left-wing movement at the dawn of the last century.

[Zamfir]

Hitler was also a vegetarian, you know. And he loved dogs. And free schools for poor children. And generous old age pensions. And common law in Germany! Evil man, truly.

Every time my train arrives on time, I shout "Fascist" to the driver, but they just look confused.

[Netreker0]

EDIT: I'm not going to lie, I find the Ayn Rand detractors in this thread to be extremely unpleasant, and most of her supporters to be fairly nice individuals. If I was going by nothing other than the personality of the people defending/attacking her, I imagine it would generate an opinion which is very different than what you want to give across. You might want to tone back the level of hostility and insults in your criticism of objectivism if you don't want to make your own argument look bad. Cause in terms of "people being assholes," which seems to be the main criticism of objectivism, every objectivist in this thread has been polite and friendly, while the majority of the detractors have been total assholes. Which makes you look like hypocrites, and makes your claim that objectivists are assholes look like strawmanning at best, and ad hominem at worst.

I couldn't agree more. While not an absolute, it's been my experience that those who rely on name-calling (especially in an online venue where backspace is a viable option) lose credibility by being incapable of cogent discussion, or merely being trolls.

I wonder if you feel the same way after the last 5 pages of comments? I get the feeling that the Ayn Rand supporters read Karilyn's post and took it as a challenge.

[J Thomas]

Okay, then, what "many" policies did they enact that "are called" Socialist?

Oh, for chrissakes...

How many times do I need to go over this?

25 point plan of the Nazi party:

1 We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

Not socialist.

2 We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

Not socialist.

3 We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

Not socialist.

4 Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

Not socialist.

5 Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

Not socialist.

6 The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.

Not socialist.

7 We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood.

Socialist!

8 Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

Not socialist.

9 All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

Socialist?

10 The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

Socialist?

Therefore we demand:
11 That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

I'm pretty sure they didn't do that.

12 Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

I'm real sure they didn't do that.

13 We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

Did they do that? I don't remember anything that would say one way or another.

14 We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

Did they do that?

15 We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

This isn't particularly socialist, and I don't know whether they did it. They didn't last long enough to pay a lot of old-age pensions.

16 We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalisation of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small trades people, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

Did they do that? I never heard one way or another.

17 We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

They only took land from Jews.

18 We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

They did that, but it isn't particularly socialist.

19 We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

Why is that socialist? That isn't socialist.

20 In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

That isn't socialism, that's meritocracy.

21 The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centres, by prohibiting juvenile labour, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

That isn't socialism, that's statism. They wanted a strong army.

22 We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

That isn't socialism and they didn't do it.

23 We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:
(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.
(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.
(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.
Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

That isn't socialism either. That's nationalism.

24 We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

I dunno. Is religious tolerance socialism? Did they in fact do that?

Run the stuff in bold past any US conservative and they'll call that "socialism". It's not, but it is close. It's kindred.

You're telling us that all US conservatives are idiots. Why are you telling us this?

Further, somehow you are judging a political party by its campaign promises. If a party says things it thinks voters want to hear, that it has no intention of actually doing, what does that say about the party? Consider for example the GOP, which has campaigned for 30+ years for small government but which -- during 20 years of power -- has never decreased government. Does it actually make sense to call them a small-government party? Consider long-running GOP stand against abortion. What have they done about abortion beyond rant against it? Are they somehow an anti-abortion party?

The nazis said some things they thought socialists wanted to hear. That doesn't make them socialists.

[HugoSchmidt]

To J Thomas,

One, I quite specifically pointed you to the bolded bits and pointed out that these would be described as socialist initiatives, two, they most certainly did do these things so please quit , three, quit being tiresome and boring. I've argued this out repeatedly above so go back and read that if you want to see further reasoning, and if you cannot see that this puts the Nazis firmly in the left-wing economic tradition, it is because you do not want to. Quit being boring.

[mvdwege]

Okay, then, what "many" policies did they enact that "are called" Socialist?

Oh, for chrissakes...

How many times do I need to go over this?

25 point plan of the Nazi party:

Two people can play the boldface game, you know.

Mart

[Murderbot]

Randall, I defy you to name another philosopher that you agree with 90% of the time. If you reply "Aristotle" then you haven't read enough of his material.

"You have terrible taste" is a disappointingly lazy reply.

Just a wild step: Bertrand Russell.

[Murderbot]

Randall, I defy you to name another philosopher that you agree with 90% of the time. If you reply "Aristotle" then you haven't read enough of his material.

"You have terrible taste" is a disappointingly lazy reply.

Just a wild step: Bertrand Russell, Immanuel Kant.

[J Thomas]

To J Thomas,

One, I quite specifically pointed you to the bolded bits and pointed out that these would be described as socialist initiatives, two, they most certainly did do these things so please quit , three, quit being tiresome and boring. I've argued this out repeatedly above so go back and read that if you want to see further reasoning, and if you cannot see that this puts the Nazis firmly in the left-wing economic tradition, it is because you do not want to. Quit being boring.

Hey, you posted this long 25 point plan repeatedly. You said it meant things it didn't mean. OK, you were wrong, no big deal, everybody's wrong sometimes. You kept putting yourself down and putting down conservatives, saying they believed stuff that was really stupid. OK, mildly amusing.

Then I pointed out some of your mistakes and you thought it was boring? You find out how wrong you are and it's boring?

Geez, man, that's sick.

[The Great Hippo]

If everybody agreed on universal human prospering, and agreed on what it was to prosper, we'd have no need for ethics. And if everybody agreed on the facts of reality, we'd have no need for science. But those are both big complicated questions with nontrivial answers.

Scientists can go about their work because they have at least instrumental acceptance of some broad philosophical principles about what counts as reality and how to get your assertions closer to it: empiricism, realism, criticism, etc. Where philosophy becomes relevant in that descriptive domain is when you get people who argue against the science because they don't agree with those principles: the kind of people who put the word of a trusted authority or an old book or the voices in their head above repeatable observations, falsifiable theories, etc. When you argue about why people should listen to what science has to say, you are doing philosophy.

But the tools of philosophy are logic, reason, rationality--these are tools that, when truly adopted and embraced, inevitably lead to science, materialism, and empiricism. How can you logically embrace Christianity? Hinduism, or Islam, or homeopathy, or the Bambino's Curse?

I don't mean to dismiss these things; they're important to people, they have value, I don't think people need to 'get over' these things. I accept that everyone doesn't embrace materialism like I do, and I take that into account into my decision making as a moral creature. But I don't think philosophy is a useful tool to convince people who believe these things otherwise--because 'good' philosophy is using the very tools by which we arrived at science--and people who believe in the wonders of faith healing aren't even speaking that language. The only way you can convince people that faith healing is a crock of shit is by trying to understand their values, their beliefs, what's important to them--and then making a persuasive argument, not a logical one.

Likewise, in order for us, collectively, to proceed with building a better world, enough of us have to at least instrumentally accept some broad common principles about what a better world would be and the right way to go about building one. You say "I want humans to prosper". What if someone says "I don't care about other people, I only want myself to prosper." Or what if someone says "So do I, but I don't think that what you want really counts as prospering". You need to resolve those differences before you can work together on figuring out the most effective means of bringing about that prospering, and that's where philosophy comes in.

One of my goals as a moral creature is to figure out a definition of human prosperity that the majority of people can agree to. It's a bit silly, and probably not going to happen, but I don't think there are many people on earth who disagree with the basic premise--'humans should prosper' is such a neutral statement that it's hard to find issue with it. People who think only they should prosper are outing themselves as people who are unconcerned with morality (at least, morality as most of us would reasonably define it)--people who think only a select set of humans should prosper are similarly outing themselves as what we might reasonably describe as 'fuckdicks'.

Philosophy has never struck me as a useful tool to bridge the gap of definitions between me and others, because to bridge that gap, both of us need to be schooled in Philosophy (philosophical arguments are not persuasive when applied to people who are not schooled in philosophy, I've noticed). Rather, I try to understand the 'language' of the person I'm speaking to--understand their values, their needs--and adopt my language and arguments accordingly.

This is a common pattern I observe: people who start with reasonable premises (like you) and want to focus on going forward from there (which is a good thing too) often don't appreciate the value of the logically prior work which justifies those premises against those who would dispute them, and in doing so allows that later work to go forward.

Again, I apologize for the bitterness (and I actually appreciate the opportunity to talk with a pro-philosophy type person about this), but I don't see philosophy as having done a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to making these premises so strong. It's the science--the actual experimentation, the gains made by that science--which makes materialism so strong. I trust materialism because planes let me fly, cars let me drive, computers let me type--and magical broomsticks, dragons, and wizards have yet to replace them. I trust skepticism because that which cannot be accurately measured, tested, and proven via experiment does not concern me--for me, they are meaningless things.

This trust stems from a mixture of experience and absorption of the information available to me; I wasn't convinced by a philosophical argument. I'm sure some people were, and I'm sure some of the things they said and did added to my experience, leading me to my conclusion--but I can't help but suspect that skepticism and empiricism would persist with or without philosophy. They are such simple, primal concepts, and philosophy seems like this extraordinarily complex, self-concerned field.

[HugoSchmidt]

ou said it meant things it didn't mean.

And you have been repeatedly saying things that make no logical sense. (see how easy this is?). Simply droning on and on and on and on that the plain words of the Nazis don't mean what they mean is boring. So please, be quiet. You're boring. Very boring. I don't mean to be rude, but - you are one of the most boring people I've met, even on the internet. Please. Stop talking. I'm falling asleep here.

[The Great Hippo]

And you have been repeatedly saying things that make no logical sense. (see how easy this is?). Simply droning on and on and on and on that the plain words of the Nazis don't mean what they mean is boring. So please, be quiet. You're boring. Very boring. I don't mean to be rude, but - you are one of the most boring people I've met, even on the internet. Please. Stop talking. I'm falling asleep here.

Are you fucking kidding me? Just... sit down, okay?

J Thomas, here you go: Nazi Welfare State.

Things like 'left wing' and 'right wing' are useless for describing the Nazis; they're politicized terms which end up turning it into a "You're more like the Nazis!" -- "Nuh-uh--you are!" argument, so let's just dump the completely fucking useless 'which side of the political spectrum did the Nazis fall under' discussion right now. But yes, the Nazis were, for certain definitions of 'socialism', socialists--they wanted to create a welfare state for able-bodied Aryans. The idea was equality for everyone who fit a certain race--which is counter to the general aims of socialism (equality for everyone, period), but you can see how the Nazis reasoning worked for including the word 'Socialist' in their name.

Now, HugoSchmidt might think this is a black mark on socialism, but if so, that's probably because they're bad at critical thinking. But they're absolutely right about the Nazis having an element of socialism in them--that the Nazis included the word 'Socialist' in their title because of this desire for 'Volkisch Equality', this racially-driven socialism--even as they threw the 'purer' socialists into concentration camps.

EDIT: I would be remiss if I didn't mention that I am thankful HugoSchmidt, inadvertently or not, gave me the opportunity to correct a long-standing mistake I'd been operating under--and learn something new about the Nazi party (I was completely unaware of the original root of 'Socialist' in their name, or of the specifics concerning Volkisch equality)--but they're still an Objectivist, which means they're still a twit.

[Kaylakaze]

I had a medical issue from age 14 to 25 that took a lot of work to solve - three specialists, two surgeries (the first one was botched), lots of experimentation. We've tried altering the medication or stopping it, but nothing else works; tapering it off has bad results. Not life-or-death epilepsy results, but something unpleasant enough to make life completely unmanageable and hellish in its own right. Most of the other treatments are either (1) useless or (2) invasive or (3) have side effects that are worse than the illness. I spent 10 years in hell, but the system worked for me eventually. If it was the government, I'm pretty certain I would have found no solution and ended up killing myself, because for one thing, I never would have been able to pursue the problem as aggressively as I did. It would not have been "cost effective" or a "good use of resources."

Yeah, because, you know, if Stephen Hawking had to rely on government healthcare, he'd never have lived long enough to become a famous scientist... oh wait...
Tell me, where exactly are these mass graves where Canada, France, and Scandinavia are tossing the bodied of those who are not "cost effective"? Are they the same place where all those "Don't euthanize me!" bracelet's of Rick Santorum's are?

They can deny coverage, but I can still pay, even if it bankrupts me.

Sure your can, if you have a spare half-mil hanging out under your mattress. I CAN point to many people who died because their insurance denied them coverage and they didn't have any way at all to get the money.

If this is the case, I would attribute a lot of it to regulatory capture.

Of course you would. That doesn't make you correct.

Of course, I could say similar things about government jobs that you say about corporations. Many government agencies discourage hard work, so they can get a bigger budget and grow their empire. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.

Exactly, they're exceptions and should be fixed. The difference is corporations are required by law to behave this way to protect their shareholders.

The point I and others make is that there aren't really objective people who can do this. If there is a group of rule-makers, the people who want to twist the rules in their favor will seek to control the rule-making process. This is not a system of no rules; it is a system of limited rules, applied broadly. The current system is reams of specific rules, applied haphazardly.

By setting a simple process in which parties cannot violate each others' rights in pursuit of their personal aims, you limit the ability of people to bend the rules (because no rules can be written favoring one group). Societal pressure is always better than government pressure. I happen to agree with many (though not all) of the criticisms of the Occupy Movement -- but I abhor, pardon the pun, about 99% of their proposed ideas.

So your solution is less rules means less things to twist. What it really means is less things that NEED to be twisted to do negative things. And how do you propose preventing parties from violating each other? Public shame? I think we've well established that that doesn't work, especially if those you want to shame run all the media.

A tank of gasoline has the same energy as three sticks of dynamite.

That's a false equivalence. That's like saying "Don't know you that a rock has as much energy as C4?" it might be true, but the volatility and the rate at which the energy is expended is significantly different. This is why we use gasoline and not natural gas, even though NG is cheaper and more readily available (currently). It's also more volatile.

No reputable company would market "poison cola," certainly not in a free, democratic society in which it would be on the internet in about 8 seconds

Oh, yes, the power of the internet. Where the corporations have 2 bloggers shilling for them for every independent blogger telling the truth about them.

Kind of like your database idea, though. It pretty much aligns with my idea of rating things rather than banning them.

And who would run this database? A corporation, charging subscription fees to access it? The government which you think is so corrupted it can't do anything right?

But government spending more than it takes in is almost always bad, because it leads to inflation and diminished ability to act later.

Actually, government debt is REQUIRED for a stable economy. What do you think savings bonds are? They're government debt. Debt is needed so people have a safe place to store their money. It only applies to the Romney-rich and above, but it's important to the economy.

If we all liked the 90s, the formula was deregulation + peace + cheap energy.

That's an incredibly simplistic and incorrect analysis of the oil market. And I also should add that NO new technology is cheap until significant investment makes it more widespread. Mass production creates cheaper products but requires much more starting capital than hand-crafting. If you want cheap energy, we need to invest in renewable sources of that energy, not in sources that are prone to depletion.

"Do it my way or get lost." I mean, I don't care if people enter into voluntary, socialistic agreements -- I just don't want them to be government-run, or to be compulsory.

And I may not want to respect your patent or stop at stoplights. That's the price we pay for living in a civilized society. They're called rules. If you don't like rules, go to Somalia.

I like the idea of private cooperative endeavors instead. Who knows, maybe someday I'd even join one, depending on how it was set up.

So your idea is to have MANY small totalitarian countries, all in it only for profit, and if you don't like their rules, you can go to a different totalitarian country that's in it only for profit. Fantastic.

the only just personal income tax rate is 0%

I'm not sure if I agree with you or not on income tax, however, the thinking behind income tax is that in order to produce the fruits of your labor, you must use public resources, at the very least you're using public security (military, police, courts, etc) and should therefore pay for what you use.

While a democracy may vote in taxes, it doesn't make them moral.

Taxes are how society pays for what it gives you. If you claim it gives you nothing and therefore you owe it nothing, you're lying. Even if you never have to call the police in your life, their presence still protects you, just like herd immunity helps to protect some idiot anti-vaxer's child when they don't get vaccinated.

"If you don't like it, get out" is pretty much just an argument from authority/power rather than a valid line of reasoning.

Not only is that the ONLY valid line of reasoning in this situation, but it's the same line of reasoning I hear from Libertarians about people who are getting shafted by their employer.

[Karilyn]

EDIT: I'm not going to lie, I find the Ayn Rand detractors in this thread to be extremely unpleasant, and most of her supporters to be fairly nice individuals. If I was going by nothing other than the personality of the people defending/attacking her, I imagine it would generate an opinion which is very different than what you want to give across. You might want to tone back the level of hostility and insults in your criticism of objectivism if you don't want to make your own argument look bad. Cause in terms of "people being assholes," which seems to be the main criticism of objectivism, every objectivist in this thread has been polite and friendly, while the majority of the detractors have been total assholes. Which makes you look like hypocrites, and makes your claim that objectivists are assholes look like strawmanning at best, and ad hominem at worst.

I couldn't agree more. While not an absolute, it's been my experience that those who rely on name-calling (especially in an online venue where backspace is a viable option) lose credibility by being incapable of cogent discussion, or merely being trolls.

I wonder if you feel the same way after the last 5 pages of comments? I get the feeling that the Ayn Rand supporters read Karilyn's post and took it as a challenge.

I've mostly been focused on arguing with Kaylakaze, and I must admit I've been failing to read a bunch of other people's posts.

[Zamfir]

Now, HugoSchmidt might think this is a black mark on socialism, but if so, that's probably because they're bad at critical thinking. But they're absolutely right about the Nazis having an element of socialism in them--that the Nazis included the word 'Socialist' in their title because of this desire for 'Volkisch Equality', this racially-driven socialism--even as they threw the 'purer' socialists into concentration camps.

Hippo, I would be a bit careful with that wiki page. It's a bit weird. Note for example that it doesn't have a German equivalent, and they write "Volksgemeinschaft" with an umlaut, a mistake that's fairly obvious to a German-speaker.

In particular, the article makes a connection between two books and two concepts, in a somewhat misleading way. The top part draws from Diemut Majer, who is apparently a long-standing expert on legal principles of the Nazis. But note that the first part is indeed only about legality: voelkischer Gleichheit is a legal principle, basically the Nazi version of equality under the law, or more exactly non-equality.

But the link between that legal principle and a Volk-based welfare state is not obvious, just as there is not that much of a political connection between our concept of equality under the law and our welfare states.

That connection (in the article) is from another book, Hitlers Volksstaat by Goetz Aly. And unlike Diemut Majer, this is not a scholarly tome, it's intentionally a somewhat controversial book. Roughly put, the author claims that Germans supported the holocaust because it was profitable to them. He makes at least a suggestion that the post-war German social-democrats are the political heirs to Hitler, expect that wars and Jew-killing isn't profitable anymore so they quit that part. The guy wrote another book explaining how the german baby-boomer left were a lot like Nazis, for example by being anti-American.

So basically, you're looking somewhat at the German-scholarly equivalent of Godwinning.

[Kaylakaze]

I didn't call for the elimination of any socialism from the US Government. I said as an economy theory, socialism fails

Then we are in agreement. I think any "pure" economic theory will fail. Balance is the only solution. I suppose the most important question is where to put the fulcrum to get proper balance.

Prisons are still a net drag on the economy - regardless of whether they are privatized or not. That is money that is taken out of the economy in the form of taxes.

I don't see how you can classify money going to private individuals as being removed from the economy.

I suspect your tin foil hat might be out of alignment. Where did I call for abolition of unions? I mentioned labor camps, something very common in Communist systems (see USSR, China, N. Korea, etc.)

I never said or implied you did. Walmart, on the other hand, has shut down entire stores because it's workers wanted to form a union. And that third sentence should say "something very common in TOTALITARIAN systems". The economic system of a country has nothing to do with it.

Again, incorrect. I was comparing three economic systems. Though madmen exist in all, isn't it just the weirdest coincidence that many of them are affiliated with Communist regimes?

No, not really. Social upheaval often leads to a rise of a charismatic madman. While communism is a much older system than capitalism, it doesn't work that well with groups larger than 200 individuals. Trying it on such a scale was a new idea and required significant societal change in order to try to implement.

1. Wrong, I don't injuring someone or damaging their property is OK. I am for personal freedom and private property - unlike the other two economic systems.
2. Wrong. I don't need to live under communism to know it is a miserable failure. I don't need to live under socialism to see it is unsustainable. I never claimed there was any equality in the three - I've pointed out there are major differences.
3. Wrong (sensing a trend - nah, not you) - no person or organization has the right to take a life except in self-defense (including the death penalty)
4. YAY - you finally got one right - ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Good for you!

Such pretty sentiments in the abstract, but completely unenforceable under your philosophy. If a company decides they want to injure someone or damage someone else's property, how do you stop them? Write a mean letter? How do you square the idea of your own personal freedom to fire a gun randomly with someone else's freedom to not get shot? Keep in mind (since I don't think you caught it), "standing on your land and firing a gun randomly" is a metaphor for pretty much everything you do as a person. No man is an island. What you do affects others.

[The Great Hippo]

Hippo, I would be a bit careful with that wiki page. It's a bit weird. Note for example that it doesn't have a German equivalent, and they write "Volksgemeinschaft" with an umlaut, a mistake that's fairly obvious to a German-speaker.

In particular, the article makes a connection between two books and two concepts, in a somewhat misleading way. The top part draws from Diemut Majer, who is apparently a long-standing expert on legal principles of the Nazis. But note that the first part is indeed only about legality: voelkischer Gleichheit is a legal principle, basically the Nazi version of equality under the law, or more exactly non-equality.

But the link between that legal principle and a Volk-based welfare state is not obvious, just as there is not that much of a political connection between our concept of equality under the law and our welfare states.

That connection (in the article) is from another book, Hitlers Volksstaat by Goetz Aly. And unlike Diemut Majer, this is not a scholarly tome, it's intentionally a somewhat controversial book. Roughly put, the author claims that Germans supported the holocaust because it was profitable to them. He makes at least a suggestion that the post-war German social-democrats are the political heirs to Hitler, expect that wars and Jew-killing isn't profitable anymore so they quit that part. The guy wrote another book explaining how the german baby-boomer left were a lot like Nazis, for example by being anti-American.

So basically, you're looking somewhat at the German-scholarly equivalent of Godwinning.

Man, I need to stop relying on wikipedia for internet arguments. Okay, so nevermind, retract what I said until further investigation. I appreciate the catch, at least.

[Kaylakaze]

Congratulations - though you stumbled across it you eventually reached the fundamental tenet that is the hallmark of all Communist systems. Communist systems require "harsh measures". There must be a central authority demanding sacrifice of others literally at the point of a gun.

And capitalist systems require "harsh measures" just as much to keep those against it from destabilizing it. That's on the "actively supressing rebels side". On the more passive side, capitalism demands that you be a part of it or starve to death. It's just a different form of gun.

[Karilyn]

Things like 'left wing' and 'right wing' are useless for describing the Nazis; they're politicized terms which end up turning it into a "You're more like the Nazis!" -- "Nuh-uh--you are!" argument, so let's just dump the completely fucking useless 'which side of the political spectrum did the Nazis fall under' discussion right now. But yes, the Nazis were, for certain definitions of 'socialism', socialists--they wanted to create a welfare state for able-bodied Aryans. The idea was equality for everyone who fit a certain race--which is counter to the general aims of socialism (equality for everyone, period), but you can see how the Nazis reasoning worked for including the word 'Socialist' in their name.

Now, HugoSchmidt might think this is a black mark on socialism, but if so, that's probably because they're bad at critical thinking. But they're absolutely right about the Nazis having an element of socialism in them--that the Nazis included the word 'Socialist' in their title because of this desire for 'Volkisch Equality', this racially-driven socialism--even as they threw the 'purer' socialists into concentration camps.

EDIT: I would be remiss if I didn't mention that I am thankful HugoSchmidt, inadvertently or not, gave me the opportunity to correct a long-standing mistake I'd been operating under--and learn something new about the Nazi party (I was completely unaware of the original root of 'Socialist' in their name, or of the specifics concerning Volkisch equality)--but they're still an Objectivist, which means they're still a twit.

I want to say I'm proud of you deeply for acknowledging that. I've stayed out of the conversation the entire time, but observing it, and being frustrated at you, J Thomas, and others, denying that Nazis were socialist (when it was historically accurate that they were). And simultaneously being frustrated that HugoSchmidt thought that Nazis being socialist meant that socialism was bad (Hitler liked dogs!).

And for being the first person to break out of the cycle of stupidity, you win a cookie!


After all, the Holocaust was the death of 4.9 million to 6.0 million Jews. But did you know? North and South America had a population of approximately 54 million prior to discovery of the new world. Within 100 years, approximately 43.2 million were dead. Now a lot of this was due to disease, but a lot of it was due to systematic murder and genocide of the Mayans and Incas. Oh and by the way? Those 43.2 indigenous americans who died? Yeah. They died at the hands of capitalist societies utilizing imperialism to enhance their holdings.

The indigenous americans who died at the hands of capitalistic imperialists no more condemns modern capitalism by association, than the jews who died at the hands of socialistic nazis condemns modern socialism by association.

[Fire Brns]

but a lot of it was due to systematic murder and genocide of the Mayans and Incas. Oh and by the way? Those 43.2 indigenous americans who died? Yeah. They died at the hands of capitalist societies utilizing imperialism to enhance their holdings.

Spain, Portugal, England, ect. were monarchies at the time and employed Mercantilism. State sponsored expansion of the homeland's influence. I am not downplaying the deaths but it would be amiss to not point out that governmental lust was responsible and not a capitalistic society.

[Kaylakaze]

What have they done about abortion beyond rant against it?

Well, now that the Tea Party has taken over, a lot of really horrible things.

[The Great Hippo]

I want to say I'm proud of you deeply for acknowledging that. I've stayed out of the conversation the entire time, but observing it, and being frustrated at you, J Thomas, and others, denying that Nazis were socialist (when it was historically accurate that they were). And simultaneously being frustrated that HugoSchmidt thought that Nazis being socialist meant that socialism was bad (Hitler liked dogs!).

Actually, now I'm not so sure, since the article I linked was the 'oh, huh' moment I had concerning Nazis and their relationship toward socialism, and Zamfir pointed out quite accurately (much to my embarrassment) that the article is suspect, demonstrating once again why wikipedia is best used as a starting point for accurate information, not a finishing point (in retrospect, I should have suspected something when I noticed this is something I'd never heard of, and when I noticed that the wikipedia article itself is somewhat buried and pretty hard to actually find).

So I don't honestly know at the moment; the question of 'Were Nazis socialist?' is probably a very complex question, and one that requires a lot of deeper reading and analysis. I don't think it's a politically interesting question, and I don't think it has a tremendous relevance to the question of whether or not socialism is a viable system--but I think it's an academically interesting question, and as someone who likes to understand things, I am curious to the answer--but resistant to answers that carry political overtones.

After all, the Holocaust was the death of 4.9 million to 6.0 million Jews. But did you know? North and South America had a population of approximately 54 million prior to discovery of the new world. Within 100 years, approximately 43.2 million were dead. Now a lot of this was due to disease, but a lot of it was due to systematic murder and genocide of the Mayans and Incas. Oh and by the way? Those 43.2 indigenous americans who died? Yeah. They died at the hands of capitalist societies utilizing imperialism to enhance their holdings.

That's... a very simple view on a very complex situation. For starters, the '54 million' isn't merely an approximation; it's the (very) high-end of a very generous guestimate concerning population figures. We don't know how many indigenous people were present, and we don't know how many died at the hands of violence; all we know is that both these figures are probably pretty high.

And 'capitalist societies utilizing imperialism to enhance their holdings'? Again, that's a really simplified way of looking at it. I wouldn't deny that colonialism was the primary thrust of the colonization (duh) of the Americas, but not everyone who came to the Americas did so for the sake of wealth--and indigenous people died from a result of the diseases they brought regardless of the reason they brought them.

History is really complicated, is what I'm saying.

[Kaylakaze]

To J Thomas,

One, I quite specifically pointed you to the bolded bits and pointed out that these would be described as socialist initiatives, two, they most certainly did do these things so please quit , three, quit being tiresome and boring. I've argued this out repeatedly above so go back and read that if you want to see further reasoning, and if you cannot see that this puts the Nazis firmly in the left-wing economic tradition, it is because you do not want to. Quit being boring.

Even if they were socialist ideas and they did in fact do them, it's irrelevant. They also wore clothing. Does that mean wearing clothing is a Nazi thing to do?

And for being left-wing economically, they sure did a lot of work with the capitalist and those hardcore capitalist sure loved them. Surprising that.
And for being left-wing on economic policy, they sure were super far right on social and governmental policy.

[The Great Hippo]

And for being left-wing economically, they sure did a lot of work with the capitalist and those hardcore capitalist sure loved them. Surprising that.
And for being left-wing on economic policy, they sure were super far right on social and governmental policy.

I have to ask, because I'm honestly curious: Is there really any utility toward the left-wing/right-wing duality beyond being able to say things like "You're more like the Nazis!"? Because I really suspect there isn't.

The Nazis are an incredibly special case; trying to fit them into left or right wing labels is like trying to fit a 4-dimensional time-cube inside a square-shaped hole.

[Kaylakaze]

It's the science--the actual experimentation, the gains made by that science--which makes materialism so strong.

In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast ... "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy—truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else. The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.
— Carl Sagan
In 'Wonder and Skepticism', Skeptical Enquirer (Jan-Feb 1995), 19, No. 1.

[The Great Hippo]

Yeah, I'm a huge fan of Carl Sagan's stuff--particularly because he was able to dismantle irrational beliefs while simultaneously not dismiss, demean, or deride them--science needs more spokespeople who are willing to talk in the language of the non-scientist, to persuade them why science, materialism, and skepticism have so much to offer while simultaneously not insulting the values of the people you're trying to persuade.

Which, to bring things back to the point, seems to me like Objectivism's core problem: It claims to use reason as its core, but it doesn't include skepticism. For me, reason and skepticism are joined at the hip; testing ideas--gathering data, weighing the evidence, identifying what's credible versus what's not--this is an ongoing process that involves questioning everything around you. Objectivism proposes itself as a paradigm through which to understand the world, but it simultaneously dismisses skepticism--it doesn't apply skepticism to itself.

Ayn Rand's basic assertions concerning how humans think, what they need, what is required for them to prosper--these are things we should apply skepticism to, things we should test, things we should analyze--but Objectivism is uninterested in doing so. How can you claim to be a proponent of reason if you won't even apply reason and skepticism to your own assertions about how the world works?

[Kaylakaze]

And for being left-wing economically, they sure did a lot of work with the capitalist and those hardcore capitalist sure loved them. Surprising that.
And for being left-wing on economic policy, they sure were super far right on social and governmental policy.

I have to ask, because I'm honestly curious: Is there really any utility toward the left-wing/right-wing duality beyond being able to say things like "You're more like the Nazis!"? Because I really suspect there isn't.

The Nazis are an incredibly special case; trying to fit them into left or right wing labels is like trying to fit a 4-dimensional time-cube inside a square-shaped hole.

I agree with you. Trying to pigeonhole them is a problem. I think that was somewhat the point I was making. It's also a mistake to define an entire societal movement on a single thing such as what economic system that favored. That goes for more than just the Nazis. It is perfectly possible (theoretically) to have a very nice capitalistic society, just as it's possible (theoretically) to have a very nice communist society. Other factors come in to play to that affect the society.

I think these are important things to figure out because I don't believe any one is "evil" (though I'll allow that it's possible someone could be), just that they are "wrong." Hitler? Wrong. Pol Pot? Wrong. George Bush? Wrong. Error leads to suffering, not evil. If Hitler had been correct in his beliefs/opinions/assumptions, he would be a hero, not a villain, assuming he really believed what he said. On a more personal level, people who seem "evil" are usually just wrong in believing they're better than everyone else and as such should be able to do whatever they want to them. This is where I classify Objectivists.

Though I could be wrong.

[Kaylakaze]

Ayn Rand's basic assertions concerning how humans think, what they need, what is required for them to prosper--these are things we should apply skepticism to, things we should test, things we should analyze--but Objectivism is uninterested in doing so. How can you claim to be a proponent of reason if you won't even apply reason and skepticism to your own assertions about how the world works?

From the data I've seen, it's been proven beyond all doubt that Objectivists' economic ideas don't work. It's like climate change deniers and young earth creationists.

Even if they did work to create economic prosperity though, the question would still need to be asked if they were moral (I'd say no) and, if not, if there was another way to get equal results with more morality. The difficulty, I suppose, is figuring out how to experiment safely.

And speaking of morality, it's too bad no Objectivst has responded to my simple questions of how Objectivst ethics would deal with various real-world situations.

[markfiend]

After all, the Holocaust was the death of 4.9 million to 6.0 million Jews.

And maybe 3 million Soviets (POWs and civilians), two-and-a-half million Poles, half a million Roma, more than a quarter of a million disabled people, and, and, and...

Somewhere between 11 million and 17 million were killed all told. Sorry this bugs me but the Holocaust was not solely a Jewish disaster.

</derail>

[Jamaican Castle]

Nope, you can't un-derail topics about the Holocaust.

Speaking of, why exactly are we talking about the Nazis?

[Karilyn]

So I don't honestly know at the moment; the question of 'Were Nazis socialist?' is probably a very complex question, and one that requires a lot of deeper reading and analysis. I don't think it's a politically interesting question, and I don't think it has a tremendous relevance to the question of whether or not socialism is a viable system--but I think it's an academically interesting question, and as someone who likes to understand things, I am curious to the answer--but resistant to answers that carry political overtones.

I agree. I had been reluctant to comment on it before you did earlier and I gave you a cookie for it. I want to make sure it's clear that my statement that Nazi Germany had heavy aspects of socialism (racially charged socialism, but socialism nonetheless), was one of historical and academic relevance, and has no relevance whatsoever in the question of if socialism is a viable system. I did make a point to condemn HugoSchmidt for being so foolish as to think that academic fact should carry political overtones.

I personally think that socialism is not a valid, but that is a matter of budgets that do not add up to sustainability. In my opinion, concepts such as morality in discussion of socialism vs capitalism, are largely useless except in a theoretical "what if?" sense, as long as the numbers fail to work. Until someone can sit down, and crank out real numbers, which indicate a socialist system which will continue to work indefinitely without bankruptcy, the system is silly to consider.

Do I think that socialism would be morally superior system, which would bring a higher standard of living to all of society? Hell yes. But it's an idealist concept, so why wouldn't it do that? Unfortunately, idealism is utterly pointless. I am a realistic. A pragmatist. Math is the cold hard truth of this world. And because math, socialism is no more than an idealist's fantasy dream. And thus socialism isn't valid.

[markfiend]

I agree. I had been reluctant to comment on it before you did earlier and I gave you a cookie for it. I want to make sure it's clear that my statement that Nazi Germany had heavy aspects of socialism (racially charged socialism, but socialism nonetheless), was one of historical and academic relevance, and has no relevance whatsoever in the question of if socialism is a viable system. I did make a point to condemn HugoSchmidt for being so foolish as to think that academic fact should carry political overtones.

Leaving aside other issues, and apologies for jumping into this thread at this late date, but I think this is an important point. I have seen many people attempt to use the "Nazis were socialists" gambit as an attempt to taint today's socialists with guilt-by-association. I am glad that you do not do this. I think it is abundantly clear that today's socialists would heartily condemn the Nazis' racial policies.

[Karilyn]

Speaking of, why exactly are we talking about the Nazis?

Cause some idiot thought that pointing out the (historically accurate) statement that Nazism had a heavy socialism structure to it, was somehow a statement which could disprove modern socialism. Ye olde "Hitler liked dogs" argument. And that would have been the end of it, but then some other people, who weren't aware that Nazism historically was a form of socialism, proceeded to try and debate this guy about how Nazis were most definitely capitalists not socialists, which only added fuel to the fire, with people trying to prove them wrong and that Nazis actually were socialists. At which point, we cycled back around to "Okay fine, they are socialists, but that doesn't in any way disprove modern socialism by association" (Which is true).

In other words. Everybody had their head up their ass and it dragged out a standard "Hilter liked dogs" argument into something which spanned dozens of posts.

[Kaylakaze]

Do I think that socialism would be morally superior system, which would bring a higher standard of living to all of society? Hell yes. But it's an idealist concept, so why wouldn't it do that? Unfortunately, idealism is utterly pointless. I am a realistic. A pragmatist. Math is the cold hard truth of this world. And because math, socialism is no more than an idealist's fantasy dream. And thus socialism isn't valid.

Would pure socialism work mathematically? Probably not. The problem is too often the socialism vs free enterprise debate (I think capitalism is ALWAYS destructive by its nature, but I am very much in favor of regulated free enterprise) is that's it's presented as a binary choice. I think we need MORE socialism than we have now, but I certainly don't think we should be stopping people from running their own business (or even stopping capitalism completely, whether it's destructive or not). I think the government should provide solutions to public needs (food, transportation, medical care, shelter, clothing) and many that are not needs but very important to a strong society (computers, internet, education) at cost, run as non-profit entities, and that business that want to be in those markets should have to compete.

The real problem I see with that is too many people are assholes and don't respect things they don't have to earn, so things like government provided shelter might end up being treated horribly. I have yet to figure out how to solve that problem, short painful punishments.

[Karilyn]

I agree. I had been reluctant to comment on it before you did earlier and I gave you a cookie for it. I want to make sure it's clear that my statement that Nazi Germany had heavy aspects of socialism (racially charged socialism, but socialism nonetheless), was one of historical and academic relevance, and has no relevance whatsoever in the question of if socialism is a viable system. I did make a point to condemn HugoSchmidt for being so foolish as to think that academic fact should carry political overtones.

Leaving aside other issues, and apologies for jumping into this thread at this late date, but I think this is an important point. I have seen many people attempt to use the "Nazis were socialists" gambit as an attempt to taint today's socialists with guilt-by-association. I am glad that you do not do this. I think it is abundantly clear that today's socialists would heartily condemn the Nazis' racial policies.

Indeed, I would like to make sure one thing is clear though. I have a distaste for people who would use the "Nazis were socialist" gambit. But I have an every bit equal distaste for people who would deny that Nazis were socialist. Modern socialists are NOT guilty by association to Nazis, but trying to rewrite history to say that Nazis weren't socialists doesn't help anything either, and I loath people who try to deny history.

Now if I could only get people on the other side to admit that the vast overwhelming number of today's conservatives ALSO whole-heartedly condemn racism. At this point in history, racism is no longer something which belongs to any major political side, despite it being used as a lazy insult to try and discredit opposition. Racism is neither conservative, nor socialist, and there are racists on both sides and all sides. But these are far and few in-between, and it is a fool's errand to try and claim that entire political movements, whether they be socialist or the tea party. Demagoguery will get you everywhere with common idiots, but will discredit you forever in the eyes of the educated.

[addams]

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... tml?ref=hp

I found the above link somewhere else. It made me think of this thread. I hope it works.

There seems to be a body of Science that supports the idea that people who are advantaged carry a more Rand like perspective.

[Zamfir]

karilyn, you're way oversimplying things there. Keep in mind that the whole welfare state aspects of the third empire are common policy in every rich country. The 'capitalist' countries of the cold war were in that respect every bit as 'socialist'.

And keep in mind that 'equality' in those days was a far more controversial subject than nowadays. In the 1920s, you could be a respectable politician if you said that poor people (let alone women) shouldn't vote and governments should primarily be made up of noblemen. When nazis called themselves socialists, they largely meant that they opposed the conservatives in that respect.

By the standards of 1920s European conservatism, pretty much every modern politician is a socialist. It's not even a left-right thing. Dutch Nazis (but not germans, I think) called themselves both right-wing and socialist, and that wasn't a contradiction. It just meant they shared lots of thought with the conservatives, expect for the elitism.

[Kaylakaze]

I agree. I had been reluctant to comment on it before you did earlier and I gave you a cookie for it. I want to make sure it's clear that my statement that Nazi Germany had heavy aspects of socialism (racially charged socialism, but socialism nonetheless), was one of historical and academic relevance, and has no relevance whatsoever in the question of if socialism is a viable system. I did make a point to condemn HugoSchmidt for being so foolish as to think that academic fact should carry political overtones.

Leaving aside other issues, and apologies for jumping into this thread at this late date, but I think this is an important point. I have seen many people attempt to use the "Nazis were socialists" gambit as an attempt to taint today's socialists with guilt-by-association. I am glad that you do not do this. I think it is abundantly clear that today's socialists would heartily condemn the Nazis' racial policies.

Indeed, I would like to make sure one thing is clear though. I have a distaste for people who would use the "Nazis were socialist" gambit. But I have an every bit equal distaste for people who would deny that Nazis were socialist. Modern socialists are NOT guilty by association to Nazis, but trying to rewrite history to say that Nazis weren't socialists doesn't help anything either, and I loath people who try to deny history.

Now if I could only get people on the other side to admit that the vast overwhelming number of today's conservatives ALSO whole-heartedly condemn racism. At this point in history, racism is no longer something which belongs to any major political side, despite it being used as a lazy insult to try and discredit opposition. Racism is neither conservative, nor socialist, and there are racists on both sides and all sides. But these are far and few in-between, and it is a fool's errand to try and claim that entire political movements, whether they be socialist or the tea party. Demagoguery will get you everywhere with common idiots, but will discredit you forever in the eyes of the educated.

When they stop having bumper stickers that say "Don't Re-Nig in 2012", using phrases like "Barack the Magic Negro", sending email pictures of the White House with watermelons growing all over, carrying posters with Obama as an African witch doctor, claiming he's not an American, candidates talking about Obama being a "government nig-", or singling out black people who get welfare as if they are the majority of welfare recipients (they are not) ... or at the very least the majority of their group openly and loudly condemning those who do things like this, THEN we'll stop calling them racists.

[Karilyn]

Do I think that socialism would be morally superior system, which would bring a higher standard of living to all of society? Hell yes. But it's an idealist concept, so why wouldn't it do that? Unfortunately, idealism is utterly pointless. I am a realistic. A pragmatist. Math is the cold hard truth of this world. And because math, socialism is no more than an idealist's fantasy dream. And thus socialism isn't valid.

Would pure socialism work mathematically? Probably not. [snip] I think we need MORE socialism than we have now, but I certainly don't think we should be stopping people from running their own business (or even stopping capitalism completely, whether it's destructive or not). I think the government should provide solutions to public needs (food, transportation, medical care, shelter, clothing) and many that are not needs but very important to a strong society (computers, internet, education) at cost, run as non-profit entities, and that business that want to be in those markets should have to compete.

I am a big fan of the theoretical prebate system. It removes a lot of the wasteful bureaucracy, and solves a lot of "The king's cheese is half wasted in parings; but no matter, it is made of the people's milk" problem.

If you aren't familiar with the prebate system, it basically says "fuck it" and taxes everybody, even the poor, and does not try to define a poverty line for the sake of taxing people differently (this saves substancial tax administration costs). In the same breath, it also says "fuck it" and instead of filing taxes at the end of a year (again saving administration costs), it gives a tax prebate every month which would cover food, transportation, shelter, and clothing (not medical costs though; that needs severe overhauling in a different way). Essentially a slightly larger form of food stamps, which every single person in America gets, which would cover food, clothing, shelter, and transportation, instead of only food. Since it's the exact same system used for every single person in the country, it would eliminate a ridiculous amount of bureaucracy (though admittedly put tax preparers out of their jobs, as well as IRS agents, but honestly, nobody liked them anyway).

The net result? The poor get back more than they paid, and the wealthy get back FAR less then they paid, and the tax administration costs are reduced by like 99.9%.

The real problem I see with that is too many people are assholes and don't respect things they don't have to earn, so things like government provided shelter might end up being treated horribly. I have yet to figure out how to solve that problem, short painful punishments.

This is very true. It's bad enough with apartments. People trash apartments in a way that they would not trash homes they owned. It's even worse with government provided shelter. By the way, government provided shelter exists in American in two forms. Subsidized housing, where the government pays up to (IIRC) 80% of the rent of a normal apartment (The poor person must pay a minimum of 30% of their income in rent to qualify for this). And if the poor person is making so little, that they cannot afford even subsidized housing (basically this means they are unemployed), there is something known as public housing, which are not normal apartments, but rather apartments owned by the United States Government, where a rent is charged at 30% of a person's income, or $30, whichever is higher. The $30 minimum rent is purely token of course, and is something that a person could relatively easily make by begging on street corners a couple times a week.

Of course, there's a hierarchy in how badly these are trashed. Public housing is utterly destroyed by the tenants, worse than even subsidized housing. And subsidized housing is trashed worse than normal apartments. The less people pay for something, the less they give a crap about taking care of it.

[Karilyn]

When they stop having bumper stickers that say "Don't Re-Nig in 2012", using phrases like "Barack the Magic Negro", sending email pictures of the White House with watermelons growing all over, carrying posters with Obama as an African witch doctor, claiming he's not an American, candidates talking about Obama being a "government nig-", or singling out black people who get welfare as if they are the majority of welfare recipients (they are not) ... or at the very least the majority of their group openly and loudly condemning those who do things like this, THEN we'll stop calling them racists.

I've never seen any of the above. You should probably stop visiting 4chan.

Fun fact though: Every single one of those things was also said about Herman Cain... By Democrats in America. You know. Those liberals. Which is exactly what I said; you can find a tiny idiotic racist 1% of people on both liberal and conservative sides, but you'd have to be a fucking idiot to think that it's something that racism is supported by the Tea Party, just like I'd have to be a fucking idiot to think that racism is supported by the Democrats.

Oh and fun fact. Herman Cain? Was the candidate that the Tea Party was supporting for the 2012 election. He lost the race, but he was the person the Tea Party wanted as president.