Is it true that Nazism was a form of Socialism?

[joepistole]

Socialism gets violent when it fails, as the perception in the recent US election and Greek riots over austerity measures demonstrate. The benefit of not having to fund a standing military is that those funds can prolong failures inherent to socialist Ponzi schemes. ALL the facts matter, crony.

Oh, so now socialism only gets violent when it fails? How does that even make sense? Well, fortunately for us, socialism hasn't failed nor is it endanger of falling in anywhere much less any of the previously referenced socialistic countries. They are very stable countries and have been for a very long time. Greece survived its austerity measures. The US survived its recent election with virtually no violence. It was yet again another peaceful transfer of power.

And just who is it you think doesn't have to fund a standing military? And why is that relevant? All the previously mentioned countries maintain a military. They are all, with the exception of Sweden and Japan, a member of NATO. Sweden has always maintained a standing military.

Where is your evidence that the failure of socialism foments violence? The fact is you have no evidence that socialism is in some way related to violence. It doesn't even make sense. How do you explain the French Revolution? How do you explain the American Revolution? They weren't socialist countries comrade. Yet the Kingdom of France and the American colonies ended with violence.

Yes, all facts matter crony baby. It helps if you know them.

 

[iceaura]

Lol...the fact is Iceaura national socialism isn't a brand name as you asserted.

But "National Socialist" - the brand name of Hitler's political party - is.
It's the direct translation of the name of Hitler's Party -

National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly called the NSDAP or Nazi Party)

Fascists can be capitalists, but they can also be socialists. In Hitler's case it was both.

Gibberish.
Capitalism is the economic structure of fascism - a defining as well as characteristic feature. A fascist and a socialist have different political ideologies, especially in their economic aspects. Hitler was fascist, Stalin was socialist, their respectively associated Parties were political foes in Germany.

Germany under the Nazis was solidly and completely capitalist - even the military supply corporations and the Reichsbank were privately owned capitalist entities.

And you continue to falsely conflate political and economic systems.

They are not separable. Any political ideology must have an economic aspect, theory, agenda, etc.
I ascribe the current degradation of the US political system to some unfortunate economic aspects of its governing ideology over the past thirty years - in particular, its failure to tax and regulate capitalist concentration of wealth and corporate concentration of power.

 

[joepistole]

But "National Socialist" - the brand name of Hitler's political party - is.
It's the direct translation of the name of Hitler's Party -

No, it isn't. At least you are consistent: consistently stupid and intellectually dishonest.

Hitler's party was named The National Socialist German Workers' Party: otherwise known as Nazi's.

National socialism isn't a brand any more than socialism, communism, authoritarianism, monarch, or democracy are brands. Unfortunately for you the truth matters. And in typical Iceaura fashion you have stepped in your own poop and are now pretending you didn't. Poop, what poop? The poop you just stepped in.

Gibberish.

Just because you cannot think straight, it doesn't follow that it's gibberish. The fact is you have contradicted yourself as you are wont to do.

Capitalism is the economic structure of fascism - a defining as well as characteristic feature. A fascist and a socialist have different political ideologies, especially in their economic aspects. Hitler was fascist, Stalin was socialist, their respectively associated Parties were political foes in Germany.

Who are you arguing with? Hitler was a capitalist and Stalin was a communist. Contrary to your assertion Stalin wasn't a socialist. And how is that relevant? Have I not said several times now that capitalism was alive and well in fascist Europe? This is you being intellectually dishonest again, and you are obfuscating.

As I previously told you, you keep conflating political and economic systems. The two are not the same. As demonstrated I previously instructed you can have both. All developed economies have mixed economies. Hitler and Stalin were both authoritarians and both lusted for power and the lands of neighboring states.

Hitler was a capitalist and Stalin was a communist. Germany under the Nazis was solidly and completely capitalist - even the military supply corporations and the Reichsbank were privately owned capitalist entities.

Have I not already said that several times now?

They are not separable. Any political ideology must have an economic aspect, theory, agenda, etc.

But they are; that's why we have different words for them. Socialism can exist with or without an authoritarian government. Capitalism can exist with or without an authoritarian government. It's really not that difficult.

I ascribe the current degradation of the US political system to some unfortunate economic aspects of its governing ideology over the past thirty years - in particular, its failure to tax and regulate capitalist concentration of wealth and corporate concentration of power.

I ascribe the current "degradation" of the US polity to the rise of right wing entertainment whereby a large section of the population is never confronted with truth and reason e.g. Fox News, right wing radio, and right wing bloggers. The other ills you perceive are directly attributable to the widespread proliferation of disinformation, i.e. the age of misinformation.

 

[iceaura]

No, it isn't. At least you are consistent: consistently stupid and intellectually dishonest.

Hitler's party was named The National Socialist German Workers' Party: otherwise known as Nazi's.

So you read the immediate rest of my post, where I linked you to that fact and provided the source? Good.
Or maybe you didn't:

National socialism isn't a brand any more than socialism, communism, authoritarianism, monarch, or democracy are brands. Unfortunately for you the truth matters. And in typical Iceaura fashion you have stepped in your own poop and are now pretending you didn't. Poop, what poop? The poop you just stepped in.

When you cut off somebody's quote, and then call them dishonest for not posting the exact part of the quote you cut off, you have a serious problem of reading comprehension as well as integrity.

Here is the issue: the Nazi Party and government was not socialist. Not at all. They named themselves "National Socialist", apparently for marketing purposes, as a brand name. Their actual administration and governing ideology was fascist, and therefore capitalist - in corrupt league with corporate capitalists and fully cooperative with them, in a sense identical with them. That's what fascism is, that's how it rolls.

As I previously told you, you keep conflating political and economic systems. The two are not the same. As demonstrated I previously instructed you can have both. All developed economies have mixed economies.

Hitler's Germany was organized as capitalist, not socialist. Stalin's economy was organized as socialist, not capitalist. Fascism's economic organization is capitalist, authoritarian communism's economic organization is socialist. These are fundamentally different organizational approaches to a modern industrial economy, and they clearly differentiate those two political ideologies.

But they are; that's why we have different words for them. Socialism can exist with or without an authoritarian government. Capitalism can exist with or without an authoritarian government. It's really not that difficult.

Of course. I have posted that many times here. Why are you repeating my posts to me?

Meanwhile, fascism does not exist without its characteristic corporate capitalist economic organization. Without that, you don't have fascism - you have something else, a different kind of ugly, maybe Maoism or Stalinism. This is important, because modern fascists have always risen to power as the champions of the battle against tyrannical government itself, which they attempt to identify with the Left, or socialist, enemy; to do that, they must separate themselves from the reputation and record of fascists past. Allowing them - as they are attempting in the US - to sell the horrors of historical fascism as "socialist", and therefore not shading them but their enemy, is a capitulation to the Big Lie technique that is fascism's bread and media butter.

I ascribe the current "degradation" of the US polity to the rise of right wing entertainment whereby a large section of the population is never confronted with truth and reason e.g. Fox News, right wing radio, and right wing bloggers.

Which you apparently regard as having risen from the ocean fully paid for, and operating on its own without coordination or allegiance to anything but itself.

General Motors has a PR department. It doesn't run the company.

 

[joepistole]

So you read the immediate rest of my post, where I linked you to that fact and provided the source? Good.

Or maybe you didn't:

And where is that link? The fact is you provided no link. The fact is you are lying yet again. The fact is contrary to your repeated assertions national socialism isn’t a brand name for the Nazi Party or TheNational Socialist German Workers' Party. The fact is you stepped in your own poop. Own up to it and stop lying.

When you cut off somebody's quote, and then call them dishonest for not posting the exact part of the quote you cut off, you have a serious problem of reading comprehension as well as integrity.

So why do you do it? The fact is you have been quoted in entirety. You haven’t been cut off. Now if you believe you have, now is the time to show it.

Here is the issue: the Nazi Party and government was not socialist. Not at all. They named themselves "National Socialist", apparently for marketing purposes, as a brand name. Their actual administration and governing ideology was fascist, and therefore capitalist - in corrupt league with corporate capitalists and fully cooperative with them, in a sense identical with them. That's what fascism is, that's how it rolls.

No, the issue here was your assertion that national socialism was a brand name for Hitler’s Nazi Party. Who knows why Hitler added socialism to the name of his party? Hitler was ambiguous at best. But clearly Hitler was a capitalist. He stated as much. Hitler advocated private ownership.

Hitler's Germany was organized as capitalist, not socialist.

Who is arguing otherwise?

Stalin's economy was organized as socialist, not capitalist. Fascism's economic organization is capitalist, authoritarian communism's economic organization is socialist. These are fundamentally different organizational approaches to a modern industrial economy, and they clearly differentiate those two political ideologies.

Of course. I have posted that many times here. Why are you repeating my posts to me?

Stalin’s economy was a communist economy. Who has said Stalin’s economy was a capitalist economy? Where did you get that from? You are sitting up straw man arguments again.


It doesn’t change the fact that you have erroneously conflated political systems with economic systems.


You are obfuscating. Why are you making false assertions? Why are you making fallacious assertions?

Meanwhile, fascism does not exist without its characteristic corporate capitalist economic organization. Without that, you don't have fascism - you have something else, a different kind of ugly, maybe Maoism or Stalinism. This is important, because modern fascists have always risen to power as the champions of the battle against tyrannical government itself, which they attempt to identify with the Left, or socialist, enemy; to do that, they must separate themselves from the reputation and record of fascists past. Allowing them - as they are attempting in the US - to sell the horrors of historical fascism as "socialist", and therefore not shading them but their enemy, is a capitulation to the Big Lie technique that is fascism's bread and media butter.

Well, there is the problem with that, aside from being blatantly wrong, it doesn’t matter. As evidenced by Hitler and Stalin, both authoritarians, you can have socialism or capitalism in either. Contrary to your assertions political systems and economic systems aren’t the same.


Yes, when right wing nuts try to equate fascism with socialism, they are just as wrong as you are.

Which you apparently regard as having risen from the ocean fully paid for, and operating on its own without coordination or allegiance to anything but itself.


General Motors has a PR department. It doesn't run the company.

Please explain how that makes the least bit of sense? What have I written that would lead you to that conclusion? You are making stuff up again. The fact is I attribute our current woes to the rise of right wing misinformation centers, e.g. Fox News, right wing radio and blogs, whereby right wingers never need be confronted with or troubled by truth or reason. And the fact is this prolific disinformation is endangering our democracy.

Fox News is self-funding and very profitable just as right wing radio and right wing blogs are self-funding and profitable. It doesn’t matter how they are funded. It matters that they spread misinformation and are responsible for much of our current woes.

 

[iceaura]

And where is that link? The fact is you provided no link.

In post 102, this is the part you cut off when you deceptively quoted me so you could say false things about my post,

wiki said:
National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly called the NSDAP or Nazi Party)

The named source, wikipedia. The exact information you said I did not provide - the brand name of Hitler's political party.

Contrary to your assertions political systems and economic systems aren’t the same.

I made no such assertions.

The fact is I attribute our current woes to the rise of right wing misinformation centers, e.g. Fox News, right wing radio and blogs, whereby right wingers never need be confronted with or troubled by truth or reason.

And you apparently attribute the rise of these media operations to the workings of the universe, or the weather, or something.

General Motors has a PR department. It didn't just "rise".

Fox News is self-funding and very profitable just as right wing radio and right wing blogs are self-funding and profitable

That's not how they "rose". Fox lost money for years.
And it's not actually true - without billionaire and corporate backing and oversight much of the rightwing media and blogosphere would vanish, and all of it would be significantly changed.
In particular, they would have no material - they aren't coming up with this stuff on their own. They are being fed by dozens of very expensively supported think tanks, paid "journalists", sugar-daddy backed guys like Milo and James O'Keefe, etc.
And they would have much different staff, punditry, etc - Bannon's Breitbart never funded itself or its own influence, nobody expanded Joe Scarborough by hours a day to make more money, Hugh Hewitt is not breathing prime time media air for his intellectual contribution or his boost to the bottom line, the blonde bosoms of Fox would have had much different resume's to hand out in their recent job searches.

 

[joepistole]

In post 102, this is the part you cut off when you deceptively quoted me so you could say false things about my post,
The named source, wikipedia. The exact information you said I did not provide - the brand name of Hitler's political party.

LOL....Post #102 is your post. You quoted me in your post #102.

I have consistently quoted you verbatim and completely. And the fact remains, per my previous references, national socialism isn't a "brand name" as you have repeatedly alleged. I have repeatedly given you the actual name of Hitler's Nazi Party along with supporting references. There is no reason for you to repeat them and pretend you are adding something new to he conversation. Again, you aren't being honest as is your custom.

I made no such assertions.

Except you have, and you have done so repeatedly. Are you now saying you don't remember writing, "fascism does not exist without its characteristic corporate capitalist economic organization."?

You have repeatedly conflated economic systems with political systems, and I have repeatedly point out your error. So are you now admitting your error?

And you apparently attribute the rise of these media operations to the workings of the universe, or the weather, or something.

Oh so now instead of the sea it's the "weather or something"? Where in this conversation have I attributed the rise of "these media operations" to anything? I haven't. As previously pointed out to you, that's you making stuff up again. Once again for your edification: it doesn't matter what caused the rise of right wing media. It's here, and it is very problematic. A successful democracy requires well informed voters. That's not what we have here.

Contrary to your previous assertions, right wing media is self funding. It's profitable. Read carefully Iceaura, I'm going to tell you what caused the rise of right wing media. It was the demise of the "Fairness Doctrine". I have written about it many times here at Sciforms. So it shouldn't come as a surprise.

The Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land for many decades, and it worked very well. It required that all issues of national importance be discussed openly and fairly. Fox News, right wing radio, would have to tell the other side. The end of the Fairness Doctrine gave rise to Fox News and right wing radio. It created echo chambers whereby right wingers never need be confronted with truth or reason.

General Motors has a PR department. It didn't just "rise".

And? What does General Motors have to do with this? Do you have little green aliens in your family? It doesn't make sense.

That's not how they "rose". Fox lost money for years.

And your evidence is where? And how is it relevant? Even if it were true, it's not uncommon for new enterprises to loose money in their early years. In fact, it's the norm.

And it's not actually true - without billionaire and corporate backing and oversight much of the rightwing media and blogosphere would vanish, and all of it would be significantly changed.
In particular, they would have no material - they aren't coming up with this stuff on their own. They are being fed by dozens of very expensively supported think tanks, paid "journalists", sugar-daddy backed guys like Milo and James O'Keefe, etc.
And they would have much different staff, punditry, etc - Bannon's Breitbart never funded itself or its own influence, nobody expanded Joe Scarborough by hours a day to make more money, Hugh Hewitt is not breathing prime time media air for his intellectual contribution or his boost to the bottom line, the blonde bosoms of Fox would have had much different resume's to hand out in their recent job searches.

Okay, and your evidence is where? And why is that important or relevant? The right wing entertainment industry isn't going away unless the "Fairness Doctrine" is restored. You can rail all you want about billionaires, corporations, and scumbags like O'Keefe who is presently facing numerous felony charges, but that won't do a damn thing. Because they aren't the problems with respect to right wing echo chambers. They are problematic in other ways, e.g. the corruption of government.

We need a better informed voter base, and to do that we need to restore the "Fairness Doctrine". And until that happens, nothing changes. Because the problem is us. This is our government, and we need to hold ourselves accountable for it. We can complain and blame people all day long 8 days a week , but it won't matter unless we hold ourselves accountable and take affirmative action to change our circumstances.

 

[iceaura]

And the fact remains, per my previous references, national socialism isn't a "brand name" as you have repeatedly alleged.

I have not. I specifically stated the exact opposite, such as in post 89.

Your typical confusion of actual ideology - small n small s - with deceptive marketing and brand names like National Socialist German Workers Party, is a serious problem in the US. When people have been led to think that fascism is or can be left wing or socialist, they become blind to actual fascist movements - even quite obvious ones, like the one that has taken over the Republican Party and installed the latest President, become difficult for them to acknowledge or effectively oppose. And that is a fairly obvious explanation for the promotion of that confusion by US fascism's media operations, in books and punditry and media repetitions (such as Jonah Goldberg's much ballyhooed book).

I have repeatedly given you the actual name of Hitler's Nazi Party along with supporting references

No, I gave you the actual name of Hitler's party - in post 102, in the original German as well as the translation, naming my source.

Except you have, and you have done so repeatedly. Are you now saying you don't remember writing, "fascism does not exist without its characteristic corporate capitalist economic organization."?

Sure. That's a plain fact. So? You said I conflated economic and political organization as if they were the same thing. You posted the independence of left/right in economics and authoritarian/libertarian in politics as if correcting me, instead of repeating one of my most frequently posted memes on this forum. What are you doing?

Where in this conversation have I attributed the rise of "these media operations" to anything? I haven't.

Exactly. You seem not to even know.

You can rail all you want about billionaires, corporations, and scumbags like O'Keefe who is presently facing numerous felony charges, but that won't do a damn thing. Because they aren't the problems with respect to right wing echo chambers.

They are the financiers, owners, managers, and content providers of the rightwing "echo chambers". They have the same basic relationship to them that General Motors has to its marketing and PR departments.

And your evidence is where? And how is it relevant? Even if it were true, it's not uncommon for new enterprises to loose money in their early years. In fact, it's the norm.

And it's not uncommon for them to be supported all those years by billionaire investors and corporate money infusions. But those investors and angels have an agenda.

Because this is still the case:

- - without billionaire and corporate backing and oversight much of the rightwing media and blogosphere would vanish, and all of it would be significantly changed.
In particular, they would have no material - they aren't coming up with this stuff on their own. They are being fed by dozens of very expensively supported think tanks, paid "journalists", sugar-daddy backed guys like Milo and James O'Keefe, etc.
And they would have much different staff, punditry, etc - Bannon's Breitbart never funded itself or its own influence, nobody expanded Joe Scarborough by hours a day to make more money, Hugh Hewitt is not breathing prime time media air for his intellectual contribution or his boost to the bottom line, the blonde bosoms of Fox would have had much different resume's to hand out in their recent job searches

So they obviously aren't in it for the profits - most of the rightwing media loses money, if you subtract the expenses of supporting it, and the rest is clearly not being run for best bottom line. So - - -

 

[joepistole]

I have not. I specifically stated the exact opposite, such as in post 89.

So you don't remember writing, "If you have to use the term in English at all, which you shouldn't, at least always capitalize the brand name "National Socialism"?

Your typical confusion of actual ideology - small n small s - with deceptive marketing and brand names like National Socialist German Workers Party, is a serious problem in the US. When people have been led to think that fascism is or can be left wing or socialist, they become blind to actual fascist movements - even quite obvious ones, like the one that has taken over the Republican Party and installed the latest President, become difficult for them to acknowledge or effectively oppose. And that is a fairly obvious explanation for the promotion of that confusion by US fascism's media operations, in books and punditry and media repetitions (such as Jonah Goldberg's much ballyhooed book).

Two lies don't make a truth. The fact is you have repeatedly and erroneously conflated with political systems with economic systems. The fact that right wing nuts like to equate Nazis with left wingers, it doesn't follow that you have to return the favor with more misinformation.

I do see similarities between Trump's movement and the fascism which gripped Europe and led to WW II. But that doesn't mean we should make shit up and be dishonest. I find Trump's authoritarianism deeply disturbing, e.g. his support for torture as an interrogation tool. But that has noting to do with socialism or capitalism.

No, I gave you the actual name of Hitler's party - in post 102, in the original German as well as the translation, naming my source.

Actually, I gave you the actual name of Hitler's Party, and your repeating it adds nothing to this conversation. You really should try to be honest.

Sure. That's a plain fact. So? You said I conflated economic and political organization as if they were the same thing. You posted the independence of left/right economics and authoritarian/libertarian politics as if correcting me, instead of repeating one of my most frequently posted memes on this forum. What are you doing?

I have repeatedly corrected you, and you point is?

Exactly. You seem not to even know.

Not to know what exactly? You have repeatedly lied here. You asserted that I think right wing media arose from the "ocean" and then the "universe" and then the "weather". As I previously pointed out to you I made no such assertions, in part because it's totally irrelevant. Once again, you aren't being honest as is your custom.

They are the financiers, owners, managers, and content providers of the rightwing "echo chambers". They have the same basic relationship to them that General Motors has to its marketing and PR departments.

And? As previously pointed out to you, you can rant and rail all you want about wealthy individuals and right wing kooks. The truth is they are no kookier than you. They aren't any less dishonest than you. If they magically went away tomorrow, it wouldn't change a thing.

Those wealthy right wing individuals spend a lot of money advocating their ideology and trying to advance a government favorable to their causes. But that has nothing to do with right wing entertainment i.e. echo chambers. As you were previously informed, the right wing entertainment industry is self funding. It makes money. Fox News is a publicly traded company.

And it's not uncommon for them to be supported all those years by billionaire investors and corporate money infusions. But those investors and angels have an agenda.

Well then where is the previously requested proof? And why is that important? As previously explained, Fox as an example is a publicly traded company. Workers as well as the wealthy own Fox News.

Because this is still the case:

...."because you say so" isn't evidence. The fact is you have no evidence. As previously pointed out to you right wing entertainment is big business. It doesn't need financial sponsorship. It generates lots of cash all on its own.

So they obviously aren't in it for the profits - most of the rightwing media loses money, if you subtract the expenses of supporting it. So - - -

And your evidence is where? As always Iceaura, you are long on accusations but really short on evidence. It's not hard to see how profitable right wing media is. Just do a few Google searches. Look at their financial statements.

 

[Syne]

Oh, so now socialism only gets violent when it fails? How does that even make sense? Well, fortunately for us, socialism hasn't failed nor is it endanger of falling in anywhere much less any of the previously referenced socialistic countries. They are very stable countries and have been for a very long time. Greece survived its austerity measures. The US survived its recent election with virtually no violence. It was yet again another peaceful transfer of power.

And just who is it you think doesn't have to fund a standing military? And why is that relevant? All the previously mentioned countries maintain a military. They are all, with the exception of Sweden and Japan, a member of NATO. Sweden has always maintained a standing military.

Where is your evidence that the failure of socialism foments violence? The fact is you have no evidence that socialism is in some way related to violence. It doesn't even make sense. How do you explain the French Revolution? How do you explain the American Revolution? They weren't socialist countries comrade. Yet the Kingdom of France and the American colonies ended with violence.

Yes, all facts matter crony baby. It helps if you know them.

Then how do you explain Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, the US, Japan, the UK, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, et al.? Those countries all have a degree of socialism. Where is the authoritarianism in those countries? Facts matter comrade.

Where do those countries fall on this list? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

The free market viewpoint defines economic liberty as the freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. This is embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract, and characterized by external and internal openness of the markets, the protection of property rights and freedom of economic initiative. There are several indices of economic freedom that attempt to measure free market economic freedom. Empirical studies based on these rankings have found higher living standards, economic growth, income equality, less corruption and less political violence to be correlated with higher scores on the country rankings.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom​

I think Italy's the only only one not in the top 50.

Why Italy’s economy is about to collapse
A contracted economy, inadequate banking systems, engorged public sector and festering corruption mean that Italy is facing a troubled future​

This generally shows a correlation between economic freedom (free market capitalism) and higher standards of living, among other things.

Is Greece out of the woods?

Greek farmers clash with riot police in Athens over austerity
More evidence of how badly austerity is strangling the Greek economy
Greeks protest as government, lenders discuss new austerity​

And these stories are all from this month.

You're being disingenuous or obtuse if you claim there hasn't been more politically motivated violence in western countries lately.

NATO binds the US to come to the aid of any other NATO countries, and considering its overwhelmingly disproportionate military spending, that aid would not be equally reciprocal.

On the other hand, reality seems quite different from rhetoric. Since the mid-1950s, when the ambitious European Defense Community project failed, the EU has been unable to create a common framework to claim its military independence from the United States.

The lack of a strong political will to increase military spending and reconcile diverging national interests made it impossible to propose a real alternative to U.S. hegemony and NATO, which has represented the most effective machinery to ensure European security.

Consequently, if the United States should withdraw from Europe, it would leave a vacuum, which the EU, under current conditions, is unlikely to be able to fill. This context would create more risks than opportunities for European security.
- http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/66161​

The doomsayers have a point, of course. President-elect Trump has repeatedly called into question Article 5 of the NATO agreement, the promise to regard an attack on one of its members as an attack on all. And he has demanded that Europe, and the rest of America’s allies, start paying more for his country’s defensive umbrella.

He’s not the first to say it. Leading American politicians have repeatedly told their counterparts over here that the days of American generosity in burden-sharing will soon be over.

Barack Obama said it. Hillary Clinton said it. In a 2011 speech in Brussels, Robert M. Gates, then the secretary of defense, said, “Future U.S. political leaders — those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me — may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.”

And why wouldn’t Americans rethink their commitment? The disparity in spending is enormous: In 2015, the European Union states, with their 550 million citizens, spent $217 billion on defense, while the United States, with its 320 million people, spent $560 billion. Even the Ukraine crisis, and the possibility of Russian expansion toward Eastern Europe, have led to just a few minor increases in military spending. Germany’s recent pledge to spend an additional $8.6 billion on its armed forces between now and 2019 still brings its military expenditures to just 1.2 percent of gross domestic product — far from NATO’s requirement that members devote 2 percent of their gross domestic product to defense.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/how-europe-can-help-the-us-and-defend-itself.html​

 

[Syne]

Capitalism is the economic structure of fascism - a defining as well as characteristic feature. A fascist and a socialist have different political ideologies, especially in their economic aspects. Hitler was fascist, Stalin was socialist, their respectively associated Parties were political foes in Germany.

What utter garbage.

Fascism: What is it? Think Mussolini—he is the poster child for what a fascist is. While he started out as a socialist, he did not stay one, denouncing socialism in December 1914. The formal definition of fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual, and stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Fascism is usually placed on the far right within the traditional left/right political spectrum.
- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...r-philosophies-conservatives-don-t-understand​

Free market capitalism is antithetical to "sever economic regimentation". Private property forced to serve the "good of the nation" is socialism in all but name.

 

[joepistole]

Where do those countries fall on this list? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

The free market viewpoint defines economic liberty as the freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. This is embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract, and characterized by external and internal openness of the markets, the protection of property rights and freedom of economic initiative. There are several indices of economic freedom that attempt to measure free market economic freedom. Empirical studies based on these rankings have found higher living standards, economic growth, income equality, less corruption and less political violence to be correlated with higher scores on the country rankings.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom​

​

What about those countries? Please be specific.

I think Italy's the only only one not in the top 50.

Why Italy’s economy is about to collapse
A contracted economy, inadequate banking systems, engorged public sector and festering corruption mean that Italy is facing a troubled future​

This generally shows a correlation between economic freedom (free market capitalism) and higher standards of living, among other things.

And where is your evidence Italy is about to collapse? And what does that have to do with "socialism"? Again, be specific. As I previously stated, all developed economies are mixed economies. The most prosperous economies all are mixed economies. All of the countries in your list provide "socialized" healthcare. All of the countries you referenced have mixed economies.

​

And these stories are all from this month.

And what do you think that is evidence of exactly, and why?

You're being disingenuous or obtuse if you claim there hasn't been more politically motivated violence in western countries lately.

Well then is should be easy for you to prove. So let's see it. And what do you think it proves and why?

NATO binds the US to come to the aid of any other NATO countries, and considering its overwhelmingly disproportionate military spending, that aid would not be equally reciprocal.

On the other hand, reality seems quite different from rhetoric. Since the mid-1950s, when the ambitious European Defense Community project failed, the EU has been unable to create a common framework to claim its military independence from the United States.

The lack of a strong political will to increase military spending and reconcile diverging national interests made it impossible to propose a real alternative to U.S. hegemony and NATO, which has represented the most effective machinery to ensure European security.

Consequently, if the United States should withdraw from Europe, it would leave a vacuum, which the EU, under current conditions, is unlikely to be able to fill. This context would create more risks than opportunities for European security.
- http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/66161 ​

And your point is? The fact is NATO makes the US a stronger power. The fact is NATO has ensured the peace for almost a century. Those are generally considered good things. The elimination of NATO would most certainly bring about increased warfare in Europe. In the last century we fought 2 world wars in Europe. A third world war could well mean the end of mankind. As the study you referenced stated, a US withdrawal from NATO would cause great risks, and the benefits of NATO outweigh its costs.​

The doomsayers have a point, of course. President-elect Trump has repeatedly called into question Article 5 of the NATO agreement, the promise to regard an attack on one of its members as an attack on all. And he has demanded that Europe, and the rest of America’s allies, start paying more for his country’s defensive umbrella.

Article 5 has only been invoked once, and the US invoked it after the 9/11 attack. Trumper is a fool. But he isn't the first, to call upon all NATO members to pay their share of NATO's costs. And there is nothing wrong in that. They should pay their agreed upon contributions.

He’s not the first to say it. Leading American politicians have repeatedly told their counterparts over here that the days of American generosity in burden-sharing will soon be over.

Threatening friend and neighbors is probably not a good way to win friends and influence people. This is basic human relations 101. How well did it work for him and his wall Mexico was to pay for?

Barack Obama said it. Hillary Clinton said it. In a 2011 speech in Brussels, Robert M. Gates, then the secretary of defense, said, “Future U.S. political leaders — those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me — may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.”

NATO is preventative medicine. It's an ounce of prevention to prevent a pound of cure. The value of preventing war is not easily quantified. But that doesn't make that value any less valuable.

And why wouldn’t Americans rethink their commitment? The disparity in spending is enormous: In 2015, the European Union states, with their 550 million citizens, spent $217 billion on defense, while the United States, with its 320 million people, spent $560 billion. Even the Ukraine crisis, and the possibility of Russian expansion toward Eastern Europe, have led to just a few minor increases in military spending. Germany’s recent pledge to spend an additional $8.6 billion on its armed forces between now and 2019 still brings its military expenditures to just 1.2 percent of gross domestic product — far from NATO’s requirement that members devote 2 percent of their gross domestic product to defense.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/how-europe-can-help-the-us-and-defend-itself.html

The spending is based upon a percentage of each member nation's economy. The US economy dwarf's the economy of any NATO member country. That's why the US bears a larger NATO cost. It's unrealistic to expect Italy to pay as much as the US. It doesn't have the resources to do so.

 

[iceaura]

So you don't remember writing, "If you have to use the term in English at all, which you shouldn't, at least always capitalize the brand name "National Socialism"?

Yep. By which I pointed directly to the difference between ideological labels and brand names, and recommended that you keep them straight by capitalizing the brand name (such as when talking about Nazi Party economic policy).

Actually, I gave you the actual name of Hitler's Party, and your repeating it adds nothing to this conversation

I posted it first, before you did, in 102, and I posted the original German to justify the translation, which you did not. Your repeating it later added nothing, and your calling me dishonest for not posting it - when I had - subtracted.

Those wealthy right wing individuals spend a lot of money advocating their ideology and trying to advance a government favorable to their causes. But that has nothing to do with right wing entertainment i.e. echo chambers.

If we let that hang out in public, no comment, maybe you'll reread it.

Meanwhile, enjoy the long, long extra hours of Joe Scarborough on MSNBC - I'm sure consumer demand and audience ratings and high profit potential motivated that, along with the empaneling of such exciting and insightful and big-draw audience pleasers as Michael Steele, Hugh Hewitt, and Joe Walsh to discuss Trump's Russian connections on prime time national audience TV the other day.

Free market capitalism is antithetical to "sever economic regimentation". Private property forced to serve the "good of the nation" is socialism in all but name.

Private, for profit, capitalist enterprise does not magically become "socialism" under any circumstances.
Meanwhile, "free market" is only kind of capitalism. In fascism one more commonly sees the nation forced to serve the good of corporate private enterprise, and government acting in the service of industrial and financial capitalists, with markets dominated by trusts or cabals of colluding plutocrats rather than "free". What they call a "banana republic"? - it's a banana exporting capitalist corporation they're talking about. And it's got nothing to do with free markets.

When a ruling cadre of corporate capitalists uses governmental power to step on its competition, that's capitalism. Trump's Baku hotel is a capitalist venture.

 

[joepistole]

Yep. By which I pointed directly to the difference between ideological labels and brand names, and recommended that you keep them straight by capitalizing the brand name (such as when talking about Nazi Party economic policy).

Now which is it Icearua? You keep contradicting yourself as is your habit. The fact is your assertion that national socialism is a brand name for Hitler's party nor did I use it as such.

I posted it first, before you did, in 102, and I posted the original German to justify the translation, which you did not. Your repeating it later added nothing, and your calling me dishonest for not posting it - when I had - subtracted.

And you seriously think this makes sense?

If we let that hang out in public, no comment, maybe you'll reread it.

Maybe you will understand it, but I wouldn't count on it. Just because some special interests spend a lot of money advocating causes and trying to manipulate governments, it doesn't mean that they are funding right wing media as you have asserted. As I previously stated, and contrary to your assertion right wing media is self funding. It's profitable.

Meanwhile, enjoy the long, long extra hours of Joe Scarborough on MSNBC - I'm sure consumer demand and audience ratings and high profit potential motivated that, along with the empaneling of such exciting and insightful and big-draw audience pleasers as Michael Steele, Hugh Hewitt, and Joe Walsh to discuss Trump's Russian connections on prime time national audience TV the other day.

Why? And how is that relevant? Just so you know I generally don't watch Joe Scarborough.

Private, for profit, capitalist enterprise does not magically become "socialism" under any circumstances.
Meanwhile, "free market" is only kind of capitalism. In fascism one more commonly sees the nation forced to serve the good of corporate private enterprise, and government acting in the service of industrial and financial capitalists, with markets dominated by trusts or cabals of colluding plutocrats rather than "free". What they call a "banana republic"? - it's a banana exporting capitalist corporation they're talking about. And it's got nothing to do with free markets.

When a ruling cadre of corporate capitalists uses governmental power to step on its competition, that's capitalism. Trump's Baku hotel is a capitalist venture.

That's a bunch of conspiracy gibberish.

 

[billvon]

What are you doing?

Exactly. You seem not to even know.

He knows exactly what he's doing; he's trolling.

Socialism is an economic system associated with the left wing in the US. To him, fascism is "that which is bad." So naturally he conflates the two, hoping to get a rise out of you.

 

[Syne]

And where is your evidence Italy is about to collapse?

Read the linked article.

Well then is should be easy for you to prove. So let's see it. And what do you think it proves and why?

Already demonstrated...if you quit ignoring all the linked articles.

And your point is? The fact is NATO makes the US a stronger power. The fact is NATO has ensured the peace for almost a century. Those are generally considered good things. The elimination of NATO would most certainly bring about increased warfare in Europe. In the last century we fought 2 world wars in Europe. A third world war could well mean the end of mankind. As the study you referenced stated, a US withdrawal from NATO would cause great risks, and the benefits of NATO outweigh its costs.

Yeah, the benefits to Europe outweigh our costs. The only reason the loss of NATO would be a risk to Europe is due to their lack of military capability. Can you demonstrate how "NATO makes the US a stronger power"? You do know we have a military presence in non-NATO countries, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally#List_of_MNNAs

Article 5 has only been invoked once, and the US invoked it after the 9/11 attack. Trumper is a fool. But he isn't the first, to call upon all NATO members to pay their share of NATO's costs. And there is nothing wrong in that. They should pay their agreed upon contributions.

Who said Trump was the first to demand other nations pay their share? Especially considering the very next sentence of that same article:

He’s not the first to say it. Leading American politicians have repeatedly told their counterparts over here that the days of American generosity in burden-sharing will soon be over. - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/how-europe-can-help-the-us-and-defend-itself.html

The spending is based upon a percentage of each member nation's economy. The US economy dwarf's the economy of any NATO member country. That's why the US bears a larger NATO cost. It's unrealistic to expect Italy to pay as much as the US. It doesn't have the resources to do so.

If Obama ever questioned whether America really is the world’s one indispensable nation, he no longer does so. But he is the rare president who seems at times to resent indispensability, rather than embrace it. “Free riders aggravate me,” he told me. Recently, Obama warned that Great Britain would no longer be able to claim a “special relationship” with the United States if it did not commit to spending at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense. “You have to pay your fair share,” Obama told David Cameron, who subsequently met the 2 percent threshold.
- https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/​

NATO documents show that a majority of NATO members fail to meet NATO’s guideline, established in 2006, that defense expenditures should amount to 2 percent of each country’s gross domestic product. The median spending in 2015 is just 1.18 percent of GDP, compared to 3.7 percent for the United States, NATO says. Just four other countries currently exceed the 2 percent guideline.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-lions-share-for-nato/?utm_term=.bbf7d7d18d19​

So even by Obama's estimation and the percent of GDP per country, the US is paying more.

Private, for profit, capitalist enterprise does not magically become "socialism" under any circumstances.
Meanwhile, "free market" is only kind of capitalism. In fascism one more commonly sees the nation forced to serve the good of corporate private enterprise, and government acting in the service of industrial and financial capitalists, with markets dominated by trusts or cabals of colluding plutocrats rather than "free". What they call a "banana republic"? - it's a banana exporting capitalist corporation they're talking about. And it's got nothing to do with free markets.

When a ruling cadre of corporate capitalists uses governmental power to step on its competition, that's capitalism. Trump's Baku hotel is a capitalist venture.

You're conflating crony capitalism (corporatism/mercantilism) with capitalism.

Capitalist critique
Supporters of capitalism generally oppose crony capitalism as well, and consider it an aberration brought on by governmental favors incompatible with free market. In this view, crony capitalism is the result of an excess of socialist-style interference in the market, which inherently will result in a toxic combination of corporations and government officials running the sector of the economy. Some advocates prefer to equate this problem with terms such as "corporatism, a modern form of mercantilism" to emphasize that the only way to run a profitable business in such a system is to have help from corrupt government officials.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism#Capitalist_critique​

Government collusion means the economy isn't free....hence not capitalist.

 

[joepistole]

Read the linked article.

And? The fact that Italy's banks are under capitalized has been well known for some time. But that doesn't mean Italy is on the brink of collapse. American banks were on the brink of collapse in 2008. The are now in very good shape. The problems Italy faces are very manageable.

The irony here is that during the Great Recession, initially Europe went your way. They did what Republicans had advocated. That's why their recovery has been prolonged.

Already demonstrated...if you quit ignoring all the linked articles.

I don't think you understand your references.

Yeah, the benefits to Europe outweigh our costs. The only reason the loss of NATO would be a risk to Europe is due to their lack of military capability. Can you demonstrate how "NATO makes the US a stronger power"? You do know we have a military presence in non-NATO countries, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally#List_of_MNNAs
How well did that work out during WW I and WW II? It didn't. Europe didn't suffer for lack of military capability prior to either world war. That's a nonsensical argument.
Who said Trump was the first to demand other nations pay their share? Especially considering the very next sentence of that same article:

And? Is there a point buried in there somewhere?

If Obama ever questioned whether America really is the world’s one indispensable nation, he no longer does so. But he is the rare president who seems at times to resent indispensability, rather than embrace it. “Free riders aggravate me,” he told me. Recently, Obama warned that Great Britain would no longer be able to claim a “special relationship” with the United States if it did not commit to spending at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense. “You have to pay your fair share,” Obama told David Cameron, who subsequently met the 2 percent threshold.
- https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/​

And?​

http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_01/20160129_160128-pr-2016-11-eng.pdf

ts show that a majority of NATO members fail to meet NATO’s guideline, established in 2006, that defense expenditures should amount to 2 percent of each country’s gross domestic product. The median spending in 2015 is just 1.18 percent of GDP, compared to 3.7 percent for the United States, NATO says. Just four other countries currently exceed the 2 percent guideline.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-lions-share-for-nato/?utm_term=.bbf7d7d18d19

So even by Obama's estimation and the percent of GDP per country, the US is paying more.

Are you advocating the US pay less for defense? Is that your point? As previously stated it has long been known that many NATO states aren't fully funding their NATO commitment. Again, your point? Who are you arguing with? http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf

 

[Syne]

And? The fact that Italy's banks are under capitalized has been well known for some time. But that doesn't mean Italy is on the brink of collapse. American banks were on the brink of collapse in 2008. The are now in very good shape. The problems Italy faces are very manageable.

The irony here is that during the Great Recession, initially Europe went your way. They did what Republicans had advocated. That's why their recovery has been prolonged.

There was far more at stake here than just the reform of government – the consequences could be far-reaching, for Italy’s banks, its economy, and the Eurozone as a whole.

Italy’s economy is notoriously poor (it has a BBB+ credit rating at best), and its output gap has been negative since the financial crisis in 2008. Its debt-to-GDP ratio (133%) is second only to Greece, and this means that many of the country’s banks are in need of refinancing.

The banks are important players in this, especially seeing as they are particularly vulnerable to a loss of confidence (especially the troubled Monte dei Paschi bank, which is already teetering on the brink of collapse). Like in America, they’ve made a lot of bad loans (around $400 billion worth), and Renzi wanted to organise a government bailout. He came up against a significant obstacle – after the financial crisis, the EU made some rules prohibiting this kind of bailout. Under the new law, creditors must take losses before the government can pump in any money, and this is a problem because some 45% of bank debt is held by ordinary Italians. Complying with these rules could cost many Italians their life savings.

Italian banks have been trying to shore up their balance sheets, but investors are likely to get spooked by this ‘no’ vote, making it difficult to obtain the funds they need. The turmoil could hamper the growth of the economy, making it even less likely the loans will be repaid, and less likely the government could help in the event of a crisis. And a crisis is more probable than not – banks would start to sell their assets, devaluing the values of assets in previously sound banks and starting a downward spiral.
- https://theboar.org/2017/03/italys-no-vote-may-mean-banking/

Forget About Greece; Italy's Debt Crisis Will Be Worse

Even worse, Italy's banks hold 40% of all the bad loans within the countries sharing the euro...
​

Europe went my way? My way is/was against bailouts.

Are you advocating the US pay less for defense? Is that your point? As previously stated it has long been known that many NATO states aren't fully funding their NATO commitment. Again, your point? Who are you arguing with? http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf

The spending is based upon a percentage of each member nation's economy. The US economy dwarf's the economy of any NATO member country. That's why the US bears a larger NATO cost. It's unrealistic to expect Italy to pay as much as the US. It doesn't have the resources to do so.

You certainly seemed to be cheerleading NATO with no evident knowledge of the contribution discrepancy.

 

[joepistole]

There was far more at stake here than just the reform of government – the consequences could be far-reaching, for Italy’s banks, its economy, and the Eurozone as a whole.

Italy’s economy is notoriously poor (it has a BBB+ credit rating at best), and its output gap has been negative since the financial crisis in 2008. Its debt-to-GDP ratio (133%) is second only to Greece, and this means that many of the country’s banks are in need of refinancing.

The banks are important players in this, especially seeing as they are particularly vulnerable to a loss of confidence (especially the troubled Monte dei Paschi bank, which is already teetering on the brink of collapse). Like in America, they’ve made a lot of bad loans (around $400 billion worth), and Renzi wanted to organise a government bailout. He came up against a significant obstacle – after the financial crisis, the EU made some rules prohibiting this kind of bailout. Under the new law, creditors must take losses before the government can pump in any money, and this is a problem because some 45% of bank debt is held by ordinary Italians. Complying with these rules could cost many Italians their life savings.

Italian banks have been trying to shore up their balance sheets, but investors are likely to get spooked by this ‘no’ vote, making it difficult to obtain the funds they need. The turmoil could hamper the growth of the economy, making it even less likely the loans will be repaid, and less likely the government could help in the event of a crisis. And a crisis is more probable than not – banks would start to sell their assets, devaluing the values of assets in previously sound banks and starting a downward spiral.
- https://theboar.org/2017/03/italys-no-vote-may-mean-banking/

Forget About Greece; Italy's Debt Crisis Will Be Worse

Even worse, Italy's banks hold 40% of all the bad loans within the countries sharing the euro...
​

Europe went my way? My way is/was against bailouts.

Yes, as I previously pointed out to you during the Great Recession, Europe followed the austerity path. They didn't bail out their banks. They didn't recapitalize their banks. We did. That's why we emerged from the recession quickly whereas the recession lingered in Europe.

It wasn't until Europe followed the US example did things get better in Europe.

Here is part of your problem; you are reading and citing fake news e.g. MoneyMorning. Italy's problems aren't new. They've been around for a long time. What your reference failed to account for is the fact that Italy is now working with the EU and more specifically the EU central bank to recapitalize its banking system. https://www.ft.com/content/b7b55e26-f2a1-11e6-95ee-f14e55513608

You certainly seemed to be cheerleading NATO with no evident knowledge of the contribution discrepancy.

Hmm. Did you not see my previous reference which listed country by country the most current contribution discrepancy? Did you forget about the part when I specifically addressed the issue? Did you not get it when I said each member country should contribute the agreed upon amount?

But the discrepancies do not justify the US withdrawal from NATO as you seem to believe. It does justify more political and trade pressure on those countries. I, like many others, have car insurance. Just because I haven't suffered a covered liability, it doesn't follow the insurance doesn't have value, and so it is with NATO. Just because there hasn't been a WW III it doesn't mean NATO has no value.

 

[iceaura]

You're conflating crony capitalism (corporatism/mercantilism) with capitalism.

Crony capitalism is a form of capitalism - perhaps the most common form.

Supporters of capitalism generally oppose crony capitalism as well, and consider it an aberration brought on by governmental favors incompatible with free market. In this view, crony capitalism is the result of an excess of socialist-style interference in the market,

This is a good example of the harm done to reason by the destruction of meaningful vocabulary.

Capitalism does not require any markets at all, let alone free ones. Government action is not necessarily socialism. Governments granting favors to capitalist enterprises does not convert them to socialist enterprises. Government collusion with capitalists, or in the other direction corporate capitalist corruption and coercion of governments (as in the US, typical banana republics, most fascist takeovers, etc), does not create socialism.

There is no such thing as "socialist-style" capitalism. Cronies of capitalists are not socialists.

Unless carefully regulated and governed, capitalism destroys free markets, as successful capitalists work very hard to eliminate freedom from their markets and often have the opportunity to do so as wealth becomes concentrated. This does not create socialism.

which inherently will result in a toxic combination of corporations and government officials running the sector of the economy.

A reasonable description of corporate capitalism under fascist governance.

Some advocates prefer to equate this problem with terms such as "corporatism, a modern form of mercantilism" to emphasize that the only way to run a profitable business in such a system is to have help from corrupt government officials.

And the only way to survive in government office is to have the support and protection of the major corrupt capitalist businessmen. Like in the US Congress, with the PACs and campaign funding.

Government collusion means the economy isn't free....hence not capitalist.

That is a fundamental, basic, crucial, error. Freedom in the economy is neither necessary nor particularly welcome in corporate capitalism. Corporate capitalists want monopoly, control, market domination - that's where the big profits come from.

And the promulgation of that error has been a deliberate tactic, a calculated ploy, of the fascist propaganda operations in the US. The rightwing media operations have been marketing that line, hard, for decades - they are on the brink of success.

The goal is 1) equating tyranny with socialism, socialism with tyranny, both and vice versa, while simultaneously 2) equating freedom with capitalism, capitalism with freedom. That way people will not recognize incoming takeover by fascists: they are capitalists, after all, therefore in this Orwellian milieu by definition advocates of freedom.