The Reporter who cried HITLER 16 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Schofield VIP Member

om :A

319,570 XP

24th October 2007

1 Uploads

30,540 Posts

0 Threads

#11 9 years ago
Mr. Pedantic;5049718It's interesting how the American Public definition of Socialist is so different from everyone else's definition.

It is interesting. If Obama is a socialist, does that mean Swedens and Canadians are like advanced socialists? Most people don't even know what a socialist is, they just think it's a fancy word for communism and then call it evil. Obama does have some socialist ideas, but until those ideas actually become reality, do not call him a socialist. None of his ideas will work anyways.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,637 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,026 Posts

9 Threads

#12 9 years ago
WiseBobo;5048815 Although the American right is composed of a bunch of morons, describing Obama's policies as even being remotely capitalist is a falsehood. Capitalism has nothing to do with state ownership of a major car company or banks. His reforms are never going to work and will just invoke more anger after the unemployment rate continues to jump up and refuses to curb rampant debt spending. It will only get worse; I should know. I live in a state that is bankrupt as a result of a government and instead of it being a lesson for the country, the Feds are quick to follow suit where California has failed.

I don't like bailouts either and they are rather socialist in nature, but I wouldn't attribute them to Obama only. The last days of Bush's presidency showed that he supported bailouts as well and so would have most other politicians (as you can see politicians all around the world opted for bailouts if they could only get their hands on enough money).

The funny thing is though that these socialist measures were only necessary because the free-market capitalism doctrine got us into this mess in the first place. A few more regulations (not only in the US but certainly also in Europe, which isn't quite as socialist as the Republicans would have you believe) might have prevented this.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#13 9 years ago
Rich19;5049561Why do people in America hate Hitler because of his (supposedly socialist) economic policies? I personally find the man evil because of things like the holocaust, rather than because he dared to do something like solve the mass-unemployment problem with large state-run projects. I fail to see how the concept of socialism has anything to do with killing jews - could someone please enlighten me on this?

It's something I mentioned earlier with fallacies. By associating a set of ideologies- in this case socialism- with bad things, it can be used as a cheap way for people to discredit their opponents for following something they can associate, quite weakly, with the "evil" object.

Say I am running for political office. I suggest some aggressive changes to help combat poverty. My opponent can call these socialist, and point out that leaders like Stalin and Hitler did the same things, thus, I am a power hungry demagogue. It's more intricate than that, but it's very common in political rings. Just sit through any debate and inevitably something like this will be brought up.

Now I need to clear somethings up. Bailing businesses out, government interest in the economy, etc are NOT socialist. The Great Deal of FDR was not socialist, not by any stretch of the imagination. State intervention in the economy is undertaken because the government is often, more or less, very much influenced by major economic powers in their nation and in turn the government relies on those economic giants to legitimize their government.

Socialism entails "the people owning the means of production" and this can be achieved in different ways. While nationalization and public safety nets are sometimes used, they are not exclusive to Socialist thinking, and these tactics are prevalent in regimes who wouldn't call themselves "socialist". Hitler and Mussolini practiced heavy state control over the economy for national interest, but they weren't socialist. FDR and other democratic regimes attempted state interventionism in order to prevent a complete failure in the market system and thus provide more propaganda for various political groups to undermine an economic system that is favorable to those in power.

State interventionist policies are very common among the industrialized powers, and has been since the rise of industrial society in the 1800s. The regime of Napoleon III and the Republican government following his downfall did this extensively. The United Kingdom propped up numerous businesses who were the lifeline of the Empire. The German Empire, particularly under Otto Von Bismark, practiced this as well. However, were they Socialist? No way.

If we were to call these things socialist, nearly everything any government does would be considered socialist.

In Europe, many of the countries retain a set of nationalized or semi-nationalized industries and a set of social programs, regardless of whether the centre-right or centre-left are in power. This is not because they've embraced socialism, but acknowledge the value such things are to the survival of the state.

Even looking recently at politicians like Merkel and Sarkozy, both coming from centre-right parties, have borrowed tactics from their opponents and have begun attacking the bad things big businesses have been doing in their countries and promising greater regulations over them. This is not because Merkel and Sarkozy have become socialists overnight, but because they see it as a convenient populist tactic to build support and simultaneously take their opponents' voter base. And ultimately, this means the survival of their respective governments.

I'd say more specifically this ideology is better summed as "Corporatism" today, which can exist across numerous forms of economies. It's not socialism however.

Obama is doing something very common with politicians from centre-left parties in their countries, that is Third Way style politics. They are often attempting to incorporate state-intervention policies into their market systems as a way to advance their progressive ideals. It is their way of trying to appeal to their voter base, but attempting to make inroads with the voter base of other political parties. However, the large businesses which control the economy do not feel threatened by these politicians either. Basically, these politicians have moved much more to the centre, and in some cases centre-right to appeal to the majority of voters and maintain faith in the state.

This does not mean, however, that Obama is a socialist. Obama is still going to back free trade and globalization initiatives as it is inline with his views. Obama is still going to favor corporations over unions, and he is still going to ultimately favor those who control the capital and credit flow in the country. He is still going to favor businesses who ultimately make up the US economy and who provide the livelihood that he and the other upper class of America benefit from.

However, while he favors corporations, there are a group of corporations he might give much more preferential treatment to. The ones that are going to get the short end of the stick under his government are the ones that are acting up now. The ones who were ok with the same practices being abusive to other corporations and smal business, but now find them being on the receiving end and suddenly take up the mantle of being defenders of laissez-faire capitalism.

Thus, they're going to rile up the people and the political groups they back. They are going to use fallacies to associate Obama's policies with socialists or nazis, depending on which is more convenient. They will pass off these "grass-roots" movements as genuine, where I and others would simply call them "astro-turf", as much of them are artificially engineered.

Socialism has become a convenient catchall for "big government", "bureaucracy", and squelching out individual drive while "rewarding" lazy people by American politicians- a remnant of Cold War paranoia- and is used to their fullest extent to hit politicians who do not come from the status quo of the politics. At the same time, capitalism is played as a holy and good object which has been hampered by regulations, and pushing this idea that one can work hard enough and be successful (movies like The Pursuit of Happiness) to keep people faithful in that system.

To put it simply, a real socialist will never be elected in the US. The powers that hold interest in this nation will not allow for such a thing to occur.

I will now give some quotes from a real American socialist, Eugene V. Debs, on his thoughts on the Republicans and Democrats of his days.

"As a rule, large capitalists are Republicans and small capitalists are Democrats, but workingmen must remember that they are all capitalists, and that the many small ones, like the fewer large ones, are all politically supporting their class interests, and this is always and everywhere the capitalist class."

"The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles."

And that's all that needs to be said about the political factions in most western countries.




Stryker500

I want to be like the Admins

50 XP

26th January 2009

0 Uploads

225 Posts

0 Threads

#14 9 years ago
WiseBobo;5048815tl;dr Although the American right is composed of a bunch of morons, describing Obama's policies as even being remotely capitalist is a falsehood. Capitalism has nothing to do with state ownership of a major car company or banks. His reforms are never going to work and will just invoke more anger after the unemployment rate continues to jump up and refuses to curb rampant debt spending. It will only get worse; I should know. I live in a state that is bankrupt as a result of a government and instead of it being a lesson for the country, the Feds are quick to follow suit where California has failed.

The American right is composed of morons? Typical. And I presume you think the American left is somehow intelligent? The further you go left the worse it gets in my opinion. Idiots are in every country on all areas of the political spectrum.

I don't understand why so many Europeans think the US should have a "socialist" system in the sense many Scandinavian nations have. Honestly how many of you from (insert European country here) thinks the US should be more like yourself when it comes to politics and government spending? Have you ever just considered that perhaps the average middle class citizen here doesn't want that?

And why is supposedly every left wing protest "grass roots" while every right wing protest is "astro-turf?" This double standard BS gets tiring. How is the left decrying the evil" of corporations better than the right opposing the government over-regulating and trying to become the major player in an industry?

Churchill once said: "Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is - the strong horse that pulls the whole cart." This remains true regardless of the motivations of private industry. Some seem under the impression that the government is motivated olely by concern for the people it is supposed to lead. A government is run by men, just like a business. It is not necessarily a better solution.

As far as people being called Hitler goes, it seems the media has forgotten cries of Bushitler since 2001. Yet now it is a sign of "dangerous racists"? I don't approve calling any president Hitler but you reap what you sow and all of that.




Zipacna VIP Member

Re-heally?

44,194 XP

11th January 2008

0 Uploads

4,271 Posts

57 Threads

#15 9 years ago
evildude;5046984You may say, Well Obama is a socialist just like Hitler was.

Okay, this one sentence has been torn apart enough already but I would just like to add: Hitler wasn't a socialist, not because he did nothing to fight the unemployment and the bad situation in general. It's because he didn't care about whether or not it increased people's quality of life. He did order to build appropriate housing, he did give people jobs, also in areas that were not directly linked to leading a war but in the end, he only did that because he wanted the people to stand behind him. Old idea, carrot and stick... And by the way, I don't think you can measure how bad a person is in the number of people's deaths they are responsible for. Stalin was in power way longer and the pure idea of what Hitler created with the concentration camps (at first "just" new places to dump his political enemies because the prisons were flooded with them).


sigpic191442_14.gif



Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#16 9 years ago
Stryker500;5071948The American right is composed of morons? Typical. And I presume you think the American left is somehow intelligent?

No, no, he's WiseBobo. Both of them are stupid, but in different ways :nodding:

I don't understand why so many Europeans think the US should have a "socialist" system in the sense many Scandinavian nations have. Honestly how many of you from (insert European country here) thinks the US should be more like yourself when it comes to politics and government spending? Have you ever just considered that perhaps the average middle class citizen here doesn't want that?

I think they want the US to be more "socialist" because it's working out pretty good for them.

The average middle class citizen doesn't want a promise of food, clothing, shelter, and medical attention? That's what we give to all criminals. Education's another GOVERNMENT-RUN SYSTEM (oh noes!) that people seem to be more-or-less fine with.

And why is supposedly every left wing protest "grass roots" while every right wing protest is "astro-turf?"

Left wing protests organized by Hollywood actors and politicians don't get much media attention, but they're not called "grass-roots". Not every right wing is called "astro-turf", but the overwhelming majority of those that get media coverage are supported by some part of the GOP.

This double standard BS gets tiring. How is the left decrying the evil" of corporations better than the right opposing the government over-regulating and trying to become the major player in an industry?

That's pretty simple. The left decries corporations which abuse their status and harm people. This puts them in the light of "caring about people". The right decries leftists that push for things that fetter corporations, when previous "anti-corporation" legislation's been shown to improve quality of life; y'know, things like the Food and Drug Act, or child labor laws, or anti-trust legislation(which really should be enforced more, IMO). This puts them in the light of "evil bastards who would sell their children to make a buck, probably while shooting poor people and laughing"

Churchill once said: "Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is - the strong horse that pulls the whole cart." This remains true regardless of the motivations of private industry. Some seem under the impression that the government is motivated solely by concern for the people it is supposed to lead. A government is run by men, just like a business. It is not necessarily a better solution.

No, it isn't necessarily a better solution by virtue of being a government. But being something where you can democratically elect those government members, and by having their behavior evaluated on something more than the profit line, they become more responsible than most executives of large corporations.

As far as people being called Hitler goes, it seems the media has forgotten cries of Bushitler since 2001. Yet now it is a sign of "dangerous racists"? I don't approve calling any president Hitler but you reap what you sow and all of that.

The discourse had been lowered some time before 2001. There's no reaping what is sown here.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,637 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,026 Posts

9 Threads

#17 9 years ago

Stryker500;5071948 I don't understand why so many Europeans think the US should have a "socialist" system in the sense many Scandinavian nations have. Honestly how many of you from (insert European country here) thinks the US should be more like yourself when it comes to politics and government spending? Have you ever just considered that perhaps the average middle class citizen here doesn't want that?[/QUOTE] I can only speak for myself, but I don't think that many Europeans "want" the US to be more "socialist". Most Europeans probably don't care that much about what system the US will end up with. The reason why many Europeans take part in such discussions is probably because they dislike the widespread phobia of anything socialist that seems to have replaced phobia of anything communist in the US. But apart from that the whole socialism-discussion doesn't make too much sense anyway. Socialism has another definition in Europe (in the US it is often just another word for evil that applies to any policy that is left of the ideology of the Republican party, here it applies only to policies that are more leftist than the policies of social-democrats). The US already uses policies that are very similar to our own in many respects, you just don't think of them as socialist.

Besides, if you look at European policies you see a lot of different trends within the countries. Germany is actually in the process of drifting to the right and uses policies that are very similar to those used by Bush (junior). So it isn't as simple as "all Europeans are socialists who want us to join them".

[QUOTE=Stryker500;5071948] As far as people being called Hitler goes, it seems the media has forgotten cries of Bushitler since 2001. Yet now it is a sign of "dangerous racists"? I don't approve calling any president Hitler but you reap what you sow and all of that.

You have a president who receives way more hate-filled nonsentical insults than any other president before him. The way I see it his policies are not controversial enough to warrant that. So he is trying to reform the a healthcare system that never properly worked and is in the process of failing, big deal. I think there have been more questionable projects in the past. So if there are more insults than his policies warrant there has to be another reason. Now let's see, which factor differentiates Obama from all other US presidents?

I think a lot of people are simply seeking an outlet for their more or less subconscious racism/xenophobia.

Not that that applies to all protesters, but it probably does apply to those who shout loudest.




  • 1
  • 2