re: OT-: Let's Talk Socialism

I'm a little late to the discussion here, but I wanted to weigh in on Kneehigh's troglodyte argument of: "hurr durr, Nazi stands for National Socialist, that means that you liberals and Democrats are the Nazis and love Hitler, hurr durr."

History is a wonderful thing, so let us take a historical perspective. It is true that in its early days, the NSDAP was both nationalist and socialist; hence its name. They sought to dismantle Germany's powerful industrial culture and transfer the means of production to normal folks, provided they were White and non-Jewish. However, as Hitler gained power, Germany's industrial titans did not like what they were seeing, so they sought to gain influence from the inside of the party. This culminated with the so-called Night of the Long Knives, when Ernst Rohm, the leader of the SA and the socialist god-father of the party, was killed by Heinrich Himmler and his corporate-oriented SS. At this point, with the exception of safety net programs, the Nazi party adopted a fascist economic model, despite keeping its original name.

And that's just the economic side. Let's not forget about the nationalist side. Nationalism, at least by the Continental definition, means creating a society in which those with a different skin color, religion, language, or alienage are not tolerated. I grew up in rural Gwinnett County back when Klan rallies still happened openly. I still remember the faces and names of the guys who sat at my high school lunch table who would regularly talk about the need to send "the n*ggers back to Africa." Rest be assured they are all Republicans today. It's simply ludicrous to suggest that the Republican party is the party of religious and racial inclusivity, and that the Democrats are the party of Hitler.

Digressing back to main topic of the OP: I personally do not endorse many policies that, for example, Senator Sanders endorses. But there are worse outcomes in our life than America's insurance industry being nationalized. Just because a self-described socialist wants to nationalize an industry that has caused - arguably - more harm than good to the American people, doesn't mean he wants to nationalize every industry.

quote:

---

Rest be assured they are all Republicans today

---

This is laughable.
The Klan. Jim crow. Those arent conservative/republican/libertarian ideas. Shame on you for rewriting history.

quote:

---

But there are worse outcomes in our life than America's insurance industry being nationalized. Just because a self-described socialist wants to nationalize an industry that has caused - arguably - more harm than good

---

Way to scapegoat insurance.
You do realize that insurance is a conduit? It passes costs from healthcare to the public at risk of loss. Insurance does not create unnecessary cost. It does strive for profit. But no business exists without striving for profit. No profit actually means closure of business or bankruptcy. This is where all of the socialists are idiots trying to drive away profits.

If the government takes over the conduit... if the government nationalizes insurance, it does not fix the cost of healthcare. All it does is less efficiently manages the conduit with no risk of loss (increased taxes). It forces out private health insurance who do suffer risk of loss.

Where is the federal government better than the private sector in our lives?

And for those who have this notion that the federal government can be altruistic and not needing profit. Check out your local county tax commissioner. They pocket 2% of the property tax revenue at no risk of loss. That is 2% of your local tax digest that is kept from local school systems. And for what? Collecting what people are required to pay? Insurance companies strive for 3-4% return at a risk of loss. If that doesnt demonstrate inefficiencies in government... if that doesnt piss you off... I dont know what will.

quote:

---

The Klan. Jim crow. Those arent conservative/republican/libertarian ideas. Shame on you for rewriting history.

---

While they aren't originally Republican and certainly are not libertarian, they most assuredly are conservative.

Give me a break on the whole "Democrats started them". It's so tired and lazy. All those people are now Republicans. That process started after Johnson (a Democrat) ended Jim Crow with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And that process finally concluded in 1994 when the last Dixiecrats finally switched parties.

I mean, there is a reason why Tim Scott is literally the only Republican Congressman who is black.

quote:

---

Where is the federal government better than the private sector in our lives?

---

It's really a fundamental question about whether you believe every moment of our lives should be geared toward generating short-term monetary profits. The argument goes that certain areas of our life are too important to be monetized for shareholders, be it education, healthcare, national defense, conservation, or something else. Having worked in the public and private sector, I can't really tell a difference in the quality of work by employees. The big difference, however, is in quality of leadership. If we elected better leaders, regardless of party, then government would work better for us. Saying that our government sucks is really nothing more than a self-indictment.

But to answer your question, the military, for one. I don't want a bunch of mercenaries representing the U.S. who were too fat or too stupid to get into the military, but want to be a part of the "thank you for your service culture." And there are plenty of powerful folks salivating to dismantle our military because if given the opportunity to own a mercenary company, it will make them a fortune on the back of American taxpayers.

Why is it that a general consensus that a government should have a standing military be, by socialists, over and over and over, a rationalization for socialism?

Sure, that's fair, but the fact remains that's a recurring theme for socialists.

That was a block of progressive BS. “Oh my! I can still see the faces of the bullies at my lunch table!! It was a racist convention and I still have the all over shivers on their account! And oh yeah....they are surely Republicans today.”

Socialism only works if no corruption

quote:

---

Based on my simple understanding, socialism only works if you have a small homologous society where there's really only one national resource as a source of wealth, so it has to be nationalized and jobs/dividends spread out among the citizens.

---

Socialism is a drug to numb the masses while despots take control.

They promise all of wonderful things, spark a revolution, then seize control for themselves. That's why Socialism never produces positive results and why it's "never been tried".

It's never been tried because humans need accountability and in large enough groups accountability breaks down.

In a small tribe of people living in the woods, socialism works because the tribe knows everyone and holds them accountable. In a city the size of New York the powerful are not held to account.