Exactly what is the definition of "Fair Share?"

vetteman said:

You're the retard, having simply fell back on an old Liberal mantra of the time. You idiots still wouldn't admit it when a federal judge said he lied.

Click to expand...

O.M.G.

OK, from now on, I'm going to spell out everything in short words for our right wing friends.

EllieTalbot said:

Everything had to be approved of and set by the totalitarian Reich. That's not capitalism.

Vocal in Vienna,
Ellie

Click to expand...

Which is why I wrote……

Bad_Doggie said:

No one seriously believes the Nazi’s were anything other than a right leaning, authoritarian, fascist regime.
Woof!

Click to expand...

It’s a bit stupid to label Nazism as a capitalist regime as defined by any common definition of the word. Almost as stupid as labelling it a socialist regime as defined by any common definition of that word.

One wonders why Hayek’s and Mises don’t mention labels such as; state capitalism or third position politics both of which describe the economic and political situation better than THEIR “middle class socialism” label. Although knowing of their other writings I guess I shouldn’t be that surprised.

In essence all Hayek does is pick-out one aspect which is a trait of Socialism ignores all the traits of Capitalism and comes up with a definition that ignores all the other traits of Socialism. Kinda convenient.

Is there a definition of “middle class socialism” other than the one von Hayek puts forward?

How do they explain the financial backing given to the Nazi’s by Capitalist already mentioned? How is this Socialist? Oh yeah they were all hood winked. Kinda convenient again.

Perhaps you’d like to tell us what happened to the leftist elements of the National “socialist” party; the likes of the Strasser brothers, Röhm?

How do they explain the murder and incarceration of unionists? How do they explain the removal of employee protection in the workplace by banning unions? Again not socialist, sure would be advantageous to their capitalist backers though.

How would they explain the out of court settlements paid by several large German companies to head off law suits being brought against them by holocaust survivors for compensation in the 90’s. The cases that were being prepared cited the PROFITS (not a socialist concept) being made by the companies while exploiting the victims.

EllieTalbot said:

The Nazis were an ideologically confused bunch

Click to expand...

The truth being that Hitler was a political opportunist and would say whatever he thought expedient at the time and lie and obfuscate as he would see fit.

The vast majority of academics and historians identify Nazism in practice as being a far right form of politics, no matter how much you or Hayek wish to define terms to say that they weren’t.

However, Nazism as officially presented by Hitler and other proponents as being neither left-wing nor right-wing but syncretic. Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany. Kinda fits neatly with the state capitalism or third position politics label. But, then we don’t get to do the scary dance.

Woof!

EllieTalbot said:

this thread has become a breeding ground of bipartisan stupidity.

Click to expand...

Well demonstrated.

Woof!

vetteman said:

You are correct it is, usually by leftists trying their best to disassociate themselves from their position of proximity to Nazism. Hoping beyond hope that logic will not intrude upon the intellectual traction of that big scam.

My more practical political spectrum places total government or Communism on the extreme left, and no government or anarchy on the extreme right. This places totalitarian governments of all stripes at different locations on the left as mere aspects of the same intellectual bankruptcy. This bit of political simplicity and clarity brought to you by the way of SDSU.

Click to expand...

You're a fucking idiot.

Bad_Doggie said:

Which is why I wrote……



It’s a bit stupid to label Nazism as a capitalist regime as defined by any common definition of the word. Almost as stupid as labelling it a socialist regime as defined by any common definition of that word.

One wonders why Hayek’s and Mises don’t mention labels such as; state capitalism or third position politics both of which describe the economic and political situation better than THEIR “middle class socialism” label. Although knowing of their other writings I guess I shouldn’t be that surprised.

In essence all Hayek does is pick-out one aspect which is a trait of Socialism ignores all the traits of Capitalism and comes up with a definition that ignores all the other traits of Socialism. Kinda convenient.

Is there a definition of “middle class socialism” other than the one von Hayek puts forward?

How do they explain the financial backing given to the Nazi’s by Capitalist already mentioned? How is this Socialist? Oh yeah they were all hood winked. Kinda convenient again.

Perhaps you’d like to tell us what happened to the leftist elements of the National “socialist” party; the likes of the Strasser brothers, Röhm?

How do they explain the murder and incarceration of unionists? How do they explain the removal of employee protection in the workplace by banning unions? Again not socialist, sure would be advantageous to their capitalist backers though.

How would they explain the out of court settlements paid by several large German companies to head off law suits being brought against them by holocaust survivors for compensation in the 90’s. The cases that were being prepared cited the PROFITS (not a socialist concept) being made by the companies while exploiting the victims.



The truth being that Hitler was a political opportunist and would say whatever he thought expedient at the time and lie and obfuscate as he would see fit.

The vast majority of academics and historians identify Nazism in practice as being a far right form of politics, no matter how much you or Hayek wish to define terms to say that they weren’t.

However, Nazism as officially presented by Hitler and other proponents as being neither left-wing nor right-wing but syncretic. Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany. Kinda fits neatly with the state capitalism or third position politics label. But, then we don’t get to do the scary dance.

Woof!

Click to expand...

Where exactly did I characterize the Nazis as far right or far left? I specifically addressed only the denial that they were socialists. There's no "redefining" going on here, except by you.

Funny you should mention state capitalism, because Marxists/communists/etc used to decry socialism by saying it was just state capitalism. And Third Position has no bearing because it's devoted to political movements like nationalism and racial separatism, not economics.

And since when has profit been eschewed by socialism? Socialism's only core tenet is state-run industry. Under the Nazis, industries were privately owned but the Reich controlled everything - the labor, the wages, the products, the quantity, the distribution, the location, and how much profit owners kept (they liked to keep owners happy and cooperative, but they took very generous cuts for the state). It's absurd to say that it wasn't socialism because money was being made.

The Nazis persecuted people from all political ideologies - left, right, center... basically anyone who criticized them, and they had critics everywhere. That doesn't change the fact that they put socialism into practice, and the reason they didn't like unionists is because unions have a tendency to squawk when you want to implement slave labor.

And you obviously didn't read the info, at least not with much attention. von Hayek is the only one who used the term "middle-class socialism" and it was merely analogous. If you were truly familiar with Miser's work, you'd know he never used it.


Unimpressed in a Union,
Ellie

Fair share:

Abbot and Costello defined "fair share" 60 years ago, when they were dividing up all the 1 dollar bills.

Costello to Abbot

I for you, 1 for me

2 for you... 1,2 for me

3 for you... 1,2,3 for me.

EllieTalbot said:

And since when has profit been eschewed by socialism? Socialism's only core tenet is state-run industry. Under the Nazis, industries were privately owned but the Reich controlled everything - the labor, the wages, the products, the quantity, the distribution, the location, and how much profit owners kept (they liked to keep owners happy and cooperative, but they took very generous cuts for the state). It's absurd to say that it wasn't socialism because money was being made.

The Nazis persecuted people from all political ideologies - left, right, center... basically anyone who criticized them, and they had critics everywhere. That doesn't change the fact that they put socialism into practice...

Unimpressed in a Union,
Ellie

Click to expand...

You don't think you're stretching the definition of 'socialism' beyond reasonable bounds?

Having been a 'democratic socialist' in my time (though not nowadays) I don't agree that 'Socialism's only core tenet is State-run industry'. Many people who regard themselves as socialist believe in bottom-up control, at the level of the workplace, the school, the hospital. They may be naive, but that's their belief.

And plenty of people who believe in State-run industry are not Socialist. Ask any dictator.

To me the Nazi economy from 1933 to 1939 - which was very successful, outperforming the liberal capitalist countries - was a hybrid rather like today's Putin-led Russia, which I don't think anybody is calling socialist. Investors from all over the world, notably including the United States, allied themselves with German industrialists, and both parties made substantial profits. I struggle to see how this equates to any kind of 'socialism'. It's just a name they adopted to pretend to be something they weren't.

Patrick

RobDownSouth said:

That's utter nonsense. Neither the Commies or the Nazis were anarchists.

Click to expand...

The Anarchist-Totalitarian Distribution is how we (headshrinkers) sort people out. The anarchist loose cannon at one end, and the chain lovin slave at the other.

Communists and Nazis occupy the same spot on the distribution. On the otherhand the Fascist and Monarchist occupy an identical spot closer to the center.

miles said:

Liberals love the phrase. Obama was spewing it today. I think it means taking from someone who has more than you.

Comments?

Click to expand...

Wives use, "what's mine is mine, and, what's yours is mine".
Communistic and funny, at the same time.

vetteman said:

Shhhhh...quiet down Baba Looey, no matter how hard you try, you can never be Quick Draw McGraw.

Click to expand...

Not only are you a fucking idiot, but you're old, and will die soon.

JAMESBJOHNSON said:

The Anarchist-Totalitarian Distribution is how we (headshrinkers) sort people out. The anarchist loose cannon at one end, and the chain lovin slave at the other.

Communists and Nazis occupy the same spot on the distribution. On the otherhand the Fascist and Monarchist occupy an identical spot closer to the center.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth (that's AJ's job), but if I am understanding you correctly you are trying to convince us that Nazis were NOT Fascists?

After skimming over the last few pages of this thread I've come to the conclusion that many of you are indeed fucking idiots. Holy fucking shit.

KRCummings said:

After skimming over the last few pages of this thread I've come to the conclusion that many of you are indeed fucking idiots. Holy fucking shit.

Click to expand...

Merry Christmas to you and your family, KRCummings!

Don't die. We need you around so we can point and show people what happens when your philosophy is flawed.

EllieTalbot said:

Where exactly did I characterize the Nazis as far right or far left?

Click to expand...

I don’t believe I said you did. What I said was that most Historians term the Nazi regime as “ultra” or “extreme” right. I believe when they say such they are referring to the “extreme” authoritarian/fascist nature of the regime NOT the extreme economic “right” policies.

EllieTalbot said:

I specifically addressed only the denial that they were socialists. There's no "redefining" going on here, except by you.

Click to expand...

<shrug> there’s not much for me to deny really. Anyone can go into any library, bookstore or watch a documentary and the Historians/writers will, almost, without exception describe the Nazi regime as “far” “extreme” or “ultra” right. I just believe you are wrong in your premise.

You on the other hand have 80 years of writing to battle against. I wish you good luck.

Look if you really want to attach the word “socialist” to a no less abhorrent murderous regime we really need not look further than Stalin’s Russia. There I would agree with you.

EllieTalbot said:

Funny you should mention state capitalism, because Marxists/communists/etc used to decry socialism by saying it was just state capitalism. And Third Position has no bearing because it's devoted to political movements like nationalism and racial separatism, not economics.

Click to expand...

Funny how Hayek dreams up middle-class socialism and doesn’t mention state capitalism isn’t it? It’s almost as if he would rather write anything that didn’t have the word “capitalism” in the title. Couldn’t be that, no siree.

EllieTalbot said:

And since when has profit been eschewed by socialism?

Click to expand...

Socialism is normally characterized by production for use rather than profit, equality of individual wealth and by the absence of competitive economic activity (it’s major down fall).

The issue isn’t profit being eschewed by socialism it is who owns the enterprise and who gains from that profit. If the enterprise is owned by the state or a community collectively and the wealth is equally shared, we can call that socialism.

If the enterprise is privately or corporately owned and those owner(s) receive income from profits generated that exceeds the wealth distributed to the workers then that is Capitalism of some degree. Capitalism is normally characterized by competition and entrepreneurism (ref; The Horten brothers, Messerschmitt, Heinkel and Junkers for examples of Nazi company competition and entrepreneurism.)

In Nazi Germany the former didn’t exist the latter did and was actively promoted. Although with state interference which, as you rightly pointed out, extended to the labour, the wages, prices etc. But, that is what dictatorial authoritarian regimes tend to do. So it wasn’t free market Capitalism as we know it, which is why I said “right leaning” at the outset.

As an example, of many, let’s look at the cases of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach and his son Alfried. You know one of the many Capitalist that I listed, but you have ignored, that bank rolled Hitler way back at the beginning of the project.

Quotes from wiki to save me the effort of typing it out, but you can find the same information in any reliable history book or elsewhere on line…….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp#World_War_II

Upon Fritz's death, his teenage daughter Bertha inherited the firm, which was made legally a joint stock company, but Bertha owned all but four shares. Kaiser Wilhelm II arranged for Bertha to marry Gustav von Bohlen und Halbach, a courtier and career diplomat, and grandson of an American Civil War General Henry Bohlen. By imperial proclamation at the wedding, Gustav was given the additional surname "Krupp," which was to be inherited by primogeniture along with the company.

Click to expand...

So dear Bertha and Gustav owned all but 4 shares in a global company which was the largest company in Europe at that time, then along come Hitler.

Gustav and especially Bertha were initially skeptical of Hitler, who was not of their class. Gustav’s conversion took place in 1932, when Hitler dropped plans to nationalize business, the Communists gained seats in the November 6 elections, and Chancellor Schleicher suggested a planned economy with price controls. Gustav soon became enamoured with the party (Fritz Thyssen described him as "a super-Nazi"), to a degree his wife and subordinates found bizarre.

In 1933, Hitler made Gustav chairman of the Reich Federation of German Industry. Gustav ousted Jews from the organization and disbanded the board, establishing himself as the sole-decision maker. Hitler visited Gustav just before the Röhm purge in 1934, which among other things eliminated marxist leanings from the Nazi movement. Gustav supported the "Adolf Hitler Endowment Fund of German Industry", administrated by Bormann, who used it to collect millions of Marks from German businessmen. As part of Hitler’s secret rearmament program, Krupp expanded from 35,000 to 112,000 employees.

Gustav was alarmed at Hitler's aggressive foreign policy after the Munich Agreement but by then he was fast succumbing to senility and was effectively displaced by his son Alfried. He was indicted at the Nuremberg Trials but never tried, due to his advanced dementia.

Click to expand...

So Gustav kept sole control of his company and managed to increase it in size by approx. 3.5 times. You think that his personal wealth increased, the profits were shared among the community? Let have a look……

1935 57 million Rm
1938 97 million Rm
1940 111 million Rm
Looks like ole Gustav was really struggling, huh?

Ok let’s move on to Alfried

As the eldest son of Bertha Krupp, Alfried was destined by family tradition to become the sole heir of the Krupp concern. <Snip>……His father’s health declined starting in 1939, and after a stroke in 1941, Alfried took over full control of the firm, continuing its role as main arms supplier to Germany at war. In 1943, Hitler decreed the Lex Krupp, authorizing the transfer of all Bertha’s shares to Alfried, giving him the name “Krupp” and dispossessing his siblings.

Click to expand...

Wow look at that, Lex Krupp, a special law to ensure that Krupp remain a personal private company. Doesn’t sound very socialist now does it?

The battle of Stalingrad in 1942 convinced Krupp that Germany would lose the war, and he secretly began liquidating 200 million Marks in government bonds. This allowed him to retain much of his fortune and hide it overseas.

Click to expand...

Hey look at that he retained total control over his growing fortune.

In fact if you care to read about it Alfried stood trial at Nuremberg (The United States of America vs. Alfried Krupp, et al.) accused of among other things of having enabled the armament of the German military forces and thus having actively participated in the Nazis' preparations for an aggressive war, and also for having used slave laborers.

The interesting thing here is that the courts view was that he had enough freedom to enable the Nazis. He wasn’t just a government pensioner as Mises claimed and you subscribe to.

Alfried Krupp, Nuremberg trial, 1947

The economy needed a steady or growing development. Because of the rivalries between the many political parties in Germany and the general disorder there was no opportunity for prosperity. . . . We thought that Hitler would give us such a healthy environment. Indeed he did do that.

.....We Krupps never cared much for [political] ideas. We only wanted a system that worked well and allowed us to work unhindered. Politics is not our business

Click to expand...

In his own word “We Krupps never cared much for [political] ideas. We only wanted a system that worked well and allowed us to work unhindered.”

Alfried was found guilty and given a 12 year sentence and stripped of his ownership.

And this case was by no means unique you can look up other Nuremberg trials, The Flick Trial (United States v Friedrich Flick), The I.G. Farben Trial (United States v Carl Krauch et al), all very similar to Krupp.

None of this is looking very socialist, you still clinging to Hayek and Mises raft?

Woof!

Sean Renaud said:

Don't die. We need you around so we can point and show people what happens when your philosophy is flawed.

Click to expand...

It's good for a chuckle now and then. Who will we find to replace the cowardly old closeted windbag when he finally succumbs?

maybe aj will step up and become even more stupid and ignorant and bigoted.

eyer said:

What in this God-forsaken world even begins to lead you to believe Benjamin Rush was black?

And my mind cannot figure-out who/what "ABO" is...

Click to expand...

The hazard of relying on memory which can be faulty and in this case, it absolutely was! I obviously need to review my source and will do so.

In the mean time, I apologize for the rather dumb error. But it's hardly the first I've made and doubt it will be the last.

A wise man once told me the only man who never made a mistake is the man who never did anything.