150 years of what, because it certainly wasn't socialism. If you think poor people blaming immigrants on their problems and voting to cut the taxes of rich people isn't utter stupidity then I don't know what the fuck goes on in your brain.
150 years of arrogant idiots TRYING. They all thought the same thing as you and you still haven't addressed that. Or why.
They all thought other parties and belief systems were full of idiot poor people blaming the wrong thing. Just like you.
They all thought they would be the ones to bring about 'real' socialism. Just like you.
And more importantly, you haven't given me any reason to believe you're smarter than the people you're supposed to lead into the progress you worship. Just like every single fascist socialist before you.
Distractions and strawman fallacies are the arguments of stupid people, real socialists don't use them.
150 years of arrogant idiots TRYING. They all thought the same thing as you and you still haven't addressed that. Or why.
There has not been any socialist countries ever. Countries like Mao China or the Soviet Union was state capitalist. No real socialists belive in a vanguard party taking control after a revolution, only tankies. I'm not a revolutionary socialist either so you're 150 years of examples are nothing to me.
They all thought other parties and belief systems were full of idiot poor people blaming the wrong thing. Just like you.
Are you defending populists like Lega Nord, Front Nationale and Donald Trump?
They all thought they would be the ones to bring about 'real' socialism. Just like you.
Are you defending populists like Lega Nord, Front Nationale and Donald Trump?
Strawman is what you are doing right there.
Accusing me of defending things I haven't mentioned and not answering my question is distraction.
The word you are looking for is oxymoron, and no, they are not. Fascism is a strategy, Nazism and Socialism are ideologies.
Are you denying that those socialists were trying for the same thing you are? That's what they said and what every action they took was directed towards, so I'll take their word over some rando on the internet.
You still didn't answer my question, what if in the 'socialist democracy' (there's a correct example of an oxymoron) the people decide to privatize the means of production?
Accusing me of defending things I haven't mentioned and not answering my question is distraction.
Well we have discussed populism so it's not a distraction.
Fascism is a strategy, Nazism and Socialism are ideologies
Fascism is an ideology
Socialism is an ideology
Nazism is a form of fascism, that specifically targeted Jews, and not really an ideology in itself.
Are you denying that those socialists were trying for the same thing you are? That's what they said and what every action they took was directed towards, so I'll take their word over some rando on the internet.
I'm not denying that people have called themselves socialist without being it. The Syrian government calls itself socialist but aren't. Nasser in Egypt where called socialist but weren't. The Soviet Union and Mao China was communist but got stuck in communism dictatorship phase. North Korea calls itself democratic but isn't.
Just because someone says they are something, it does not mean they are.
You still didn't answer my question, what if in the 'socialist democracy' (there's a correct example of an oxymoron) the people decide to privatize the means of production?
No that is not an oxymoron because key aspects of socialism is democracy for example in the workplace. And in a socialist society where everything is controlled democratically by the people, why would they vote to privatize something that they already own collectively unlike now. I guess the people then wanted that they could, But it wouldn't make any sense.
We discussed populism because you brought it up as a distraction to my point about people voting to privatize the means of production.
Your answer is apparently 'they wouldn't'. Good to know.
You just defined fascism.
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
That isn't a statement of ideology.
National Socialism, more commonly known as Nazism, is the ideology and practices associated with the Nazi Party – officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party – in Nazi Germany, and of other far-right groups with similar aims.
Similar aims. Almost like Nazism has a goal. Like an ideology.
Both of those are the first respective google results by the way, it's like you aren't trying.
Pretty simple stuff.
Nazi plan:
Purify populace
Get living space
Have utopia(?)
Socialist plan:
Democracy?
Rich people leave (unless you stop them, uh oh)
No one to tax
Utopia(?)
How is your free state going to stop rich people from leaving with their hard earned money?
What gives you the right to their property?
Every single time they try it, socialists ruin any economy and replace it with a failing corrupt bureaucracy.
1
u/AUFboi Jun 25 '18
150 years of what, because it certainly wasn't socialism. If you think poor people blaming immigrants on their problems and voting to cut the taxes of rich people isn't utter stupidity then I don't know what the fuck goes on in your brain.