New to the Forum just saying hello

[jan]

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Uhm, the nazis spread the wealth around to everyone they considered citizens.

Excluding a group from citizenship doesn't make one not socialistic. Racist, definitely, but not socialist.

Really? I was under the impression true socialism was of the attitude of "one for all and all for one". Excluding various people from the equation doesn't live up to that ideal.

[J04miller]

Originally Posted by jan

Really? I was under the impression true socialism was of the attitude of "one for all and all for one". Excluding various people from the equation doesn't live up to that ideal.

I don't think the Nazi's were real "rule followers".

[Uncensored2008]

Originally Posted by jan

Spreading the wealth...the Nazi's hardly shared anything with the Jews. Thus it's impossible to consider them socialists.

Read again, there is nothing in the definition of socialism about "spreading the wealth."

Marx coined the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." But that is not and has never been the definition or even an operative feature of socialism.

Socialism is about central management of an economy. Market forces are supplanted by the state, which directs what should be produced and to whom it should be distributed.

Stalin "shared" nothing with the Kulacks, in fact he removed all food and starved 22 million of them to death. Yet Stalin was the epitome of socialism. His genocide of Kulacks was in order to enforce collectivist farming.

[crowonapost]

Originally Posted by Uncensored2008

Bunk.

They are Bush-hating leftists to the last, every last one of them.

If that makes you uncomfortable, rethink your positions.

I don't have to rethink anything. It has nothing to do with me. Nor has it any bearing with my personal beliefs.

You are just inaccurate.

Now you are just becoming ignorant too.

[Uncensored2008]

Originally Posted by crowonapost

I don't have to rethink anything. It has nothing to do with me. Nor has it any bearing with my personal beliefs.

You are just inaccurate.

Now you are just becoming ignorant too.

I may be a lot of things, Crow.

But ignorant and inaccurate are not among the list.

[TakuanSoho]

Originally Posted by jan

Really? I was under the impression true socialism was of the attitude of "one for all and all for one". Excluding various people from the equation doesn't live up to that ideal.

All depends on how you define the "one". I don't see too many socialistic nations taxing their own populations to ensure that they are on an equal level with people in Africa or Asia (if it is really all for one).

[crowonapost]

Originally Posted by jan

Really? I was under the impression true socialism was of the attitude of "one for all and all for one". Excluding various people from the equation doesn't live up to that ideal.

Nope. Simply Classical Socialism is state control of Industry. A position no one in this country advocates.

[crowonapost]

Originally Posted by Uncensored2008

I may be a lot of things, Crow.

But ignorant and inaccurate are not among the list.

In regards to your assumptions with me, I am most correct in my assessments based on your response.

[crowonapost]

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

All depends on how you define the "one". I don't see too many socialistic nations taxing their own populations to ensure that they are on an equal level with people in Africa or Asia (if it is really all for one).

Oh & further you are incompletely incorrect about the Dork Front retards as well.

[Uncensored2008]

Originally Posted by crowonapost

In regards to your assumptions with me,

Which alleged assumptions have I made about you?

I am most correct in my assessments based on your response.

Your assessment is based on your misinterpretation of my response.