Using Hitler as a tool in argumentation and debate

[Revoltingest]

Not in Europe. Socialism tends to be highly democratic. Such that even the leaders and office holders are directly elected by the total membership.

You're not going to cite capitalist countries like Denmark, are you?

Here it is all about replacing the power of the wealthy elite with the power of the working class...whatever you might believe the definition of socialism is....
That is the way it works. Only Tony Blair fully understood that you had to play the capatilists at their own game and get them on your side.

For reference....
Definition of socialism | Dictionary.com
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As for political leanings, I've never actually heard many people on the center or right invoking Hitler to make their point. It seems to be a bleeding heart leftist thang...

At least some of the lovely Christian folks who bring him up to slap atheists are probably not lefties...
And I've heard it in relation to gun laws more than once.

In both cases, the twisting of factual information made my earballs bleed, but still.

But I would agree it's more commonly the left invoking him.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You're not going to cite capitalist countries like Denmark, are you?

For reference....
Definition of socialism | Dictionary.com
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Right. But countries are not 100% capitalist, nor are they 100% socialist. RIght?
Can you name any that are 100% anything?

(I mean, apart from Papua New Guinea, which is 100% a mess)

 

[Revoltingest]

Right. But countries are not 100% capitalist, nor are they 100% socialist. RIght?
Can you name any that are 100% anything?

(I mean, apart from Papua New Guinea, which is 100% a mess)

Of course.
That's never been in dispute.
Do you think it would prevent calling a country one or the other?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Of course.
That's never been in dispute.
Do you think it would prevent calling a country one or the other?

Nope. But I think commonly when people call a country 'Socialist' they are not referring to Socialism being predominant over capitalism. Even a place like Finland wouldn't clear that bar, never mind the rest of Europe.
So they are generally referring to an increase in socialist programs and structures as compared to <insert country here...often the USA>

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope. But I think commonly when people call a country 'Socialist' they are not referring to Socialism being predominant over capitalism. Even a place like Finland wouldn't clear that bar, never mind the rest of Europe.
So they are generally referring to an increase in socialist programs and structures as compared to <insert country here...often the USA>

There are instances of using terms inconsistent with dictionaries.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There are instances of using terms inconsistent with dictionaries.

Mostly because it's a Friday afternoon, and I'm in a crackpot mood, but I'm going to answer this in my best Revoltingest style...

Of course. That's never been in dispute.
There are also instances of using terms consistent with dictionaries.
Do you think some people's use of the terms defines the terms?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you think some people's use of the terms defines the terms?

If enuf people consistently use a word in a new way,
it will enter the dictionary.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If enuf people consistently use a word in a new way,
it will enter the dictionary.

Yes. Hopefully 'enuf' doesn't make the grade though...lol

I would think 'democratic socialism' is something akin to the Scandinavian countries (perhaps less true now).
But if I look up 'democracy' or 'socialism' independently, I wouldn't get that flavour. Ultimately, dictionaries trail common usage, by necessity.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. Hopefully 'enuf' doesn't make the grade though...lol

I would think 'democratic socialism' is something akin to the Scandinavian countries (perhaps less true now).
But if I look up 'democracy' or 'socialism' independently, I wouldn't get that flavour. Ultimately, dictionaries trail common usage, by necessity.

"Sociocapitalism" is the correct term.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"Sociocapitalism" is the correct term.

Phhht...I reject 'correct'. Things can, of course, be incorrect, but only if I decide they are.

 

[Revoltingest]

Phhht...I reject 'correct'. Things can, of course, be incorrect, but only if I decide they are.

Do not dis my neologism.
(And yes, I know I'm not the first to invent it.)

 

[Stevicus]

Mostly because it's a Friday afternoon, and I'm in a crackpot mood, but I'm going to answer this in my best Revoltingest style...

Of course. That's never been in dispute.
There are also instances of using terms consistent with dictionaries.
Do you think some people's use of the terms defines the terms?

You're lucky you get Friday afternoon a day early. We have to wait until tomorrow.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The problem is that your facts didn't adequately support your argument.
(The existence of facts alone does not an argument make.)

So, just asserting stuff without any facts is a sufficient argument?

....Or by government.

Can you find a definition of socialism that states that it is when the means of production are owned by the government rather than the community or the workers?

If any one of these entities takes control, it's socialism.
It doesn't matter which, per the definition.
But socialism is typified by government being large & in charge.
It's just how things play out in command economies.

Except socialism is defined by the lack of private property. Privatization is completely antithetical to it.

Privatization is associated with capitalism, however one
must consider the why & how of its being done.
For Nazis, it gave them greater productivity to do this,
& then maintain tight control over what was produced.
Even Ameristan did this during WW2, commandeering
privately held companies for producing tools of war.

So, you're seriously going to argue that privatization is socialist?

You're not using a common dictionary definition, which is typically about
"the people". It's reasonable to see them being government, which is
how all socialist countries evolve, ie, government runs the economy.

I'm using better facts as part of a cogent argument.
You're just citing bias confirming facts.

You've not cited a single fact. In fact, the only thing you've referenced is something I've quoted at length as completely contradicting the claim that they were socialists. I've also quoted Hitler himself explaining that his definition of socialism is completely different and centred around hyper ethno-nationalism rather than distribution of wealth or workers owning production. I've cited Nazi privatization, I've cited the fact that the Nazis openly avoided direct state ownership, I've cited them hunting down and arresting socialists, I've cited them banning unions, I've cited them applauding the benefits of private property and entrepreneurship, and I've cited them dismantling or significantly reducing social welfare programs.

Were the Nazis Socialists?
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18283879/nazism-socialism-hitler-gop-brooks-gohmert
Were the Nazis Socialists?

Please stop perpetuating this obvious and blatant lie.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There are instances of using terms inconsistent with dictionaries.

Dictionaries are only the editors discriptions. They do not necessarily agree with other dictionaries. I recently gave an early 18 th century dictionary to my grand son who has a MA in linguistics. The meaning of words is very different in that compared to today.

Americans tend to mean something very different when talking about socialism than do Europeans.
We embrace much of socialism as the norm, not something to be feared.
Europe is very largely a mixed economy and preferrs it that way.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you find a definition of socialism that states that it is when the means of production are owned by the government rather than the community or the workers?

Must I explain it again?
Government (the authoritarian kind) isn't part of the definition of "socialism".
However, it is an emergent property of socialism.

Except socialism is defined by the lack of private property.

Actually, that's communism, not socialism (which
is about ownership of the means of production).
Ref...
Definition of communism | Dictionary.com
1) a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2) (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

So, you're seriously going to argue that privatization is socialist?

I've explained how Nazis used it to increase productivity
while maintaining control over industries. Such flavors of
socialism are sometimes called "state capitalism". You'll find
that even the RF formal definition of "socialism" includes this.

Please stop perpetuating this obvious and blatant lie.

Ooooo....someone's really angry.
Ya know....just because you know you have THE TRUTH, &
that I disagree....it doesn't mean that I'm trying to deceive you.

I've run across this with young children when their worldview
is challenged. They respond with "Liar!". Usually when they
mature, they grow out of this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dictionaries are only the editors discriptions. They do not necessarily agree with other dictionaries.

Dictionary editors (lexicographers) research usage by society.
And I've even quoted different ones now & then to illustrate consistency.

I recently gave an early 18 th century dictionary to my grand son who has a MA in linguistics. The meaning of words is very different in that compared to today.

Words to change over time. A dictionary from the 1700s would be
very much at odds with a modern one. But we speak 21st century
English, so I wouldn't cite one from several centuries ago.

Americans tend to mean something very different when talking about socialism than do Europeans.
We embrace much of socialism as the norm, not something to be feared.
Europe is very largely a mixed economy and preferrs it that way.

I'm not arguing against a mixed economy here.
We shouldn't let advocacy for or against socialism mean altering definitions,
as is so common among extremely leftish or rightish denizens of RF.
Trust lexicographers...not fervent wags on the internet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think most of us are familiar with Godwin's Law, but for those who haven't: Godwin's law - Wikipedia

It comes up in a variety of different contexts, but much of the time it's brought up in the context of international relations and how we deal with other countries. We might single out some leader of some rogue nation, declare that he's "just like Hitler," and this somehow justifies any number of hostile or violent actions against them or their country. (i.e. "what if we could have used a drone to kill Hitler?")

It's also used in arguments and debates regarding domestic politics, as our current president has often been associated with Hitler.

So, my questions to the peanut gallery are as follows:

1. Why do people do this? What is the point?

2. Does using Hitler in the context of modern politics display an ignorance of history, WW2, who Hitler was and the nation he ruled?

3. Could it have the effect of distorting history?

4. Does a comparison to Hitler justify and validate any number of attitudes and political actions (up to and including violence, torture, and assassination) which wouldn't normally be considered justified against an ordinary human being?

5. Does one side play the Hitler card more than the other? Or are both sides (left and right) equally guilty of using it to suit their ends?

6. Does Hitler give a good name to war?

The comparison is fine when it's appropriate, but it shouldn't be misused.

When I first saw the Blues Brothers, I thought the screenwriters were being lazy by making the villains "Illinois Nazis." I thought that the idea of Nazis in Illinois was outlandish and ridiculous, and I thought they were just thoughtlessly latching onto characters that the audience would recognize as the villains without having to do much to establish them that way.

... but then later on, I discovered that Illinois Nazis in the 70s were a real thing:

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie - Wikipedia

Suddenly, I realized that what I had originally taken as a tackish screenwriter trope was actually a pretty on-point response to very current events and issues.


Short version: make sure you know why someone is using Hitler or Nazi analogies before you criticize them for doing it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Must I explain it again?
Government (the authoritarian kind) isn't part of the definition of "socialism".

So stop saying it is.

However, it is an emergent property of socialism.

Whatever you say.

Actually, that's communism, not socialism (which
is about ownership of the means of production).
Ref...
Definition of communism | Dictionary.com
1) a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2) (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

socialism
noun
1) a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2) procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3) (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

I've explained how Nazis used it to increase productivity
while maintaining control over industries. Such flavors of
socialism are sometimes called "state capitalism". You'll find
that even the RF formal definition of "socialism" includes this.

Care to provide it here?

Ooooo....someone's really angry.

Nothing gets past you.

Not that pointing out that people can be angry when others spread deliberate lies is in any way meaningful.

Ya know....just because you know you have THE TRUTH, &
that I disagree....it doesn't mean that I'm trying to deceive you.

You're not. You're trying to deceive others.

I've run across this with young children when their worldview
is challenged. They respond with "Liar!". Usually when they
mature, they grow out of this.

When you're in the wrong, patronize.

Classic.

And I have yet to see a single actual fact from you whatsoever.

 

[Revoltingest]

So stop saying it is.

A command to stop saying something I don't say?
Oh, dear....this isn't worth continuing.