The General Political Thread

[StevenChilton]

Yawn-I'm not gonna properly engage with some rant from an edgy kid who swears a lot. You lost me at:

"State-sponsored social programmes" aren't some sort of integral part of Socialism you fucking imbecile.

I was referring more to the indoctrination of the youth (Young Pioneers, Little Octoberists, etc) as a deliberate social programme but it applies just as well to social security. You'll have to explain why you think social security isn't an integral part of socialism because I thought that was the main selling point lol.

[Theodin]

Do you wanna, uh, take a chill pill? We're going on like 10 weeks without an incident on this thread

[Jakester]

This is the shit that makes this thread good. Be gone thot- theodin...

[Theodin]

i hate yall

[StevenChilton]

Lemme dumb it down for you anyway:
On "Socialism is literally Hitler"
-Nazi Germany privatized industry whereas other countries at that time were nationalizing
-Hitler purged Left wingers in and out of his party
-Hitler was supported by capitalista.

Nazi privisation was selective and designed to raise funds for re-armament, as well as reward those who supported the party. It was not at all ideologically motivated. At the same time Hitler nationalised large parts of the economy and greatly increased state control over the private sector. From Wikipedia (Yes I know but it's a well-policed page with citations I've checked before copying and pasting):

During the 12 years of the Third Reich, government ownership expanded greatly into formerly private sectors of strategic industries: aviation, synthetic oil and rubber, aluminum, chemicals, iron and steel, and army equipment. The capital assets of state-owned industry doubled during this same period, whereby the nationalization caused state-ownership of companies to increase to over 500 businesses. Further, government finances for state-owned enterprises quadrupled from 1933 to 1943. Albert Speer in his memoirs remarked that “a kind of state socialism seemed to be gaining more and more ground” among many Nazi party functionaries, warning that Germany’s industry was becoming “the framework for a state-socialist economic order.”
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Pre-war_economy:_1933.E2.80.931939

You can read the whole section for yourself but it's essentially a summary of the writings of RJ Overy and Richard Evans (personally I've only read Overy).


All in all it's totally ridiculous to suggest Hitler was pro-Business and capitalism. Among other things the Nazis closed most of the stock exchanges in the country and banned the trading of foreign stocks, never received the majority of political donations from big business pre-1933, instituted compulsory state run Labour unions whilst disbanding disbanding all others, and nationalised large swathes of industry (particularly in those sectors related to rearmament).


As for the rest of what you wrote it just shows you don't know the difference between socialism and communism. Hitler wasn't a Marxist/Communist (though he was an admirer of Marx and recognised him as an influence), but he was a socialist. You can argue 'yeah but he didn't subscribe to specific Marxist thinking on the transition between capitalism and socialism so he was clearly ultra-right wing go fuck yourself haha' but you're just being dishonest. I mean we can argue about Republican Teenagers vs The Young Pioneers but the former is a voluntary, private institution which competes with other youth groups whilst the latter was essentially compulsory and state mandated (much like the Hitler Youth) and was a key plank of East German social engineering. It's a further manifestation of your dishonesty that you're trying to argue there's some kind of equivalency between the two.

[MrTiki]

Steven youth groups are by no means a part of socialism. They're just an effective tool to indoctrinate kids into agreeing with your ideals to become voters and party members later, hence their prevalence across the political spectrum. Calling it private is retarded, as political parties (especially in the US but also in the UK and elsewhere) are so heavily funded by private institutions that you might as well call the Republican party itself a "voluntary private institution". Sources of funding changes nothing about the content and purpose of a youth group.

[Theodin]

Sources of funding has everything to do with everything, especially when it comes to politics. I haven't been following this discussion much, but with any group the funding influences the ideological direction in at least a small sense.

[StevenChilton]

I didn't say they were, just pointed out they're a key feature of such regimes for the reasons you mentioned. Also 'sources of funding changes nothing about the content and purpose of a youth group'? Are you for real? Moscow in the days of the USSR used to fund Communist Youth Groups around the world as part of an effort to undermine capitalism-surely you've heard of the phrase 'he who holds the purse strings....'?

[MrTiki]

What I'm saying is that in modern day US politics, parties are already up for purchase by donators, so whether it's a rich republican paying for a youth group or the republican party itself makes no difference, it's the same influence. Obviously there's a huge difference between nationalised vs. privatised companies, but we were talking about political youth groups, which let me emphasize again, are not a part of "socialism" or the left.

[StevenChilton]

https://www.thelocal.de/20170721/german-media-failed-to-report-refugee-crisis-honestly-study-claims

[Riddlez]

Hilarious. Bild supporting Merkel (or any government thing) in any way? Doesn't happen.
The Suddeutsche doing the same? Even less credible.

[Von Bergen]

https://www.thelocal.de/20170721/german-media-failed-to-report-refugee-crisis-honestly-study-claims

So you are stating that the "Mainstream Media" lied to the people based on an article published in one of the biggest German Newspapers (="Mainstream Media")?
Good Logik there Bro 

Dont you people understand that there is no such thing Like "neutral" Media? Every Newspaper, specially in Germany,follows some Kind of political View.
"Die Zeit" is more conservative, while "der spiegel" is more left winged, while "Bild" is some mix Up of Boulevard and "proletarian" Media. When you are Reading any News, its your obligation to ask yourself First, which political opinion your source is trying to Tell.

 When Newspapers Transfer theire political Point of View, thats Not automaticly lying.
Your Logik is Like using critic on Fox News for telling ultra conservative opinions on whats going on, while everyone knows what to expect from fox News.

[Norwegian13]

https://www.thelocal.de/20170721/german-media-failed-to-report-refugee-crisis-honestly-study-claims

Dont you people understand that there is no such thing Like "neutral" Media? Every Newspaper, specially in Germany,follows some Kind of political View.

This is VERY true, there is unfortunately no such thing "neutral" media, there never has been and there never will be. Everyone has a side they're on, and they're going to be trying to push that political side they're on as VonBergen mentioned. It's the same with people as well, everyone has always a side and an opinion that they're going to stand by.

[StevenChilton]

Everyone is biased, no such thing as a neutral viewpoint, but don't try and pretend you're shocked that the German press by and large reported the migrant crisis poorly. Same happened in Sweden and other EU states.

For instance this article on a similar study from last year reached the same conclusions. It puts a laughable spin on it, essentially claiming the British press presented a range of viewpoints vs continental press which all said the same thing, which is for some reason bad for the UK (lmao, apparently press plurality is bad if they're not unified in defending a certain viewpoint): http://theconversation.com/uk-press-is-the-most-aggressive-in-reporting-on-europes-migrant-crisis-56083

Spoiler

My favourite passage:

"But the most striking finding in our research is how polarised and aggressive British press reporting was compared to that of other countries.

In most countries, newspapers, whether left or right wing, tended to report using the same sources. They also featured the same kinds of themes and provided similar explanations and solutions to the crisis.

But the British press was different. While The Guardian and – to a lesser extent, the Daily Mirror – featured a range of humanitarian themes and sources sympathetic to the plight of refugees, the right-wing press consistently endorsed a hardline anti-refugee and migrant, Fortress Europe approach."

[close]

[Von Bergen]

Everyone is biased, no such thing as a neutral viewpoint, but don't try and pretend you're shocked that the German press by and large reported the migrant crisis poorly. Same happened in Sweden and other EU states.

For instance this article on a similar study from last year reached the same conclusions. It puts a laughable spin on it, essentially claiming the British press presented a range of viewpoints vs continental press which all said the same thing, which is for some reason bad for the UK (lmao, apparently press plurality is bad if they're not unified in defending a certain viewpoint): http://theconversation.com/uk-press-is-the-most-aggressive-in-reporting-on-europes-migrant-crisis-56083

Spoiler

My favourite passage:

"But the most striking finding in our research is how polarised and aggressive British press reporting was compared to that of other countries.

In most countries, newspapers, whether left or right wing, tended to report using the same sources. They also featured the same kinds of themes and provided similar explanations and solutions to the crisis.

But the British press was different. While The Guardian and – to a lesser extent, the Daily Mirror – featured a range of humanitarian themes and sources sympathetic to the plight of refugees, the right-wing press consistently endorsed a hardline anti-refugee and migrant, Fortress Europe approach."

[close]

I have no Idea where you live pal, but i am sure not in germany. As a german let me tell you, that the last thing german media did is reporting the refugee crisis "poorly". It was the leading topic for over a year and you could find dozens of articels in every important newspaper, website etc.
You need to divide between reporting poorly and not seeing something as an unsolutional Problem. As said before a lot of german newspapers shared Angela Merkels Opionion and transfered it. But 1. Merkels leading Sentence was "We can do this", not "there is no crisis". The Sentence "We can do this" contains that there is a problem/crisis, but also a solution 2. Beside that, the Media always did theire other Job: Telling Facts. And by Facts i mean Numbers, statistics. And in every important article on the Topic you could also find the important Numbers. Everbody in Germany knew and knows that there came over 1.000.000 Refugees to germany at that time, that the authorities had difficulties to handle it etc. But just because Merkel and some Part of the Media didnt defined that as an unsolvable Problem, doesnt mean it wasnt seen as a Problem.