Why do so many Ron Paul members doubt the dangers of socialism?

[juleswin]

Before Hitler they were a sleeping tiger voluntarily confining themselves to a virtual cage called the Treaty of Versailles. After Hitler they were a decimated population living in piles of rubble.

Don't tell me Hitler did them any favors. I'll tell you you're full of $#@!.

I guess I am full of shyte. I am going to say this not because I am a Hitler lover but there is something to be said about a leader who inspires and motivates a population. ts not different than a coach or general who can inspire their men to win a game/battle. Obviously, Hitler did more than just inspire, his economic policies of privatization led to the miracle we saw in Germany.

And what about the Treaty of Versailles?

 

[acptulsa]

I guess I am full of shyte. I am going to say this not because I am a Hitler lover but there is something to be said about a leader who inspires and motivates a population. ts not different than a coach or general who can inspire their men to win a game/battle. Obviously, Hitler did more than just inspire, his economic policies of privatization led to the miracle we saw in Germany.

And what about the Treaty of Versailles?

It did just the opposite of what you say Hitler did. It hobbled German enterprise and even divided off a few German states. It was designed to demoralize the German population.

First you hold the bastard up as an example of socialism working, then you credit him with mythical "policies of privatization". I'm not saying the first seven words in that post are gospel. But I do wish you'd make up your mind.

 

[juleswin]

Juleswin and Actpsa. And a few others are insinuating that things aren't really that bad. By saying the protestors don't look starving, by focusing on the burning incident, as if that one incident proves that it's a US and MSM conspiracy to make Maduro look bad so we can attack them.

Show me one person who said it's obvious that Venezuela would collapse after nationalizing the economy?

If by I don't believe that this aren't as bad that I don't believe that people are so hungry that they are breaking into zoos so they can eat meat? then yes. I think part f the story line has been exagerrated by people who want to setup a regime change. But yea, sanctions and economic warfare by the most powerful economic and military power is going to hurt.

Phil is the one who mentioned how nourished the protesters looked and I think he has a good point. Lastly, its your side and a lot of people in the middle who think socialism most of the time leads to a collpase(even when you have the world's biggest oil reserve feeding it). If anything, I think I am the only one on this forum who doesn't see it that way.

 

[juleswin]

It did just the opposite of what you say Hitler did. It hobbled German enterprise and even divided off a few German states. It was designed to demoralize the German population.

First you hold the bastard up as an example of socialism working, then you credit him with mythical "policies of privatization". I'm not saying the first seven words in that post are gospel. But I do wish you'd make up your mind.

So the Treaty of Versailles did not affect Hitler's govt? I really don't know.

And for the last time, I mention Hitler's Germany as an example of a command economy working. I have been arguing with jimdrake that Hitler's economy wasn't socialist, why the hell would I all of a sudden claim it is socialist now?

 

[UWDude]

Not sure of your point. I'm against intervention.

They were socialist countries, countries doing quite well for the people, before the US ruined them, and turned them into smoldering hellholes.

US is a capitalist country, is it not? Can someone please tell me of one instance where capitalism does not end up directly intervening and destroying socialist success stories?

I agree with Trump, America will never be a socialist country. But not all countries are America, not all countries have America's problems. In fact most countries have one BIG, BIG, BIG problem that always must be addressed, when trying to do anything... ...Will it displease the Americans, holders of greatest of technologies, and the worlds second largest arsenal of nuclear weapons?

Indeed, there are well over 170 countries that are vassals to America. America, the capitalist nation.

Not real capitalism, not real communism.

Round and round we go.

What we need is a God to rule them all. I nominate myself. I second that motion. Agreed. I am God. I have the eternal truth and that eternal truth, no matter the people, no matter the problem, is capitalism.

Fools, you aren't gods. You don't speak for Gods. You speak for your own vain glory.

But I speak on side of truth, because I admit to what I am doing.

While you all shame and cower in your platitudes, paranoias and belief systems, "morals" and self-justifications that always come out to be right. I assure you, that is impossible, because, I, being the God I claim I am, am always right.

 

[acptulsa]

So the Treaty of Versailles did not affect Hitler's govt? I really don't know.

All Hitler did was brazenly break Versailles. That is the entire secret of his success. That was all Germany needed to thrive again. Did Versailles affect the Third Reich? It enabled the Third Reich to exist. Anyone willing to defy Versailles could have taken charge of Germany in 1933, just as FDR brought socialism to the U.S. simply by being willing to repeal Prohibition.

Historians want to pile it on both men, and claim their rise to power was some kind of mandate for the shenanigans they got up to later. But those stances right there are what got them elected.

And for the last time, I mention Hitler's Germany as an example of a command economy working. I have been arguing with jimdrake that Hitler's economy wasn't socialist, why the hell would I all of a sudden claim it is socialist now?

Then stop holding him up as the Poster Child for Socialist Success.

 

[juleswin]

For anyone else wondering what I am talking about when I say Nazi privatization, read this paper.

It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several Stateowned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947).1

Most of the enterprises transferred to the private sector at the Federal level had come into public hands in response to the economic consequences of the Great Depression. Many scholars have pointed out that the Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries (e.g. Aharoni, 1986, pp. 72 and ff.; Clifton, Comín and Díaz Fuentes, 2003, p. 16; Megginson, 2005, pp. 9-10), and Germany was no exception. But Germany was alone in developing a policy of privatization in the 1930s. Therefore a central question remains: Why did the Nazi regime depart from the mainstream policies regarding State ownership of firms? 2

Why did Germany’s government transfer firms and public functions to the private sector while the other Western countries did not?

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

 

[juleswin]

All Hitler did was brazenly break Versailles. That is the entire secret of his success. That was all Germany needed to thrive again.



Then stop holding him up as the Poster Child for Socialist Success.

See post 47 and follow the link because that is not all he did.

Show one instance where I said Hitler's Germany was an example of socialist success story? This is something I have never said.

 

[acptulsa]

See post 47 and follow the link because that is not all he did.

Show one instance where I said Hitler's Germany was an example of socialist success story? This is something I have never said.

Jesus, Guevara. Seriously?

I have a reason for asking that question cos there have been countries that thrived when it was led by a central planner. Examples are Hitler's Germany, South Korea, Japan, China etc. Unicorns don't exist while countries prospering under the command of central planner do exist.

Enough. Argue in circles with someone else.

 

[UWDude]

How about centralized govt management?

Works the best in wars. Without it, everything falls apart. So there is one example, in human history, where "freedom" generally, is the worst choice.

I know, "so end all wars", say the idealist, "and end welfare while you are at it!"

Cool... bada bing bada bam, abra cadabra al shalakazaam!

Done, as you wish!

 

[juleswin]

Jesus, Guevara. Seriously?



Enough. Argue in circles with someone else.

I see, you don't see a difference between central planning and socialism. A socialist economy is usually centrally planned but not all centrally planned economy is socialist.

 

[Kilrain]

Socialism is fatal, but it's a slow acting poison, not a coronary inducing event. It acts by removing the basic incentive to be productive, the ability to keep what you produce, leading to a passive and non-productive population that expects others to produce for you. But it takes time, you don't go from a population with a good work ethic to a population with a terrible work ethic in just twenty years. If Venezuela had been a healthy country to begin with, we wouldn't be seeing the collapse this soon. Call me cynical or crazy, but I don't think either side is playing with a full deck here. A flawed country made worse by a flawed political system, and also made worse by flawed neighbors.

Ultimately, the qualities of a society depends on the qualities of its inhabitants, and socialism erodes the qualities needed for a healthy society. And it doesn't help if your neighbors throw pitch on the fire.

 

[juleswin]

Works the best in wars. Without it, everything falls apart. So there is one example, in human history, where "freedom" generally, is the worst choice.

I know, "so end all wars", say the idealist, "and end welfare while you are at it!"

Cool... bada bing bada bam, abra cadabra al shalakazaam!

Done, as you wish!

Hitler's Germany, South Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan etc etc. Those countries saw sustained economic booms in peace times while having a command economy. After a lot of deliberation, I have come to conclusion that there are more than one way to organize a successful society. Some are easier than other but still there are more than 1 way to skin this cat.

 

[acptulsa]

I see, you don't see a difference between central planning and socialism. A socialist economy is usually centrally planned but not all centrally planned economy is socialist.

Let's assume for a moment you have a point. Given the title of this thread, why bring the 'other versions' up here?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Pure speculation on my part, but I don't think that it has anything to do with socialism or virtues of Venezuela and the Venezuelan government whatsoever. Rather, there are some people who are so knee-jerk anti-American-establishment that they will reflexively take the side of literally anything or anyone who seems to be in opposition to it, no matter who it is. In the case of Venezuela, you have a political party and government which uses the United States as its scapegoat for everything that goes wrong in the country, and so in the course of keeping their people in line by hyping up the great satan, they happen to produce propaganda which is appealing to those who are not fans of American government.

You have a point.

I took some jaded pleasure at every instance Hugo Chavez stuffed pepper up W's ass.

 

[devil21]

Here's a few. Cuba, USSR, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Ecuador, Argentina, Greece.

Some really good side by side comparisons with East and West Germany and North and South Korea.

How could I forget China and the incredible turnaround when they switched to a much more capitalistic economy?

Yes, China, you too can be hugely in debted to bankers in exchange for the illusion of prosperity for a period of time. I'm not sure making arguments in favor of central bank controlled economies is very appropriate on Ron Paul Forums...

Here's some news. There is no perfect system if that system is operated from top-down, whether it is managed socialism, managed capitalism or any other "ism". It will always be corrupted and fail eventually. IIRC the bible covers this principle pretty well in the first book of the OT. Something about a garden, a snake and an apple.

 

[UWDude]

Socialism is fatal, but it's a slow acting poison, not a coronary inducing event. It acts by removing the basic incentive to be productive, the ability to keep what you produce, leading to a passive and non-productive population that expects others to produce for you. But it takes time, you don't go from a population with a good work ethic to a population with a terrible work ethic in just twenty years. If Venezuela had been a healthy country to begin with, we wouldn't be seeing the collapse this soon. Call me cynical or crazy, but I don't think either side is playing with a full deck here. A flawed country made worse by a flawed political system, and also made worse by flawed neighbors.

Ultimately, the qualities of a society depends on the qualities of its inhabitants, and socialism erodes the qualities needed for a healthy society. And it doesn't help if your neighbors throw pitch on the fire.

war in venezuela, more Latin hordes to convince the masses the need for Trump's wall?
Kind of ridiculous seeing people bitch about immigration, all the while even giving mental support to people hell bent on destabilizing a country, eg hell bent on creating a new wave of immigrants, and this time, war immigrants. Truly desperate people. The situation in Venezuela is overblown, it is not good, but it is overblown, especially comapred ot what the situation will be like if ti devolves into civil war. If it does, FARC will get a new injection of recruits, weapons and huge morale boost, and the war will go transnational.

This feels awfully like the trick pulled in Syria, except this time, in America's back yard. Use the MS-13 terrorists as excuses to strike/destabilize Latin governments, the destabilization is a great place to sell weapons, more blackhawks to Colombia to add to their already large collection.
For the people of Venezuela, Maduro retains control. He may need to iron fist it. The alternative, is too terrible to imagine for the people of Venezuela. American fueled civil wars always end up being very, very, very messy affairs. The movement of "humanitarian aid" was a clear attempt at invasion, on every level.
With Bolsonaro in Brazil... ...Venezuela is in trouble, and its people are in a far more dire danger than "socialism".

 

[juleswin]

Let's assume for a moment you have a point. Given the title of this thread, why bring the 'other versions' up here?

The discussion drifted in that direction. My whole point in this discussion is to dispel this myth that there is only one way and that way is pure unadultrated capitalism to achieve economic prosperity. And in addition to that the myth that a mixed economic system with a sizeable chunk of socialism is a fatal economic system that will for the most part always lead to collapse.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Hitler's Germany, South Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan etc etc. Those countries saw sustained economic booms in peace times while having a command economy. After a lot of deliberation, I have come to conclusion that there are more than one way to organize a successful society. Some are easier than other but still there are more than 1 way to skin this cat.

Successful...sure, depending on what metric you use to measure success.

But I'll even grant that many of these societies are successful by universally agreed upon standards.

But that's not the point of government...at least as understood by the Enlightenment men who founded the nation.

The point of government, it's only legitimate purpose, is to protect individual liberty.

Success or failure is up to you...or at least it's supposed to be...we, as a nation, no longer believe that.

So now we look for "success" to be provided by government manipulation...and that's a god damned dangerous road to go down.

Success?

If I had plenipotentiary dictatorial powers I could slash violent crime rates, increase life expectancy rates and massively reduce welfare dependency by forcibly rounding up every black person in the country and shipping them back to Liberia.

You wanna live in that society?

 

[Krugminator2]

No The UK govt for decades ran ship building yards, ran railroads and up until the 70s outright owned an oil company British Petroleum and they did just fine.

What are you talking about? Britain was a shithole country in the 1970s. It was mess. That weren't doing just fine. That would be exhibit A of the evils of socialism. 1970s Britain is why Margaret Thatcher got elected. Watch a documentary sometime about what a shithole Britain was during that time period.