i'm sure these 4 men are reflective of all socialists

>>103958
I'm sure you're completely wrong.

>BUT BUT, IT WAS CALLED THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY!!!!

They're symbols of leftist policies, and distinctions over minor disagreements are pedantic.

also /pol/ doesn't read

>>103965
sarcasm
you
you
2x nigger

>>103995
>implying the government did not control the means of production
>implying that's not a form of socialism

>>104010
>mao, hitler
>leftist policies

>>104010
You were almost there with the whole "symbols of leftist policies", because that's what people believe. Which is not true. I don't think a majority of leftists in America want a dictatorship. Also, Hitler was a Fascist, not even remotely leftist.

Minor disagreements? If you read that, which you did not, you'll clearly see a big difference between what Marx was advocating and what has actually been implemented in history under the guise of "socialism"

They are the embodiment of leftism.

When a lefty rises to power, people die. And not just a few thousand, like you see in right-wing regimes, but many millions.

inb4 uneducated people calling nazism right-wing

>BAWWWWW people made mistakes, but my book is still perfect
socialists are the same as religionfags

Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation’s economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of control. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property—so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

If “ownership” means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a contentless deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property de jure. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership de facto.

>>104026
>implying that's what socialism is about

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are commonly owned and controlled cooperatively.

>can't see where it says government owned and controlled

>>104027
>welfare
>free education
>paid vacations
>anti-smoking campaign

Hitler was a huge leftist, except only for germans. His fellow socialists are just jealous he didn't extend socialism to other countries.

>>104057
>believing cooperation works
>2011

>>104062
If you read the fucking image, you would know that's incorrect. Besides banning and killing communists, he purged them from his own party, see: Night of the Long Knives.

>>104039
HITLER WAS A RIGHT WINGED FASCIST. This has to be a troll.

Well tell me, why does it keep happening?

>Marx
>leader of a state or of anything for that matter
OP you're as dumb as they come. Let me guess your nationality.

>>104078
Fascism is a combination of right-wing and left-wing elements, you uneducated schmuck.

Nazism is a radical form of fascism.

>>104091
Why does what keep happening? Why did people use a new idea that inspired the masses to take over and control? Dunnolol.

>>104094
It's comparing those leaders to Marx, who was the father or socialism. Are you a retard?

>>104101
Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s. Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century."

>>103937

I have nothing against Lenin, Stalin or Hitler.

Mao on the other hand was batshit crazy, tried to exterminate the culture of China.

Well Good socialist are respecting the nation, the bad ones are try to make the world into one grey mess, we could say they are liberals.

“Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism—not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper . . . .

“The people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

~Adolf Hitler

>>104126
Hitler said many things prior to rising to power, just for that sake, to rise to power.

>1930, Hitler: "Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism."

Full blown retard here..

Marxism CREATED all of these people, the fucking ideology did.

Did capitalism and liberty create any of this disgusting garbage?

No, it created the advanced technological world we have today.

Go fuck yourself you evil scumturd.

>>104118

>tried to exterminate the culture of China.

You mean the highly patriarchal and imperialist culture of China?

>>104057
Right, but controlling the means of production collectively probably requires some kind of body regulating its use.

Since you got that from Wikipedia you might have bothered to scroll down and see:

"Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, such as Marxist-Leninists, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a single-party state that owns the means of production."

So yeah, state socialism is still socialism.

>>104114
Have you even read the manifesto, or is copy-pasting shit from wikipedia all you can do?

Anyone with elementary knowledge of fascism and the political spectrum would not place it on either side.

>>104158
yes, but the effect was that everything from the old culture was destroyed. but he didn't foresee that.

idiots gonna idiot

>>104114
ITT Trying to spin their utmost ignorance and stupidity.
Go ahead amerilard.

>>104152
Capitalism came before Marxism, and in response to Capitalism, Marx created socialism, so I guess Capitalism really created them...

Also:

>State capitalism - State capitalism consists of state ownership of profit-seeking enterprises that operate in a capitalist manner in a market economy. Examples include corporatized government agencies or partial state ownership of shares in publicly listed firms. The term state capitalism has also been used to refer to an economy consisting of mainly private enterprises that are subjected to comprehensive national economic planning by the government, wherein the state intervenes in the economy to protect specific capitalist businesses (although this is usually referred to as state monopoly capitalism or corporate capitalism). Many socialists and anti-Stalinist leftists argue that the Soviet Union was state capitalist instead of socialist, since the state owned all the means of production, functioned as an enormous corporation, and exploited the working class.

You don't get it.

No one's disagreeing with theoretical socialism/communism/fascism/anarchism, it would be great if you could create such a utopia just like it would be great to go to heaven, what is evil is the ideological madness behind them, the promises they make are not unlike the promises that turn people into religious fanatics, communism, fascism, socialism and anarchism are just state religions for the modern era.

They eschew practical changes like free speech in favor of always distant fantasies which naturally require absolute loyalty to the state in order to achieve.

>>104169
>inspired
>INSPIRED
>Marxist-Leninists are not Classical Marxists
>the photo shows that Leninists are not true Classical Marxists

>>104158

I mean, everything.
Art etc.

Of course he did not tried to restart civilization like our good friend: Pol Pot.

No true scotsman, eh op?

>>104190
So the US is also state capitalist and people really shouldn't be blaming "pure capitalism" for the problems we see today.

>>104240
Pretty much.

>>104232
No, no, not really. It's pretty cut and dry, seeing as how we can read what the source (Karl Marx) was a proponent of and we can see what all these scumbags did. They are not the same.

>>104240
>>104252

That's not to say that pure capitalism wouldn't have it's own set of problems, though.

"Overthrowing the bourgeoisie" was just a cover for Lenin's motives to bring gullible peasants into his movement.
His actual motives were to destroy European values. A dumbed-down world.

>>104301
>logical
>inb4 HURR DURR NOPE SOCIALISM BAD

>>104240
Oh, but they should.

State capitalism is the natural outcome of pure capitalism. In a true free market, it is normal that all the wealth eventually concentrates near the top and monopolies arise. This is when the state capitalist government is created, and the status quo in the US.

Certain things should just stay under government control, like energy, rail, post, and maybe even banking (public banks have been shown to work very well in many examples around the world after all).

>>104327
I don't know who you are, but I love you bro.

>>104327
You just assert that wealth concentrates in the absence of state intervention but US history is fraught with state intervention and has resulted in concentrated wealth.

I can equally assert that such wealth concentration wouldn't happen on a free market, but it's not like we have an example to compare them with, do we?

Sounds like special pleading to me.

>oh that wasn't real socialism so you can't pin that on socialism
>BASTARDIZED CAPITALISM CAN BE BLAMED ON CAPITALISM

>>104152
>The eternally retarded dispute over Hitler and nazis being socialists

Every thread they tackle individual things nazis did that socialists would have done too to imply connection and totally ignore the ideological foundations and standpoints of the two.

>>104405
Oh and that quote is totally unnecessary. Forgot it there.

>>104405
Eternally retarded because people see two things that are "bad" that they "dislike" and then equate them together.

>cavities are bad
>socialists are bad
>all dentists are capitalists

>>104327
>monopolies arise
>Free Market

Every day we have this discussion and everyday leftists end up leaving the thread with their butt soar because they either can't point a monopoly formed in a free market or they don't understand what a monopoly is.

inb4:
>robber barons
>microsoft
>AT&T
>drug cartels

All debunked in like 5 threads over the past 3 days. Get it through your damn skull.

>>104386
The last thirty years are a perfect example of what would happen in an unregulated market.

Regulation being totally nonexistent during this time. And low and behold, the highest income equality since the 1920s. And still rising, mind you!

>>104453
>butt soar
Flying butts?! How awesome..

>monopolies
Google says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolies#Historical_monopolies

>>103937
Self-serving Leninist definition of Leninism

Fact: Lenin didn't actually believe a word he wrote in State and Revolution.

>>104463
>The last thirty years are a perfect example of what would happen in an unregulated market.

Please never vote, or take any decision on your own. You need a handler you drooling retard.

>>103937

> marx's claims can be scientifically tested

>>104475
We already debunked all of them like 3 trillion times. Fucking leftists seem to magically forget that their points are debunked.

All those monopolies occurred because government enabled them.

>>104327

> state intervention
> free market

>>104482
Aww, argumentum ad hominem. How cute. Well, I'm not saying I didn't see it coming.

>>104512
I wasn't in that old thread, where's the debunking?

>>104558
I'm sorry, you're right: that was uncalled for. I apologize. I just get upset when I read uneducated opinions stated as fact.

The truth is the market is choking on regulation. You hear less about all those regulation lobbied in by big corporations in the farming or retail industry that are used to keep competition off their back, you mostly hear about Wall Street, about how unregulated it is.

In some way it's true, it is less regulated then other industries, but it's not really the amount that distorts the market. For example, first off the presence of the federal reserve already means there is no Free Market, that interest rates are dictated by a state monopoly given to a private bank. This means they just print money when they need it.

Also, the presence of government in the market to guarantee loans and savings account reduce the incentive of financial institutions do invest wisely, this leads to malinvestment. So, in a sense, there are regulations, except like most regulations, they are pro-big corporations since they are the ones that lobby them in. What libertarians want is to remove those regulations so those big companies play fair instead of the crony capitalism we have.