Have you gone from being a Libertarian to Socialism?

jank

Lockstep wrote: »

I'd dispute it. Plus, Wikipedia is not a good source.
Hitler had no coherent economic idea so describing him as a socialist or left wing is pretty disingenuous.

I did not describe him as such so not sure why you say I do. I did say his economic policies would be gold standard left wing economic policies today.

In the 1930s, Hitler was widely viewed as just another protectionist central planner who recognized the supposed failure of the free market and the need for nationally guided economic development. Proto-Keynesian socialist economist Joan Robinson wrote that "Hitler found a cure against unemployment before Keynes was finished explaining it."

What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public-works programs like autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national healthcare and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy

Keynes himself admired the Nazi economic program, writing in the foreword to the German edition to the General Theory: "[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire."

Keynes's comment, which may shock many, did not come out of the blue. Hitler's economists rejected laissez-faire, and admired Keynes, even foreshadowing him in many ways. Similarly, the Keynesians admired Hitler (see George Garvy, "Keynes and the Economic Activists of Pre-Hitler Germany," The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 83, Issue 2, April 1975, pp. 391–405).

https://mises.org/library/hitlers-economics

Hitler biographer Alan Bullock highlights in Hitler: A Study in Tyrannythat although there were socialists involved in the NSDAP's early stages like the Strasser brothers, Hitler had little sympathy for them and found their anti-capitalism embarrassing as he looked for industrialist backers. Although Hitler occasionally used anti-capitalism language, this was to co-opt the sweeping anti-capitalism of his day.

Hitler's socialism was so vacuous that the Strasser brothers left in 1930, claiming they'd be deceived by its anti-socialism.

All very informative but again, I never described him as a Socialist so you are countering an argument I have not put forward. You argue what he wasn't, I am arguing what he was. (See above)

Pretty much every ideology tries to portray Hitler as a member of an opposing ideology (he's been portrayed as a socialist, a conservative, a liberal (in the US anyway), a communist, a Christian, an atheist and even a Muslim) off the top of my head. The simple reason being that associating Hitler with any ideology is not good for their image.
The fact is that Hitler wasn't any one of these things. He was a totalitarian to whom all things were secondary to power.

Somewhat correct, but perhaps better directed against Joesph Brand who introduced the Hitler 'right-wing bogeyman'.

Pocoyo

Is there anything to be said for national socialism??? TBH with all the FG supporters coming out of their bunkers lately i fear we maybe heading that way only FG are less generous than the Nazi party.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Socialism in the way we understand it has to work via force, by the hands of the state that if you refuse to pay your taxes then you will be thrown into a jail. Seems pretty tyrannical to me.
Voluntary Socialism would be fine as people can choose freely to participate or not. We do not have the latter.

"They way we understand it"? This post tells me you don't understand it at all. Just because the desired end state doesn't currently exists, it's impossible?

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

When I think of socialism I think of putting your children and grandchildren in debt in order to get "free" stuff in the present.

I think of people not wanting to be a part of the system being put in jail if they don't go along with the extortion racket, I mean paying of taxes.

I think of selfish self righteous people ignoring economics and maxing out the credit card...Living for today and not worrying about tomorrow.

I think of people blaming a mega rich one percent for our problems, calling for more regulation and only to find out the lobbyists working for the one percent have written the new legislation

I think of people saying the Chilean miracle was a socialist miracle oblivious to the fact that a Chile was a socialist state for 3 years before the military coup and that the economic reforms were not enacted until years later and were not fully followed until Pinochet was no longer in power...e.g. Sergio de Castro pegging the exchange rate.

Socialism is spending money you don't have then paying in the future through inflation or hyperinflation....right on....

I think I see the problem now. You being overloaded by the current noise from left of centre populists shouting down everyone with their agenda. These people are not really advancing the socialist cause, they're shouting to get elected.

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

Lol, yeah that's right.....funny how it does not have the same affects in Argentina..hmmmm

I'm sure it is just one of those things really though.

Nothing to do with how they went from being very similar economically to being very different.

"Among other things" social spending has helped Chile. I'm talking in the last 10 years, not post Pinochet. My point were the answer is nuanced, not black and white.

jank

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I know it's a radical idea, but maybe you could try reading the actual post? Or if that is too much maybe just the very next sentence after the link...

Lets stick to the point in question.
This point in particular.

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I agree with generous social welfare, all data I've seen to date indicates this is the most efficient way to decrease unemployment ...

Yet, you go to mention things like social mobility without actually addressing this point or proving it in fact.

So again, you are the person who made the claim. Why and how is the most efficient way to reduce unemployment is generous social welfare?

Lockstep

jank wrote: »

I did not describe him as such so not sure why you say I do. I did say his economic policies would be gold standard left wing economic policies today.

My apologies: I misread your post.
That said, wouldn't exactly say his policies were strictly left wing. Although he instituted public works projects and the like, he instituted policies such as abolishing trade union's independence and had a personal hatred for socialists and communists: Nazi Germany rejected the class struggle and sought to united all Germans into the Third Reich.
Likewise, there was a high degree of industrial collusion and corporate welfare which is a hallmark of crony capitalism rather than left-wing policies.

Hitler's policies were a mishmash of left wing and right wing ideologies. He certainly wasn't a libertarian but neither was the Third Reich socialist or conservative.

jank wrote: »

https://mises.org/library/hitlers-economics

In fairness, an extremely poor blog. I know it's the Mises Institute so it's got an ideology to push, particularly its claim that Nazi Germany "embraced socialism".
Likewise, Keynes wasn't a fan of the Third Reich's policies. The expanded version of Keyne's forward is as follows

“The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. This is one of the reasons that justifies the fact that I call my theory a general theory. Since it is based on fewer hypotheses than the orthodox theory, it can accommodate itself all the easier to a wider field of varying conditions. Although I have, after all, worked it out with a view to the conditions prevailing in the Anglo-Saxon countries where a large degree of laissez-faire still prevails, nevertheless it remains applicable to situations in which state management is more pronounced. For the theory of psychological laws which bring consumption and saving into relationship with each other, the influence of loan expenditures on prices, and real wages, the role played by the rate of interest—all these basic ideas also remain under such conditions necessary parts of our plan of thought.”

All Keynes is doing is explaining that his theory can be applied to any economy, not just market ones.

Expanding on this

“In this statement Keynes does not say that his theory is more applicable to a totalitarian state than to a democratic state. What Keynes says is that his macroeconomic theory of output as a whole is more easily adapted to a totalitarian state than is classical microeconomic theory of the production and distribution of a given output produced under conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire. The distinction is an important one. Keynes is comparing the usefulness of micro and macro theory in a totalitarian state. He is not comparing the usefulness of his macro theory in a totalitarian state with its usefulness in a democratic state.”

source

Likewise, I'm unable to see anywhere in the referred article where Keynesians expressed their admiration for Hitler.

Tiddlypeeps

gobsh!te wrote: »

After you pay food and fuel the extra amount a person makes in a low paying job can be not worth it...It's pretty simple.

Some people are better off not working.



So just to confirm, rewarding failure (not working) and penalizing success(high tax rates)...that's the road to success...You should move to Cuba

You must be young, like under 25? Am I right? You definitely don't have a family

So you aren't going to actually address any of the points I made? Data doesn't suit your agenda so just ignore it?

If all you can do is resort to ad hominem the I'm not particularly interested in continuing this discussion. And no I'm not under 25 and my family situation is both irrelevant and none of your business. I won't be responding to you again, it's a waste of my time because you aren't even responding to what I write and you seem incapable of being civil, good luck.

Eric Cartman

Just to ask some of our more left leaning friends here. Any time a murderous tyrant is brought up the defense "they werent a socialist" comes out. Could I ask some of you to list 3 actually socialist leaders from history ? Just so we can use them in a comparisson ? Id also be interested for you to list 3 far right (economically) leaders just to see

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Just to ask some of our more left leaning friends here. Any time a murderous tyrant is brought up the defense "they werent a socialist" comes out. Could I ask some of you to list 3 actually socialist leaders from history ? Just so we can use them in a comparisson ? Id also be interested for you to list 3 far right (economically) leaders just to see

There haven't been any truly socialist leaders. There have been some social democrats I'd respect, that's about it.

Pocoyo

http://www.thejournal.ie/register-of-members-interests-tds-property-investments-2002567-Mar2015/

Oil shares,villas tax dodging in the isle of man. The established party TD's.

''When you elect wealthy greedy parasites they work to protect their own interests not yours''

The 'loony left' :rolleyes: in contrast have no conflicting interests. The media led sheeple need to wake up,More and more appear to be as the months go by.

Pocoyo

Brian? wrote: »

There haven't been any truly socialist leaders. There have been some social democrats I'd respect, that's about it.

Just because people are attacking your beliefs doesnt mean you should fold these socialists are using the only means available to push their cause its been hugely successful seen as they were non-existent just a couple of years ago,Your half lipped digs are ridiculous brian especially for someone that believes in the concept.

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

There haven't been any truly socialist leaders. There have been some social democrats I'd respect, that's about it.

There haven't been any true genuine national socialist leaders either....I mean guys that really got it. It really is a great system. Hitler just gave it a bad name.

The system is good but just had a tyrant running it......

What you just read....that's how I feel when someone says yeah but Stalin/Mao/Castro...or whoever weren't real socialists.

Just in case, I am being sarcastic on the Hitler stuff

Eric Cartman

Pocoyo wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/register-of-members-interests-tds-property-investments-2002567-Mar2015/

Oil shares,villas tax dodging in the isle of man. The established party TD's.

''When you elect wealthy greedy parasites they work to protect their own interests not yours''

The 'loony left' :rolleyes: in contrast have no conflicting interests. The media led sheeple need to wake up,More and more appear to be as the months go by.

Its interesting that you chose the word parasite to describe people who worked hard and earned their money and contribute to the economy.

Then proceeded to suggest we elect people who'se only policies are to give more money to the people who leech off workers and the state.

The word parasite belongs in your post, but you put it in the wrong paragraph

Pocoyo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its interesting that you chose the word parasite to describe people who worked hard and earned their money and contribute to the economy.

Then proceeded to suggest we elect people who'se only policies are to give more money to the people who leech off workers and the state.

The word parasite belongs in your post, but you put it in the wrong paragraph

Second and 3rd generation politicians working hard? I work hard my friend you see the reality is working hard will only get you so far so stop kidding yourself. I would accept that but only for the mass corruption and constant scandals these buffoons are playing with my kids future and as he wasnt born into amazing wealth i am concerned about that genuinely concerned i cant trust enda and co,Proven liars linked to a tyrant billionaire intent on controlling the countries media and resources....Parasites all, Back handers,bribes,state give aways the list goes on

Brian?

Pocoyo wrote: »

Just because people are attacking your beliefs doesnt mean you should fold these socialists are using the only means available to push their cause its been hugely successful seen as they were non-existent just a couple of years ago,Your half lipped digs are ridiculous brian especially for someone that believes in the concept.

Can you explain this to me?

Eric Cartman

Pocoyo wrote: »

i cant trust enda and co,Proven liars linked to a tyrant billionaire intent on controlling the countries media and resources.

This actually is just insanity, tinfoil hat brigade insanity.

coolemon

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Just to ask some of our more left leaning friends here. Any time a murderous tyrant is brought up the defense "they werent a socialist" comes out. Could I ask some of you to list 3 actually socialist leaders from history ? Just so we can use them in a comparisson ? Id also be interested for you to list 3 far right (economically) leaders just to see

Approaching the question from a Marxist perspective, it is not about leaders. It is not about being able to point to this or that "example" of "successful socialism".

Marxism is theoretical framework for understanding history and change over time. A framework which can be used to inform the practice of attempting to make social change.

The question from a Marxist perspective would be what socio-economic conditions produced a Hitler or a Stalin? What socio-economic conditions produced a Durruti or a James Connolly? - and specifically, the conditions which produced their ideas and consequent decisions, rather than a focus on the ideas themselves as independent entities.

To quote Marx

"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure." - https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm

Importantly to this, in regards talking about leaders or "socialist leaders", is the view that it is irrelevant what the person/leader thinks they are doing.

If Lenin, for example, believes and thinks he is constructing socialism, that in itself does not mean that what Lenin is doing is constructing socialism (as a new and distinct mode of production).

That the leaders of Cuba, the DPRK, China and the USSR think or say that they are socialist societies - does not mean that they are, in fact, socialist societies.

Marx puts it:

""Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production."

That is. Whether something is socialist or not must be looked at and defined from a historical materialist standpoint. By the technologies employed in production, by the incompatibility of these technologies to the technical relations of production, and consequently social relations of production which form the over-arching socio-economic system.

This Stalin and Hitler this and that is superficial ****e. It has nothing to do with Marxist analysis or Marxism.

Mullicker

Sad that a study is needed to put down the absurd claim that generous unemployment benefits reduce unemployment, but since people are pulling all kinds of mental gymnastics to defend the absurd here is a fairly recent study.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20884

Following the aftermath of the Great Recession, there was a wide heterogeneity of the federally-financed durations of benefits across U.S. states by December 2013, ranging from 0 to 47 weeks on top of the regular state-funded benefits with typical duration of 26 weeks. Averaged across all states, total benefit duration fell sharply from 53 to 25 weeks in December 2013.

A simple descriptive analysis shows a much faster employment growth in 2014 in high benefit states prior to the reform relative to their low benefit counterparts. The same finding holds if we compare the employment growth in counties that belong to high benefit states relative to their neighboring counties that belong to states with lower benefit durations prior to the reform. The implied magnitude of the negative effect of benefit duration on employment is so large that it can account for almost the entire remarkable employment growth experienced by the U.S. in 2014.

gobsh!te

coolemon wrote: »

This Stalin and Hitler this and that is superficial ****e. It has nothing to do with Marxist analysis or Marxism.

Change the record.....this line of Stalin has nothing to do with socialism has been uttered so many times.

What amazes me is that an intelligent person such as yourself appears to ignore the economic consequences of socialism.

Just look at the historical data.....Look at Marx too....Did he ever actually work himself?

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

Change the record.....this line of Stalin has nothing to do with socialism has been uttered so many times.

What amazes me is that an intelligent person such as yourself appears to ignore the economic consequences of socialism.

Just look at the historical data.....Look at Marx too....Did he ever actually work himself?

Did Marx work? Is this s joke?

Marx wrote several books and worked as a journalist. Unless you don't consider writing work, which is laughable.

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

Did Marx work? Is this s joke?

Marx wrote several books and worked as a journalist. Unless you don't consider writing work, which is laughable.

Then why did he need to borrow so much money from Engels.

Do you consider hobbies the same as work?

I don't think you know how much of a personal economic failure Marx was.....for some reason people think a man like this would have a good idea on how to run a nation's economy...We all saw the results of this garbage in the last century.

Thank goodness these outdated ideas are picking up dust in the bin

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

Then why did he need to borrow so much money from Engels.

Do you consider hobbies the same as work?

I don't think you know how much of a personal economic failure Marx was.....for some reason people think a man like this would have a good idea on how to run a nation's economy...We all saw the results of this garbage in the last century.

Thank goodness these outdated ideas are picking up dust in the bin

This is the worst kind of ad hominem argument. Not only is it inaccurate, it's completely irrelevant.

Well done on insulting every journalist in the world, by the way. They should all go and find real work.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

With the exception of working as a journalist he never worked? Come on. You're better than that.

He was an intellectual. But to say he "never worked" is complete nonsense. There are thousands of people out there who've made massive contributions to society, by by your definition they've never worked.

It's pretty difficult to forge a career when you're constantly being deported for "fomenting dissent" among the working classes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is a ridiculous, childish discussion.

Ok, fine. Karl Marx was an intellectual who wasn't meaningfully employed for most of his adult life. He was however in paid employment for short periods. He was supported by money from Engels. All of this is true.

Now what difference does it make to the validity or otherwise of Marxism? Any idea how the Engels family treated their workers?

Brian?

The only meaningful employment Milton Friedman every held was as a waiter and bus boy. Lets completely dismiss any of his writings not related to the catering industry.







How ridiculous does that sound?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Marx was one of the greatest sociologists the world has seen. Indeed he is credited, along with Max Weber and Durkheim as being one of the founders of sociology. His ideas have influenced and shaped the world and politics like nobody has.

And now he is being derided for not working by an anonymous boards.ie user named Gobsh!te.

You couldn't make it up.