The records I’ve read seem to say that didn’t use actual tar like bitumen but tree pitch, heated up hot but not boiling hot.
Bitumen needs to be roughly 300F to be liquid. Obviously fatal. Pine tar can be easily handled like a thick liquid at just 100F-120F. Easily survivable although extremely unpleasant with minor burns possible.
In the 1920s and 30s? When this was a libertarian?
Because that’s who libertarians used to be - anarchists. Not right wingers who love Ayn Rand…
The meaning of socialist has been much more stable over the past century than the meaning of libertarian.
And yet, they still ended up with a class system, even if they didn’t call it that. It’s pretty well documented how party members, especially those high up in the ranks and close to party leadership and to Moscow, ended up with privileges the rest of East Germany did not have. The communist states of the 20th century did fail to deliver on Marx’s classless utopia, quite obviously so.
A few posts ago I told the American people that Nazis were Socialists. My heart and my best intentions tell me that’s true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not.
I don’t disagree with you here:
But I disagree with this:
Private capitalism has no concern over the public good or public interest whatsoever. Even Mr. Adam “invisible hand of the market” Smith warned his readers about that. Obviously that’s not what we’re dealing with here.
State capitalism where the government controls the means of production, such as you saw in the Soviet Union, was a pale imitation of true socialism because the workers there had no say in how those means were used. In that respect, I think Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were similar.
Now in American parlance, you would call that government control of the means of production “socialism.” It’s the dictionary definition of socialism. Maybe that definition was brought about by incessant campaigning by private capitalists in America since the New Deal, or maybe it’s because the Soviets’ world vision for governance also put it in that box, but that’s where it sits.
No. Today. Using the 2019-vintage usage of ‘libertarian’ which leans heavily towards Rand-reading soi-disant anarcho-capitalists. The point of my post, as I tried to explain, is that even if you accept the skewed bizarre definition of ‘socialist’ such people use they still lose, rhetorically speaking.
Purely on linguistic-descriptivist grounds enough people use this aberrant definition of socialist (Which works out to “anyone supporting any sort of government welfare program whatsoever” or, in extreme cases, “anyone who supports the government doing much more than guarding property and enforcing contracts”) that addressing it seems prudent, and I thought it was an interesting observation that you could, in this instance, do so without trying to disabuse them of the definition.
The IG Farben cases before the Nuremberg Tribunal revealed the extent to which the Nazis were corporatized. They had corporate sponsors, corporate collaborators and an oligarchic economy. Free market capitalism had little to do with it. Monpolistic capitalism was its norm to an almost feudal degree.
The difference between a command economy controlled by a government and a command economy controlled by a limited number of corporations becomes very slim.
I think you fail to understand the degree in which corporate interests entangled themselves in the Nazi state.
Did you ever think perhaps you were not being CLEAR in your meaning, and maybe, just maybe, you don’t need to talk down to everyone else like we’re children?
Mises Instute?
Not at all. What I’m saying is that ALL capitalism is heartless to the public interest even that found in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.
The outrage of saying that Nazis were socialists is the fallacious argument that conservative spokestrolls try to make: Nazis were socialist therefore socialists are Nazis… Which is like saying tigers are cats therefore all cats are tigers. Obviously, there are different forms of cats as there are different forms of socialism.
Socialism has a branding problem. Nefarious governments of the past and present fly under that banner but never fully live up to the potential because workers never get the representation they deserve. That’s why democratic socialism has the best mix and the most potential to succeed, but you certainly can’t hold Nazi Germany as an example of that.
Holy shit! All the jokes about Libertarians loving Somalia as a paradise turn out to be real!
Its on par with claiming the Democratic Republic of _______ is Democratic. Just trollery done to annoy people. Not something taken seriously by the people making the statements.
Isn’t that the natural end point of free market capitalism? All resources are limited after all and they will end up in the hands of the few sooner or later if there’s no regulation.
Yup. Laissez Faire capitalism is just a brief transitional state between industrialization and cyberpunk feudalism. Make sure to keep your implant firmware up to date, Amazon Prime Citizen.
You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me 'cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store
I did think I wasn’t clear. That’s why I tried to explain myself. This drive to explain myself coupled with English-as-a-second-language-ism, I suspect, is why you read my posts as talking down. Sorry. That’s not the impression I intended.
I’m a little amazed there are 95 post in a topic entitled “Were Nazis really Socialists?” and they aren’t all just:
No
Laissez Faire Capitalism is oligarchy. Free markets require regulation to ensure they are free. Otherwise the tendency is for monopolization and restriction of trade. The Nazis really ran their government in the style of a feudal court with vaguely defined positions and power structures constantly competing against each other and wasting resources between them. They carried out practices of parasitic imperialism as old as the Roman Empire. Where all resources and power flow towards a central area to the detriment of subject peoples.
One of the reasons they never developed an atomic bomb is that too many different projects were done at the same time using the same limited resources. There was no central control like the Manhattan Project to coordinate efforts and share results.
Sound like capitalism to me. Hundred companies doing the same useless shit.
And that’s just one multinational these days
Gives a whole new meaning to their chanting “send her back”
