What do you fear if Hillary gets elected? - Page 5

Hundmutter: Cuba still has excellent hospitals.

 

Hans: All that while poelpe are put in prisons for their thoughts and their families are prosecuted.   Human Rights Watch, who accuse the Cuban government of systematic human rights abuses, including arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial execution. Cuban law limits freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, and the press. Concerns have also been expressed about the operation of due process.   Religion can only be practiced by permission. Censorship in Cuba is accepted as normal. Thousands of Cubans have died in front of Castro’s infamous ‘paredón’ (the wall).   You can also read here:

http://www.14ymedio.com/englishedition/Abreu-Executions-Cuba-Untold-Story_0_1807019302.html

Mindhunt:
I understand the political view of socialism which I do not entirely agree with. On the other hand the United States is not exactly a true democracy either since our electoral college votes for us supposedly based on what we the people want. I don't agree it goes with the will of the people anymore than politicians never lie.
Hans:
This is complicated issue. There are many forms of Democracy. USA never was "true democracy" as in ancient Greece which was "Direct democracy" which was based on referendums and other devices of empowerment and concretization of popular will. According to founding fathers Direct democracy is terrible form of government because it is basically dictatorship of majority. Fascism and its form Socialism is one such dictatorship which tramples on the rights of individuals in minority. That is why we have representative democracy which should alleviate such injustice.
There are many forms of democracy:
industrial democracy, dominant-party system ( which is basically Marxism or fascism), Jacksonian democracy, Soviet democracy and interesting one to me :Totalitarian democracy. .... .
You can study on different forms of democracies for years.

noitsyo:The definition of socialism does not fit Hitler.

 

 

Hans: What definition is that? There are many definitions of socialism most recent ones developed  US Liberals and US Scrool system which is mostly run by leftist liberals socialist who can not stand the fact that  Hitler too was socialist just like they are and do not want tto be thrown in the same bag as Hilter Socialist German Workers Party ( German: National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei = NSDAP). I do not blame them yet it is so. Todays liberals are doing tremendous somersaults to avoid such association and in typical historical revisionism fashion call conservatives Nazis and fascists.  These arguments exploit a fact that no socialist  system are pure.  Here is one such false  argument perpetuated by liberals. Steve Kangas writes : Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named “National Socialist.” But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state.  ​

 

The to me funny try for deception is in the second part of the argument. :"In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. " As an argument for their side, yet it actually proves the exact opposite of what it tries to prove.  This lie is based on misrepresenting of what socialism is. In fact socialism is  not based on "ownership" of means orf production, ( and of course of transportation servicers and private property) as the leftist lair is trying to convince us, but it is based on their control ( and regulation and so on) .

 Through this type of deception then Democrat liberals ( US) are convincing useful naive about exact opposit of true and are turning true into lsi and vice versa. 

 

However according to Hitler himself he   learned  from Karl Marx  direct Hitler's quote=“I have learned a great deal from Marxism” … “as I do not hesitate to admit” and he have directly claimed to be  socialist. In 1927, Hitler said: “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” It sounds like a democratic party platform statement.  So whom are you going to believe -  Hitler himself  or history revising Liberals. 

  Some, in order to confuse the masses" will argue that Hitler hated Socialist Marxists which is true. There are many form of Socialism and Marxism is international type and Nazism is nationalist type. And indeed they hated each other with passion since the socialism as such is not about "helping people "  but about seizing power on world scale. people who vote left would do to themselves tremendous service if they would realize  that. I can go on and on and bore you some more with all this but all this should suffice. 

Do not listen just  to liberal hacks listen to everybody and then make up your mind.  

@GSDadminMany many countries live under socialism. None of those countries are what you think Hans. Our neighbor Canada being one of them. You can only compare Hilter to Hitler. Stalin to Stalin because those 2 zealots are not like the rest. USA is a semi-socialist society. While I do not agree with every detail of socialism, it has its good points.

Hans:
Nowhere do I compare Canada to Hitler. I am merely warning that the systems like Marxism and socialism which are foundation to policies are of same foundation as USSR and of Nazi Germany. All this is a matter of degree even so in principal it is same. For example lack of freedom of speech in Canadawhere you can be thrown in jail for saying something Canadian government does not like is akin to Lenin which promoted total control of mass media by saying that it must be organ of the ruling party. Now I am not saying that Canada is like USSR I am only saying that we must be aware of such oppression and where they came from and what they can lead to.
or we can go to Ireland:
A woman from Belfast has been handed a six-month suspended jail sentence for “joking” about harming Muslims on a Facebook page.
Victim Dr. Raied Al-Wazzan, who has previously praised Islamic State terrorists, claimed the comments put his life in danger. Defendant Anne Bothwell denied the messages were harmful and insisted they were written in humor.

Ms. Bothwell was found guilty of six counts of improper use of a public electronic communications network, with Belfast Live reporting that she is preparing to appeal the ruling.


Improper use of a public electronic communications network?!!! So same as in Canada in Ireland and elsewhere I assure you, you can be thrown into prison for saying something which someone does not like. Now if that is not taken from fascism "handbook" I do not know what is.
My point is that socialism which is form of fascism is endangering our personal freedoms. people are given their AND MINE AND YOURS freedoms away in the name of common good.

Remember common good or any so called "good" must not be facilitated by oppression of others.

In Nazi Germany it was a wartime economy. The government there, just like the government here, was more involved in production.

And you ask who am I going to believe Hitler or....I don't think I believe a lot of what Hitler said. Maybe you find him an honest man.

So: people are never oppressed under capitalism ?
Capitalist societies are all about the "common good" ?
Or is your idea of the ideal functioning political system only excusable if it's the RIGHT way, not the Left's ?

Hans, my time here is limited and I can assure you I have listened and read over the years and you are right my mind is made up and it doesn't agree with what all the "hacks" say. You are wrong to say socialism is wrong because of Hitler. Hitler was a mad man. Stalin a nutcase. But those 2 men had more conservative values than liberal values. Yes, Stalin was somewhat of a socialist in that he provided money to education (gasp) and health care (gasp). So what? They didn't slaughter because they had minor socialist leanings, they slaughtered because they were CRAZY.

 

On a side note Trump is changing his stance on immigration. Oh the irony of it all.

"Stalin was somewhat of a socialist" ?? "With minor socialist leaning"? Are you serious!?

Please listen to this. Socialism is THE epitome of saying how The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The problem with socialism is that it always promotes mad man like Stalin and Hitler and it always BY ITS OWN  definition oppresses individual liberty in name of majority. Nazi Germany and Soviet SOCIALIST  republic are perfect example of how monstrous socialism's potential  is.   The reason why  monsters happen is fascism and its offspring socialism ,is that personal interest of humans is based on survival and thus it  is always by nature above all other interested for most people. The people who put their interests above others are extremely rare  and they usually do so only temporarily in specific situations. At the same time  socialism is the perfect vehicle for  promotion of selfishness and in extreme of it it promotes such selfish monsters as Stalin, Hitler, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, .... .

If you ( hundmutter) want to compare capitalism with socialism, then you may notice that representative democracy which promotes capitalism did not produce any dictators and it is a most prosperous economic system ever in practice and because of that it feeds literally and figuratively more people then any other system in history. . No system is perfect but the American system of limited government and system protecting rights of all individuals is the best system which ever existed.  

.http://www.applet-magic.com/argentinatanoira2.htm

 

...Perón nationalized the railroads, airlines, buses, com­munications, foreign trade, and energy, among other ac­tivities. The immediate effects were a drastic deteriora­tion of service and huge deficits. Consider a few examples. In 1945 Argentina had 48 percent of the telephones in­stalled in Latin America. Today that percentage has fallen to 7 percent. There are 1.5 million phone lines, but there are also one million pending applications that cannot be satisfied by the company. Average waiting time to have a phone installed is over ten years. Only a third of attempted long distance calls go through, and the company loses $80,000 per day as a result of this failure alone. Commer­cial users have to pay a nonreimbursable connection fee of $2,500. Just to change the name of a line holder costs $100. Although the state telephone company cannot provide efficient service, it will not allow anyone else to provide it either. There is even a law forbidding compe­tition!

The nationalized railroads lose $4 million a day. Grossly overmanned, the equipment is rapidly deteriorating and the service is disastrous. Although fares are cheap& than those of trucks and buses, most people chose the latter. Aerolineas Argentinas, the national airline, is just as bad. It costs the taxpayer $900,000 a day in subsidized losses, and international passengers are forced to pay fares that are 40 percent higher than average. The company has efficiency ratios that are among the worst in the world. Similar stories can be told about energy, water, and the postal service. In each case the government has enacted laws preserving the monopoly status of the state-owned companies.

Sound familiar?

Argentina's economic policies of the last forty years are a textbook example of what should not be done. Foreigners find it hard to understand how a country with ample natural resources and a well-educated popula­tion manages to stumble from one economic crisis to another, always on the verge of collapse. And what per­plexes outsiders the most is the fact that Argentina was once one of the wealthiest countries in the world Rank­ing as the seventh most prosperous country in 1900, Argentina has since fallen far, and much of the decline has occurred in the postwar era. In 1929, for example, Argentina's per capita Gross National Product (GNP) was fifty percent higher than Austria's, twice Italy's and almost four times higher than Japan's. Today, its output per capita is only a fraction of what each of these countries produce. Per capita GNP in Argentina is now just a quarter of Austria's, one-third of Italy's and only one-fifth of Japan's, according to the most recent data from the World Bank.

Was this dramatic change caused by a great natural disaster or the massive emigration of our best people? Nothing of the sort. Indeed, time has only enhanced the comparative advantages of a country with fertile land and well-educated citizens. Argentina was settled by Europeans in much the same way as the United States and there are striking similarities between the development pro­cesses of both countries. Even our Constitution is modeled after that of the United States.

Then, perhaps, it was the oil crisis. Hardly. Argentina is not only self-sufficient in energy but could easily be­come an exporter. In fact, twenty percent of its natural gas is vented for lack of pipelines. No the reasons for Argentina's decline lie elsewhere. The turning point is very clear—the rule of Juan Perón from 1946 to 1955, and the socialist policies he imposed on the Argentine econ­omy.

A ruthless demagogue, Perón conditioned all his gov­ernment acts to the political advantages they could pro­vide him. He soon found that socialist economic policies were easily accepted by over half the Argentine popula­tion. Thus, he proceeded to close the economy to inter­national commerce, to nationalize public services, and to establish the state management of most economic activi­ties, either directly or through regulations. His political success was such that Perón's main opposition party, the Radicals, changed its own platform to espouse these same economic ideas. This trend toward state control was indirectly encouraged by the wave of socialism then sweeping through most of Europe. Because both major political parties in Argentina had similar economic plat­forms, socialism remained unchallenged and has since become entrenched in the public opinion. Capital and capitalists became ugly words. The results of such policies, applied to the same ethnic mix of people who in the northern half of the same hemisphere, built the world's most prosperous economy under a free enterprise system, are very clear for the rest of the world to see. These policies provide a sad lesson about how a once prosperous country squandered its wealth through economic mismanagement and bureaucratic arrogance.