|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
|
|
How's that even important where those islam refugees are coming? It's like exceptionally Syrian refugees got their chances higher to explode in terrorist act?
It doesn't really matter from which "barbarian" country they are coming since they are sharing (mostly) the same agressive behavior. And then again, if those refugees would be mostly females - it's okay pretty much, but when there are only 17% of them - it might be scary to devour such portion of explosive people.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 28 2016 11:52 SK.Testie wrote:I remember seeing that a while ago. 53% men. 17% women.26% "children" How many of those children are adult men and how long will they be on welfare for. How many have come by land?
most of these children could be counted as adults connsidering what they've endured.
How long they will be on welfare depends on how fast they'll get a work permit and appropriate treatment for their traumas.
|
On December 28 2016 22:38 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2016 11:52 SK.Testie wrote:On December 28 2016 03:03 Sent. wrote:Yay, I can post it again! Keep in mind most Syrian refugees made it to Europe before 2016 and this top 10 statistic is based on arrivals since january 2016. http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php I remember seeing that a while ago. 53% men. 17% women.26% "children" How many of those children are adult men and how long will they be on welfare for. How many have come by land? most of these children could be counted as adults connsidering what they've endured. How long they will be on welfare depends on how fast they'll get a work permit and appropriate treatment for their traumas.
they need to learn how to read and write first, most cant do that on a level that is necessary for a western country. if they are from sub-saharan countries they even need to learn how to sit still and concentrate for more than 15 minutes.
|
Most (perhaps not, but a significant portion) of the "children" are adult males claiming to be under 18.
Is there data on the male/female split of the children? If it's 50/50, or at least 55/45, I would find it much less of an issue.
|
The reason for this discrepancy on the Mediterranean route is simply that smuggling is expensive, dangerous and physically demanding, so refugee seekers send an adult male who is supposed to get the family to the host country through family asylum laws. I assume the kid ratio is 50/50, I have trouble imagining why someone would leave kids of a specific gender at home
|
On December 29 2016 07:27 Nyxisto wrote:
The reason for this discrepancy on the Mediterranean route is simply that smuggling is expensive, dangerous and physically demanding, so refugee seekers send an adult male who is supposed to get the family to the host country through family asylum laws. I assume the kid ratio is 50/50, I have trouble imagining why someone would leave kids of a specific gender at home
That is exactly my point. If it isn't 50/50 then you could roughly attribute the percentage discrepancy to adult males claiming to be children.
|
That does not logically follow from the premise.
|
Very interesting article about screening: http://www.dw.com/en/cologne-police-defend-new-years-eve-security-tactics/a-36969904
Tl,dr: Police in the German city of Cologne defended the use of racial profiling during New Year's Eve celebrations on Sunday.
Speaking to the press, Police Chief Jürgen Mathies admitted that yes, officers had specifically targeted men who appeared to be of North African extraction to undergo police checks, but said that "For the vast majority, there was a clear threat of criminal activity present."
Police Chief Mathies did say that he thought it was a mistake to use the term on social media, but stood by called North African men "Nafris" as part of police jargon.
|
On December 28 2016 02:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2016 23:10 Koorb wrote:
The left-wing think tank Terra Nova, which is the ideological spearhead of the French mainstream left these days, was the driving force behind this policy. They advocated for the PS to turn away from the native blue collar electorate, and to focus instead on the first to third generation naturalized citizens from African and Arab ancestry. Thus the "white flight" of the blue collar voters toward the National Front since the late 90's.
What is it with this constant babbling on about left-wingers dropping their 'white' voters. They're left wingers, they care about workers, not white workers. For an actual socialist there is no contradiction between helping foreign workers or native workers, they're both part of the same group, the working class. Socialists don't have the task to sit on the national treasure and protect it against the evil alien invaders.
National socialists,its a sub group of socialism that might see increasing popularity despite its dubious past.
There seems to be a big market for national socialism these days. Many people are fed up with the (financial)elite/traditional leaders and then there is also the increase in resistance against immigration. Both kinda fit a national socialist partij. I doubt a national socialist party could have any succes today because of its past,but there seems to be a demand in Europe amongst voters for exactly such a type of party. Eventually the past will be forgotten,if that demand is then still there national socialism will return,and maybe before the past has been forgotten as well in some countries (thinking about Italy here)
|
On January 03 2017 16:43 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2016 02:15 Nyxisto wrote:On December 27 2016 23:10 Koorb wrote:
The left-wing think tank Terra Nova, which is the ideological spearhead of the French mainstream left these days, was the driving force behind this policy. They advocated for the PS to turn away from the native blue collar electorate, and to focus instead on the first to third generation naturalized citizens from African and Arab ancestry. Thus the "white flight" of the blue collar voters toward the National Front since the late 90's.
What is it with this constant babbling on about left-wingers dropping their 'white' voters. They're left wingers, they care about workers, not white workers. For an actual socialist there is no contradiction between helping foreign workers or native workers, they're both part of the same group, the working class. Socialists don't have the task to sit on the national treasure and protect it against the evil alien invaders. National socialists,its a sub group of socialism that might see increasing popularity despite its dubious past. There seems to be a big market for national socialism these days. Many people are fed up with the (financial)elite/traditional leaders and then there is also the increase in resistance against immigration. Both kinda fit a national socialist partij. I doubt a national socialist party could have any succes today because of its past,but there seems to be a demand in Europe amongst voters for exactly such a type of party. Eventually the past will be forgotten,if that demand is then still there national socialism will return,and maybe before the past has been forgotten as well in some countries (thinking about Italy here)
I'd be very careful calling certain historical parties national socialist in the sense of the words. There was nothing socialist within the German Nazi ideology. It was not about empowering the people in a social-economical sense to give democracy a meaning beyond elections and governments, which is the basic idea of socialism. It was about being a better people than others in such an extrem way, that even the "worst" had to be representative. But it was never about empowering them - not that what we refer to as communism in the historical sense was about it, but nationalsocialism very specifically was against such ideas alltogether and rather outspoken against material temptations and any concept of democracy.
To connect it to the current political landscape, there is nothing socialist about most right-wingers nowadays. Their economical policies are very top-down capitalist and their values are cultural-ideological and reactionary motivated and not democratical and material. The typical missconception is that these parties subscribe to the longtime established ideas of certain social nets in Europe, which does not make them socialist though. Subscribing to something traditionally-established is a trait of a conservative, the trait of a socialist would be to tighten the nets and to upheave the economically dependent - regardless of gender or origin - further with the progress of productivity and technology.
|
On December 28 2016 13:46 LegalLord wrote:
The refugee crisis is the result of a unilateral choice by Europe. That is entirely on them - and most of them aren't even from actual Syria.
How can you say the refugee crisis is entirely on Europe? That's pretty ignorant.
Sure, the EU could've said "Wir schaffen das nicht", turning our back on all the refugees caused by American interventions in the Middle East, after all it's not our problem right?
But refugees would still have entered Europe through various ways, or die by the thousands trying to get there.
I'm quite amazed. What a quote.
|
On January 03 2017 17:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 16:43 pmh wrote:On December 28 2016 02:15 Nyxisto wrote:On December 27 2016 23:10 Koorb wrote:
The left-wing think tank Terra Nova, which is the ideological spearhead of the French mainstream left these days, was the driving force behind this policy. They advocated for the PS to turn away from the native blue collar electorate, and to focus instead on the first to third generation naturalized citizens from African and Arab ancestry. Thus the "white flight" of the blue collar voters toward the National Front since the late 90's.
What is it with this constant babbling on about left-wingers dropping their 'white' voters. They're left wingers, they care about workers, not white workers. For an actual socialist there is no contradiction between helping foreign workers or native workers, they're both part of the same group, the working class. Socialists don't have the task to sit on the national treasure and protect it against the evil alien invaders. National socialists,its a sub group of socialism that might see increasing popularity despite its dubious past. There seems to be a big market for national socialism these days. Many people are fed up with the (financial)elite/traditional leaders and then there is also the increase in resistance against immigration. Both kinda fit a national socialist partij. I doubt a national socialist party could have any succes today because of its past,but there seems to be a demand in Europe amongst voters for exactly such a type of party. Eventually the past will be forgotten,if that demand is then still there national socialism will return,and maybe before the past has been forgotten as well in some countries (thinking about Italy here) I'd be very careful calling certain historical parties national socialist in the sense of the words. There was nothing socialist within the German Nazi ideology. It was not about empowering the people in a social-economical sense to give democracy a meaning beyond elections and governments, which is the basic idea of socialism. It was about being a better people than others in such an extrem way, that even the "worst" had to be representative. But it was never about empowering them - not that what we refer to as communism in the historical sense was about it, but nationalsocialism very specifically was against such ideas alltogether and rather outspoken against material temptations and any concept of democracy. To connect it to the current political landscape, there is nothing socialist about most right-wingers nowadays. Their economical policies are very top-down capitalist and their values are cultural-ideological and reactionary motivated and not democratical and material. The typical missconception is that these parties subscribe to the longtime established ideas of certain social nets in Europe, which does not make them socialist though. Subscribing to something traditionally-established is a trait of a conservative, the trait of a socialist would be to tighten the nets and to upheave the economically dependent - regardless of gender or origin - further with the progress of productivity and technology.
I was about to say the same as you did in your first paragraph, but it turned into a wall of text and I deleted it. Anyways just here to basicly agree with this.
The fact of the matter is that national socialism is socialism in name only and is usually not seen as a sub-category of socialism at all. They threw actual socialists into concentration camps for crying out loud
|
On January 03 2017 17:49 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2016 13:46 LegalLord wrote:
The refugee crisis is the result of a unilateral choice by Europe. That is entirely on them - and most of them aren't even from actual Syria. How can you say the refugee crisis is entirely on Europe? That's pretty ignorant. Sure, the EU could've said "Wir schaffen das nicht", turning our back on all the refugees caused by American interventions in the Middle East, after all it's not our problem right? But refugees would still have entered Europe through various ways, or die by the thousands trying to get there. I'm quite amazed. What a quote.
France played a major role in destabilizing Libya, and so did the UK, IIRC.
And several key politicians basically decided for the whole EU that we are not going to protect our borders, so the EU is largely responsible for the fact that things got out of control inside the EU.
On January 03 2017 17:59 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 17:45 Big J wrote:On January 03 2017 16:43 pmh wrote:On December 28 2016 02:15 Nyxisto wrote:On December 27 2016 23:10 Koorb wrote:
The left-wing think tank Terra Nova, which is the ideological spearhead of the French mainstream left these days, was the driving force behind this policy. They advocated for the PS to turn away from the native blue collar electorate, and to focus instead on the first to third generation naturalized citizens from African and Arab ancestry. Thus the "white flight" of the blue collar voters toward the National Front since the late 90's.
What is it with this constant babbling on about left-wingers dropping their 'white' voters. They're left wingers, they care about workers, not white workers. For an actual socialist there is no contradiction between helping foreign workers or native workers, they're both part of the same group, the working class. Socialists don't have the task to sit on the national treasure and protect it against the evil alien invaders. National socialists,its a sub group of socialism that might see increasing popularity despite its dubious past. There seems to be a big market for national socialism these days. Many people are fed up with the (financial)elite/traditional leaders and then there is also the increase in resistance against immigration. Both kinda fit a national socialist partij. I doubt a national socialist party could have any succes today because of its past,but there seems to be a demand in Europe amongst voters for exactly such a type of party. Eventually the past will be forgotten,if that demand is then still there national socialism will return,and maybe before the past has been forgotten as well in some countries (thinking about Italy here) I'd be very careful calling certain historical parties national socialist in the sense of the words. There was nothing socialist within the German Nazi ideology. It was not about empowering the people in a social-economical sense to give democracy a meaning beyond elections and governments, which is the basic idea of socialism. It was about being a better people than others in such an extrem way, that even the "worst" had to be representative. But it was never about empowering them - not that what we refer to as communism in the historical sense was about it, but nationalsocialism very specifically was against such ideas alltogether and rather outspoken against material temptations and any concept of democracy. To connect it to the current political landscape, there is nothing socialist about most right-wingers nowadays. Their economical policies are very top-down capitalist and their values are cultural-ideological and reactionary motivated and not democratical and material. The typical missconception is that these parties subscribe to the longtime established ideas of certain social nets in Europe, which does not make them socialist though. Subscribing to something traditionally-established is a trait of a conservative, the trait of a socialist would be to tighten the nets and to upheave the economically dependent - regardless of gender or origin - further with the progress of productivity and technology. I was about to say the same as you did in your first paragraph, but it turned into a wall of text and I deleted it. Anyways just here to basicly agree with this. The fact of the matter is that national socialism is socialism in name only and is usually not seen as a sub-category of socialism at all. They threw actual socialists into concentration camps for crying out loud
So did the communists ruling USSR. Were they also not true communists?
|
On January 03 2017 18:01 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 17:49 Laurens wrote:On December 28 2016 13:46 LegalLord wrote:
The refugee crisis is the result of a unilateral choice by Europe. That is entirely on them - and most of them aren't even from actual Syria. How can you say the refugee crisis is entirely on Europe? That's pretty ignorant. Sure, the EU could've said "Wir schaffen das nicht", turning our back on all the refugees caused by American interventions in the Middle East, after all it's not our problem right? But refugees would still have entered Europe through various ways, or die by the thousands trying to get there. I'm quite amazed. What a quote. France played a major role in destabilizing Libya, and so did the UK, IIRC. And several key politicians basically decided for the whole EU that we are not going to protect our borders, so the EU is largely responsible for the fact that things got out of control inside the EU.
This is all true, but you cannot possibly say that America had no role to play in the refugee crisis, which is what LegalLord posted.
|
On January 03 2017 18:12 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 18:01 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2017 17:49 Laurens wrote:On December 28 2016 13:46 LegalLord wrote:
The refugee crisis is the result of a unilateral choice by Europe. That is entirely on them - and most of them aren't even from actual Syria. How can you say the refugee crisis is entirely on Europe? That's pretty ignorant. Sure, the EU could've said "Wir schaffen das nicht", turning our back on all the refugees caused by American interventions in the Middle East, after all it's not our problem right? But refugees would still have entered Europe through various ways, or die by the thousands trying to get there. I'm quite amazed. What a quote. France played a major role in destabilizing Libya, and so did the UK, IIRC. And several key politicians basically decided for the whole EU that we are not going to protect our borders, so the EU is largely responsible for the fact that things got out of control inside the EU. This is all true, but you cannot possibly say that America had no role to play in the refugee crisis, which is what LegalLord posted.
I may be wrong, but I believe he meant the crisis within the EU, i.e. that the EU decided to let this crisis transpire into the EU - because the EU had the means to prevent it. I don't think he meant that the EU is solely responsible for the origins of the refugee crisis in North Africa and Middle East.
|
On January 03 2017 18:01 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 17:49 Laurens wrote:On December 28 2016 13:46 LegalLord wrote:
The refugee crisis is the result of a unilateral choice by Europe. That is entirely on them - and most of them aren't even from actual Syria. How can you say the refugee crisis is entirely on Europe? That's pretty ignorant. Sure, the EU could've said "Wir schaffen das nicht", turning our back on all the refugees caused by American interventions in the Middle East, after all it's not our problem right? But refugees would still have entered Europe through various ways, or die by the thousands trying to get there. I'm quite amazed. What a quote. France played a major role in destabilizing Libya, and so did the UK, IIRC. And several key politicians basically decided for the whole EU that we are not going to protect our borders, so the EU is largely responsible for the fact that things got out of control inside the EU. Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 17:59 Toadesstern wrote:On January 03 2017 17:45 Big J wrote:On January 03 2017 16:43 pmh wrote:On December 28 2016 02:15 Nyxisto wrote:On December 27 2016 23:10 Koorb wrote:
The left-wing think tank Terra Nova, which is the ideological spearhead of the French mainstream left these days, was the driving force behind this policy. They advocated for the PS to turn away from the native blue collar electorate, and to focus instead on the first to third generation naturalized citizens from African and Arab ancestry. Thus the "white flight" of the blue collar voters toward the National Front since the late 90's.
What is it with this constant babbling on about left-wingers dropping their 'white' voters. They're left wingers, they care about workers, not white workers. For an actual socialist there is no contradiction between helping foreign workers or native workers, they're both part of the same group, the working class. Socialists don't have the task to sit on the national treasure and protect it against the evil alien invaders. National socialists,its a sub group of socialism that might see increasing popularity despite its dubious past. There seems to be a big market for national socialism these days. Many people are fed up with the (financial)elite/traditional leaders and then there is also the increase in resistance against immigration. Both kinda fit a national socialist partij. I doubt a national socialist party could have any succes today because of its past,but there seems to be a demand in Europe amongst voters for exactly such a type of party. Eventually the past will be forgotten,if that demand is then still there national socialism will return,and maybe before the past has been forgotten as well in some countries (thinking about Italy here) I'd be very careful calling certain historical parties national socialist in the sense of the words. There was nothing socialist within the German Nazi ideology. It was not about empowering the people in a social-economical sense to give democracy a meaning beyond elections and governments, which is the basic idea of socialism. It was about being a better people than others in such an extrem way, that even the "worst" had to be representative. But it was never about empowering them - not that what we refer to as communism in the historical sense was about it, but nationalsocialism very specifically was against such ideas alltogether and rather outspoken against material temptations and any concept of democracy. To connect it to the current political landscape, there is nothing socialist about most right-wingers nowadays. Their economical policies are very top-down capitalist and their values are cultural-ideological and reactionary motivated and not democratical and material. The typical missconception is that these parties subscribe to the longtime established ideas of certain social nets in Europe, which does not make them socialist though. Subscribing to something traditionally-established is a trait of a conservative, the trait of a socialist would be to tighten the nets and to upheave the economically dependent - regardless of gender or origin - further with the progress of productivity and technology. I was about to say the same as you did in your first paragraph, but it turned into a wall of text and I deleted it. Anyways just here to basicly agree with this. The fact of the matter is that national socialism is socialism in name only and is usually not seen as a sub-category of socialism at all. They threw actual socialists into concentration camps for crying out loud So did the communists ruling USSR. Were they also not true communists?
Hitler tried to get rid of anything "socialist" that might have ever been there in the beginning to focus a 100% on the nationalist aspect being the difference though
|
On January 03 2017 18:26 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 18:01 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2017 17:49 Laurens wrote:On December 28 2016 13:46 LegalLord wrote:
The refugee crisis is the result of a unilateral choice by Europe. That is entirely on them - and most of them aren't even from actual Syria. How can you say the refugee crisis is entirely on Europe? That's pretty ignorant. Sure, the EU could've said "Wir schaffen das nicht", turning our back on all the refugees caused by American interventions in the Middle East, after all it's not our problem right? But refugees would still have entered Europe through various ways, or die by the thousands trying to get there. I'm quite amazed. What a quote. France played a major role in destabilizing Libya, and so did the UK, IIRC. And several key politicians basically decided for the whole EU that we are not going to protect our borders, so the EU is largely responsible for the fact that things got out of control inside the EU. On January 03 2017 17:59 Toadesstern wrote:On January 03 2017 17:45 Big J wrote:On January 03 2017 16:43 pmh wrote:On December 28 2016 02:15 Nyxisto wrote:On December 27 2016 23:10 Koorb wrote:
The left-wing think tank Terra Nova, which is the ideological spearhead of the French mainstream left these days, was the driving force behind this policy. They advocated for the PS to turn away from the native blue collar electorate, and to focus instead on the first to third generation naturalized citizens from African and Arab ancestry. Thus the "white flight" of the blue collar voters toward the National Front since the late 90's.
What is it with this constant babbling on about left-wingers dropping their 'white' voters. They're left wingers, they care about workers, not white workers. For an actual socialist there is no contradiction between helping foreign workers or native workers, they're both part of the same group, the working class. Socialists don't have the task to sit on the national treasure and protect it against the evil alien invaders. National socialists,its a sub group of socialism that might see increasing popularity despite its dubious past. There seems to be a big market for national socialism these days. Many people are fed up with the (financial)elite/traditional leaders and then there is also the increase in resistance against immigration. Both kinda fit a national socialist partij. I doubt a national socialist party could have any succes today because of its past,but there seems to be a demand in Europe amongst voters for exactly such a type of party. Eventually the past will be forgotten,if that demand is then still there national socialism will return,and maybe before the past has been forgotten as well in some countries (thinking about Italy here) I'd be very careful calling certain historical parties national socialist in the sense of the words. There was nothing socialist within the German Nazi ideology. It was not about empowering the people in a social-economical sense to give democracy a meaning beyond elections and governments, which is the basic idea of socialism. It was about being a better people than others in such an extrem way, that even the "worst" had to be representative. But it was never about empowering them - not that what we refer to as communism in the historical sense was about it, but nationalsocialism very specifically was against such ideas alltogether and rather outspoken against material temptations and any concept of democracy. To connect it to the current political landscape, there is nothing socialist about most right-wingers nowadays. Their economical policies are very top-down capitalist and their values are cultural-ideological and reactionary motivated and not democratical and material. The typical missconception is that these parties subscribe to the longtime established ideas of certain social nets in Europe, which does not make them socialist though. Subscribing to something traditionally-established is a trait of a conservative, the trait of a socialist would be to tighten the nets and to upheave the economically dependent - regardless of gender or origin - further with the progress of productivity and technology. I was about to say the same as you did in your first paragraph, but it turned into a wall of text and I deleted it. Anyways just here to basicly agree with this. The fact of the matter is that national socialism is socialism in name only and is usually not seen as a sub-category of socialism at all. They threw actual socialists into concentration camps for crying out loud So did the communists ruling USSR. Were they also not true communists? Hitler tried to get rid of anything "socialist" that might have ever been there in the beginning to focus a 100% on the nationalist aspect being the difference though
Could you define socialism for me? I always get the impression that left-wing people tend to use a broad definition of socialism when discussing the good aspects of modern Western welfare states, and a narrow definition thereof when discussing national socialism.
|
On January 03 2017 19:15 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 18:26 Toadesstern wrote:On January 03 2017 18:01 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2017 17:49 Laurens wrote:On December 28 2016 13:46 LegalLord wrote:
The refugee crisis is the result of a unilateral choice by Europe. That is entirely on them - and most of them aren't even from actual Syria. How can you say the refugee crisis is entirely on Europe? That's pretty ignorant. Sure, the EU could've said "Wir schaffen das nicht", turning our back on all the refugees caused by American interventions in the Middle East, after all it's not our problem right? But refugees would still have entered Europe through various ways, or die by the thousands trying to get there. I'm quite amazed. What a quote. France played a major role in destabilizing Libya, and so did the UK, IIRC. And several key politicians basically decided for the whole EU that we are not going to protect our borders, so the EU is largely responsible for the fact that things got out of control inside the EU. On January 03 2017 17:59 Toadesstern wrote:On January 03 2017 17:45 Big J wrote:On January 03 2017 16:43 pmh wrote:On December 28 2016 02:15 Nyxisto wrote:On December 27 2016 23:10 Koorb wrote:
The left-wing think tank Terra Nova, which is the ideological spearhead of the French mainstream left these days, was the driving force behind this policy. They advocated for the PS to turn away from the native blue collar electorate, and to focus instead on the first to third generation naturalized citizens from African and Arab ancestry. Thus the "white flight" of the blue collar voters toward the National Front since the late 90's.
What is it with this constant babbling on about left-wingers dropping their 'white' voters. They're left wingers, they care about workers, not white workers. For an actual socialist there is no contradiction between helping foreign workers or native workers, they're both part of the same group, the working class. Socialists don't have the task to sit on the national treasure and protect it against the evil alien invaders. National socialists,its a sub group of socialism that might see increasing popularity despite its dubious past. There seems to be a big market for national socialism these days. Many people are fed up with the (financial)elite/traditional leaders and then there is also the increase in resistance against immigration. Both kinda fit a national socialist partij. I doubt a national socialist party could have any succes today because of its past,but there seems to be a demand in Europe amongst voters for exactly such a type of party. Eventually the past will be forgotten,if that demand is then still there national socialism will return,and maybe before the past has been forgotten as well in some countries (thinking about Italy here) I'd be very careful calling certain historical parties national socialist in the sense of the words. There was nothing socialist within the German Nazi ideology. It was not about empowering the people in a social-economical sense to give democracy a meaning beyond elections and governments, which is the basic idea of socialism. It was about being a better people than others in such an extrem way, that even the "worst" had to be representative. But it was never about empowering them - not that what we refer to as communism in the historical sense was about it, but nationalsocialism very specifically was against such ideas alltogether and rather outspoken against material temptations and any concept of democracy. To connect it to the current political landscape, there is nothing socialist about most right-wingers nowadays. Their economical policies are very top-down capitalist and their values are cultural-ideological and reactionary motivated and not democratical and material. The typical missconception is that these parties subscribe to the longtime established ideas of certain social nets in Europe, which does not make them socialist though. Subscribing to something traditionally-established is a trait of a conservative, the trait of a socialist would be to tighten the nets and to upheave the economically dependent - regardless of gender or origin - further with the progress of productivity and technology. I was about to say the same as you did in your first paragraph, but it turned into a wall of text and I deleted it. Anyways just here to basicly agree with this. The fact of the matter is that national socialism is socialism in name only and is usually not seen as a sub-category of socialism at all. They threw actual socialists into concentration camps for crying out loud So did the communists ruling USSR. Were they also not true communists? Hitler tried to get rid of anything "socialist" that might have ever been there in the beginning to focus a 100% on the nationalist aspect being the difference though Could you define socialism for me? I always get the impression that left-wing people tend to use a broad definition of socialism when discussing the good aspects of modern Western welfare states, and a narrow definition thereof when discussing national socialism.
there doesn't seem to be one. The first thing I found and wanted to quote in my innitial post but decided against was this though:
+ Show Spoiler +"Socialism" is a controverted term. It's one that some people run toward and others run away from. So how do you decide whether the NSDAP was "socialist" when there's no universally agreed upon definition. One reasonable course, it seems to me, is to ask what governments that call themselves socialist look like, and then ask whether Hitlerian Germany looked anything like them.
The two main wings of the socialist movement come out of the split among socialists occasioned by the Russian Revolution. The pro-Bolsheviks and the anti-Bolsheviks alike continued to call themselves "socialists", although the former also called themselves "communists." (It was the USSR, not the USCR, after all).
Ruling parties from the Bolshevik tendency defined the sine qua non of socialism as state control of the forces of production, typically guided through state command, although in some cases (Hungary and Yugoslavia, for example) markets also played a role.
Socialist parties that broke with the Bolsheviks continued in some cases to proclaim their commitment to collective ownership or control of the forces of production for decades. (See, for example, the British Labour Party's Clause IV, which wasn't voted down until the 1990s). In practice, though, all of these parties made their peace with capitalism, settling for a regulated version of capitalism with extensive social welfare provision and close identification with the labor movement.
Now, what about Hitler's Germany? You certainly did not find state ownership of the forces of production. Those remained in private hands (including foreign corporations like Ford, GM, and IBM). Far from close identification with the labor movement, you found harsh repression of labor unions. Social welfare provision did not advance markedly beyond that which dated back to Bismarckian Germany. And while there was state regulation of capitalism, it was the kind of wartime mobilization of capital that is found in all sorts of regimes. Too, one must remember that the first inmates of the first concentration camp, Dachau, were members of Germany's leading socialist parties, the SPD and the KPD.
In sum, there is no good reason to regard the NSDAP's use of the terms"socialist" or "worker's party", or the anti-capitalist tone of some of the party's pronouncements, as anything other than cynically propagandistic. If it doesn't walk like a duck, quack like a duck, swim like a duck, or fly like a duck, then calling it a duck doesn't make it a duck.
also, because I've been called left-wing twice now. I don't consider myself left-wing at all. I'd personally say I'm deadbang center leaning quite liberal (or libertarian if you want to use the american terminology)
|
On January 03 2017 19:28 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 19:15 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2017 18:26 Toadesstern wrote:On January 03 2017 18:01 maybenexttime wrote:On January 03 2017 17:49 Laurens wrote:On December 28 2016 13:46 LegalLord wrote:
The refugee crisis is the result of a unilateral choice by Europe. That is entirely on them - and most of them aren't even from actual Syria. How can you say the refugee crisis is entirely on Europe? That's pretty ignorant. Sure, the EU could've said "Wir schaffen das nicht", turning our back on all the refugees caused by American interventions in the Middle East, after all it's not our problem right? But refugees would still have entered Europe through various ways, or die by the thousands trying to get there. I'm quite amazed. What a quote. France played a major role in destabilizing Libya, and so did the UK, IIRC. And several key politicians basically decided for the whole EU that we are not going to protect our borders, so the EU is largely responsible for the fact that things got out of control inside the EU. On January 03 2017 17:59 Toadesstern wrote:On January 03 2017 17:45 Big J wrote:On January 03 2017 16:43 pmh wrote:On December 28 2016 02:15 Nyxisto wrote:On December 27 2016 23:10 Koorb wrote:
The left-wing think tank Terra Nova, which is the ideological spearhead of the French mainstream left these days, was the driving force behind this policy. They advocated for the PS to turn away from the native blue collar electorate, and to focus instead on the first to third generation naturalized citizens from African and Arab ancestry. Thus the "white flight" of the blue collar voters toward the National Front since the late 90's.
What is it with this constant babbling on about left-wingers dropping their 'white' voters. They're left wingers, they care about workers, not white workers. For an actual socialist there is no contradiction between helping foreign workers or native workers, they're both part of the same group, the working class. Socialists don't have the task to sit on the national treasure and protect it against the evil alien invaders. National socialists,its a sub group of socialism that might see increasing popularity despite its dubious past. There seems to be a big market for national socialism these days. Many people are fed up with the (financial)elite/traditional leaders and then there is also the increase in resistance against immigration. Both kinda fit a national socialist partij. I doubt a national socialist party could have any succes today because of its past,but there seems to be a demand in Europe amongst voters for exactly such a type of party. Eventually the past will be forgotten,if that demand is then still there national socialism will return,and maybe before the past has been forgotten as well in some countries (thinking about Italy here) I'd be very careful calling certain historical parties national socialist in the sense of the words. There was nothing socialist within the German Nazi ideology. It was not about empowering the people in a social-economical sense to give democracy a meaning beyond elections and governments, which is the basic idea of socialism. It was about being a better people than others in such an extrem way, that even the "worst" had to be representative. But it was never about empowering them - not that what we refer to as communism in the historical sense was about it, but nationalsocialism very specifically was against such ideas alltogether and rather outspoken against material temptations and any concept of democracy. To connect it to the current political landscape, there is nothing socialist about most right-wingers nowadays. Their economical policies are very top-down capitalist and their values are cultural-ideological and reactionary motivated and not democratical and material. The typical missconception is that these parties subscribe to the longtime established ideas of certain social nets in Europe, which does not make them socialist though. Subscribing to something traditionally-established is a trait of a conservative, the trait of a socialist would be to tighten the nets and to upheave the economically dependent - regardless of gender or origin - further with the progress of productivity and technology. I was about to say the same as you did in your first paragraph, but it turned into a wall of text and I deleted it. Anyways just here to basicly agree with this. The fact of the matter is that national socialism is socialism in name only and is usually not seen as a sub-category of socialism at all. They threw actual socialists into concentration camps for crying out loud So did the communists ruling USSR. Were they also not true communists? Hitler tried to get rid of anything "socialist" that might have ever been there in the beginning to focus a 100% on the nationalist aspect being the difference though Could you define socialism for me? I always get the impression that left-wing people tend to use a broad definition of socialism when discussing the good aspects of modern Western welfare states, and a narrow definition thereof when discussing national socialism. there doesn't seem to be one. The first thing I found and wanted to quote in my innitial post but decided against was this though: + Show Spoiler +"Socialism" is a controverted term. It's one that some people run toward and others run away from. So how do you decide whether the NSDAP was "socialist" when there's no universally agreed upon definition. One reasonable course, it seems to me, is to ask what governments that call themselves socialist look like, and then ask whether Hitlerian Germany looked anything like them.
The two main wings of the socialist movement come out of the split among socialists occasioned by the Russian Revolution. The pro-Bolsheviks and the anti-Bolsheviks alike continued to call themselves "socialists", although the former also called themselves "communists." (It was the USSR, not the USCR, after all).
Ruling parties from the Bolshevik tendency defined the sine qua non of socialism as state control of the forces of production, typically guided through state command, although in some cases (Hungary and Yugoslavia, for example) markets also played a role.
Socialist parties that broke with the Bolsheviks continued in some cases to proclaim their commitment to collective ownership or control of the forces of production for decades. (See, for example, the British Labour Party's Clause IV, which wasn't voted down until the 1990s). In practice, though, all of these parties made their peace with capitalism, settling for a regulated version of capitalism with extensive social welfare provision and close identification with the labor movement.
Now, what about Hitler's Germany? You certainly did not find state ownership of the forces of production. Those remained in private hands (including foreign corporations like Ford, GM, and IBM). Far from close identification with the labor movement, you found harsh repression of labor unions. Social welfare provision did not advance markedly beyond that which dated back to Bismarckian Germany. And while there was state regulation of capitalism, it was the kind of wartime mobilization of capital that is found in all sorts of regimes. Too, one must remember that the first inmates of the first concentration camp, Dachau, were members of Germany's leading socialist parties, the SPD and the KPD.
In sum, there is no good reason to regard the NSDAP's use of the terms"socialist" or "worker's party", or the anti-capitalist tone of some of the party's pronouncements, as anything other than cynically propagandistic. If it doesn't walk like a duck, quack like a duck, swim like a duck, or fly like a duck, then calling it a duck doesn't make it a duck. also, because I've been called left-wing twice now. I don't consider myself left-wing at all. I'd personally say I'm deadbang center leaning quite liberal (or libertarian if you want to use the american terminology)
I assumed that you're left-wing because in my experience people objecting to the notion that Nazism had some socialist elements are predominantly left-wing people, who usually identify as socialists.
"National Socialism" and "socialism" are both loaded terms. It's hard to find non-partisan points of view. Usually it's either the proponents of socialism denouncing National Socialism as not having anything to do with socialism, by stressing the non- or anti-socialist aspects of the ideology and ignoring the actual socialist elements, or the opponents of socialism stressing the socialist aspects of the ideology in order to claim that it's effectively a form of socialism. Both sides to use it as a guilt by association tactic.
The quote you provided is an example of that, to a degree. It mentions that Nazis repressed labor unions. But the author ignores the fact that that was more due to the totalitarian nature of the German state rather than the opposition to the idea of labor unions itself - Nazi Germany oppressed pretty much all independent organizations (and at the very least, those it saw as competing with the state-established institutions). As a matter of fact, NSDAP founded a National Socialist trade union (German Labor Front) and made membership mandatory for all workers. The organization strived to better the work conditions of German workers in many ways:
Theoretically, DAF existed to act as a medium through which workers and owners could mutually represent their interests. Wages were set by the 12 DAF trustees. The employees were given relatively high set wages and security of employment, and dismissal was increasingly made difficult. Social security and leisure programmes were started, canteens, breaks, and regular working times were established, and German workers were generally satisfied by what the DAF gave them in repayment for their absolute loyalty.
Following the National Socialist’s Volksgemeinschaft approach towards developing a greater “people’s community”, the DAF expanded or established new social, educational, sports, heath, and entertainment programs for German workers via the Strength through Joy, which included factory libraries and gardens, periodic breaks, swimming pools, low-priced hot meals, adult education programs, periodic work breaks, physical education, sports facilities, gymnastic training, orchestral music during lunch breaks, free tickets to concerts and opera, and subsidized vacations that saw over 10.3 million Germans signed up by 1938.[2] The DAF financed the building of ocean-going vessels that permitted German workers to pay minimal prices to sail to many foreign destinations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front
I don't know whether "social welfare provision did not advance markedly beyond that which dated back to Bismarckian Germany" is actually true. I have my doubts. But that is kind of irrelevant, as Bismarck was the founding father of State Socialism, whose goal was to defuse the ticking bomb of a revolution. Bismarck implemented some of the socialist policies in order to appease the workers. According to the article below, NSDAP put a lot of effort into improving the standard of living of ordinary Germans. Many of these policies go even beyond what modern Western welfare states do, don't you agree?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_People's_Welfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
