Capitalism and Socialism

Im pretty much new in learning and wrapping my head around both of them so its consfuing when people say "Thats not real socialism" and "Thats not real capitalism" So many "Biased" Youtube channels, blogs and articlas and so on.

What i get from all of it is that, yeah, they are different ways of governing people but then i see that there are many "different ways of socialim" and "different ways of capitalism" But if there is "different ways" why cant we consider making them cross over?, intertwined within the same ideology of governing a country as such? Bits here, bits there?
So many sides to both of them, Is it even possible to make a new one or even modify both of them to become just one? Or is it already a thing?

Eshkruar nga DeepFriedUnicorn, 12.11.2018 at 09:31

why cant we consider making them cross over?, intertwined within the same ideology of governing a country as such? Bits here, bits there?
So many sides to both of them, Is it even possible to make a new one or even modify both of them to become just one? Or is it already a thing?

Already a thing. It's called a mixed economy.

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 12.11.2018 at 10:34

Eshkruar nga DeepFriedUnicorn, 12.11.2018 at 09:31

why cant we consider making them cross over?, intertwined within the same ideology of governing a country as such? Bits here, bits there?
So many sides to both of them, Is it even possible to make a new one or even modify both of them to become just one? Or is it already a thing?

Already a thing. It's called a mixed economy.

Oh, then why all the hate and "Im right, fuck you" stuff? Which country are based on a mixed economy?

Eshkruar nga DeepFriedUnicorn, 12.11.2018 at 11:37

Oh, then why all the hate and "Im right, fuck you" stuff? Which country are based on a mixed economy?

Most countries mix free markets with state regulation and social welfare programs. USA, Germany, even China now. The controversies and hatred exist because we live in a world shaped by the Cold War. That's why we still have old people crying about the evils of X economic system. When really all that stuff is just old hat and secondary in importance to identity issues.

Eshkruar nga DeepFriedUnicorn, 12.11.2018 at 11:37

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 12.11.2018 at 10:34

Eshkruar nga DeepFriedUnicorn, 12.11.2018 at 09:31

why cant we consider making them cross over?, intertwined within the same ideology of governing a country as such? Bits here, bits there?
So many sides to both of them, Is it even possible to make a new one or even modify both of them to become just one? Or is it already a thing?

Already a thing. It's called a mixed economy.

Oh, then why all the hate and "Im right, fuck you" stuff? Which country are based on a mixed economy?

because there are lots of retards on youtube.

Eshkruar nga boywind2, 12.11.2018 at 14:05

because there are lots of retards on youtube.

and on atwar

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 12.11.2018 at 11:47

Eshkruar nga DeepFriedUnicorn, 12.11.2018 at 11:37

Oh, then why all the hate and "Im right, fuck you" stuff? Which country are based on a mixed economy?

Most countries mix free markets with state regulation and social welfare programs. USA, Germany, even China now. The controversies and hatred exist because we live in a world shaped by the Cold War. That's why we still have old people crying about the evils of X economic system. When really all that stuff is just old hat and secondary in importance to identity issues.

Okay cool, what about the NAZI party? people always say they were not real socialists. But its in the name, obviously a "different way" of socialism, but wouldn't national Socialism still fall under it has a whole?

Eshkruar nga DeepFriedUnicorn, 13.11.2018 at 09:44

Okay cool, what about the NAZI party? people always say they were not real socialists. But its in the name, obviously a "different way" of socialism, but wouldn't national Socialism still fall under it has a whole?

It's complicated but the bottom line is: no, the nazis were not real socialists. No more so than the DPRoK is democratic or a republic.

Eshkruar nga DeepFriedUnicorn, 13.11.2018 at 09:44

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 12.11.2018 at 11:47

Eshkruar nga DeepFriedUnicorn, 12.11.2018 at 11:37

Oh, then why all the hate and "Im right, fuck you" stuff? Which country are based on a mixed economy?

Most countries mix free markets with state regulation and social welfare programs. USA, Germany, even China now. The controversies and hatred exist because we live in a world shaped by the Cold War. That's why we still have old people crying about the evils of X economic system. When really all that stuff is just old hat and secondary in importance to identity issues.

Okay cool, what about the NAZI party? people always say they were not real socialists. But its in the name, obviously a "different way" of socialism, but wouldn't national Socialism still fall under it has a whole?

basically, hitler pretty much hijacked the nazi party and the original members and leaders critisized him for this.

Eshkruar nga DeepFriedUnicorn, 13.11.2018 at 09:44

what about the NAZI party?

Hitler addressed a common problem of the german people at the time. The people were fed up of the jews. They put this under the tree of socialism, calling the party "socialist", because it was based on society's problems.

Nowadays, we call this populism. It involves identifying the distastes of the ordinary person about a certain aspect of society. This is usually a particular group of people. With Hitler, it was the jews. Robespierre in France.
The scary thing is, history may be repeating itself. Trump and the immigrants, brexit and the EU. Populism in theory is very good, but it's often used by the wrong people.

People do read actual historical/political/socio-economic books/treatises,even pamphlets.
trotsky/lenin/hitler/stalin all socialists,all extreme in their views.
stalin/hitler=left/right but same regarding"enemies"=anyone/group(political/religious/automomous/racial/totally loyal!)gulagged asap.
cold war has not shaped the world quite that much - paranoid nations & their leaders do that(not neccessarily the elected leaders)
capitalism requires a stable constantly expanding economy.it's all about money..
communism requires a stable constantly expanding economy.it's all about people.
hitler didn't"highjack the nazi party"he formed it.
as many megalomaniacs have throughout history in order that they rise to the top of the tree.
if one's interested in any subject explore it as throughly as able(ignore mainstream media outlets=invariably slewed by bias/agendas).
politics just is not simply left/right/red/blue/communist/capitalist/et cetera,et cetera,et cetera.

Eshkruar nga Ludditez, 13.11.2018 at 19:00

People do read actual historical/political/socio-economic books/treatises,even pamphlets.
trotsky/lenin/hitler/stalin all socialists,all extreme in their views.
stalin/hitler=left/right but same regarding"enemies"=anyone/group(political/religious/automomous/racial/totally loyal!)gulagged asap.
cold war has not shaped the world quite that much - paranoid nations & their leaders do that(not neccessarily the elected leaders)
capitalism requires a stable constantly expanding economy.it's all about money..
communism requires a stable constantly expanding economy.it's all about people.
hitler didn't"highjack the nazi party"he formed it.
as many megalomaniacs have throughout history in order that they rise to the top of the tree.
if one's interested in any subject explore it as throughly as able(ignore mainstream media outlets=invariably slewed by bias/agendas).
politics just is not simply left/right/red/blue/communist/capitalist/et cetera,et cetera,et cetera.

No, Hitler didn't form the Nazi party. What are you talking about?

He was instrumental in its form.
unless of course you're able to indicate otherwise(not wikishtia)
i believe point was about capitalism/socialism

Eshkruar nga Ludditez, 13.11.2018 at 19:24

He was instrumental in its form.
unless of course you're able to indicate otherwise(not wikishtia)
i believe point was about capitalism/socialism

Drescher formed the Nazi party in 1920. Once Hitler took control in 1921, he didn't promote or push the party goals. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia.

Eshkruar nga Wheelo, 13.11.2018 at 18:48

Nowadays, we call this populism. It involves identifying the distastes of the ordinary person about a certain aspect of society. This is usually a particular group of people. With Hitler, it was the jews. Robespierre in France.
The scary thing is, history may be repeating itself. Trump and the immigrants, brexit and the EU. Populism in theory is very good, but it's often used by the wrong people.

I'd love to read your brilliant analysis of how Trump and Brexit are in any way analogous to Hitler and the Reign of Terror. Can't you have bad politics without adding bad history to the mix?

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 13.11.2018 at 23:19

Eshkruar nga Wheelo, 13.11.2018 at 18:48

Nowadays, we call this populism. It involves identifying the distastes of the ordinary person about a certain aspect of society. This is usually a particular group of people. With Hitler, it was the jews. Robespierre in France.
The scary thing is, history may be repeating itself. Trump and the immigrants, brexit and the EU. Populism in theory is very good, but it's often used by the wrong people.

I'd love to read your brilliant analysis of how Trump and Brexit are in any way analogous to Hitler and the Reign of Terror. Can't you have bad politics without adding bad history to the mix?

the difference is uncanny....

Eshkruar nga DeepFriedUnicorn, 12.11.2018 at 11:37

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 12.11.2018 at 10:34

Eshkruar nga DeepFriedUnicorn, 12.11.2018 at 09:31

why cant we consider making them cross over?, intertwined within the same ideology of governing a country as such? Bits here, bits there?
So many sides to both of them, Is it even possible to make a new one or even modify both of them to become just one? Or is it already a thing?

Already a thing. It's called a mixed economy.

Oh, then why all the hate and "Im right, fuck you" stuff? Which country are based on a mixed economy?

When lenin first rose to power in Russia, he implemented the pure socialist policies that Communism called for. However, the economy was so bad from these policies, he realized it needed a kickstart, so he implemented capitalist policies to help produced capital. Once plenty of money was created, he did away with those capitalist ideas, and re-implemented a purely socialist regime. However, once again.. socialism failed and so Russia kinda maintained this see-saw effect of switching between implementing capitalism and getting rid of it.

A better and more modern example would be the Chinese economy. Don't ask me for details on how their system works, its pretty complex, but I do know for sure they are a mixed economy

Eshkruar nga Wheelo, 13.11.2018 at 18:48

Eshkruar nga DeepFriedUnicorn, 13.11.2018 at 09:44

what about the NAZI party?

Hitler addressed a common problem of the german people at the time. The people were fed up of the jews. They put this under the tree of socialism, calling the party "socialist", because it was based on society's problems.

Nowadays, we call this populism. It involves identifying the distastes of the ordinary person about a certain aspect of society. This is usually a particular group of people. With Hitler, it was the jews. Robespierre in France.
The scary thing is, history may be repeating itself. Trump and the immigrants, brexit and the EU. Populism in theory is very good, but it's often used by the wrong people.

anti-semitism was prevalent throughout Europe at the time, and not just in Germany. However, the widespread german population weren't "fed up" with the jews, they just saw them more as how ur sterotypical Americans see Mexicans, as citizens of a lower class (i myself do not see mexicans like that for the record). Hitler used the jews as a scapegoat for the problems the germans were facing, but this wasnt anything new as military leaders even before the third reich had blamed the jews for losses in the first world war.

Hitler was populist, yes, i think thats pretty self-evident. However, he was more than just a populist, but more of a populist with extreme nationalism. Nationalism is an undying love of ones country, no matter the cost. Hitler was able to inspire an entire population of Germans to kill and die for the cause of German nationalism, under the pretense that it was the Jews fault for the treaty of Versaille (though there actually were Jewish germans apart of the treaty negotiations). To compare hitler to trump is one of the grossest over-estimations i've heard in political talks as of late, many left-wing politicians love to make that analogy. Trump, contrary to popular belief, doesn't hate immigrants or the concept of immigration. Rather, he only has suspended immigration in the short-term to seek out a better immigration policy that is more inclusive to the people who enter the country to pay their taxes and work, and is less inclusive to the people who enter the country illegally for trafficking and drug trade/terrorism.

Not quite sure how brexit relates to hitler, id love to hear ur theory on this lols

Also, populism is not a new concept, its been around for some time. Towards the end of the 19th century, populism was a huge movement in America, and even almost won a presidential candidate in William Jennings Bryan in 1896. He ran on a platform of supporting the majority of americans (rural farmers) and benefitting the blue collar workers in the factories. Though he didnt win, populist candidates still won seats in the house and a few in the senate. Populism has had its ups and downs across the globe such as the sepoy revolt in india in 1857, but its always been there.

Drescher formed the Nazi party in 1920. Once Hitler took control in 1921, he didn't promote or push the party goals. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia.(khabib)

(ludditez)...but after joining the German Workers' Party in 1919 at age thirty, Hitler immediately began a frenzied effort to make it succeed.

The German Workers' Party consisted mainly of an executive committee which had seven members, including Hitler...

The German Workers' Party name was changed by Hitler to include the term National Socialist. Thus the full name was the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) called for short, Nazi.

By the end of 1920 it had about three thousand members.(not from wikishitia)

Eshkruar nga Ludditez, 14.11.2018 at 20:38

Drescher formed the Nazi party in 1920. Once Hitler took control in 1921, he didn't promote or push the party goals. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia.(khabib)

(ludditez)...but after joining the German Workers' Party in 1919 at age thirty, Hitler immediately began a frenzied effort to make it succeed.

The German Workers' Party consisted mainly of an executive committee which had seven members, including Hitler...

The German Workers' Party name was changed by Hitler to include the term National Socialist. Thus the full name was the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) called for short, Nazi.

By the end of 1920 it had about three thousand members.(not from wikishitia)

Hitler's motivation to push for the parties agenda in 1919 was only a means to an end. It is very obvious he doing it for the power that the party held, not for ideological reasons.

Surprised sultan and even aqui didnt get wheelo's analogy. It was pretty straightforward, he didnt compare Hitler and Trump rather the circumstances that led to them both being elected which were in essence the same. The people were disatisfied by alot of things and didnt feel represented by their politicians, Jews, humiliating terms and economic crisis in Germany and political correctness, immigrants. corruption and liberal retardation for USA. Pretty much similar circumstances. Same as Brexit and the EU.

Eshkruar nga Khal.eesi, 15.11.2018 at 09:58

Surprised sultan and even aqui didnt get wheelo's analogy. It was pretty straightforward, he didnt compare Hitler and Trump rather the circumstances that led to them both being elected which were in essence the same

I got his analogy, and if all he was saying was that both leaders got elected in part by appealing to the common man, well there's no arguing with that. But you could say the same about FDR, Corbyn, or Tsipras. Or any candidate that professes to be anti-establishment. His comment is just a "Trump is literally Hitler!" argument dressed up as historical analysis.

Eshkruar nga Acquiesce, 15.11.2018 at 10:34

I got his analogy, and if all he was saying was that both leaders got elected in part by appealing to the common man, well there's no arguing with that. But you could say the same about FDR, Corbyn, or Tsipras. Or any candidate that professes to be anti-establishment. His comment is just a "Trump is literally Hitler!" argument dressed up as historical analysis.

I thought wheelo was right leaning and pro -Trump

I guess has he has to clear it himself..

Eshkruar nga boywind2, 15.11.2018 at 00:19

Eshkruar nga Ludditez, 14.11.2018 at 20:38

Drescher formed the Nazi party in 1920. Once Hitler took control in 1921, he didn't promote or push the party goals. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia.(khabib)

(ludditez)...but after joining the German Workers' Party in 1919 at age thirty, Hitler immediately began a frenzied effort to make it succeed.

The German Workers' Party consisted mainly of an executive committee which had seven members, including Hitler...

The German Workers' Party name was changed by Hitler to include the term National Socialist. Thus the full name was the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) called for short, Nazi.

By the end of 1920 it had about three thousand members.(not from wikishitia)

Hitler's motivation to push for the parties agenda in 1919 was only a means to an end. It is very obvious he doing it for the power that the party held, not for ideological reasons.

his actions are not in dispute but don't move the goalposts,he took control of a"commitee"not a"party"(inferred large membership),
the rest is history

Eshkruar nga Ludditez, 15.11.2018 at 18:04

Eshkruar nga boywind2, 15.11.2018 at 00:19

Eshkruar nga Ludditez, 14.11.2018 at 20:38

Drescher formed the Nazi party in 1920. Once Hitler took control in 1921, he didn't promote or push the party goals. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia.(khabib)

(ludditez)...but after joining the German Workers' Party in 1919 at age thirty, Hitler immediately began a frenzied effort to make it succeed.

The German Workers' Party consisted mainly of an executive committee which had seven members, including Hitler...

The German Workers' Party name was changed by Hitler to include the term National Socialist. Thus the full name was the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) called for short, Nazi.

By the end of 1920 it had about three thousand members.(not from wikishitia)

Hitler's motivation to push for the parties agenda in 1919 was only a means to an end. It is very obvious he doing it for the power that the party held, not for ideological reasons.

his actions are not in dispute but don't move the goalposts,he took control of a"commitee"not a"party"(inferred large membership),
the rest is history

I'm not entirely sure what you meant here.

Eshkruar nga boywind2, 13.11.2018 at 19:10

Eshkruar nga Ludditez, 13.11.2018 at 19:00

People do read actual historical/political/socio-economic books/treatises,even pamphlets.
trotsky/lenin/hitler/stalin all socialists,all extreme in their views.
stalin/hitler=left/right but same regarding"enemies"=anyone/group(political/religious/automomous/racial/totally loyal!)gulagged asap.
cold war has not shaped the world quite that much - paranoid nations & their leaders do that(not neccessarily the elected leaders)
capitalism requires a stable constantly expanding economy.it's all about money..
communism requires a stable constantly expanding economy.it's all about people.
hitler didn't"highjack the nazi party"he formed it.
as many megalomaniacs have throughout history in order that they rise to the top of the tree.
if one's interested in any subject explore it as throughly as able(ignore mainstream media outlets=invariably slewed by bias/agendas).
politics just is not simply left/right/red/blue/communist/capitalist/et cetera,et cetera,et cetera.

No, Hitler didn't form the Nazi party. What are you talking about?

read less wikishite but do read more historical documents/books

i lived in germany when highschool pupils were only just being taught about the"shameful"nazi period.
until then it was not actually part of their history lessons.
that doesn't mean they were ignorant but schools avoided their then recent history.

not good calling yourself "jewish god"=allknowing/allseeing/ever vengeful,evidently not.
except maybe young=still learning to be.

Eshkruar nga Ludditez, 15.11.2018 at 18:42

Eshkruar nga boywind2, 13.11.2018 at 19:10

Eshkruar nga Ludditez, 13.11.2018 at 19:00

People do read actual historical/political/socio-economic books/treatises,even pamphlets.
trotsky/lenin/hitler/stalin all socialists,all extreme in their views.
stalin/hitler=left/right but same regarding"enemies"=anyone/group(political/religious/automomous/racial/totally loyal!)gulagged asap.
cold war has not shaped the world quite that much - paranoid nations & their leaders do that(not neccessarily the elected leaders)
capitalism requires a stable constantly expanding economy.it's all about money..
communism requires a stable constantly expanding economy.it's all about people.
hitler didn't"highjack the nazi party"he formed it.
as many megalomaniacs have throughout history in order that they rise to the top of the tree.
if one's interested in any subject explore it as throughly as able(ignore mainstream media outlets=invariably slewed by bias/agendas).
politics just is not simply left/right/red/blue/communist/capitalist/et cetera,et cetera,et cetera.

No, Hitler didn't form the Nazi party. What are you talking about?

read less wikishite but do read more historical documents/books

Dreschler formed the German workers party and that is a fact. Also, what is wrong with using wikipedia?

Is your english not so good...
dreshler was german workers party,hitler added national socialist to the name nsdap(German spelling)abbreviated to nazi.

oh & wikishitia no verification when info posted on site = anyone can post"facts"containing inaccurate data & it's not rectified by site.
hence reliance upon not always accurate info would therefore lessen valid statements.

Am curious...
amongst many other names...
last name suggested muslim ? influence.
this one german/jewish.
in christian clan.
in israel ?
why so much indicision regarding your identity,yet so certain about german history that is not entirely accurate ?

Eshkruar nga Ludditez, 15.11.2018 at 19:00

Is your english not so good...
dreshler was german workers party,hitler added national socialist to the name nsdap(German spelling)abbreviated to nazi.

oh & wikishitia no verification when info posted on site = anyone can post"facts"containing inaccurate data & it's not rectified by site.
hence reliance upon not always accurate info would therefore lessen valid statements.

Just because Hitler changed the name of the party, doesn't mean it wasn't the German worker's party. It is literally the same party.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/background-and-overview-of-the-nazi-party-nsdap

Anyone can post "facts". However, those are almost always instantly removed by the Wikipedia team. It's not 100% reliable; however, it is reliable most of the time. Also, the page has citations so that you can verify the validity of the statements from the original source.