DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30639--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 22, 2025, 1:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"I equalize income not to equalize people, but to punish people
who like the materialistic and unequal lifestyle of the middle
class and bourgeoisie."
You're doing it again! You use the term "unequal" as if it is a
bad thing.
"In fact, you also desire egalitarianism in the country you
desire."
I do not. My ideal world consists of heaven and hell, which is
the most unequal world imaginable.
"There's nothing wrong with trying to make things less unequal."
If I had heaven and hell all set up and you start making
conditions in the two places less unequal, there is something
wrong with what you are doing.
"Workers and business owners are both equally capable of doing
their jobs. Workers already find it easy and are trained to do
their jobs, while business owners find it easy and are trained
to manage work plans for their production/business models.
Therefore, they deserve a similar wage difference, as both are
equally capable of handling the workload."
Stop dodging. Answer my questions:
[quote]What if B doesn't want to risk loss, while A is willing
to take the loss on B's behalf?[/quote]
[quote]Why shouldn't the two of them be allowed to agree between
themselves that B receives a fixed income no matter how well the
product sells, whereas A after paying B gets the profit or takes
the loss depending on how well the product sells?[/quote]
"individual ownership originated in the West"
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property#Property_in_philosophy
[quote]Urukagina, the king of the Sumerian city-state Lagash,
established the first laws that forbade compelling the sale of
property.[31][/quote]
"The creation of social inequality by the middle and upper
classes is violence."
In my example, A and B mutually consented to create it:
[quote]Why shouldn't the two of them be allowed to agree between
themselves that B receives a fixed income no matter how well the
product sells, whereas A after paying B gets the profit or takes
the loss depending on how well the product sells?[/quote]
If there is consent on both sides, there is no violence.
"It's your fault for not showing sympathy for those born without
a full set of legs."
Walking means I am not showing sympathy?
"Be kind to disabled people who haven't done anything wrong."
Being kind requires me not walking?
"If you humiliate him physically, mentally, or both, and he
attacks you relentlessly, then you deserve to be attacked."
How do I humiliate him? By walking?
"Even if I were labeled an "incel," it would still be no worse
than a good-looking couple causing pornography and social
jealousy."
Of course you are worse. You initiate violence.
"I urge people with normal feet to empathize and refrain from
doing anything that could potentially physically or
psychologically degrade people with disabilities."
Such as walking?
"Eliminating wealth from the middle and upper classes doesn't
make them economically disabled; they will simply have less
wealth that creates inequality, but still allows them to live a
decent life."
Eliminating legs from the walking and running classes doesn't
make them physiologically disabled? They will simply have less
mobility that creates inequality, but still live a decent life?
(And again you talk about "inequality" as if it is a bad thing.)
"No, you are wrong in explaining the logic."
Point out how.
"Pedestrians who refuse to empathize with innocent people with
disabilities are committing violence and psychological terror in
the first place."
By walking?
#Post#: 30662--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 25, 2025, 10:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]"I equalize income not to equalize people, but to punish
people who like the materialistic and unequal lifestyle of the
middle class and bourgeoisie."
You're doing it again! You use the term "unequal" as if it is a
bad thing.[/quote]
There's nothing wrong with equalizing incomes across economic
groups. This is done so that economic groups that value wealth
more than empathy for the lower classes, who are already
struggling economically, can be disciplined and realize their
inferiority and unequal status. Clearly, when efforts to
equalize incomes occur, everyone still lives in decent
conditions. Except for groups that seek to be more powerful than
the party and the state and impose counter-revolutionary ideas
and ways of life, they deserve to be considered inferior and
opposed.
In fact, you are the one who is trying to make the bourgeoisie
and the middle class can be equally good as the lower class. If
you understand socialist economics, you will know that the
middle class and the bourgeoisie are lowly and degenerate
creatures. Where is your desire to hate and liquidate the middle
and upper classes, who are proven inferior than the lower
classes and support the capitalist system?
[quote]I do not. My ideal world consists of heaven and hell,
which is the most unequal world imaginable.[/quote]
Well, it's time to wake up from the dream, and understand that
the middle and upper classes are the economic groups that
deserve to be in hell.
Of course we have to know that society is not equal, the middle
class, bourgeois class, landlord class and
counter-revolutionaries are lower than the working class and
revolutionary-minded people.
[quote]"Workers and business owners are both equally capable of
doing their jobs. Workers already find it easy and are trained
to do their jobs, while business owners find it easy and are
trained to manage work plans for their production/business
models. Therefore, they deserve a similar wage difference, as
both are equally capable of handling the workload."
Stop dodging. Answer my questions:
[quote]What if B doesn't want to risk loss, while A is willing
to take the loss on B's behalf?[/quote][/quote]
In a socialist system, A and B operate according to the state's
plan, and there is no loss due to not controlling the market, as
customers are already required to purchase products made
according to the state's plan. Risks only arise in work
challenges that have been measured according to the abilities
and needs of the workers. If someone wants to carry out another
work plan, they are prohibited from doing competing work and
cause production complications that will make it difficult for
workers to participate in work activities due to
operational/work ability issues.
I've answered your arguments many times. But if you want to ask
the same question over and over again, I'm ready to play along.
[quote]Why shouldn't the two of them be allowed to agree between
themselves that B receives a fixed income no matter how well the
product sells, whereas A after paying B gets the profit or takes
the loss depending on how well the product sells?
...
If there is consent on both sides, there is no violence.[/quote]
In socialism, there is no risk of losing market share due to
unsold products or failure to meet consumer demand. This is
because work plans, purchasing, and production are pre-planned
by the state or the leaders of a community. There should be no
voluntary agreement between buyers and sellers that causes
uncertainty in supply and demand between producers and
consumers, which causes capitalist and competitive attitudes to
recur. Therefore, since everyone works according to their
abilities, there's no reason to earn a higher income, as
everyone works without any additional difficulties in their
field. They are already capable of doing so. Furthermore, if we
work because we want more money, rather than to solve problems
and maintain a socialist lifestyle, it actually shows that the
person is still materialistic.
[quote][quote]Urukagina, the king of the Sumerian city-state
Lagash, established the first laws that forbade compelling the
sale of property.[31][/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property#Property_in_philosophy[/quote]
Urukagina practiced state control over production activities,
not giving individuals the will to fully use their property.
[quote]Some of the physical elements of Eanna’s economic system
– sheep, goats, cattle, barns, weaving scenes, construction,
shrines marked by divine symbols, prisoners of war and ‘rulers’
in action – are illustrated on numerous cylinder seals and, most
famously, on a 1.05m tall limestone vessel discovered at Uruk in
1929, which dates to precisely the same period as our earliest
texts. The exterior surface of the Warka or Uruk Vase is
sub-divided into registers, showing the agricultural and
pastoral products that were brought to Eanna and registered.
Those involved were paid, i.e. they received rations, in return
for their labour and the produce delivered, by the chief
administrator of the entire operation, who was, in effect, the
steward of the estates of Inanna, goddess of Uruk. In other
words, the elaboration of the accounting procedures which we see
in action on the Archaic texts was the work of those
administrators – some might call them priests – who managed
Inanna’s estates, Eanna and all of the associated farms,
vineyards, cattle yards, milking sheds, fisheries, etc., as well
as the dependent labourers employed there, from reed-cutters,
fishermen, potters and cooks, to barbers, ploughmen, stockmen
and weavers.[/quote]
Source :
Uruk and the origins of the sacred economy - Engelsberg ideas.
(2023, April 28). Engelsberg Ideas.
HTML https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/uruk-and-the-origins-of-the-sacred-economy/
[quote]"The creation of social inequality by the middle and
upper classes is violence."
In my example, A and B mutually consented to create it:
[quote]Why shouldn't the two of them be allowed to agree between
themselves that B receives a fixed income no matter how well the
product sells, whereas A after paying B gets the profit or takes
the loss depending on how well the product sells?[/quote]
If there is consent on both sides, there is no violence.
...
[quote]"Eliminating wealth from the middle and upper classes
doesn't make them economically disabled; they will simply have
less wealth that creates inequality, but still allows them to
live a decent life."[/quote]
Eliminating legs from the walking and running classes doesn't
make them physiologically disabled? They will simply have less
mobility that creates inequality, but still live a decent life?
(And again you talk about "inequality" as if it is a bad
thing.)[/quote]
If employees and business owners agree to a division of labor
that pays unequal wages, they perpetuate social and economic
inequality. This creates a social gap that prevents the lower
classes from having the same consumption capabilities as
higher-paid workers and business owners. If the income gap
between the middle class and the business class is reduced to
that of the lower class, this social gap will end, and
psychological social violence will be resolved. Furthermore, why
would the middle and upper classes protest the liquidation of
their high incomes? They can still earn wages and consume
decently, but their consumption will be of a more affordable
value. Therefore, your logic that destroying the middle and
upper classes is like making a person with healthy legs disabled
is flawed. Because it does not cause disability or damage.
If you are an anti-liberal and anti-capitalist, you should
reject the voluntary freedom of both parties to make agreements
in economic activities.
[quote][quote]"It's your fault for not showing sympathy for
those born without a full set of legs."[/quote]
Walking means I am not showing sympathy?
[quote]"Be kind to disabled people who haven't done anything
wrong."[/quote]
Being kind requires me not walking?
[quote]"If you humiliate him physically, mentally, or both, and
he attacks you relentlessly, then you deserve to be
attacked."[/quote]
How do I humiliate him? By walking?
[quote]"No, you are wrong in explaining the logic."[/quote]
Point out how.
[quote]"Pedestrians who refuse to empathize with innocent people
with disabilities are committing violence and psychological
terror in the first place."[/quote]
By walking?[/quote]
If you walk around and also make an insulting gesture towards
disabled people, you deserve to be attacked. This analogy is
similar to the middle and upper classes who tend to prioritize
their own well-being over helping the lower classes achieve
adequate consumption. They even create conditions where they
have the power to oppose the state, because they already have
money and capital from the high monthly wages they have
accumulated over a period of time. They can use their money to
consolidate the masses to oppose the revolutionary socialist
party. You cannot compare the middle and upper classes to people
who simply walk around and don't harm anyone. YOU SHOULD READ
DAS KAPITAL, WHICH HITLER ALSO BELIEVED IN.
[quote]Minute 23:56 to 25:45
Furthermore, the idea that Marxism has nothing to do with race
is also incorrect.
“The capitalist knows that all commodities, however bad they may
look or however badly they may smell, are in faith and truth
money, inwardly circumcised Jews, and what is more, a wonderful
means for making more money out of money.”
Reference: Karl Marx, Das Kapital, Vol. 1, p. 107.
TIKhistory comments:
Sure enough, Marx despised Jews and saw capitalism as a Jewish
doctrine. And Hitler thought exactly the same.
“...since capital is international, its holders — that is, the
Jews — are international due to their dispersion around the
world. And here, everyone should throw up their hands in despair
and say to themselves, if this capital is international because
its holders, the Jews, are spread internationally around the
globe, then it must be madness to think that one could possibly
combat the capital of members of this same race on an
international level...”
Reference: Adolf Hitler, speech on August 13, 1920, quoted in
Zitelmann, Hitler: The Politics of Seduction, p. 265.
TIKhistory continues:
“And Marx did not just call for the socialization of society —
he called for its total abolition and the conditions that
sustain it. The Jew would become impossible, because his
consciousness would no longer have an object... The social
emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from
Judaism.”
Reference: Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question.
Also, don’t forget that Hitler had read Marx’s Das Kapital,
which he claimed convinced him that he was fighting against “a
real world war and the stock exchange 'capital'” — which he
believed was run by Jews.
Reference: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 198.
“It is no surprise that Goebbels stated, eighty years later,
that all socialism is antisemitism.”
Reference: Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism, p. 137.[/quote]
Source :
Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments
– TIKhistory, February 25, 2020
HTML https://youtu.be/eCkyWBPaTC8?feature=shared
[quote][quote]"Even if I were labeled an "incel," it would still
be no worse than a good-looking couple causing pornography and
social jealousy."[/quote]
Of course you are worse. You initiate violence.[/quote]
Porn stars and actresses will also consider me "violent." Do you
want to be friends with porn stars and actresses who don't
understand social conditions? If you do, then stop claiming to
be a socialist.
#Post#: 30664--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 26, 2025, 12:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"There's nothing wrong with equalizing incomes across economic
groups."
So you are an egalitarian.
"In fact, you are the one who is trying to make the bourgeoisie
and the middle class can be equally good as the lower class."
I am just trying to keep both restaurants open to both A and B.
I do not care about who goes to which one how often.
"Where is your desire to hate and liquidate the middle and upper
classes"
Nonexistent.
"In a socialist system, A and B operate according to the state's
plan"
That's not what I asked. What I asked was:
[quote]Why shouldn't the two of them be allowed to agree between
themselves that B receives a fixed income no matter how well the
product sells, whereas A after paying B gets the profit or takes
the loss depending on how well the product sells?[/quote]
Answer the part in bold.
"In socialism, there is no risk"
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30634/#msg30634
[quote]What if there is a earthquake/hurricane/flood/etc. that
destroys the stock of finished products before it was able to be
sold, you moron?[/quote]
"Urukagina practiced state control over production activities,
not giving individuals the will to fully use their property."
I guarantee if we travel back in time, we would find that some
restaurants in ancient Lagash were more expensive than others.
"If employees and business owners agree to a division of labor
that pays unequal wages, they perpetuate social and economic
inequality. This creates a social gap that prevents the lower
classes from having the same consumption capabilities as
higher-paid workers and business owners. If the income gap
between the middle class and the business class is reduced to
that of the lower class, this social gap will end, and
psychological social violence will be resolved."
"Psychological social violence" is just your deceptive term for
what causes you jealousy. No one who takes Ahimsa seriously will
be fooled by you.
"Furthermore, why would the middle and upper classes protest the
liquidation of their high incomes?"
Because it is violence initiated against them.
"They can still earn wages and consume decently"
So as long as someone can still earn wages and consume decently,
all violence initiated against them is acceptable?
"Therefore, your logic that destroying the middle and upper
classes is like making a person with healthy legs disabled is
flawed. Because it does not cause disability or damage."
If you shut down the more expensive restaurant, you are by
definition disabling customers from eating there.
"you should reject the voluntary freedom of both parties to make
agreements in economic activities."
I should reject non-violence?
"If you walk around and also make an insulting gesture towards
disabled people, you deserve to be attacked."
In the original example, we just said A could afford to go to
the more expensive restaurant more frequently than B, and you
were already complaining. Nowhere did we say that A was also
making an insulting gesture towards B.
"You cannot compare the middle and upper classes to people who
simply walk around and don't harm anyone."
What about A who simply goes to the more expensive restaurant
and doesn't harm anyone?
""**** stars and actresses will also consider me "violent.""
They would hardly be mistaken, seeing as they would probably be
among your targets!
"Do you want to be friends with **** stars and actresses who
don't understand social conditions?"
Plenty of movies and TV dramas reflect social conditions, so the
better the cast understands social conditions, the better their
performances will be. Your presumption that they "don't
understand social conditions" only reflects your prejudice
against them. To answer your question, if I saw you initiate
violence against them, I would definitely retaliate against you.
#Post#: 30665--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: July 26, 2025, 3:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"There's nothing wrong with equalizing incomes
across economic groups."[/quote]
So you are an egalitarian.[/quote]
You are, in fact, an egalitarian; you still believe that the
middle and upper classes can be equally as good as the lower
classes. I equalized incomes to eliminate the middle and upper
classes, who could potentially oppose the state with its
economic power and capital. I make the middle and upper classes,
who creating conditions that make the inequality of consumption
seem inferior and lowly. If they empathized with the lower
classes and consumed products that were affordable for all
classes and still considered decent, then I believe the
existence of the middle and upper classes would not disrupt
social stability and could still realize socialism. But in
reality, this is not the case. The middle and upper classes know
that their high-level consumption behavior is difficult for the
lower classes to afford, and they also know that they can still
consume affordable products that replace the high-level products
they often consume. But they tend to ignore this situation.
Because they are more concerned with getting excessive
consumption satisfaction than carrying out ethical consumption
actions that facilitate social unity, which requires sacrifice
to continue to want to consume affordable products in order to
empathize with the conditions of the lower class who find it
difficult to obtain high levels of consumption such as the
middle class and upper class.
[quote][quote]"Where is your desire to hate and liquidate the
middle and upper classes"[/quote]
Nonexistent.[/quote]
The middle and upper classes tend to prioritize consumer
satisfaction over maintaining social stability. They also
prioritize the security of their capital assets and investments
over maintaining the country's independence from the enemy's
currency. They are willing to rely on purchasing products and
production materials from the enemy, which causes the
productivity and consumption of their citizens to depend on the
enemy's currency for survival. If the enemy's currency
strengthens, production and consumption prices become more
expensive for the population. This is because the production
materials and products they consume tend to be imported from the
enemy country. This makes it difficult for the country to fully
confront the enemy country. This is because its citizens will
lose their willingness to fight, having become accustomed to
relying on the enemy's products and production materials.
Even Hitler whom you follow his ideology, hated the bourgeoisie
and the middle class... I have repeatedly presented historical
evidence of his anti-bourgeoisie and anti-middle class thinking.
[quote][quote]Why shouldn't the two of them be allowed to agree
between themselves that B receives a fixed income no matter how
well the product sells, whereas A after paying B gets the profit
or takes the loss depending on how well the product
sells?[/quote]
Answer the part in bold.[/quote]
I have answered it many times, but i will add another answer
First, the voluntary nature of the work agreement between
workers and business owners can also lead to an unconscious
perception that the profits from the sales of the products
created by each worker are being taken by the business owner
under the guise of surplus value. If they are aware of this
situation and continue to do so, they fail to understand the
potential for social jealousy and labor exploitation. The
profits from each product sold should be shared by the workers,
but in reality, all sales profits are kept by the business
owner. Business owners have a greater chance of survival because
they have more money by obtaining it by taking the surplus value
that should have been earned by their workers who created the
product. Meanwhile, the workers only receive wages based on the
salary provided by the business owner, which is very small and
can quickly be used up for a month's living expenses. The
business owner does not deserve this surplus value because he
did not participate in the work of creating the product. In
reality, he merely manages the operations of the business and
should receive wages in the form of a salary like his workers,
not money from each surplus value transaction. Likewise,
employers tend to arrange agreements to provide the lowest
possible wages when given the freedom to enter into employment
contracts with prospective workers, even though the low wage
value is below the appropriate wage value to meet the needs of a
decent life for workers. There is even a tendency to make
employment agreements that do not comply with the initial
promises, especially when working conditions and business
activities are forced to follow the competition to meet consumer
demand and face the uncertainty of competitors' business
movements in influencing the market. Promises from business
owners regarding working conditions that are not overtime and
according to the abilities determined at the beginning, tend to
be broken under the excuse of "adapting to the challenges of
competition affecting market demand."
Second answer, I'll repeat it again. in socialism, there is no
risk of losing market share due to unsold products or failure to
meet consumer demand. This is because work plans, purchasing,
and production are pre-planned by the state or the leaders of a
community. There should be no voluntary agreement between buyers
and sellers that causes uncertainty in supply and demand between
producers and consumers, which causes capitalist and competitive
attitudes to recur. Therefore, since everyone works according to
their abilities, there's no reason to earn a higher income, as
everyone works without any additional difficulties in their
field. They are already capable of doing so. Furthermore, if we
work because we want more money, rather than to solve problems
and maintain a socialist lifestyle, it actually shows that the
person is still materialistic.
[quote][quote]"Urukagina practiced state control over production
activities, not giving individuals the will to fully use their
property."[/quote]
I guarantee if we travel back in time, we would find that some
restaurants in ancient Lagash were more expensive than
others.[/quote]
If Urukagina turns out to be what you describe, they deserve a
violent revolution. If Urukagina turns out to be as you
describe, they deserve a violent revolution or they will be
forced to end their empire, just as Ancient Greece, the
birthplace of Western culture, had to end.
[quote]What if there is a earthquake/hurricane/flood/etc. that
destroys the stock of finished products before it was able to be
sold, you moron?[/quote]'
Victims affected by major disasters will receive state-funded
care, and state-funded reconstruction of damaged production
equipment and homes will be provided. They will not need to be
paid high wages or receive anything that could potentially lead
to capital accumulation.
[quote]"Psychological social violence" is just your deceptive
term for what causes you jealousy. No one who takes Ahimsa
seriously will be fooled by you.[/quote]
No, psychological violence due to social inequality really does
happen, look at the economic literature and the history of
revolution...
[quote][quote]"Furthermore, why would the middle and upper
classes protest the liquidation of their high incomes?"[/quote]
Because it is violence initiated against them.[/quote]
That's how the capitalists and the majority of the democratic
middle class argue for maintaining their ownership, I don't take
them seriously.
[quote][quote]"They can still earn wages and consume
decently"[/quote]
So as long as someone can still earn wages and consume decently,
all violence initiated against them is acceptable?[/quote]
The middle and upper classes tend to be manipulative in gaining
profits under the guise of surplus value, and create conditions
of economic inequity, which have committed psychological
violence. They actually have the ability to easily perform
middle-class jobs, which tend to be more complex, compared to
lower-class jobs. This makes them feel as though they have it
easy, just as the lower class does when given work that matches
their abilities. They don't deserve higher salaries. They also
have the privilege of working according to their abilities. But
they ignore this, and instead keep their large salaries for
their own benefit, not for the sake of the nation's safety from
social inequity. They deserve to have their financial power
liquidated and their daily activities fully monitored.
[quote][quote]"Therefore, your logic that destroying the middle
and upper classes is like making a person with healthy legs
disabled is flawed. Because it does not cause disability or
damage."[/quote]
If you shut down the more expensive restaurant, you are by
definition disabling customers from eating there.[/quote]
When expensive restaurants that are less affordable for various
economic groups close, those who can't afford them can still buy
affordable products and still maintain a decent standard of
consumption. So, your analogy doesn't fit the discussion of the
problem we're discussing here. Unless they can't afford a decent
standard of consumption when the expensive restaurant closes,
only then can you align that situation with your analogy.
[quote]"you should reject the voluntary freedom of both parties
to make agreements in economic activities."
I should reject non-violence?[/quote]
You must reject any agreement between the two parties that
creates social inequality and economic competition. If you allow
it to happen, you perpetuate psychological violence, even
physical violence if the activity leads to physical exploitation
of the workforce. If you are a true socialist, you will not
allow both parties freedom to determine their economic plans.
[quote][quote]"If you walk around and also make an insulting
gesture towards disabled people, you deserve to be
attacked."[/quote]
In the original example, we just said A could afford to go to
the more expensive restaurant more frequently than B, and you
were already complaining. Nowhere did we say that A was also
making an insulting gesture towards B.
...
What about A who simply goes to the more expensive restaurant
and doesn't harm anyone?[/quote]
A [Middle Class and Bourgeoisie] creates humiliation by
perpetuating conditions where B [Worker] always has difficulty
in obtaining high-level consumption like A due to his limited
income. In fact, A can empathize and share the difficulties of
achieving high-level consumption like B by consuming products
that are affordable for B, which are certainly low-priced
products, and these low-priced products are still suitable for
consumption. And in reality, A can still obtain the
appropriateness of consumption by only consuming these
affordable products. And these affordable products resolve
social inequity, while the high-level products that are often
consumed by A only cause social problems.
[quote][quote]""**** stars and actresses will also consider me
"violent.""[/quote]
They would hardly be mistaken, seeing as they would probably be
among your targets![/quote]
It's inappropriate to protect and justify porn stars and
actresses who expose their bodies simply to show off their
beauty; they invite social envy. It would be better to replace
the public image of artists and actresses with the image of the
nation's flag and leaders; that would be fairer. Because such
appearances reflect who truly cares for and governs the country
to achieve socialism.
[quote][quote]"Do you want to be friends with **** stars and
actresses who don't understand social conditions?"[/quote]
Plenty of movies and TV dramas reflect social conditions, so the
better the cast understands social conditions, the better their
performances will be. Your presumption that they "don't
understand social conditions" only reflects your prejudice
against them. To answer your question, if I saw you initiate
violence against them, I would definitely retaliate against
you.[/quote]
There's no need for porn stars and actresses to show off their
bodies to accurately explain social conditions; intelligence and
ability are what can accurately explain social conditions.
Therefore, audiovisual presentations are based on the speaker's
abilities, not their physical appearance.
#Post#: 30670--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: July 26, 2025, 7:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"You are, in fact, an egalitarian; you still believe that the
middle and upper classes can be equally as good as the lower
classes."
I am not trying to make anything equal. Therefore I am not an
egalitarian. You are trying to make things equal. Therefore you
are an egalitarian.
"First, the voluntary nature of the work agreement between
workers and business owners can also lead to an unconscious
perception that the profits from the sales of the products
created by each worker are being taken by the business owner
under the guise of surplus value. If they are aware of this
situation and continue to do so, they fail to understand the
potential for social jealousy and labor exploitation."
So you answer is basically: two people should not be allowed to
agree between themselves anything that you personally dislike.
Therefore you are initiating violence against both of them.
"Victims affected by major disasters will receive state-funded
care, and state-funded reconstruction of damaged production
equipment and homes will be provided."
Stop changing the subject. You said sales would be guaranteed
under socialism. I provided a trivial counterexample to show
that risk still exists.
"psychological violence due to social inequality really does
happen, look at the economic literature and the history of
revolution..."
Jealousy happens. It is the fault of the jealous. Revolts
motivated by jealousy are revolts that initiate violence, and
thus should be responded to with retaliatory violence.
"When expensive restaurants that are less affordable for various
economic groups close, those who can't afford them can still buy
affordable products and still maintain a decent standard of
consumption."
When legs that not everyone has are cut off, those who can't
walk can still use wheelchairs and still maintain a decent
standard of transportation.
"You must reject any agreement between the two parties that
creates social inequality and economic competition."
Unlike you the egalitarian, I do not value equality.
"If you allow it to happen, you perpetuate psychological
violence, even physical violence"
You are literally behaving like a domestic abuser saying: "Do as
I tell you or I will hit you and it will be your fault for
making me hit you!"
"if the activity leads to physical exploitation of the
workforce."
From earlier in the paragraph:
[quote]You must reject any agreement between the two
parties[/quote]
"A [Middle Class and Bourgeoisie] creates humiliation by
perpetuating conditions where B [Worker] always has difficulty
in obtaining high-level consumption like A due to his limited
income."
But B asked A to do this! In our example, B did not want to take
risk and A was willing to take it for B, thus it was agreed that
B would receive a fixed salary irrespective of how well the
product sold, while A would either make a profit or a loss
depending on how well the product sold.
"A can empathize and share the difficulties of achieving
high-level consumption like B by consuming products that are
affordable for B"
I never said A should be prohibited from going to the less
expensive restaurant.
"And these affordable products resolve social inequity"
What inequity? A did what B asked A to do, yet B is jealous when
it turns out better for A. B is clearly the one in the wrong.
"while the high-level products that are often consumed by A only
cause social problems."
The cause of the problem is B's jealousy.
"It's inappropriate to protect and justify **** stars and
actresses who expose their bodies simply to show off their
beauty; they invite social envy."
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/eroticism-sexuality/
[quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ_RI4-rxrs[/quote]
If I had to choose between saving you or saving an LD of this
video from a burning building, I would choose the latter. In
fact, even if I could save both, I would choose to save just the
LD in order to make sure it does not get damaged on the way out
(as you would probably try to throw it back into the fire if I
saved you also).
#Post#: 30703--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: August 2, 2025, 11:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"You are, in fact, an egalitarian; you still
believe that the middle and upper classes can be equally as good
as the lower classes."[/quote]
I am not trying to make anything equal. Therefore I am not an
egalitarian. You are trying to make things equal. Therefore you
are an egalitarian.[/quote]
I don't want to equate the middle class and the bourgeoisie. I
just want their mobility power to be neutered so they don't
become an interest group capable of opposing the state because
they reject the implementation of socialism.
[quote]Many a bourgeois who condemns the worker’s striving for
an improvement in his economic situation with an outrage that is
as unwise as it is unjust would possibly suddenly think
completely differently if for only three weeks he would have had
laid on his shoulders the burden of the work demanded of the
others. Even today there are still countless bourgeois elements
who most indignantly reject a demand for a wage of ten marks a
month, and especially any sharp support of this, as a ‘Marxist
crime’, but display complete incomprehension when faced with a
demand to also limit the excessive profits of certain
individuals. - Adolf Hitler, 1 November 1930 [2][3][Page 206]
On 24 February 1940 Hitler declared that the
bourgeois-capitalist world had already collapsed, its age
already long outdated: This collapse must take place everywhere
in some form or other and it will not fail to materialize
anywhere.’ [6] The German nation could not, said Hitler, ‘live
with the bourgeois social order at all’. [4] In a conversation
with the Hungarian ‘Leader of the Nation’ Szálasi, Hitler
declared on 4 December 1944 that the ‘bourgeois European world’
would break down ever further and all that was left was the
alternative ‘that either a sensible social order were created on
a national level, or that Bolshevism would take over’. [5] [Page
230][/quote]
Source :
1. IB (Illustrierter Beobachter), 5th year set, issue 26 of 28
June 1930, p. 405
2. IB (Illustrierter Beobachter), 5th year set, issue 44 of 1
November 1930, p. 765
3. Hitler's National Socialism by Rainer Zitelmann Page 228, 206
and 230
HTML https://ia801207.us.archive.org/13/items/adolf-hitler-archive/Hitler%27s%20National%20Socialism%202022.pdf
4. Bouhler I/II, p. 162, speech on 24 February 1940
5. Ibid., p. 164
[quote][quote]"First, the voluntary nature of the work agreement
between workers and business owners can also lead to an
unconscious perception that the profits from the sales of the
products created by each worker are being taken by the business
owner under the guise of surplus value. If they are aware of
this situation and continue to do so, they fail to understand
the potential for social jealousy and labor
exploitation."[/quote]
So you answer is basically: two people should not be allowed to
agree between themselves anything that you personally dislike.
Therefore you are initiating violence against both of
them.[/quote]
I disagree with two parties agreeing to engage in economic
activity in a capitalistic manner and following market laws. As
a socialist, you should also disagree with that, and restrict
voluntary agreements between one party and another.
[quote]"You get inflation if you want inflation," Hitler
retorted angrily. "Inflation is lack of discipline lack of
discipline in the buyers, and lack of discipline in the sellers.
I will see to it that prices remain stable. That is what my S.A.
is for. Woe to the men who raise prices! We need no legal
instruments for that. It will be done by the party alone. You
shall see if our S.A. once clean up a shop, such things will not
happen a second time." - Adolf Hitler[/quote]
Source :
The Voice Of Destruction by Hermann Rauschning Page 20
HTML https://archive.org/details/voiceofdestructi027169mbp/page/n31/mode/2up
[quote][quote]"Victims affected by major disasters will receive
state-funded care, and state-funded reconstruction of damaged
production equipment and homes will be provided."[/quote]
Stop changing the subject. You said sales would be guaranteed
under socialism. I provided a trivial counterexample to show
that risk still exists.[/quote]
Victims of natural disasters will receive assistance from the
state according to the extent of the damage they have
suffered—it's that simple. However, people still must not become
wealthy or possess capital in a socialist world. The property
they have belongs to the state and must align with the state's
goal of upholding socialism.
[quote][quote]"psychological violence due to social inequality
really does happen, look at the economic literature and the
history of revolution..."[/quote]
Jealousy happens. It is the fault of the jealous. Revolts
motivated by jealousy are revolts that initiate violence, and
thus should be responded to with retaliatory violence.[/quote]
Social envy is caused by the tendency of the middle and upper
classes to psychologically belittle the social activities and
consumption patterns of the lower class. This stems from the
belief of the middle and upper classes that they are superior
and 'contribute more to the state.' In reality, however, the
labor of farmers, street vendors, and manual workers—who are
part of the lower class—provides essential needs for society and
the state, ensuring that life and the struggle continue. The
middle and upper class citizens, who tend to become capital
holders and managerial elites, have forgotten this truth. Their
economic power deserves to be liquidated, and they must submit
to the party and to socialism.
Workers who 'become middle class' or 'upper class' often feel
that their work is easy, precisely because they have proven
capable of doing it. Therefore, they should not be paid
significantly more than lower-class citizens. After all, both
are working according to their abilities, which means both are
experiencing ease in their tasks. Only if they are given work
that exceeds their capacity should they be entitled to higher
wages—but that will not happen. The state will strive to assign
work to each citizen according to their abilities and the needs
of society.
[quote]A former DNVP speaker broke with conservatism over its
plutocratic tendencies and disregard for the common people of
Germany: “I saw more and more clearly that the German
Nationalist party held to the unalterable conviction that the
common man in service or industry had no right whatsoever to
freedom, recreation, entertainment or the higher pleasures. I
felt that this anti-social spirit would prove fatal to the DNVP…
His (Hitler’s) idea was not to use the resources of the state to
help industrialists and land owners, but to take advantage of
them immediately to relieve the misery of millions of unemployed
Germans.”[/quote]
Source :
1. The Nazi War against Capitalism by Nevin Gussack Page 31
2. Why Hitler Came Into Power by Abel, Theodore Fred Page 129
HTML https://archive.org/details/whyhitlercameint0000abel/page/128/mode/2up?q=take+advantage+of+them+immediately
[quote][quote]"When expensive restaurants that are less
affordable for various economic groups close, those who can't
afford them can still buy affordable products and still maintain
a decent standard of consumption."[/quote]
When legs that not everyone has are cut off, those who can't
walk can still use wheelchairs and still maintain a decent
standard of transportation.[/quote]
Neutering the economic power of middle- and upper-class citizens
who tend to behave capitalistically and democratically cannot be
compared to 'cutting off the arm of a person or a group of
people.' Even when their economic power is curtailed, they still
receive a decent standard of living. They are merely prevented
by the state from accumulating capital and independently
determining plans for economic activity and the market. Allowing
voluntary transactions and production tends to make consumers
prioritize goods from producers they prefer, rather than
considering the full scope of planned production that is deemed
'suitable for consumption' and made available for them to
purchase. This behavior undermines market and production
certainty, burdens weaker producers, and benefits stronger
producers who are inclined to dominate the market, rather than
focus on economic stability for the entire population
[quote]In a January 30, 1944 speech, Hitler concluded that a
socialist revolution took place in Germany without any physical
destruction of “private” property.[127] At the end of the day,
Hitler coerced the “private” owners of property and investments
to harness their wealth and expertise in an effort to build
socialism and aid in Nazi conquests throughout Europe.[1][2]
Can you ever abolish unemployment in a capitalist economy, in a
free market economy? I’ll save you the trouble of a reply it
can’t be done! But even if we are not sentimental Socialists,
and consequently not doctrinaires out to create a ‘just’ social
order, we happen to come close to Marxist Socialism on some
important points.
- Hitler’s Under Secretary for Economics Wilhelm
Keppler[3][4][/quote]
Source :
1. The Nazi War Against Capitalism by Nevin Gussack, Page 44 -
45
2. Hitler : The Policies of Seduction by Rainer Zitelmann Page
74 - 75
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerpoliciesof0000zite/page/74/mode/2up?q=it+would+certainly+be+erroneous
3. The Nazi War Against Capitalism by Nevin Gussack, Page 46 -
47
4. Men Of Chaos by Hermann Rauschning by 238 - 239
HTML https://archive.org/details/menofchaos009010mbp/page/n257/mode/2up?q=Can+you+ever+abolish+unemployment+in+a+capitalist+economy
[quote][quote]"You must reject any agreement between the two
parties that creates social inequality and economic
competition."[/quote]
Unlike you the egalitarian, I do not value equality.[/quote]
I am not egalitarian; I see middle- and upper-class citizens as
lowly beings, like porn stars. Unlike you, who still give them
the benefit of the doubt and believe that they can still be
'good' just like everyone else. So, you're the one trying to
make the middle and upper classes 'equally good.' You're the one
who actually desires 'egalitarianism. I regard those who support
a planned society and show compassion toward the
vulnerable—while still behaving ethically—as being in the right.
In contrast, I see those who favor voluntary economic exchange,
which fosters competition, marginalizes the weak, and creates
inequality, as fundamentally inferior. I firmly reject the
ideology of egalitarianism
[quote][quote]"If you allow it to happen, you perpetuate
psychological violence, even physical violence"[/quote]
You are literally behaving like a domestic abuser saying: "Do as
I tell you or I will hit you and it will be your fault for
making me hit you!"[/quote]
Bringing the middle class and the bourgeoisie into order is
comparable to standing up against domestic abusers. Those who
take this action are not the perpetrators—they are the ones who
have suffered psychological harm caused by economic disparity
and the degrading social stigma imposed on the proletariat
[quote]"if the activity leads to physical exploitation of the
workforce."
From earlier in the paragraph:
[quote]You must reject any agreement between the two
parties[/quote][/quote]
Of course, agreements between both parties are better regulated
by those who understand socialism, as this prevents exploitation
of the proletariat by the middle class and bourgeoisie—who are
unequal, inferior, and comparable to porn stars.
[quote][quote]"A [Middle Class and Bourgeoisie] creates
humiliation by perpetuating conditions where B [Worker] always
has difficulty in obtaining high-level consumption like A due to
his limited income."[/quote]
But B asked A to do this! In our example, B did not want to take
risk and A was willing to take it for B, thus it was agreed that
B would receive a fixed salary irrespective of how well the
product sold, while A would either make a profit or a loss
depending on how well the product sold.[/quote]
B agrees to become a worker because their abilities are limited
to labor, and they find it manageable. A becomes a business
manager and supervisor because they too have developed the
skills and find their work relatively easy, even though the
nature of their tasks differs from B’s. Since both find their
work manageable due to having sufficient ability, it is
unjustifiable for one to receive a higher wage than the other.
This is why the existence of capital owners (the bourgeoisie)
and the middle class is a fundamental flaw in human society.
Therefore, if A justifies receiving a higher wage and extracting
more profit from the 'surplus value of production,' then A is
spreading a great lie. In reality, those in group A—the
bourgeoisie and middle class—share the same condition as the
lower class: they are assigned tasks they find manageable and
are prepared to meet the demands of their work, just as the
working class (the proletariat) is
[quote][quote]"A can empathize and share the difficulties of
achieving high-level consumption like B by consuming products
that are affordable for B"[/quote]
I never said A should be prohibited from going to the less
expensive restaurant.[/quote]
You ought to confront social disparity by ideologically
condemning the consumption patterns of group 'A'—the
bourgeoisie, the middle class, and the landlords—as expressions
of decadence and class arrogance. Their consumer behavior should
not be normalized, but rather exposed as a symptom of systemic
exploitation and social decay.
[quote][quote]"And these affordable products resolve social
inequity"[/quote]
What inequity? A did what B asked A to do, yet B is jealous when
it turns out better for A. B is clearly the one in the
wrong.[/quote]
Group 'A' extracts surplus wages from their labor, despite the
fact that their greater abilities make it easier for them to
meet the demands of their work—demands which might seem heavier
to Group 'B', the working class, whose tasks are already
adjusted to their more limited capacities. Therefore, it is
justifiable for Group 'A' to face mass discipline if they
continue to justify social inequality based on their false
consciousness—the illusion that they are somehow 'struggling'
more.
[quote][quote]"while the high-level products that are often
consumed by A only cause social problems."[/quote]
The cause of the problem is B's jealousy.[/quote]
The core of social injustice stems from the deceit of class 'A',
who fabricate a narrative of hardship to legitimize the
existence of class disparity and maintain their privileged
position
[quote]"It's inappropriate to protect and justify **** stars and
actresses who expose their bodies simply to show off their
beauty; they invite social envy."
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/counterculture-era/eroticism-sexuality/
[quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ_RI4-rxrs[/quote]
If I had to choose between saving you or saving an LD of this
video from a burning building, I would choose the latter. In
fact, even if I could save both, I would choose to save just the
LD in order to make sure it does not get damaged on the way out
(as you would probably try to throw it back into the fire if I
saved you also).[/quote]
Pornography and the exhibition of the body must be brought to an
end
#Post#: 30704--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 3, 2025, 12:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"I don't want to equate the middle class and the bourgeoisie. I
just want their mobility power to be neutered so they don't
become an interest group capable of opposing the state because
they reject the implementation of socialism."
If so, you should not mind some people being richer than others,
so long as even the richest are incapable of opposing the state.
"I disagree with two parties agreeing to engage in economic
activity in a capitalistic manner and following market laws."
Therefore you are initiating violence.
"Victims of natural disasters will receive assistance from the
state according to the extent of the damage they have
suffered—it's that simple."
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30670/#msg30670
[quote]Stop changing the subject. You said sales would be
guaranteed under socialism. I provided a trivial counterexample
to show that risk still exists.[/quote]
"Social envy is caused by the tendency of the middle and upper
classes to psychologically belittle the social activities and
consumption patterns of the lower class."
So if A does not psychologically belittle B, can A go to the
more expensive restaurant as frequently as A wants to?
"Even when their economic power is curtailed, they still receive
a decent standard of living."
Even when their legs are cut off, they still receive a decent
standard of transportation (wheelchairs).
"I am not egalitarian"
You literally just wrote:
[quote]You must reject any agreement between the two parties
that creates social inequality[/quote]
Therefore you are an egalitarian.
"Unlike you, who still give them the benefit of the doubt and
believe that they can still be 'good' just like everyone else.
So, you're the one trying to make the middle and upper classes
'equally good.'"
I am not 'making' anything. I am just not initiating violence.
"You're the one who actually desires 'egalitarianism."
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30639/#msg30639
[quote]My ideal world consists of heaven and hell, which is the
most unequal world imaginable.[/quote]
"I see those who favor voluntary economic exchange, which
fosters competition, marginalizes the weak, and creates
inequality, as fundamentally inferior."
The words in bold are your admission (again) that you are an
egalitarian.
"I firmly reject the ideology of egalitarianism"
You just admitted in the immediately preceding sentence that you
are an egalitarian!
"Those who take this action are not the perpetrators—they are
the ones who have suffered psychological harm caused by economic
disparity and the degrading social stigma imposed on the
proletariat"
You are initiating violence. Your psychological harm is caused
by your own jealousy, and therefore you deserve it.
"Of course, agreements between both parties are better regulated
by those who understand socialism"
You are initiating violence.
"B agrees to become a worker because their abilities are limited
to labor, and they find it manageable. A becomes a business
manager and supervisor because they too have developed the
skills and find their work relatively easy, even though the
nature of their tasks differs from B’s. Since both find their
work manageable due to having sufficient ability, it is
unjustifiable for one to receive a higher wage than the other. "
That is not my example. My example is:
[quote]B did not want to take risk and A was willing to take it
for B, thus it was agreed that B would receive a fixed salary
irrespective of how well the product sold, while A would either
make a profit or a loss depending on how well the product
sold.[/quote]
Stop dodging.
"You ought to confront social disparity by ideologically
condemning the consumption patterns of group 'A'—the
bourgeoisie, the middle class, and the landlords—as expressions
of decadence and class arrogance. Their consumer behavior should
not be normalized, but rather exposed as a symptom of systemic
exploitation and social decay."
It is precisely A's consumption patterns that enables the state
to tax A more!
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30601/#msg30601
[quote]That's precisely what will happen by keeping both
restaurants, with the more expensive restaurant paying more in
profit tax than the less expensive restaurant (where the profit
comes more from A's bills than from B's bills since as yourself
say B does not eat here as frequently as A does). But you want
to get rid of the more expensive restaurant![/quote]
"The core of social injustice stems from the deceit of class
'A', who fabricate a narrative of hardship to legitimize the
existence of class disparity and maintain their privileged
position"
So if A admits that it was easy to make enough money to go to
the more expensive restaurant frequently, can A now go to the
more expensive restaurant frequently as A wants to?
"Pornography and the exhibition of the body must be brought to
an end"
You are initiating violence.
#Post#: 30705--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: August 3, 2025, 1:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"I disagree with two parties agreeing to engage in
economic activity in a capitalistic manner and following market
laws."[/quote]
Therefore you are initiating violence.[/quote]
If you justify voluntary agreements between two parties to
engage in economic transactions in a capitalistic manner and
follow market laws, I honestly don't know how to advise you. You
are not committed to practicing socialism—some might even
consider you a traitor to Hitler's socialism. If you view my
insistence on ending voluntary agreements in order to compel
society to live in a planned, socialist manner as an act of
violence, then you're echoing what liberals and social democrats
have always said. You are not a socialist—you do not seek to end
the enslavement imposed by the middle and upper classes, nor by
the social conditions that operate under the laws of the market.
[quote]"Victims of natural disasters will receive assistance
from the state according to the extent of the damage they have
suffered—it's that simple."
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30670/#msg30670
[quote]Stop changing the subject. You said sales would be
guaranteed under socialism. I provided a trivial counterexample
to show that risk still exists.[/quote][/quote]
Alright, I remember this piece of writing from you:
[quote]What if there is a earthquake/hurricane/flood/etc. that
destroys the stock of finished products before it was able to be
sold, you moron?[/quote]
The State shall assume responsibility for compensating affected
segments of the population with material support, calibrated
according to previously established standards of dignified
living. All damages incurred in the realm of production shall be
covered by public funds, strictly for the purpose of restoring
functional means of production. Under no circumstance shall
compensation include any form of surplus value, profit, or
private gain for the owner or proprietor of said means. Upon
restoration, the individual formerly recognized as owner,
manager, or business operator shall receive compensation in the
form of wages equivalent to that of a lower-class mechanical
laborer, with no special privileges or wage differentials
permitted. This provision reflects the principled abolition of
class-based economic hierarchy and affirms the supremacy of
socialized production under the authority of the State
[quote]"Social envy is caused by the tendency of the middle and
upper classes to psychologically belittle the social activities
and consumption patterns of the lower class."
So if A does not psychologically belittle B, can A go to the
more expensive restaurant as frequently as A wants to?[/quote]
Class 'A'—the bourgeoisie, middle class, and landlords—will
never be capable of ending social disparity as long as they
continue to extract unjust surplus value from production and
engage in consumption practices that remain inaccessible to the
lower class, thereby fostering social prejudice and distrust.
Class 'A' can cease their psychological degradation of Class
'B'—the proletarian working class—only if they willingly allow
the state and the party to appropriate the majority of their
assets and financial holdings. Should they refuse this
relinquishment, they deserve to be regarded as morally degraded
and to have their economic power and social mobility permanently
dismantled.
Stop believing that Class A—the bourgeoisie, middle class, and
landlords—can ever be equally good or equal to Class B—the
proletariat and the marginalized. If you still believe all of
that, then it is you who upholds egalitarianism—treating the
upper class, the middle class, and the landowning class as
equally virtuous as the proletariat and the oppressed. So no, I
am not the one advocating egalitarianism—you are.
[quote][quote]"Even when their economic power is curtailed, they
still receive a decent standard of living."[/quote]
Even when their legs are cut off, they still receive a decent
standard of transportation (wheelchairs).[/quote]
Reducing the economic and social mobility of the middle and
upper classes to bring them closer to the level of the lower
class still ensures them a decent standard of living. Comparing
such a measure to 'cutting off someone's legs' is an illogical
analogy. That comparison implies we are maiming a person, which
completely misrepresents the point I am making. This is not
about creating disability—this is about dismantling unjust
privilege.
[quote]"I am not egalitarian"
You literally just wrote:
[quote]You must reject any agreement between the two parties
that creates social inequality[/quote][/quote]
I am creating a condition in which the middle class and the
bourgeoisie no longer possess property or financial power beyond
that of the lower class. While this may appear to be “equality,”
that is not my goal. What I seek is a forceful reckoning—one
that causes the middle and bourgeois classes to feel diminished,
inferior, and exposed as obstacles to social justice.
For far too long, they have extracted an excessive share of
surplus value from production—value that should have been
distributed among all who labored, not hoarded by those who
merely occupy middle- and upper-class positions. Their
entitlement is a historical theft, and dismantling it is not
about making them ‘equal’—it is about holding them accountable
[quote][quote]"Unlike you, who still give them the benefit of
the doubt and believe that they can still be 'good' just like
everyone else. So, you're the one trying to make the middle and
upper classes 'equally good.'"[/quote]
I am not 'making' anything. I am just not initiating violence.
...
[quote]"I firmly reject the ideology of egalitarianism"[/quote]
You just admitted in the immediately preceding sentence that you
are an egalitarian![/quote]
Yes, when you choose to preserve the middle class, the
bourgeoisie, and the social hierarchies that have fueled
discrimination against the lower class for thousands of years,
you lose the right to honestly claim that you are “not the one
who initiated violence.”
The violence began long ago—with exploitation, with exclusion,
with systemic disparity. And by defending the structures that
perpetuate it, you are not neutral—you are complicit.
[quote]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30639/#msg30639
My ideal world consists of heaven and hell, which is the most
unequal world imaginable.[/quote]
You’re still offering the bourgeoisie, the middle class, and the
landowning elite the same chance at salvation to heaven. So
don’t accuse me of promoting egalitarianism—it’s you. Stop
deflecting.
[quote]The New York Times, February 21, 1943
NAZI MILITARY DEFEAT BRINGS 'TOTAL WAR' HOME
German Upper and Middle Classes Fear Hitler Might Try to Destroy
Them
By GEORGE AXELSSON By Telephone to The New York Times.
The Junkers, the bourgeoisie and the small businessmen now think
that Hitler intends to sacrifice them on the altar of a 'total
war effort,' in the Soviet style. They fear that this operation
will open the horizon of a permanent dictatorship of the
proletariat, also on the Stalinist model, in which these classes
will disappear without any visible chance of revival… That
Hitler might also want to save his war by transforming the
National Socialist State into a National Communist State at the
expense of the middle and upper classes seems to be the chief
worry in Berlin today.[/quote]
Source :
The New York Times: Sunday February 21, 1943. (2024). Retrieved
November 7, 2024, from Nytimes.com website:
HTML https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1943/02/21/88519072.html?pageNumber=76
[quote]Herr Goebbels ended it in his May Day radio address this
year, with his flat assertion that the anti-capitalist offensive
"will be resumed on the first day of peace!"
The people in the democracies would do well not to mistake the
Nazis' anti-capitalism for mere hostility to big business. It is
more than a war against free enterprise. It is a war against the
democratic way of life. Capitalism, in the Nazi mind, means the
free way, the individual's way. The Nazis are out to smash it.
And they have gone a long way toward doing just that in Europe.
Their special victim is the middle class. On the continent they
have all but liquidated this class which the backbone of the
democratic world.[/quote]
Source :
1. The Nazi War Against Capitalism by Nevin Gussack, page 79
2. The American Mercury 1944-08: Vol 59 Iss 248. “German Plans
for the Next War” Page 181 (Page 55 in pdf format)
[quote][quote]"Those who take this action are not the
perpetrators—they are the ones who have suffered psychological
harm caused by economic disparity and the degrading social
stigma imposed on the proletariat"[/quote]
You are initiating violence. Your psychological harm is caused
by your own jealousy, and therefore you deserve it.[/quote]
Social resentment is rooted in the exploitative behavior and
profit manipulation of the middle class and the bourgeoisie. You
cannot ignore that reality. Social envy does not emerge out of
thin air—it is manufactured by those who commit both
psychological and physical violence: the middle class, the
bourgeoisie, and the landowning elite.
If you fail to understand the exploitation of workers that has
persisted for thousands of years—from the age of feudalism to
Western neo-colonialism—then you have no right to call yourself
a socialist, let alone claim allegiance to any form of
'Hitlerism.'
[quote][quote]"Of course, agreements between both parties are
better regulated by those who understand socialism"[/quote]
You are initiating violence.[/quote]
Yes, capitalists would say the same thing—they despise the idea
that voluntary agreements between parties in economic and social
life should be regulated under a socialist and planned system.
If you see the effort to impose such order as a form of
violence, then you are not a socialist. You are, in truth, a
conservative—both economically and socially.
Hitler would have despised you, had he lived to see you, because
you seek to preserve the very economic class structure that has
existed for thousands of years—the very structure he himself
opposed.
[quote]That is not my example. My example is:
[quote]B did not want to take risk and A was willing to take it
for B, thus it was agreed that B would receive a fixed salary
irrespective of how well the product sold, while A would either
make a profit or a loss depending on how well the product
sold.[/quote][/quote]
It is entirely the fault of Class A for allowing unstable shifts
in market share, which have led to heightened risks of declining
sales revenue. If Class A truly understood the importance of
economic planning and the necessity of abolishing the free
market in order to create stability—not only for themselves (the
middle class, the bourgeoisie, and the landowning class) but
also to end class exploitation against the lower class (the
proletariat)—then they would direct all profits toward the
advancement of socialism.
They must recognize that their superior capabilities allow them
to handle the demands of their work with relative ease, even if
their workload appears 'heavier' than that of the proletariat.
Therefore, they are not entitled to higher wages or to extract
surplus value from the goods produced and sold. They, too, are
bearing risks—but these are risks they can manage effortlessly.
That does not justify economic privilege.
[quote]Stop dodging.[/quote]
I can expose your so-called “fake socialism” at any time.
[quote]"You ought to confront social disparity by ideologically
condemning the consumption patterns of group 'A'—the
bourgeoisie, the middle class, and the landlords—as expressions
of decadence and class arrogance. Their consumer behavior should
not be normalized, but rather exposed as a symptom of systemic
exploitation and social decay."
It is precisely A's consumption patterns that enables the state
to tax A more!
[quote]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30601/#msg30601
That's precisely what will happen by keeping both restaurants,
with the more expensive restaurant paying more in profit tax
than the less expensive restaurant (where the profit comes more
from A's bills than from B's bills since as yourself say B does
not eat here as frequently as A does). But you want to get rid
of the more expensive restaurant![/quote][/quote]
Taxation alone on the middle and upper classes does not compel
them to ease access to higher-value goods for the lower class.
They continue to maintain a system in which they could, if they
chose, consume more modest products like the lower class—to
reduce social resentment—but instead persist in consuming
high-value goods.
This deepens the injustice, as the lower class—those who already
contribute to the state by producing the essential goods for
human survival—are left feeling permanently excluded from
attaining a higher standard of living, simply because their
wages have always remained low.
To confront this social lie, the solution is clear: liquidate
the middle class, the bourgeoisie, and the landowning elite!
After all, even if they are compelled to consume more affordable
goods, they will still live decently.
[quote][quote]"The core of social injustice stems from the
deceit of class 'A', who fabricate a narrative of hardship to
legitimize the existence of class disparity and maintain their
privileged position"[/quote]
So if A admits that it was easy to make enough money to go to
the more expensive restaurant frequently, can A now go to the
more expensive restaurant frequently as A wants to?[/quote]
No, because Class A preserves social disparity and perpetuates
the very conditions I have explained time and time again in my
previous writings. The convenience enjoyed by Class A does not
translate into convenience for Class B. However, compelling
Class A to adopt the consumption patterns of Class B still
allows them to live decently, while also ensuring that they,
too, experience restraint and worthiness in access
[quote][quote]"Pornography and the exhibition of the body must
be brought to an end"[/quote]
You are initiating violence.[/quote]
Preventing sexual deviance is an act of disciplining those who
disrupt the moral and mental focus of society. Therefore,
regulating pornographic actors and pornography itself is an act
of resistance against the initial psychological violence imposed
upon the public.
#Post#: 30706--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 3, 2025, 2:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"I honestly don't know how to advise you."
Have I ever once asked you for advice?
"The State shall assume responsibility for compensating affected
segments of the population with material support, calibrated
according to previously established standards of dignified
living. All damages incurred in the realm of production shall be
covered by public funds, strictly for the purpose of restoring
functional means of production. Under no circumstance shall
compensation include any form of surplus value, profit, or
private gain for the owner or proprietor of said means. Upon
restoration, the individual formerly recognized as owner,
manager, or business operator shall receive compensation in the
form of wages equivalent to that of a lower-class mechanical
laborer, with no special privileges or wage differentials
permitted. This provision reflects the principled abolition of
class-based economic hierarchy and affirms the supremacy of
socialized production under the authority of the State"
In that case, businesses would be incentivized to fake destroyed
stock in order to guarantee income without sales, you moron.
"Class 'A' can cease their psychological degradation of Class
'B'—the proletarian working class—only if they willingly allow
the state and the party to appropriate the majority of their
assets and financial holdings."
Class With Legs can cease their psychological degradation of
Class Without Legs only if they willingly allow the state and
the party to cut of their legs.
"I am creating a condition in which the middle class and the
bourgeoisie no longer possess property or financial power beyond
that of the lower class."
I am creating a condition in which the Class With Legs no longer
possess body parts or mobile power beyond that of the Class
Without Legs.
"It is entirely the fault of Class A for allowing unstable
shifts in market share, which have led to heightened risks of
declining sales revenue."
So B asks A to take risk on B's behalf, A does as B asks, it
turns out well for A, and now B jealous of the outcome says A
should never have allowed the risk to exist in the first place
(even though A has no power to prevent it and even though B did
not bring up this issue when originally asking A to take risk on
B's behalf).
"Taxation alone on the middle and upper classes does not compel
them to ease access to higher-value goods for the lower class."
It doesn't have to. All that matter is the wealth gap is
decreased as a result.
"They continue to maintain a system in which they could, if they
chose, consume more modest products like the lower class—to
reduce social resentment—but instead persist in consuming
high-value goods."
Social resentment caused by jealousy should not be reduced. The
jealous deserve it.
"This deepens the injustice, as the lower class—those who
already contribute to the state by producing the essential goods
for human survival—are left feeling permanently excluded from
attaining a higher standard of living, simply because their
wages have always remained low."
B asked A to give B a fixed income! B is now complaining about
it!
"the solution is clear: liquidate the middle class, the
bourgeoisie, and the landowning elite! After all, even if they
are compelled to consume more affordable goods, they will still
live decently."
The solution is clear: cut off the legs of all walkers, joggers
and sprinters. After all, even if they are compelled to use
slower wheelchairs, they will still move decently.
"No, because Class A preserves social disparity and perpetuates
the very conditions I have explained time and time again in my
previous writings. The convenience enjoyed by Class A does not
translate into convenience for Class B."
B asked A to provide these conditions! B wanted to the
convenience of a fixed income, A gave it to B, but now B also
wants the convenience of profit from sales of the product that A
is getting. B cannot have it both ways.
"compelling Class A to adopt the consumption patterns of Class B
still allows them to live decently, while also ensuring that
they, too, experience restraint and worthiness in access"
Compelling walkers to adopt the transportation patterns of
wheelchair users still allows them to move decently, while also
ensuring that they, too, experience restraint and worthiness in
access.
"Preventing sexual deviance is an act of disciplining those who
disrupt the moral and mental focus of society. Therefore,
regulating pornographic actors and pornography itself is an act
of resistance against the initial psychological violence imposed
upon the public."
There is nothing "imposed upon the public" unless the video is
being played in public places. If you try to ban private
viewing, you are initiating violence.
#Post#: 30707--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 3, 2025, 2:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"I honestly don't know how to advise you."
Have I ever once asked you for advice?
"The State shall assume responsibility for compensating affected
segments of the population with material support, calibrated
according to previously established standards of dignified
living. All damages incurred in the realm of production shall be
covered by public funds, strictly for the purpose of restoring
functional means of production. Under no circumstance shall
compensation include any form of surplus value, profit, or
private gain for the owner or proprietor of said means. Upon
restoration, the individual formerly recognized as owner,
manager, or business operator shall receive compensation in the
form of wages equivalent to that of a lower-class mechanical
laborer, with no special privileges or wage differentials
permitted. This provision reflects the principled abolition of
class-based economic hierarchy and affirms the supremacy of
socialized production under the authority of the State"
In that case, businesses would be incentivized to fake destroyed
stock in order to guarantee income without sales, you moron.
"Class 'A' can cease their psychological degradation of Class
'B'—the proletarian working class—only if they willingly allow
the state and the party to appropriate the majority of their
assets and financial holdings."
Class With Legs can cease their psychological degradation of
Class Without Legs only if they willingly allow the state and
the party to cut of their legs.
"I am creating a condition in which the middle class and the
bourgeoisie no longer possess property or financial power beyond
that of the lower class."
I am creating a condition in which the Class With Legs no longer
possess body parts or mobile power beyond that of the Class
Without Legs.
"It is entirely the fault of Class A for allowing unstable
shifts in market share, which have led to heightened risks of
declining sales revenue."
So B asks A to take risk on B's behalf, A does as B asks, it
turns out well for A, and now B jealous of the outcome says A
should never have allowed the risk to exist in the first place
(even though A has no power to prevent it and even though B did
not bring up this issue when originally asking A to take risk on
B's behalf).
"Taxation alone on the middle and upper classes does not compel
them to ease access to higher-value goods for the lower class."
It doesn't have to. All that matter is the wealth gap is
decreased as a result.
"They continue to maintain a system in which they could, if they
chose, consume more modest products like the lower class—to
reduce social resentment—but instead persist in consuming
high-value goods."
Social resentment caused by jealousy should not be reduced. The
jealous deserve it.
"This deepens the injustice, as the lower class—those who
already contribute to the state by producing the essential goods
for human survival—are left feeling permanently excluded from
attaining a higher standard of living, simply because their
wages have always remained low."
B asked A to give B a fixed income! B is now complaining about
it!
"the solution is clear: liquidate the middle class, the
bourgeoisie, and the landowning elite! After all, even if they
are compelled to consume more affordable goods, they will still
live decently."
The solution is clear: cut off the legs of all walkers, joggers
and sprinters. After all, even if they are compelled to use
slower wheelchairs, they will still move decently.
"No, because Class A preserves social disparity and perpetuates
the very conditions I have explained time and time again in my
previous writings. The convenience enjoyed by Class A does not
translate into convenience for Class B."
B asked A to provide these conditions! B wanted the convenience
of a fixed income, A gave it to B, but now B also wants the
convenience of profit share that A is getting. B cannot have it
both ways.
"compelling Class A to adopt the consumption patterns of Class B
still allows them to live decently, while also ensuring that
they, too, experience restraint and worthiness in access"
Compelling walkers to adopt the transportation patterns of
wheelchair users still allows them to move decently, while also
ensuring that they, too, experience restraint and worthiness in
access.
"Preventing sexual deviance is an act of disciplining those who
disrupt the moral and mental focus of society. Therefore,
regulating pornographic actors and pornography itself is an act
of resistance against the initial psychological violence imposed
upon the public."
There is nothing "imposed upon the public" unless the video is
being played in public places. If you try to ban private
viewing, you are initiating violence.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page