5 Things Bernie Sanders doesn't Want You To Know About Socialism

[DamianTV]

Yeah, I know... FOX News of all fucking places! Either that or Fox just doesnt like Bernie...

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/5-things-bernie-sanders-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-socialism


Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., announced the official launch of his 2020 presidential campaign on Tuesday, and within just 24 hours, he managed to raise a whopping $6 million. Although Sanders joins a crowded field of contenders, many analysts say the 77-year-old Sanders is the frontrunner to be the Democrats’ choice to challenge President Trump.

Sanders, who nearly defeated Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016, is a self-described socialist who has been peddling destructive collectivist policies for decades—everything from single-payer health care to punitive taxes and radical climate change agreements. Make no mistake about it, Sanders, who honeymooned in Soviet Russia, wants to fundamentally alter American society and impose a socialist agenda on tens of millions of Americans who want the federal government to stay out of their homes and businesses.

Sanders is undoubtedly hoping that his candidacy will benefit from the recent rise of socialism in the United States. According to a February Fox News poll, one-quarter of U.S. voters have a favorable view of socialism, and the number is even higher for millennials. Similarly, a 2018 Gallup survey found 57 percent of Democrats support socialism, while only 47 percent said they have a favorable view of capitalism.

Although the popularity of socialism has clearly increased in recent years, it’s largely because most Americans don’t understand what socialism is or its long history of failure around the world. It’s up to those of us who support individual liberty and free markets to tell our friends, neighbors, children, and grandchildren the truth about the dangers of socialism. Below are five facts to help you spread the word.

1. Socialism has never worked.

One of the most damning evidences against socialism is that despite the fact numerous countries around the world have attempted to create societies in which many, most, or all industries are collectively owned and managed, those countries have never prospered.

The ultimate goal of socialism, according to Karl Marx and his followers, is to create a society in which all people share wealth equally. But whenever socialism has been attempted, it has always resulted in tyranny.

The reason for this is simple: In order for a society to collectively share wealth, a ruling class first has to be established that will take wealth away from those who have it. That necessitates giving significant power to a centralized authority, the government. Once government has this power, it’s reluctant to give it up, resulting in the sort of oppression we see today in Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela.

2. Tens of millions have died at the hands of socialist and communist parties.

Because regimes attempting to create socialist utopias inevitably turn to violence, socialism and communism have caused more death and destruction than any other political or religious ideology in the past century.

In research I conducted, relying on numerous scholarly studies, of 12 countries led by socialist or communist parties over the past 100 years—including parties in China, Cuba, North Korea, and the Soviet Union—I found there have been more than 167 million people who have been killed, murdered, or exiled in the pursuit of socialism. It would take roughly 56,000 terrorist events as deadly as the tragic attack by radical Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001, to match the misery caused by socialists and communists.

...

Full article at link.

[Anti Globalist]

Sanders supporter be like "Sanders isn't that kind of Socialist."

[juleswin]

Yeah, I know... FOX News of all $#@!ing places! Either that or Fox just doesnt like Bernie...

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/5-things-bernie-sanders-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-socialism



Full article at link.


1. Socialism has never worked.

One of the most damning evidences against socialism is that despite the fact numerous countries around the world have attempted to create societies in which many, most, or all industries are collectively owned and managed, those countries have never prospered.

What a load of horse shyte. First of all, the article starts with the strawman argument that Bernie Sanders wants to a full blown socialism like you see in Cuba and former USSR. He doesn't want that kind of socialism and he has said this 100 thousand times. He wants a welfare state funded by taxes collected from taxing the rich and corporations. This sort of socialism is also bad but it is much harder to debate since the people criticizing him already accept a lesser portion of the system he is calling for.


2. Tens of millions have died at the hands of socialist and communist parties.

Because regimes attempting to create socialist utopias inevitably turn to violence, socialism and communism have caused more death and destruction than any other political or religious ideology in the past century.

And how many people have died from the wars started and participated by so called capitalist nations? The nations and peoples they have destroyed cannot be rivaled by the nations and people destroyed by full blown socialist/communist countries. At no point in my life have I ever been worried that a socialist country will come and attack me. I would bet that your chances of being invaded and killed by a so called capitalist nation is about 100x more than that of a socialist nation. And yet the idiots writing this article want me to be afraid of socialism.

[Pauls' Revere]

He wants a welfare state funded by taxes collected from taxing the rich and corporations. This sort of socialism is also bad but it is much harder to debate since the people criticizing him already accept a lesser portion of the system he is calling for.


His form of socialism is not "A kinder gentler form of socialism" Our society will be split further by the haves and have nots. That's all he's doing, playing class politics. For a microcosm of what will happen look at what happened when Amazon left NYC. That sort of thing will happen on a much grander scale. Companies and people with the means to do so will leave in droves. States that want to suceed will position themselves with low tax rates and business friendly. Also, as point (1) in the article made you would need bigger government to "enforce" those new tax rules. Which means more regulations and more ambiguous qualifiers set by TPTB.

[shakey1]

jumbo shrimp
working vacation
negative income
civil war
american socialism

[juleswin]

His form of socialism is not "A kinder gentler form of socialism" Our society will be split further by the haves and have nots. That's all he's doing, playing class politics. For a microcosm of what will happen look at what happened when Amazon left NYC. That sort of thing will happen on a much grander scale. Companies and people with the means to do so will leave in droves. States that want to suceed will position themselves with low tax rates and business friendly. Also, as point (1) in the article made you would need bigger government to "enforce" those new tax rules. Which means more regulations and more ambiguous qualifiers set by TPTB.

I dunno if I would call it kinder but the kind of socialism he advocates is a lesser for of socialism where the capitalist portion of the economy is left intact and just taxed to the gills in order to finance a bigger welfare state. Yes, it would likely involve higher taxes and more regulation but not more govt ownership of corporations. What happened with amazon is more of a statist problem than a socialism problem. Statists tax and regulate and they did not want to give amazon any tax breaks, so they bailed.

I just hate it when people strawman their opponents in order to win an argument. This is what they did here and its why I am calling em out just saying this for this people who still think I am in luv with socialism and/or communism.

[oyarde]

Sanders supporter be like "Sanders isn't that kind of Socialist."

Uh , yeah he really is that kind . He would still take every gun if he could and then there will be no weapons to revolt with. He will also take whatever else he would like and give it to whom he would like exactly like all the others .

[CaptUSA]

I dunno if I would call it kinder but the kind of socialism he advocates is a lesser for of socialism where the capitalist portion of the economy is left intact and just taxed to the gills in order to finance a bigger welfare state. Yes, it would likely involve higher taxes and more regulation but not more govt ownership of corporations. What happened with amazon is more of a statist problem than a socialism problem. Statists tax and regulate and they did not want to give amazon any tax breaks, so they bailed.

I just hate it when people strawman their opponents in order to win an argument. This is what they did here and its why I am calling em out just saying this for this people who still think I am in luv with socialism and/or communism.

So, Bernie is completely disingenuous about the kind of socialism he wants. Yes, he wants a bigger welfare state funded by taxes, but he doesn't stop there. The Nordic countries have a fairly free market that funds their programs, but Bernie isn't advocating for that side of the ledger. He wants INCREASED market regulation - not less, like they have. He wants STRICTER trade rules and protectionist policies - not the low trade barriers of those nations. He wants the union membership rates seen in those countries, but he doesn't want fewer employment laws - he wants more!

So, you'd end up with all the costs of a socialist system without the funding mechanism to pay for them. And THAT, is exactly the recipe for the socialist disasters that have occurred throughout history.

[juleswin]

So, Bernie is completely disingenuous about the kind of socialism he wants. Yes, he wants a bigger welfare state funded by taxes, but he doesn't stop there. The Nordic countries have a fairly free market that funds their programs, but Bernie isn't advocating for that side of the ledger. He wants INCREASED market regulation - not less, like they have. He wants STRICTER trade rules and protectionist policies - not the low trade barriers of those nations. He wants the union membership rates seen in those countries, but he doesn't want fewer employment laws - he wants more!

So, you'd end up with all the costs of a socialist system without the funding mechanism to pay for them. And THAT, is exactly the recipe for the socialist disasters that have occurred throughout history.

And Hugo Chavez wanted to smash the capitalist system and yet he wasn't able to do it. Bernie has said that he wanted a scandinavian form of economic system with high taxes, private properties and a big welfare state. I believe that he will try and achieve this goal and make adjustment when he faces resistance. I can try and argue this harder point and win but there is no need to strawman him by saying he supports something he has said in the past that he does not support.

Speaking of union membership rates, scandinavian countries have union membership as % of the overall workforce in the 60%+ ranges, Iceland has like a 90% union membership rate. Rate that are unheard of in this country. This is the model he says he is going for and I will give the benefit of the doubt that it is what he wants. Like every govt, he will make adjustments when reality sets in.

[oyarde]

Point # 4 in the article is correct and can never be refuted by leftists .

[oyarde]

Point # 5 makes more sense than anything any leftist can ever dream of .

[Anti Globalist]

He's not even going to be the nominee anyway. He'll rally all the disaffected voters like he did last time, "cave in" to the eventual nominee, and then try to convince his supporters to vote for whoever that ends up being. You know, cause like worked out so well last time.

[juleswin]

Just going to point out a big problem Bernie would encounter trying to adopt the Scandinavian style mixed economy system (socialist based) in the US. The people and culture are different between the 2 countries. Ever been to Norway, Sweden or even Denmark? if you see how skinny people there are, you would think someone must have been force feeding them the Venezuelan diet. These people live a healthy lifestyle and this is something ingrained in their way of life and this difference between those countries and the US will lead to some costs going over budget.

[EBounding]

"Democratic socialism" is just capitalism with expensive social welfare programs.

[timosman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl74ybpyNLk

[Pauls' Revere]

I dunno if I would call it kinder but the kind of socialism he advocates is a lesser for of socialism where the capitalist portion of the economy is left intact and just taxed to the gills in order to finance a bigger welfare state. Yes, it would likely involve higher taxes and more regulation but not more govt ownership of corporations. What happened with amazon is more of a statist problem than a socialism problem. Statists tax and regulate and they did not want to give amazon any tax breaks, so they bailed.

I just hate it when people strawman their opponents in order to win an argument. This is what they did here and its why I am calling em out just saying this for this people who still think I am in luv with socialism and/or communism.

Gotcha, I'm no fan of Socialism or this Bernie form of it either. Both to me are economic killers.

[juleswin]

Gotcha, I'm no fan of Socialism or this Bernie form of it either. Both to me are economic killers.

According to some people here, that is not even socialism. I mean free(by free I mean govt sponsored) health care, free college education, and other welfare state goodies is just capitalism with welfare state. Dunno what everyone is afraid of, Bernie is giving us a different kind of capitalism ;)

[DamianTV]

juleswin - I am glad you are calling out the falsehoods of the news article. I did mention it was FOX news, so there is gonna be some misrepresentation of what socialism is. So good job on calling out the article on those falsehoods.

+Rep

So here is the thing. When people dont fully understand a subject, that lack of understanding is taken advantage of by those who stand a chance to benefit. One good example is saying something is "Capitalism" when its actually "Socialism" in its nature. Exchanging words and definitions. Another good example is misrepresenting what Freedom is. Freedom is not having to make decisions for yourself. That is a definite misrepresentation. Its also how Freedom becomes demonized and how the powerful gain even more power.

[acptulsa]

juleswin - I am glad you are calling out the falsehoods of the news article. I did mention it was FOX news, so there is gonna be some misrepresentation of what socialism is. So good job on calling out the article on those falsehoods.

+Rep

So here is the thing. When people dont fully understand a subject, that lack of understanding is taken advantage of by those who stand a chance to benefit. One good example is saying something is "Capitalism" when its actually "Socialism" in its nature. Exchanging words and definitions. Another good example is misrepresenting what Freedom is. Freedom is not having to make decisions for yourself. That is a definite misrepresentation. Its also how Freedom becomes demonized and how the powerful gain even more power.

Not to mention the word 'fascism'. Everyone associates fascism with mass murder, thanks to Hitler and Franco. But Mussolini managed to have fascism without killing quite that many people.

In any case, that's what Sanders is proposing (which is a sixth thing he doesn't want us to know). And if anyone thinks we have corruption now, just elect that idiot. We'll find out real quick what Total Corruption feels like.

[juleswin]

juleswin - I am glad you are calling out the falsehoods of the news article. I did mention it was FOX news, so there is gonna be some misrepresentation of what socialism is. So good job on calling out the article on those falsehoods.

+Rep

So here is the thing. When people dont fully understand a subject, that lack of understanding is taken advantage of by those who stand a chance to benefit. One good example is saying something is "Capitalism" when its actually "Socialism" in its nature. Exchanging words and definitions. Another good example is misrepresenting what Freedom is. Freedom is not having to make decisions for yourself. That is a definite misrepresentation. Its also how Freedom becomes demonized and how the powerful gain even more power.

Couldn't agree more. There is also a lot of bias when it comes to definitions when a mixed economic system of capitalism and socialism works, it is called capitalism and when it fails they say its socialism. This is why it seems to them like every socialist system is doomed to collapse.

But I am a little perplexed with your definition of freedom, what is wrong with the definition above and how would u define freedom?

[timosman]

But I am a little perplexed with your definition of freedom, how would u define freedom?


FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS - https://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531525-CHAPTER-X-FUNDAMENTAL-RIGHTS-AND-DUTIES-OF-CITIZENS

[DamianTV]

Couldn't agree more. There is also a lot of bias when it comes to definitions when a mixed economic system of capitalism and socialism works, it is called capitalism and when it fails they say its socialism. This is why it seems to them like every socialist system is doomed to collapse.

But I am a little perplexed with your definition of freedom, how would u define freedom?

I didnt put a true definition in my previous statement. True Freedom, I believe is two things: #1 - Self Authority, and #2 - Self Responsibility. The second is much more important because it is the back door to dismantling Rights, which gets into what Ron Paul has always said about Entitlements. Entitlements are the opposite of #2 because it puts the Responsibility of True Freedom on everyone else. Once #2 is removed, where a person expect to be taken care of by everyone else, then #1 is soon to go away too.

Perhaps a good example is Gun Ownership. There are people out there who would own a gun and behave irresponsibly with them. Real Gun Responsibility is knowing how to use it safely and limiting its usage to not cause malicious harm to others. I used the term 'malicious' because Self Defense is not a malicious act, while using a gun to rob a store or shoot at rival gangs I would consider a malicious act. That ability to be Self Responsible with a gun is given away, then Gun Rights will also soon be eliminated.

I believe another good example is Drunk Driving. Driving Drunk was not made illegal until too many people behaved irresponsibly with alcohol and cars. Once people started getting hurt, then Self Responsibility was replaced with Legal repercussions against those who chose to drive while too intoxicated.

The loss of Freedom is Incremental. First thing they do is deprive a persons ability to express Self Responsibility. Mandating Insurance is probably a good example, where Insurance is used to handle the consequences of irresponsibility. I am half surprised that by now they have not made gun insurance mandatory because guns are sometimes used by criminals to shoot other people. Again, its a back door. Oh you cant afford gun insurance so you are not allowed to own a gun bla bla bla.

Thats my idea of Real Freedom. We have both Self Authority, but, must also take Full Responsibility for all of our own actions.

[Pauls' Revere]

According to some people here, that is not even socialism. I mean free(by free I mean govt sponsored) health care, free college education, and other welfare state goodies is just capitalism with welfare state. Dunno what everyone is afraid of, Bernie is giving us a different kind of capitalism ;)

We aren't a capitalist system. If that were the case a lot of companies (and banks) would have failed without government bailouts. No, were a form of Plutocratic oligarchy of some sort with a bit of nepotism thrown in.

[fedupinmo]

I dunno if I would call it kinder but the kind of socialism he advocates is a lesser for of socialism where the capitalist portion of the economy is left intact and just taxed to the gills in order to finance a bigger welfare state. Yes, it would likely involve higher taxes and more regulation but not more govt ownership of corporations. What happened with amazon is more of a statist problem than a socialism problem. Statists tax and regulate and they did not want to give amazon any tax breaks, so they bailed.

I just hate it when people strawman their opponents in order to win an argument. This is what they did here and its why I am calling em out just saying this for this people who still think I am in luv with socialism and/or communism.

And since we know that any form of government that includes force can manage to maintain itself at the original level of tyranny forever without EVER expanding into other areas... :rolleyes:

[juleswin]

And since we know that any form of government that includes force can manage to maintain itself at the original level of tyranny forever without EVER expanding into other areas... :rolleyes:

I dunno why you are rolling your eyes but one, nothing lasts forever so I am not even going to argue that point. On the other hand, you can sustain a society run with a form of government that uses force for a very long time without expanding into other areas(whatever that really means)

[juleswin]

We aren't a capitalist system. If that were the case a lot of companies (and banks) would have failed without government bailouts. No, were a form of Plutocratic oligarchy of some sort with a bit of nepotism thrown in.

True and the news of the recent success of Chrystler which the govt took over during the bailout, shafted the share holders is more evidence that socialism, central planning or whatever u call this system can work or rather doesn't always lead to collapse.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531941-Motor-City-MAGA-Fiat-Chrysler-to-Reopen-Idled-Detroit-Plant-Bring-6-5K-U-S-Jobs-Back-to-MI

[acptulsa]

True and the news of the recent success of Chrystler which the govt took over during the bailout, shafted the share holders is more evidence that socialism, central planning or whatever u call this system can work or rather doesn't always lead to collapse.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531941-Motor-City-MAGA-Fiat-Chrysler-to-Reopen-Idled-Detroit-Plant-Bring-6-5K-U-S-Jobs-Back-to-MI

Um, the federal government immediately sold Chrysler to FIAT. It didn't own Chrysler for a week. It didn't buy it out, it just forced the sale.

That isn't just a straw man. You created a whole straw company.

If you want to know what kind of cars governments produce, test drive a Trabant.

There are three kinds of products in the world. There are the ones people want to buy. There are the ones people don't want to buy and can't buy, because the company went out of the business. And there are the ones nobody wants to buy, but buy anyway, because the government has lots of guns, and won't let people buy anything else. Anything else could exist in theory. But you won't find them in the really real world.

[juleswin]

Um, the federal government immediately sold Chrysler to FIAT. It didn't own Chrysler for a week. It didn't buy it out, it just forced the sale.

That isn't just a straw man. You created a whole straw company.

If you want to know what kind of cars governments produce, test drive a Trabant.

There are three kinds of products in the world. There are the ones people want to buy. There are the ones people don't want to buy and can't buy, because the company went out of the business. And there are the ones nobody wants to buy, but buy anyway, because the government has lots of guns, and won't let people buy anything else. Anything else could exist in theory. But you won't find them in the really real world.

Well, they bought majority stake in Chrysler, which helped em take over control of the company. And the end result is success for the little car company. Btw, I have driven a lada and it was OK, my uncle had one and he loved it. Cheap, easy to repair and all around work horse of a car. Not saying I will pick it over a toyota but it was an OK car from my experience. Just saying

Agree with the rest of the thread.

[acptulsa]

Well, they bought majority stake in Chrysler, which helped em take over control of the company. And the end result is success for the little car company. Btw, I have driven a lada and it was OK, my uncle had one and he loved it. Cheap, easy to repair and all around work horse of a car. Not saying I will pick it over a toyota but it was an OK car from my experience. Just saying

Agree with the rest of the thread.

The government brokered a deal. That's all. And the Soviet Union didn't design the Lada. FIAT did. The best the USSR could do was the Pobeida.

Unless you count the ZIL and ZIS, of course. But you aren't allowed to buy those, comrade. Who do you think you are, Stalin? Though I have owned a couple of the cars the ZIL and ZIS stole their technology from, in my decadent capitalist existence.

They beat the snot out of that FIAT 124 I drove. This in spite of the fact that everyone who ever drove both an original FIAT 124 and its Lada copy and lived to write about it said the FIAT was the better car.

[juleswin]

The government brokered a deal. That's all. And the Soviet Union didn't design the Lada. FIAT did. The best the USSR could do was the Pobeida.

Unless you count the ZIL and ZIS, of course. But you aren't allowed to buy those, comrade. Who do you think you are, Stalin? Though I have owned a couple of the cars the ZIL and ZIS stole their technology from, in my decadent capitalist existence.

They beat the snot out of that FIAT 124 I drove.

From my understanding, the lada was built as a joint venture between Soviet union and fiat. I dunno if its fair to give all the credit to fiat seeing as the communist govt in Russia were involved in the creation.

But its not like govt is incapable of building something the people will like cos remember, govt is actually made up of individual people and people tend to do genius work every now and then.

[acptulsa]

The FIAT 124 went on sale in 1966. FIAT signed the deal with the USSR in 1966. The Lada didn't go on sale until 1970, after FIAT helped the USSR build a new factory in the Ukraine.

And of course the USSR redesigned it a little bit. How else could it have wound up inferior? If it were a perfect copy, neither would have been the better design.


But its not like govt is incapable of building something the people will like cos remember, govt is actually made up of individual people and people tend to do genius work every now and then.

There you go again. Remember when I said, 'Anything else could exist in theory. But you won't find them in the really real world'? I hate to strain your attention span with something I said all of 67 minutes ago...

So geniuses can work for governments and sometimes do. Do they like it? Or do they take their brilliant ideas to their seventeen middle manager bureaucrat bosses and hear, 'That's nice, comrade. But our research and development budget has already been spent on hookers and blow for Comrade Secretary Stalin to convince him not to send me to Siberia. The People will keep buying the crap we make now. And they won't complain, either!'


There are three kinds of products in the world. There are the ones people want to buy. There are the ones people don't want to buy and can't buy, because the company went out of the business. And there are the ones nobody wants to buy, but buy anyway, because the government has lots of guns, and won't let people buy anything else. Anything else could exist in theory. But you won't find them in the really real world.

I know it's rude of me to keep dragging you back to the really real world. But it is where we live.


Communism is a good idea, but it won't work.

And guess what? Eighty years after he said that, you're still struggling to name one example of when it has worked. Why? Do you want to ruin our lives? Or do you expect to become Comrade Stalin, and get the ZIL?

[juleswin]

The FIAT 124 went on sale in 1966. FIAT signed the deal with the USSR in 1966. The Lada didn't go on sale until 1970, after FIAT helped the USSR build a new factory in the Ukraine.

And of course the USSR redesigned it a little bit. How else could it have wound up inferior? If it were a perfect copy, neither would have been the better design.

Ofc, everything that ever goes well is credited to the capitatists and every wrong on the statists. Ofc, because we all know there is no chance that the Soviets could have anyone knowledgable about engineering working for their side. No way whatsoever.

Inferior to fiat 214? sadly I can't tell how true this statment is, the fiat 214 never came to Nigeria so I only experience the lada :(

[juleswin]

The FIAT 124 went on sale in 1966. FIAT signed the deal with the USSR in 1966. The Lada didn't go on sale until 1970, after FIAT helped the USSR build a new factory in the Ukraine.

And of course the USSR redesigned it a little bit. How else could it have wound up inferior? If it were a perfect copy, neither would have been the better design.



There you go again. Remember when I said, 'Anything else could exist in theory. But you won't find them in the really real world'? I hate to strain your attention span with something I said all of 67 minutes ago...

So geniuses can work for governments and sometimes do. Do they like it? Or do they take their brilliant ideas to their seventeen middle manager bureaucrat bosses and hear, 'That's nice, comrade. But our research and development budget has already been spent on hookers and blow for Comrade Secretary Stalin to convince him not to send me to Siberia. The People will keep buying the crap we make now. And they won't complain, either!'

What happens when the genius is the manager and his said brilliant idea is implemented? am I talking theory or do I have an example waiting for the right setup to sping it on u? Hmm, wanna find out?

[acptulsa]

Ofc, everything that ever goes well is credited to the capitatists and every wrong on the statists. Ofc, because we all know there is no chance that the Soviets could have anyone knowledgable about engineering working for their side. No way whatsoever.

Inferior to fiat 214? sadly I can't tell how true this statment is, the fiat 214 never came to Nigeria so I only experience the lada :(

You're talking theory again. In the really real world, we have concrete evidence to look at. And like magnetized iron, nearly every scrap of it points the same direction.

Like for instance. Where is the USSR now?

[juleswin]

You're talking theory again. In the really real world, we have concrete evidence to look at. And like magnetized iron, nearly every scrap of it points the same direction.

I present to you the AK 47, the rifle is no theory and it can stand head to head with many private company created rifles. I have to look but I am sure u can find other amazing military products produced by various govt military manufacturers

[acptulsa]

I present to you the AK 47, the rifle is no theory and it can stand head to head with many private company created rifles. I have to look but I am sure u can find other amazing military products produced by various govt military manufacturers

Military assault rifles? Your big example of the free market coming up short is something most governments won't let anyone buy but the government? The fact that the U.S. government was bribed by a toy maker to buy the 47's only contemporary competing design is supposed to prove government does things right?

[juleswin]

Military assault rifles? Your big example of the free market coming up short is something most governments won't let anyone buy but the government?

Dunno about other govt, but consider that the US have over 30 privately owned rifle companies who make rifles for the private and govt use, I would think that one of them would have beat the Russian govt in making a rifle as good and sturdy as the AK 47.

The point is that geniuses can be found working for govt and while working for govt, they can suggest a product that is actually good that the people would like. E.g. the AK 47. It maybe the exception to the rule but it is still real and not theory.

[acptulsa]

Dunno about other govt, but consider that the US have over 30 privately owned rifle companies who make rifles for the private and govt use, I would think that one of them would have beat the Russian govt in making a rifle as good and sturdy as the AK 47.

They did. Original Soviet 47s are completely inferior to nearly every copy of it.

But it's still irrelevant to the free market question. Or do you think there's such a big market for death outside of government to support the development from the ground up of population mowers? The free market has nothing to do with that. Nothing.

[juleswin]

They did. Original Soviet 47s are completely inferior to nearly every copy of it.

But it's still irrelevant to the free market question. Or do you think there's such a big market for death outside of government to support the development from the ground up of population mowers? The free market has nothing to do with that. Nothing.

Oh my, some people made some improvements to a Soviet invention, how dare anyone make any improvements to an invention.

Its relevant to the market for guns, self defense, offensive war, hunting, sports etc. There is a demand for the market kind of rifle he created and that makes it relevant to the market.

[acptulsa]

Oh my, some people made some improvements to a Soviet invention, how dare anyone make any improvements to an invention.

Its relevant to the market for guns, self defense, offensive war, hunting, sports etc. There is a demand for the market kind of rifle he created and that makes it relevant to the market.

Well, you know the Soviets tried to improve on the 124 and it came out inferior.

As for the market for semi-auto assault rifles in the private sectors of those few nations where they're legal and people can afford them, it's small. Too small to pay someone back for reinventing the wheel in any sane time frame.

I said that.

You quoted me saying that.

But you aren't disputing that. You're just repeating what you said before I said that.

You like the sound if your own voice more than I do. Bye.

[juleswin]

Well, you know the Soviets tried to improve on the 124 and it came out inferior.

As for the market for semi-auto assault rifles in the private sectors of those few nations where they're legal and people can afford them, it's small. Too small to pay someone back for reinventing the wheel in any sane time frame.

I said that.

You quoted me saying that.

But you aren't disputing that. You're just repeating what you said before I said that.

You like the sound if your own voice more than I do. Bye.

I have to say that you are a very hard person to debate. So I have my hail mary pass with this one last example. Exceptions to the rule is no reason to deny my point to show that government can create even if by accident something the people desire.


The originating concept behind the first Volkswagen, the company, and its name, is the notion of a people’s car – a car affordable and practical enough for common people to own.[21] Hence the name, which is literally "people's car" in German, pronounced [ˈfɔlksvaːɡən]). Although the Volkswagen was mainly the brainchild of Ferdinand Porsche and Adolf Hitler,[22] the idea is much older than Nazism, and existed since mass-production of cars was introduced.[21] Contrary to the United States, where the Ford Model T had become the first car to motorize the masses, contributing to household car ownership of about 33% in 1920 and some 46% in 1930, in the early 1930s, the German auto industry was still mostly limited to luxury models, and few Germans could afford anything more than a motorcycle: one German out of 50 owned a car.[23]

In April 1934, Hitler gave the order to Porsche to develop a Volkswagen.[note 2] The epithet Volks- literally, "people's-" had been applied to other Nazi-sponsored consumer goods as well, such as the Volksempfänger ("people's radio").

In May 1934, at a meeting at Berlin's Kaiserhof Hotel, Chancellor Hitler insisted on a basic vehicle that could transport two adults and three children at 100 km/h (62 mph) while not using more than 7 litres of fuel per 100 km (32 mpg US/39 mpg UK).[16] The engine had to be powerful enough for sustained cruising on Germany's new Autobahnen. Everything had to be designed to ensure parts could be quickly and inexpensively exchanged. The engine had to be air-cooled because, as Hitler explained, not every country doctor had his own garage. (Ethylene glycol antifreeze was only just beginning to be used in high-performance liquid-cooled aircraft engines. In general, water in radiators would freeze unless the vehicle was kept in a heated building overnight or drained and refilled each morning.)[24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Beetle

The version of the Volkswagen that became a hit was thought up and commissioned by a central planner. Yes, he hired a private agency to do the designing but the imagination came from a govt man.

[acptulsa]

Also in 1931 the motorcyle firm Zündapp were interested in expanding their motorcycle range with a small and affordable car, Ferdinand Porsche was contracted to developed a prototype. The small cheap car has some simularities [sic] with the later Beetle, it had a backbone chassis and a rear engine (although Porsche preferred the 4-cylinder flat engine, Zündapp chose to use a water-cooled 5-cylinder radial engine).

https://www.pre67vw.com/history/porsche

Hitler saw a prototype a small company couldn't afford to tool up for, demanded a couple of changes (actually authorized changes the original designer wanted to make), and took credit for it.

Would you please pull your head out of Hitler's ass already? I'm sick of seeing the sick bastard held up to me as an example.


I have to say that you are a very hard person to debate.

Nice of you to try to give me credit. But the real problem is socialism sucks.

[juleswin]

https://www.pre67vw.com/history/porsche

Hitler saw a prototype a small company couldn't afford to tool up for, demanded a couple of changes (actually authorized changes the original designer wanted to make), and took credit for it.

Would you please pull your head out of Hitler's ass already? I'm sick of seeing the sick bastard held up to me as an example.

This is not the story I have heard and its not like there are many people out there who would want to make Hitler look good by making up positive stories about him in the news. But lets say you are correct and Hitler did steal the idea from a small car maker. So what you are trying to say is that this amazing concept which was obviously ignore by the market only came into fruition by a commands of a central planner?

[acptulsa]

This is not the story I have heard and its not like there are many people out there who would want to make Hitler look good by making up positive stories about him in the news. But lets say you are correct and Hitler did steal the idea from a small car maker. So what you are trying to say is that this amazing concept which was obviously ignore by the market only came into fruition by a commands of a central planner?

The Model T didn't. The 2CV Citroën didn't. Zundapp didn't run with the design, but they did fund its development. I'm not even sure they decided not to, or couldn't afford to, tool up for it, to be quite clear. They may not have had the chance. Remember, this was not a 'small car maker'. It was a motorcycle company considering a move into a new field. Development began in 1931, these things take time, Hitler saw it in 1933, took the project over and set his propaganda ministry to work giving him credit for it. When did the market get a chance to ignore it? It obviously didn't.

Not many people out there motivated to make Hitler look good? You mean besides Joseph Goebbels and his entire Ministry of Propaganda, right? Did Zundapp have as big a PR department, do you think? Could Zundapp back up their claim to intellectual credit with as many guns?

Why are you saying the "history" you read couldn't just be giving Hitler credit to glorify him? Because "history" is written by the winners? Use your brain, man. The "history" you read was written about 1937-1938. Who was winning then?

[Pauls' Revere]

True and the news of the recent success of Chrystler which the govt took over during the bailout, shafted the share holders is more evidence that socialism, central planning or whatever u call this system can work or rather doesn't always lead to collapse.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531941-Motor-City-MAGA-Fiat-Chrysler-to-Reopen-Idled-Detroit-Plant-Bring-6-5K-U-S-Jobs-Back-to-MI

but it should, this way the market decides instead of a government printing press fortifying a failed venture. Seriously, give me enough money and I can polish any turd. But, its still a turd.

[juleswin]

The Model T didn't. The 2CV Citroën didn't. Zundapp didn't run with the design, but they did fund its development. I'm not even sure they decided not to, or couldn't afford to, tool up for it, to be quite clear. They may not have had the chance. Remember, this was not a 'small car maker'. It was a motorcycle company considering a move into a new field. Development began in 1931, these things take time, Hitler saw it in 1933, took the project over and set his propaganda ministry to work giving him credit for it. When did the market get a chance to ignore it? It obviously didn't.

Not many people out there motivated to make Hitler look good? You mean besides Joseph Goebbels and his entire Ministry of Propaganda, right? Did Zundapp have as big a PR department, do you think? Could Zundapp back up their claim to intellectual credit with as many guns?

Why are you saying the "history" you read couldn't just be giving Hitler credit to glorify him? Because "history" is written by the winners? Use your brain, man. The "history" you read was written about 1937-1938. Who was winning then?

I am reading history of Hitler written on wikipedia and other sources, I doubt Goebbells is still around to edit wikipedia articles. And you say history is written by winners, does that mean that we should just discard the history written by winners? if yes, then why do so many unskeptically believe the history written by the winners about Hitler and Germany? maybe their propaganda ministers lied about the foe they just defeated.

Btw, there are no winners or losers in peace time. Had the history I read written by Germans in 1930s, it still wouldn't be history written by winners. I will continue to believe that Hitler thought up the idea(maybe partly inspired by other things he saw in his world) for the volkswagon because I see no reason why the winners who generally lie about their enemies would write such positive stories about him.

[Madison320]

And Hugo Chavez wanted to smash the capitalist system and yet he wasn't able to do it.

He smashed the hell out of it, what are you talking about? Do I need to relist all the corporations he nationalized?

[acptulsa]

When reading history, does or does not it pay to consider who wrote it, when and why it was written, what other points of view there might have been, and whether those dissenting views were quashed before you got a chance to hear them? History has a momentum. When revisionist history appears, it meets resistance. People do not want what we "know" to be wrong. That's not necessarily bad; it leads to evidence being aired and further research. But sometimes the revisions are absolutely correct, and enlightening. Other times, they result in nothing but a few new details; a few more footnotes.

How much of the Wiki article did you read? It does talk about the Zundapp prototype. It does not say exactly what you think it says. Did you ever see the sketch Hitler allegedly did in a barroom in 1932? In some ways it looks more like the VW (headlights more flush and more inboard) and in some ways the Zundapp prototype does (the aerodynamic roofline). But one thing is certain: The Zundapp prototype had a rear engine, torsion bars, a platform type of backbone frame, and several other distinctive characteristics of the KdF. Now, Hitler was a paperhanger. How likely is a wallpaper artist to put all that together? He didn't indicate any of that on "his" famous napkin.

Here's a thought exercise in logic. Hitler wants a compact, affordable, economical car developed. Hitler takes over Germany. Hitler has heard of this guy Porsche and looks him up. Porsche takes him to see the Zundapp prototype. Hitler says, that's almost perfect, but I like this kind of headlight arrangement. Porsche says, but I prefer an air cooled horizontal four. Zundapp says, we can't afford to develop (that engine, this thing faster, a factory that can produce thousands of them, something we haven't thought of, take your pick).

Now. Hitler made it happen. Hitler had input. But who designed the car? What entity brought it past the embryonic stage, and what entity refined it and took it the rest of the way? And what was new about 'the idea' twenty-five years after Ford produced an affordable car, at the moment Chrysler was introducing an aerodynamic car, as Riley and others were producing cars that produced a measure of speed economically...?

http://smclassiccars.com/uploads/postfotos/1934-desoto-airflow-barn-find-1.JPG
The Chrysler Corporation's DeSoto Airflow, produced and sold to the public in 1934. Does it look a bit familiar? Fact is, the Beetle's "greenhouse" (roof and windows) owe more to this design than to Porsche's Zundapp prototype, his NSU prototype, or Hitler's bar napkin sketch.

Porsche designed the car for Zundapp to a very great degree while Hitler was still scribbling on napkins in Munich bars. Hitler took the project over, leaving us to wonder what Zundapp might have done unimpeded (or NSU--they decided to produce a car very much like "Hitler's Idea", then decided to stick to motorcycles, but could have flip flopped again). Hitler probably can claim credit for the headlight design, though that was refined and made to work by Porsche and his staff (copying Chrysler to an extent). Hitler taxed the public and spent part of that booty on its development. And when Porsche had it ready for production, Hitler had started a war and ordered it shelved. The factory and Porsche's mechanical design went to war...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/VW_Kuebelwagen_1.jpg/280px-VW_Kuebelwagen_1.jpg

...and hardly anyone got a Beetle until after Hitler was dead.

You give Hitler all the credit for that you want. Go ahead. Knock yourself out.


Btw, there are no winners or losers in peace time.

LOL

Tell it to Packard stockholders, the president of Studebaker, John Z. DeLorean, Charles Nash, fans of Indian motorcycles, Borgward, Riley, Hupmobile, Marmon, Pierce Arrow, Auburn, Cord, Duesenberg, Hispano Suiza, Horch, DKW, Simca, Stutz...

[phill4paul]

Socialists I know keep using the argument that "We already LIVE in a socialist democracy. That's why we have public schools, roads, libraries, welfare nets for the poor and elderly, the FBI, Medicare and Medicaid!"

I just tell them I have no disagreement. That's the reason we are $22 trillion dollars in debt. That socialist democracy seems to be working out fine.

[acptulsa]

And if somebody was lying about Hitler scribbling on that napkin in 1932, then the front end styling (the only design element potentially attributable to him) was stolen from the Czech Tatra 77.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7syijSTn73s/TqbDdNM4SeI/AAAAAAAAEFU/5oNS_mlADnw/s400/Tatra%2B77%2Bprototype.jpg

Which we know he saw.


"That is the car for my highways!"
Adolf Hitler to Ferdinand Porsche

Whether Nazi fascism was really socialism or not, in matters of design it appears Hitler was totally a socialist. He was a thief. He stole credit. He stole designs.

[AZJoe]

6. Taxation is Theft

[acptulsa]

I guess I should have mentioned that the main reason nobody missed the VW when Hitler failed to deliver a single one to the market was private enterprise--specifically DKW--already had a water cooled front drive on the market that would do everything the bug would do, and some of it better.

https://bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/1939_dkw_f-7_15614845227210f21aFC3C29D6-0563-4431-B663-D43F16EE1128-e1563206785926.jpeg

DKW technology later became the basis for the Wartburg and Trabant. While the west was snapping up something not designed, but developed by socialists, the communist bloc went just as long with tech stolen from private enterprise. Go figure.

[acptulsa]

Speaking of the Lada...

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aQEzLDd_460swp.webp

Love the nameplate.

https://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/evolution-of-bmw-5-series-lada-perfect-from-the-beginning.jpg

[acptulsa]

For those who read the thread and wondered what a 2CV Citroen is, it's the French Model T, and about as slab-sided as the Tin Lizzie too.

https://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/jet-engine-vs-car-top-gear.gif

[acptulsa]

The main thing Bernie doesn't want his followers to know about socialism:

https://snuggleduck.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/the-revolution-is-complete-focus-on-my-art.jpeg