Jordan Peterson interview on C4

markodaly

professore wrote: »

For some reason communism and Marxism is held up as the ideal system still while it is at least as bad as fascism. I can only imagine that it's because everyone knows who Hitler was and what he did but far fewer know who Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and a whole slew of evil across the world were. Castro is held up as a hero FFS.

Yes, this is odd alright. Modern society has a revulsion towards fascism and Nazism. Like, literally no one wants to be a Nazi or associated with it. It is literally up there with being a Paedophile. Outcasts of society.

Yet, then on the other hand, on the other extreme of the spectrum we have self declared Marxists. These are people who are proud to be one and they walk among society freely without the shame associated with being a Nazi.

Yet, the two ideologies are so similar in their authoritarianism, tyranny and body count, they are like twin brothers.

It is like Nazi's are seen as a fundamental threat to society, while Marxists are seen as happy well meaning idiots and fools.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

There are a plethora of idiots who take it seriously. Some of them make YouTube videos apparently.

In fairness Brian, Pa ElGrande has written two long and well thought out posts outlining his position and even referencing academic journals to back up the points he/she is making.

Instead, you just dismiss it out of hand with one sentence answers and then write the above. If you are not prepared to spend the same time and energy arguing the point like Pa ElGrande then perhaps its best not to say anything at all, it just comes across as petulant and close minded.

IIGeminiII

The Nazis absolutely had strong socialist tendencies. It's not even controversial. It's the other stuff they did which was bad. Not sure why some people are challenged by that.

Speaking as a proud socialist btw.

WinnyThePoo

markodaly wrote: »

In fairness Brian, Pa ElGrande has written two long and well thought out posts outlining his position and even referencing academic journals to back up the points he/she is making.

Instead, you just dismiss it out of hand with one sentence answers and then write the above. If you are not prepared to spend the same time and energy arguing the point like Pa ElGrande then perhaps its best not to say anything at all, it just comes across as petulant and close minded.

Nothing petulant or close minded. Just seeing a couple here re writing history is truly pathetic.

markodaly

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Nothing petulant or close minded. Just seeing a couple here re writing history is truly pathetic.

Then debate the points raised. If you are correct, it should be easy, no?

Brian?

Pepefrogok wrote: »

Hey your arguments are sound lads! Just because they were called socialists and had socialist policies just shout anyone who mentions it down, don't even argue the points! Just shout them down!

What socialist policies?

What about the policies they had that were completely the opposite of socialist policies? Like throwing ethnic minorities in ovens.

Sometimes one side of a debate are so wrong, they don't really deserve an intelligent response. The Nazis weren't socialists.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Then debate the points raised. If you are correct, it should be easy, no?

Honestly, the points aren't worth debating.


Do you engage in intelligent debate with the flat earth society? Or do you laugh at their stupidity.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

In fairness Brian, Pa ElGrande has written two long and well thought out posts outlining his position and even referencing academic journals to back up the points he/she is making.

Instead, you just dismiss it out of hand with one sentence answers and then write the above. If you are not prepared to spend the same time and energy arguing the point like Pa ElGrande then perhaps its best not to say anything at all, it just comes across as petulant and close minded.

They were long, yes. Well thought out? No.

The Nazis weren't socialists. It's a historical fact, not a point of debate.

As I said, I am happy to debate the relative merits of socialism. I am also happy to discuss what the Nazis and the Soviets had in common. I am happy to debate who was more evil, as that's a worthy debate. I am not going to debate that they were both socialists. It's a monumentally stupid starting point.

HappyAsLarE

Brian? wrote: »

What socialist policies?

What about the policies they had that were completely the opposite of socialist policies? Like throwing ethnic minorities in ovens.

Sometimes one side of a debate are so wrong, they don't really deserve an intelligent response. The Nazis weren't socialists.

How do you not see the link between tyranny and socialism? The Nazis took from the rich (Jews) in the worst possible way.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

Honestly, the points aren't worth debating.

Suit yourself but one may look at that as a concession to the points made. Pa ElGrande made some interesting and compelling points. I am sure they are worth a better rebuttal than 'it's just stupid'.

Brian? wrote: »

Do you engage in intelligent debate with the flat earth society? Or do you laugh at their stupidity.

Who decides what debates are worthy or not. A debate with a flat-earther would seem easy to win in my opinion. Surely this debate would be easy for you to win likewise.

The reason why it's a debate because the question has been raised in the first place. There is a different train of thought out there in regards if the Nazi's were anywhere socialist. If you look at the evidence put forward in this thread that economically they were indeed very socialist in their nature.

dav3

Brian? wrote: »

There are a plethora of idiots who take it seriously. Some of them make YouTube videos apparently.

Well I don't know about you, but I love nothing better than watching a 10 hour long video of a loud mouth american whoring himself out for money on youtube, or a weird pasty looking chap desperately trying to sound american or british telling us the nazis weren't all that bad.

I also enjoy when people copy and paste walls of text from far-right websites and try to pass the work off as their own and then proceed to get upset when they get called out on their bullsh*t and intellectual bankruptcy.

To think that there may be some people in this thread who have gone through the education system and have come out the other end thinking the nazis were socialists is mind-blowing.

I'll go through it again for the idiots who aren't trolling.

The fact that the nazis had the word 'socialist' in their name is irrelevant. They also had the word 'party' in there too. They could have called themselves the 'we love everyone and everything, sunshine, lollipops and rainbow party', it doesn't matter. It's not your political name that defines you, it's your actions and your ideology.

As long as you weren't jewish, black, dark skinned, disabled, a communist, left-wing, a trade unionist, a gypsy, a homosexual, an actual socialist, a working class person who didn't know their place, a woman who wasn't prepared to be a second class citizen, and the list goes on. Then sure, you may have been eligible for some of that good old fashioned nazi socialism.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

The Nazis weren't socialists. It's a historical fact, not a point of debate.

As I said, its more complicated than your monochrome world would have you believe.

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

On 5 January 1919, Drexler created a new political party and proposed it be named the "German Socialist Workers' Party", but Harrer objected to the term "socialist"; so the term was removed and the party was named the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP).[30] To ease concerns among potential middle-class supporters, Drexler made clear that unlike Marxists the party supported the middle-class and that its socialist policy was meant to give social welfare to German citizens deemed part of the Aryan race.

the swastika representing the Aryan race and the Aryan nationalist agenda of the movement; white representing Aryan racial purity; and red representing the socialist agenda of the movement

Look at their program. Nationalisation of industry, protections for mothers and babies, redistribution of private profits, expansion of the welfare state, land reforms.

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

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Suit yourself but one may look at that as a concession to the points made. Pa ElGrande made some interesting and compelling points. I am sure they are worth a better rebuttal than 'it's just stupid'.



Who decides what debates are worthy or not. A debate with a flat-earther would seem easy to win in my opinion. Surely this debate would be easy for you to win likewise.

The reason why it's a debate because the question has been raised in the first place. There is a different train of thought out there in regards if the Nazi's were anywhere socialist. If you look at the evidence put forward in this thread that economically they were indeed very socialist in their nature.

I’m happy to debate whether the Nazis had similar economic policies to those a socialist government may have. They didn’t, by the way.

But that isn’t the issue at hand. Someone stated categorically that the Nazis were socialists, supported by a YouTube video. All I’m asking is that we all accept the fact that they weren’t. Once we’ve accepted that point, I’m happy to debate anything else you want.

Why am I taking this position? Because there is a revisionist narrative being propagated by the alt right that the Nazis were socialists which is factually incorrect.

Again. Happy to debate once we agree on basic historical facts.

markodaly

dav3 wrote: »

it's your actions and your ideology.

Correct, hence my stance that at least economically they had much in common with Socialism and Socialists.

Brian?

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

How do you not see the link between tyranny and socialism? The Nazis took from the rich (Jews) in the worst possible way.

I see a link between soviet style socialism and tyranny. It doesn’t t change history.

johnp001

Brian? wrote: »

Honestly, the points aren't worth debating.

markodaly wrote: »

Suit yourself but one may look at that as a concession to the points made. Pa ElGrande made some interesting and compelling points. I am sure they are worth a better rebuttal than 'it's just stupid'.

Brian? wrote: »

Do you engage in intelligent debate with the flat earth society? Or do you laugh at their stupidity.

markodaly wrote: »

Who decides what debates are worthy or not. A debate with a flat-earther would seem easy to win in my opinion. Surely this debate would be easy for you to win likewise.

The reason why it's a debate because the question has been raised in the first place. There is a different train of thought out there in regards if the Nazi's were anywhere socialist. If you look at the evidence put forward in this thread that economically they were indeed very socialist in their nature.

The question of whether Nazis were socialists came up previously on this thread about 50 pages ago and no conclusive argument was made either way.
If I was a vehement advocate of the position that the Nazis were not socialist I would now feel it was incumbent upon me to make a better case to support my viewpoint however as anyone reading the last few pages without a strong conviction on the matter would have to conclude not only that they were socialist but that those that oppose that assertion are ideologues unwilling to provide rational argument in refutation.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

As I said, its more complicated than your monochrome world would have you believe.

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




Look at their program. Nationalisation of industry, protections for mothers and babies, redistribution of private profits, expansion of the welfare state, land reforms.

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

You realise those aren’t just socialist policies? You realise the Nazis at their core were nationalist populists? They didn’t get elected on exterminating Jews and invading France. They got elected on the promise of a “Germany first” economic policy that was essentially a populist platform. The Jew killing came later.

Brian?

johnp001 wrote: »

The question of whether Nazis were socialists came up previously on this thread about 50 pages ago and no conclusive argument was made either way.
If I was a vehement advocate of the position that the Nazis were not socialist I would now feel it was incumbent upon me to make a better case to support my viewpoint however as anyone reading the last few pages without a strong conviction on the matter would have to conclude not only that they were socialist but that those that oppose that assertion are ideologues unwilling to provide rational argument in refutation.

It was proved conclusively.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

You realise those aren’t just socialist policies? You realise the Nazis at their core were nationalist populists? They didn’t get elected on exterminating Jews and invading France. They got elected on the promise of a “Germany first” economic policy that was essentially a populist platform. The Jew killing came later.

Are you saying that the Nazi's hid their anti-Semitism and ambitions for territorial expansion from the German population?

Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler was explicit in this views on the Jews back in the 1920's.
The Nazi's were also explicit in the view on righting the wrongs of Versailles and expanding their territory, eastwards.

You have offered no rational argument to state that economically the Nazi's did not adopt Socialist policies and implemented them when in power.

WinnyThePoo

markodaly wrote: »

Are you saying that the Nazi's hid their anti-Semitism and ambitions for territorial expansion from the German population?

Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler was explicit in this views on the Jews back in the 1920's.
The Nazi's were also explicit in the view on righting the wrongs of Versailles and expanding their territory, eastwards.

You have offered no rational argument to state that economically the Nazi's did not adopt Socialist policies and implemented them when in power.

Whats your main aim here ?

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Are you saying that the Nazi's hid their anti-Semitism and ambitions for territorial expansion from the German population?

Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler was explicit in this views on the Jews back in the 1920's.
The Nazi's were also explicit in the view on righting the wrongs of Versailles and expanding their territory, eastwards.

You have offered no rational argument to state that economically the Nazi's did not adopt Socialist policies and implemented them when in power.

Funnily enough, I haven't read Mein Kampf. Are you denying the Nazis weren't elected on a nationalist and populist platform?

I have offered no rational argument, beyond repeating the Nazis weren't socialists. I am happy to debate the similarities between Nazi policies and socialist policies once we agree on the facts. I can't be involved in a debate that ignores actual facts.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

Funnily enough, I haven't read Mein Kampf. Are you denying the Nazis weren't elected on a nationalist and populist platform?

They were elected to power on their 25 point plan which had elements of nationalism, anti-semitism, populism and socialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

You seem to be ok with 3 out of the 4 yet, want to deny that there was any socialistic policies and aims within the heart of the Nazi's.

Brian?

I honestly can't believe I have to do this

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

They were elected to power on their 25 point plan which had elements of nationalism, anti-semitism, populism and socialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

You seem to be ok with 3 out of the 4 yet, want to deny that there was any socialistic policies and aims within the heart of the Nazi's.

As per your normal modus operandi, you're not responding to what I'm actually posting.

I never commented either way on whether some of their policies were "socialistic". I said they weren't socialists.

But then, the policies you describe as "socialistic" were actually populist as well.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

They were elected to power on their 25 point plan which had elements of nationalism, anti-semitism, populism and socialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

You seem to be ok with 3 out of the 4 yet, want to deny that there was any socialistic policies and aims within the heart of the Nazi's.

You're actually editing out the important part of my posts repeatedly. Why is That?

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

I honestly can't believe I have to do this

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

I read that article before and it falls well below the usual standard set out by Snopes. Snopes used to be a good fact checker but has been caught up in a wave of hysteria in the post Trump era it seems. Quality seems to be lacking in recent fact checks.

It actually reads more like an opinion piece rather than a careful analysis of the facts presented on both sides, and the conclusion? Reads like that of a teenager rather then that of an academic.

An alternative. OK, it presents on point of view but its far more transparent and they don't pass themselves off as 'we are the only truth that matters'

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

Even if you take away the conclusion, compare and contrast the way the argument was researched and written.

As per Snopes, the aura of them being some paragons of truth has been busted.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#79947165227f

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

I never commented either way on whether some of their policies were "socialistic". I said they weren't socialists.

I never made that claim either. I did say they borrowed heavily on the economic theory from Socialists as per evidence shows us.

The Nazi's were all for an interventionist, planned economy with important industries nationalised, the expansion of the welfare state and with a large emphasis of re-distribution of private profits.

Any modern day socialist would agree with all the above.

Pa ElGrande

Brian? wrote: »

They were long, yes. Well thought out? No.

The Nazis weren't socialists. It's a historical fact, not a point of debate.

As I said, I am happy to debate the relative merits of socialism. I am also happy to discuss what the Nazis and the Soviets had in common. I am happy to debate who was more evil, as that's a worthy debate. I am not going to debate that they were both socialists. It's a monumentally stupid starting point.

Let's start with the proper definition of socialism which is this: All the means of production are in the exclusive control of the organised community. This and this alone is socialism. All other definitions are misleading. The Nazis also had their own interpretation described as Prussian Socialism and outlined in the Guardian by the man himself from a 1923 interview. During their maniacal reign from 1933 to 1945 they took control of Germanys means of production initially by means of price controls and then direct theft, murder and enslavement. The same economic system has happened in our lifetimes in Venezuela with the expected consequences for any regime that degrades private property rights to this extent.

Mutant z

I always love it when SJWs get torn apart which is what makes the likes of Jordan Peterson great speakers.

Dyr

Anyway back on track to the topic at hand

The class of deluded hysterics that the evil Peterson is oppressing

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