Current Events > Penn State professor: ''Hard work is a white ideology''

(+) Yeah! (+)

Hey buddy, why do you say white people but then refer to Asian people as Asians? Not calling you racist, just saying you're kind of saying racist things without meaning to.
---

No one cares Mal
---

josifrees posted...

My point was referring to face to face interaction. I should have been more clear.

Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by that then.
---

Fucking hard working white people! God damn racists get off your high horse. Be lazy!
---

OmegaTomHank posted...

like holy shit..

India has ridiculous rates of early deaths, disease, poverty and a class system worse in the US and this dude just asked me to justify their "success"

Because of their class system. Not because of white people.
---

MildlyIrkedOwl posted...

Sure, if you take the most basic, literature-free comprehension of the term.
"I mean, democratic socialists - it says democrat in there, and socialist, they're left wing!"

And also they ran a collectivist government which seized the means of production from private owners and rallied workers to fight against imperialist capitalist nations.

So they are clearly heavily influenced by socialism, and all the fascist thinkers and politicians were either Marxists or socialists.

But somehow, they're not left-wing.
---

darkjedilink posted...

OmegaTomHank posted...

like holy shit..

India has ridiculous rates of early deaths, disease, poverty and a class system worse in the US and this dude just asked me to justify their "success"

Because of their class system. Not because of white people.

there's a pretty good argument to be made that the caste system as it currently exists is a British creation

Hinduism is the explicit homogenization of various tribal deities within India, unlike most other religions which have actual founding figures, so it's at least plausible. Many parts of the Laws of Manu have been found to be inconsistent with respect to the time period, and the way the British helped keep the peace was by enforcing these supposedly hindu religious laws -- which maybe only the ruling caste in one area ever subscribed to previously
---

Mal_Fet posted...

And also they ran a collectivist government which seized the means of production and rallied workers to fight against imperialist capitalist nations.

hitler privatized previously state run industries, though

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no
exception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later,
the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing
so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which
systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also
unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by
government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse
sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not
ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union,
strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a
political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.
---

Balrog0 posted...

josifrees posted...

My point was referring to face to face interaction. I should have been more clear.

Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by that then.

Poor people and rich people have different problems is what I mean by that
---

josifrees posted...

Poor people and rich people have different problems is what I mean by that

yeah but black people and white people have different problems, too

in general I'm not sure it's true that people of different classes are less alike than people of different races
---

Balrog0 posted...

hitler privatized previously state run industries, though

Turning over a handful of public services to private industries doesn't change how they controlled the production of "private" businesses in Nazi Germany as well as controlled prices of their products and the wages of all employees

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

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

---

Mal_Fet posted...

And also they ran a collectivist government which seized the means of production from private owners and rallied workers to fight against imperialist capitalist nations.

So they are clearly heavily influenced by socialism, and all the fascist thinkers and politicians were either Marxists or socialists.

But somehow, they're not left-wing.

The Nazis gained power by promising voters to alleviate a German economy mired in depression while also restoring German cultural values, reverse the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, turn back the perceived threat of a Communist uprising, put the German people back to work, and restore Germany to its 'rightful position' as a world power,". This all from the holocaust museum.

The key word here is not socialism, it's "national". They opposed everything traditionally socialism and instead preached a fundamentally undemocratic nationalistic agenda. Privileges for aryans, concentration camps for others.

You're right in one sense. The nazis weren't traditionally Tight, and some of the things were influenced by socialist politics. This ultimately came down to lip service on the way to totalitarian power.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Turning over a handful of public services to private industries doesn't change how they controlled the production of "private" businesses in Nazi Germany as well as controlled prices of their products and the wages of all employees

No, you're right, it doesn't.

The existence of price controls doesn't make it any more socialist than the USA, though, either.
---

The SJW left has gone off the deep end. They should just jump off a cliff and be done with it.
---

I bet in a week's time Mal uses that SAT table again to "prove" that "liberals" are dumb.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

cjsdowg posted...

I would not link it to race, but the idea that Hard work = better life is shit . There are lot of people black and white that work super hard at crappy jobs and get know where. There are a lot of people in office jobs that work hard and then get passed over by someone who did less work. Saying hard work will get you where you want to be is bullshit. You can work hard and still lose .

Obviously nothing in life is a sure thing, but if you work hard, you're certainly more likely to succeed than someone who does not.

Try telling that to everyone slaving away at a minimum wage manual labor job.
---

Balrog0 posted...

In addition, privatization was used as a
political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.

So... cronyist neo-feudalism, like Venezuela?

MildlyIrkedOwl posted...

The Nazis gained power by promising voters to alleviate a German economy mired in depression while also restoring German cultural values, reverse the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, turn back the perceived threat of a Communist uprising, put the German people back to work, and restore Germany to its 'rightful position' as a world power,". This all from the holocaust museum.

The key word here is not socialism, it's "national". They opposed everything traditionally socialism and instead preached a fundamentally undemocratic nationalistic agenda. Privileges for aryans, concentration camps for others.

Nothing about nationalism, totalitarianism, or tyranny disqualifies one from being leftist. While true they opposed Leninism/Bolshevism, it's false to say they opposed socialism. They didn't. They called themselves socialists and their government was arranged to be a planned collectivist economy with heavy influence over private industry, much like most socialist countries have. Because fascism is just a derivative of socialism.

Balrog0 posted...

The existence of price controls doesn't make it any more socialist than the USA, though, either.

Price controls in the USA are socialist in concept yes, but Nazi Germany's price/wage controls were way more pervasive and drastic.
---

jayj350 posted...

Try telling that to everyone slaving away at a minimum wage manual labor job.

And one day, they may become manager. Or they can learn new things on their free time, get enough experience and apply for other jobs and work their way up.

There is no magic. There is only ambition, hardwork and dedication.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

according to this lady,

yes and i sure hope you aren't using this as a way to pass judgement on "leftists", "the left", or "liberals", because her views in no way reflect the views of those entire groups.
---

Mal_fet posted...

Nothing about nationalism, tyranny, or tyranny

What a wordsmith you are.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Price controls in the USA are socialist in concept yes, but Nazi Germany's price/wage controls were way more pervasive and drastic.

What's your evidence of that? We had very tight price controls and supply restrictions during WWII, you know, when this was happening in Germany.

In fact, these general supply restrictions and price controls were a relatively new feature of our government that increased how socialist it was overall. In Germany, most industries had become state-sponsored in the aftermath of WWI, so the Nazi change in policy represents a move towards capitalism and away from socialism, if still imperfectly. They did plenty of other things for individual rights, too -- for instance, gun ownership became far less restricted for everyone but the Jews.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Because fascism is just a derivative of socialism.

Did you already forget when you brought up Mussolini's fascist manifesto and it quite literally stated that fascism is the complete rejection of socialism?
---

Balrog0 posted...

What's your evidence of that? We had very tight price controls and supply restrictions during WWII, you know, when this was happening in Germany.

Well yeah, FDR implemented a lot of socialist policies. It's not like socialism's definition changed temporarily in the 30's and 40's.

Balrog0 posted...

In fact, these general supply restrictions and price controls were a relatively new feature of our government that increased how socialist it was overall. In Germany, most industries had become state-sponsored in the aftermath of WWI, so the Nazi change in policy represents a move towards capitalism and away from socialism, if still imperfectly.

False. I refer you back to this:

Mal_Fet posted...

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

---

scar the 1 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Because fascism is just a derivative of socialism.

Did you already forget when you brought up Mussolini's fascist manifesto and it quite literally stated that fascism is the complete rejection of socialism?

What does this Mussolini guy know about fascism? Can we be sure that he's not a agent of soro's?
---

Yet all the successful people advocate "work smart not hard"
---

scar the 1 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Because fascism is just a derivative of socialism.

Did you already forget when you brought up Mussolini's fascist manifesto and it quite literally stated that fascism is the complete rejection of socialism?

Mussolini viewed fascism as an evolution of socialism.

Also, Mussolini was one of those socialists who attempted to create a perfect socialist society. Read up on the kind of things he did in Salo.
---

Yes, I read it, so what about it rebuts what I said? I'm giving you context for the policies, which that doesn't do. The fact that only one of the most hardcore classical liberal economists considered Nazis socialist should tell you something, and that something shouldn't be "just agree with that guy," as much as I like LvM
---

There is no reason to ever respond to a Mal topic. He is disingenuous, never knows what he is talking about, and has no respect for non-Caucasians.
---

Was she fired?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Also, Mussolini was one of those socialists who attempted to create a perfect socialist society. Read up on the kind of things he did in Salo.

Read up on how often his platform changed and how fascism views that.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Yes, I read it, so what about it rebuts what I said? I'm giving you context for the policies, which that doesn't do. The fact that only one of the most hardcore classical liberal economists considered Nazis socialist should tell you something,

Only one? Are you sure about that?

I call Nazis socialists because they meet the definition of socialism, or at least the version of it known as "fascism", which is just socialism with the theory that the masses could be motivated by ethnic solidarity rather than class solidarity. And any claims that they privatized government services is rebutted by the fact that all private industries were controlled almost directly by the Nazi government.

Which, last I checked, was a pretty leftist idea.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Only one? Are you sure about that?

that's the framing of the article you posted, so no I'm not sure, I'm taking it for granted

Mal_Fet posted...

I call Nazis socialists because they meet the definition of socialism, or at least the version of it known as "fascism", which is just socialism with the theory that the masses could be motivated by ethnic solidarity rather than class solidarity. And any claims that they privatized government services is rebutted by the fact that all private industries were controlled almost directly by the Nazi government.

Which, last I checked, was a pretty leftist idea.

It doesn't even say that in the article you posted, though. It actually doesn't even try to prove that price controls were in fact enforced by the mechanisms it talks about, tbqh, it just talks a lot about the theory behind calling price controls a form of socialism -- which it then takes pains to clarify that the Nazis were that way before they established price controls anyway.
---

ITT Mal tries to equate leftism/the left/liberals with Nazis

and, honestly, the terrifying part is that i think, in his mind, he actually believes all of it.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

ITT Mal tries to equate leftism/the left/liberals with Nazis

and, honestly, the terrifying part is that i think, in his mind, he actually believes all of it.

Every one of his topics devolves into him trying to equate Nazis and socialists/liberals. This is why he's a board-wide joke
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Nothing about nationalism, totalitarianism, or tyranny disqualifies one from being leftist. While true they opposed Leninism/Bolshevism, it's false to say they opposed socialism. They didn't. They called themselves socialists and their government was arranged to be a planned collectivist economy with heavy influence over private industry, much like most socialist countries have. Because fascism is just a derivative of socialism.

They absolutely opposed socialism. From Richard J Evans:

True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be the socialism of fools. But from the very beginning, Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the November traitors who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats.


Nazis took the leftist label for tactical reasons. Joachim Fest:
And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitlers party was socialist only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a workers party in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitlers protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy.

Left wing nationalism typically rejects ethno nationalism and fascism. Right wing nationalism doesn't. And how do we assess the basis for right wing politics? Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal or desirable.
http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/right-wing
---

Balrog0 posted...

that's the framing of the article you posted, so no I'm not sure, I'm taking it for granted

Where does the article say only that one guy believes Nazis were of the left?

Balrog0 posted...

It doesn't even say that in the article you posted, though.

It absolutely does.

For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

Balrog0 posted...

which it then takes pains to clarify that the Nazis were that way before they established price controls anyway.

So they continued and embraced socialist policies, therefore they weren't socialist?

CocteauQuintplt posted...

Every one of his topics devolves into him trying to equate Nazis and socialists/liberals. This is why he's a board-wide joke

Lmao I didn't even bring it up, you simp.

MildlyIrkedOwl posted...

True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be the socialism of fools. But from the very beginning, Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the November traitors who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats.

"Leftism" "socialism" "Social Democracy" and "Communism" are not interchangeable terms. You can oppose Bolshevism and Leninism while still being a leftist/socialist, and the fact that Hitler rejected several other forms of socialism doesn't prove he himself wasn't one.

Seriously, go on some leftist forums sometime. It's astounding how much bickering goes on between adherents of Lenin vs. adherents of Mao.

MildlyIrkedOwl posted...

And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitlers party was socialist only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a workers party in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitlers protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy.

And yet their government is still a top-down planned collectivist economy which seized the means of production.

The fact that they chose to use the word "socialist" for tactical reasons doesn't disqualify that their system was obviously socialist.
---

MildlyIrkedOwl posted...

Left wing nationalism typically rejects ethno nationalism and fascism.

Unless you're Che Guevara. Or Mao Zedong. Or Pol Pot.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Where does the article say only that one guy believes Nazis were of the left?

that's not what I said, either

Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

Mal_Fet posted...

It absolutely does.

For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

there's a big difference between saying that these firms are under direct government control by the nazis, and that they were 'essentially' under control of the nazis because of wage and price controls

do you not see that distinction between things run by politburo and things run privately with regulations on prices?

Mal_Fet posted...

So they continued and embraced socialist policies, therefore they weren't socialist?

Incidentally, none of this is to suggest that price controls were the cause of the reign of terror instituted by the Nazis. The Nazis began their reign of terror well before the enactment of price controls. As a result, they enacted price controls in an environment ready made for their enforcement.

no, the existence of price controls is what makes them socialist apart from having a totalitarian regime. you don't even seem to have read your material thoroughly
---

Balrog0 posted...

there's a big difference between saying that these firms are under direct government control by the nazis, and that they were 'essentially' under control of the nazis because of wage and price controls

I want you to read that segment again and tell me if it says the only control the Nazis had over businesses was wage and price controls.
---

CocteauQuintplt posted...

There is no reason to ever respond to a Mal topic. He is disingenuous, never knows what he is talking about, and has no respect for non-Caucasians.

---

Bishop9800 posted...

CocteauQuintplt posted...

There is no reason to ever respond to a Mal topic. He is disingenuous, never knows what he is talking about, and has no respect for non-Caucasians.

Why should I stop posting about dumb leftists if it causes you guys so much butthurt?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Bishop9800 posted...

CocteauQuintplt posted...

There is no reason to ever respond to a Mal topic. He is disingenuous, never knows what he is talking about, and has no respect for non-Caucasians.

Why should I stop posting about dumb leftists if it causes you guys so much butthurt?

About as low as a comment as I expect from you.

"Uhuhuh, at least it makes libs butthurt!"
---

CocteauQuintplt posted...

About as low as a comment as I expect from you.

Says a guy who calls me a racist because he doesn't like that I make fun of leftists.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Why should I stop posting about dumb leftists if it causes you guys so much butthurt?

First of all, I'm not a leftists. (Whatever that is) Second to answer your question, maybe you should stop so you can get out that bullshit frame of mind you're in. You know, relying on sterotypes to judge people. Plus it will stop making you look like a idiot. Also, if you stop, you might learn that NATO was formed before 911.
---

Bishop9800 posted...

First of all, I'm not a leftists. (Whatever that is)

I like how your reading comprehension is so terrible that you can't even retain one sentence. I didn't even call you a leftist! Lmfao
---

Mal_Fet posted...

CocteauQuintplt posted...

About as low as a comment as I expect from you.

Says a guy who calls me a racist because he doesn't like that I make fun of leftists.

No, it is because of your blatant dislike for anybody of color.
---

CocteauQuintplt posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

CocteauQuintplt posted...

About as low as a comment as I expect from you.

Says a guy who calls me a racist because he doesn't like that I make fun of leftists.

No, it is because of your blatant dislike for anybody of color.

Yeah sure buddy.

Keep contributing to the lcd mudslinging of the left that is driving more and more rational people to the right.
---

If not already mentioned... I always felt hard work was a self satisfaction thing for some.

Like knowing you've earned you money regardless of if it's crap pay or good pay.

Like you don't feel that it's some hand down.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Keep contributing to the lcd mudslinging of the left that is driving more and more rational people to the right.

Slinging muddy LCDs is a bad idea. Those things are really damn hard, with sharp edges.