Geroge Reisman lecture on Nazism & Socialism

[Robert_Bumbalough]

At capitalism.net Dr. George Reisman posts a half hour lecture where he explains the link between Nazism and Socialism. Being an extremely ignorant person, Dr, Reisman's lecture was like a torch served me to expell some of the darkness from me. I want to say my mind instead of me, but me and my mind are one. So on with the show. This is it.

http://www.capitalism.net/index.html

The mp3 file link is below.

http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/08%20Nazism%20and%20Socialism.mp3

Best Wishes for the Reader to Make Huge Profits.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Robert Bumbalough

[Kimmler]

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/assumption_and_ignorance.php

This link is a better one...it helps to clear up the confusion over the alleged similarities between fascism and socialism, which exist in the minds of the ignorant.

[anonrobt]

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/assumption_and_ignorance.php

This link is a better one...it helps to clear up the confusion over the alleged similarities between fascism and socialism, which exist in the minds of the ignorant.

heh - definitely a moonbeam site...

[Kimmler]

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/assumption_and_ignorance.php

This link is a better one...it helps to clear up the confusion over the alleged similarities between fascism and socialism, which exist in the minds of the ignorant.

heh - definitely a moonbeam site...

Hey, the bit where you back up that dogmatic asserstion is missing, what came after the ellipsis?

[Roger Bissell]

I listened carefully to the Reisman lecture, and I read carefully the WSM material, and I learned nothing new about true (laissez-faire) capitalism and nothing new about socialism, whether of the statist-totalitarian or (supposedly) "democratic-consensus" variety. Reisman is (and Rand, before him, was) spot-on in regard to the true totalitarian nature of fascism and National Socialism. The WSM folks read like a near-cousin of the Lyndon Larouche stuff.

Socialism, even if adopted by majority vote, is immoral and impractical. So is the "crony capitalism" (thinly disguised economic fascism) as practiced in America by the Establishment parties. They all inevitably devolve to totalitarian control and breakdown of liberty and prosperity. Free men are not socialists and socialists are not free men.

As for who needs enlightening -- if you have not read Von Mises (and especially his devastating critique, "Socialism") -- you are not entitled to sling around the term "ignorant" against the economic-political views of your ideological opponents.

REB

[Kimmler]

I listened carefully to the Reisman lecture, and I read carefully the WSM material, and I learned nothing new about true (laissez-faire) capitalism and nothing new about socialism, whether of the statist-totalitarian or (supposedly) "democratic-consensus" variety. Reisman is (and Rand, before him, was) spot-on in regard to the true totalitarian nature of fascism and National Socialism. The WSM folks read like a near-cousin of the Lyndon Larouche stuff.

Socialism, even if adopted by majority vote, is immoral and impractical. So is the "crony capitalism" (thinly disguised economic fascism) as practiced in America by the Establishment parties. They all inevitably devolve to totalitarian control and breakdown of liberty and prosperity. Free men are not socialists and socialists are not free men.

As for who needs enlightening -- if you have not read Von Mises (and especially his devastating critique, "Socialism") -- you are not entitled to sling around the term "ignorant" against the economic-political views of your ideological opponents.

REB

As it says in the reply from the WSM "If FT does not wish to learn, the WSM can teach him nothing", the same applies to you Roger and yep I've read Von Mises and his economic calculation nonsense. The WSM debukned that critique in the 20's and 30's.

NEXT!

P.S. Because I have read it and I now entitled to "sling around the term ignorant"?

[Roger Bissell]

I listened carefully to the Reisman lecture, and I read carefully the WSM material, and I learned nothing new about true (laissez-faire) capitalism and nothing new about socialism, whether of the statist-totalitarian or (supposedly) "democratic-consensus" variety. Reisman is (and Rand, before him, was) spot-on in regard to the true totalitarian nature of fascism and National Socialism. The WSM folks read like a near-cousin of the Lyndon Larouche stuff.

Socialism, even if adopted by majority vote, is immoral and impractical. So is the "crony capitalism" (thinly disguised economic fascism) as practiced in America by the Establishment parties. They all inevitably devolve to totalitarian control and breakdown of liberty and prosperity. Free men are not socialists and socialists are not free men.

As for who needs enlightening -- if you have not read Von Mises (and especially his devastating critique, "Socialism") -- you are not entitled to sling around the term "ignorant" against the economic-political views of your ideological opponents.

REB

As it says in the reply from the WSM "If FT does not wish to learn, the WSM can teach him nothing", the same applies to you Roger and yep I've read Von Mises and his economic calculation nonsense. The WSM debukned that critique in the 20's and 30's.

NEXT!

P.S. Because I have read it and I now entitled to "sling around the term ignorant"?

To answer you in your brand of lingo: no, you not.

You are politically free (for now) to do whatever you like. But not logically entitled. Having read Von Mises' discussion of the basic calculation problem of socialism is only a ~necessary~ condition for being able to make rational, factually correct statements about socialism -- not a ~sufficient~ condition. You also have to understand it. More simply (which seems necessary here): even if you have read Von Mises (or someone on the same page as he), you ~still~ may not (and obviously ~do not~) know what you are talking about in defending socialism.

Also, just curious: what does it mean to "debukn" something. I couldn't find that word in my ditcionary.

That's it for me.

REB

[Dennis Hardin]

As for who needs enlightening -- if you have not read Von Mises (and especially his devastating critique, "Socialism") -- you are not entitled to sling around the term "ignorant" against the economic-political views of your ideological opponents.

REB

P.S. Because I have read it and I now entitled to "sling around the term ignorant"?

Great. Now read Atlas Shrugged.

P.S. If you have read it, read it again. And this time, don't speed. Read.

[Kimmler]

As for who needs enlightening -- if you have not read Von Mises (and especially his devastating critique, "Socialism") -- you are not entitled to sling around the term "ignorant" against the economic-political views of your ideological opponents.

REB

P.S. Because I have read it and I now entitled to "sling around the term ignorant"?

Great. Now read Atlas Shrugged.

P.S. If you have read it, read it again. And this time, don't speed. Read.

First insults and now this! Really this is terribly infradig. As a lover of literature I'll skip re-reading Atlas Shrugged. I read it a few years ago and it was ridiculous, when it wasn't being boring.

Why don't you read it again and this time don't speed.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Kimmler

[Kimmler]

Please accept my apalogies for my poor spelling and grammar.

This link does a great job of debunking the theory of 'economic calculation' and how it means that socialism is impossible.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/why_we_dont_need.php

All that remains to be said is read it...very slowly if you wish.

[Brant Gaede]

Please accept my apalogies for my poor spelling and grammar.

This link does a great job of debunking the theory of 'economic calculation' and how it means that socialism is impossible.

http://www.worldsoci...e_dont_need.php

All that remains to be said is read it...very slowly if you wish.

Socialism isn't impossible. Violation of human rights isn't impossible. (Two sentences saying the same thing about the same thing.)

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kimmler,

I have only seen about 10 posts or so by you, but you come off as a preacher for socialism.

Do you ever discuss anything of substance, or do you just express opinions of disapproval of free-market stuff, links to socialist propaganda, and one-liners letting us know what ignorant souls we are?

I guess I'll have to take a deeper look at your posts to find out. After 50 posts or so, I hope there will be something of substance.

I want to encourage discussion here on OL, not just sniping. This is a discussion site, not a target--of the barrel of sitting ducks kind--for trolls for their amusement. I sincerely hope you fall in the discussion category.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, I looked regarding Kimmler.

I'm going to nip this one in the bud.

Steve Johnston (Kimmler's real name) is from England and he joined OL on Oct. 12. His posts on OL are mostly one-liner derogatory opinions of all things Objectivist and Randian. I Googled him and he's pretty active on other sites bashing Rand in this sense. He perfectly fits the profile I gave in my 2006 piece, The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth.

Except for one thing. He does the nasty snarkiness stuff in a crusade-like manner like Randroids and their anti-Rand counterparts do, but there is no substance as there is with real committed Rand-haters. (There is a small amount of substance from him that I read at other places on the Internet, but I have yet to see anything really elaborated or what you could call intellectual. And I don't expect to keep looking after this initial sampling.)

I don't want to ban anyone because they dislike Objectivism, but I don't want this forum overrun with snarky snipes, either. We have a good thing going here. This dude has been averaging 10 posts a day or so since he joined doing nothing but sniping. This is derailing intelligent conversation. You don't really need to argue much against a person who only wants to stick his tongue out at you.

So I have put this guy in the same member category as Xray. He can post 5 posts on OL within each 24 hour period.

That's five times a day he can sneer at a target audience without paying a dime for it. That should be plenty for him to get his jollies.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

That's two too many.

--Brant

he'll probably just go away, being naked and all