IBM, Hitler and the Holocaust: A Terrible Tale of Capitalism

You must forget all of the wars and military actions we have been involved with.

 

http://www.scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/

 

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/

 

Definitely. You found an acorn. How interesting.

 

By that criteria, the vast majority of our politicians since FDR have been socialists.

 

Like a lot of politicians, Hitler claimed to support the interests of his people over the interests of the elite, but in the end, the elite were his main benefactors.

At the time, socialism had grown in popularity because of the extreme poverty in Germany. Hitler kept some of his promises as far as taking care of the needs of the people, but the catch was that he limited "the people" to ones who obeyed him and who didn't happen to be ethnic minorities.

So, the amount of control that he exerted over industry could be described as socialist along with the social programs he supported. However, his dealings with big business could be described as crony capitalist or corporatist.

 

I am a big fan of military history actually. I'm very well versed in all military action the United States has been involved in. We can discuss any of them in minute detail if you wish.

Out of curiosity, why have you chosen to respond to my post, but have not actually addressed the points that I made? You still have not backed up any of your ridiculous assertions with any sort of logic or supporting evidence.

I cited actual numbers. Granted those numbers are estimates, but the cultural revolution and the purges did occur with perhaps as many as 138 million dead. Can you give me your figures on how many deaths capitalism in the United States is responsible for?

The real question here is, are you mature enough to admit that you have no idea what you are talking about? You cannot backup your assertions not because your debating skill are non-existent, but because they have no basis in reality at all.

 

Seriously, what are you talking about?

Once again you cite the frickin' Autobahn as some sort of evidence that the NSDAP were 'socialists'?

And once again, I ask you, were Reagan and Bush both socialists for Presiding with a welfare state in place?

Did you not bother to take in the explaination someone else gave you behind the name?

Did you think it better to ignore the part in which I said lots and lots of socialists were either sent to prison, or to their death, or both? FOR BEING LEFT WING SOCIALISTS!

Nazi's are leftist..

Jeez - listen, did you get a state ed or a private ed?

PS - I also never claimed the party were 'capitalist', did I?

 

HB surfer

Among the earliest victims of discrimination and persecution in Nazi Germany were political opponents -- primarily Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, and trade union leaders

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007329

 

But corporations fit seamlessly into the lunacy and profited by it by furthering it.

The role of large corporations in the death camps is well documented.

 

Depends on your definition of Capitalism. If by capitalism, you mean individuals controlling the means of production and capital, then yes, we do have capitalism. But it is by no means a free market system, we are a hybrid of socialism and fascism right now. Free-market capitalism has been dead for a century.

 

In its idealized form, I'm not sure how you could say capitalism has ever existed.

While there are more social programs now than there were 100 years ago, government still played a part in favoring certain producers over others back then.

I'm not aware of any period of time where some form of government didn't meddle in production and tilt the market to its own ends.

Perhaps, there have been a few isolated tribes that could represent a purely free market, but aside from that...

 

How many deaths have resulted in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea? Not to mention the deaths resulted in puppet governments supported by the US to make sure out interests are safe?

 

With good reason to.

The free market people always tout that a free market economy would solve all the problems because there would be so much competition in the market place everyone would have to be a goody two shoes o keep and/or attract customers.

In reality this happens....for a while....

then of course the reality that free market fundamentalists utterly ignore happens.

Trusts and monopolies form. AND EVERYONE GETS BONED!!!!

See, for a while everything is peachy, everyone acts nice to get customers, and things are fairly balanced. Then of course a little something called human ingenuity happens (been around for, oh, about since the beginning of humanity). And one of those companies invents something that revolutionizes the field (like apple did with the pc), the competitors all either drop off the face of the earth as people migrate to the cool company, or they adapt, but will forever lag behind in the field until they make something new themselves (like IBM).
This gives the big company a huge amount of market power and often times they get rid of the competition. Then they starts screwing customers up the ass, but since theres no one to switch to, everyone is stuck with the now asshated company (imagine how (*)(*)(*)(*)ty the computer world would be if Bill Gates had not come along and kept apple from taking over the market forever).
With apple and microsoft in the market place you have a somewhat decent system of competition where both of them screw their customers a little bit (pc`s tun to (*)(*)(*)(*) after 4 years, and mac`s, while built better, don`t allow flash and are more overpriced then just about everything else thats overpriced on earth). But neither side does it enough to drive everyone to the other guy.

There are other ways the free market gets (*)(*)(*)(*)ed to, besides monopolies, there is something really similar called trusts.

Trusts have the same origins as monopolies, but they also can happen because some company gets the drop on something new before everyone else (like oil, electricity, or freaking telephones). They chug along, and get so big they start swallowing up any competition that sprouts up, but unlike simple monopolies, trusts are even worse because unlike a monopoly, which usually only affects a single country, trusts can bone the world (like the oil trust in the late 1800`s), and they can grow even more powerful than the government, which means they own the government (like in the early 1900`s). which pretty much gives them license to do anything. like blow up new competitors who refuse to get bought, not to mention they can start to bone their employees(like in the early 1800`s-1900`s).
Now that there are anti trust laws businesses have to be sneaky to gain this type of power. Take a look at what the cable companies and the cell phone companies are doing behind closed doors and you will see (or not lol) what i am talking about.

Trusts and monopolies are an inevitability in a completely free market economy. For instance, anti trust laws are pretty much the only things keeping google from taking over the internet, and facebook from running ever other social networking site short of twitter off the web.

You can`t stop it without regulation. Humans are human, and humans are greedy bastards, and the second a greedier than normal person gets an opportunity to take power in a place like a free market things get (*)(*)(*)(*)ing bloody. and then its 1984.

boom

 

So I take it by your response that all of the German homosexuals were Jews? All of the handicapped were Jews? All of the Croats, Slavs, Ukrainians were Jews?

 

Yep you can go back to George Washington as CIC and find government involvement in the private sector.

Socialized government may be a Liberal utopia, but free market capitalism is a Conservative utopia. We have never in this country had a purely free market.

 

back when George was around a free market was much better than it would be now because the world was, literally a much larger place.
Running a global business empire capable of monopolies was nearly impossible (besides a few exceptions, like the east India trading company). the earth was the best regulator ever.

then 150 years ago, telegraph`s began circling the globe... all of a sudden the world was much smaller. Business decisions could be made in a instant from the other side of the world. publicly owned companies began appearing, because they actually became practical (gl keeping up with the stocks in London while your commanding your businesses trade fleet in Hong Kong in the 1820`s) and corporations began to form...

 

Wrong. Both the Nazis and Soviets were heavily financed by international bankers, particularly JP Morgan (Nazis), Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co (Trotsky), and the Rockefellers (Lenin, Stalin).

I disagree that the policies of the Nazis and Soviets were implemented to bring about the benefit of the general public rather than the benefit of the elite. That is a statement that is not based in reality.

 

You are correct, Margot.

Besides, Hitler was a socialist.

He detested captialism!

 

You're catching on. Keep it up.

 

I love this meme!

Hitler was cozy with all the big German corporations and had Farben run his death camp at Auschwitz. And of courese, Prescot Bush (Georgies' grand daddy), a entrepreneurial banker, loaned him the money to do it (for which Prescott got sanctioned by Congress).

How appropriate -- A Nazi collaborator in the Bush family.

Go figure. What a strange socialist -- one that didn't socialize industry!

 

Exactly that period when the US became the largest economy on the planet and US standard of living rose for most citizens.

I see a pattern!

 

Stop joking and go read a book.

 

oh yeah... I remember hearing something about that YEARS ago.
Must have been when Bush Senior was running and someone dug up the dirt on daddy lol.

 

Standard of living is defined by real private GDP per capita. That means how much private economic output there is per person. Only real labor can produce economic growth. Government cannot, and is infact impeding economic growth. Economic growth (in terms of real private GDP per capita) has significanlty slowed down in the last 40 years since our currency went totally fiat. Your claim that subversion of the free market is the reason we have the standard of living we have today is not based on reality but on baseless speculation.