__________
#28 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-13 10:07 AM
For example while they claimed they were going eliminate private property they never did especially for the elite Germans.
Yeah, read the Mises.org link about that - it explains why they "never did" that, and "total control" didn't mean "total ownership" as communism/Marxism demanded - their socialism was different from Marxism. And even in Soviet Union they "never eliminated private property, especially for the elite Russians." And shortly after the Great Revolution of 1917, they had to institute "New Economic Policy / NEP," which went well beyond even National Socialism in allowing private property and commerce to save the communist economy from ruin.
www.britannica.com (brief)
en.wikipedia.org
Same in Cuba, and other "socialist/Marxist" countries where the elites enjoyed privileges of dachas and private investments and accumulated great wealth.
Hitler didn't make the mistake of abolishing significantly more efficient large private industrial enterprises (again, see reasons in mises.org link and elsewhere) - which allowed rapid rebuilding of the Wehrmacht economy - but he did, for example, force Ferdinand Porsche to create Volkswagen ("People's car") for the masses, etc. etc.
What most fans of "socialism" are trying to imply is that, on one hand, "socialism" can have many forms other than failed "communism" and be "good, benevolent" - yet in another breath they insist that only Marxist "socialism" (Marx himself didn't distinguish between "socialism" and "communism") was the only and true one, and there can be no other (like German National Socialism) which we all know has definitely not been the case.
Even in Soviet Union there were several different socialist groups. the largest of which were Bolsheviks (far-left faction of the original Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party [RSDLP]) led by Lenin, Stalin, Dzerzhinsky et al(eventual, and the only winners) and more bourgeois-socialist Mensheviks, led by Trotsky, Axelrod, Dan, Martov et al., which were eventually outlawed and subjugated or eliminated.
Historians generally agree that Nazism was a distinct ideology separate from traditional socialism
Mo, historians, like Hitler and Goebbels, generally agree that Nazism is different from Marxism ("traditional"?? socialism) - which would be correct.
Like I said, unless you think that "traditional socialism / Marxism" (i.e., "total government ownership of means of production" and total elimination of private property / enterprises) is the only form of "socialism" then it's difficult to explain the existence of [and attachment to] "other/benevolent forms(?)" of "socialism."
... but their core ideology was centered on race, nationalism, and state power...
Yes, and as my posts and links show, none of these exclude "socialism" - after all, the core of socialism is state power and "patriotism"
Repeat: Communism requires "total ownership of means of production"; fascism imposes "total control over means of production" - but both are socialist totalitarian regimes (government 'uber alles' / above individual rights).
Who better to learn this from than the chief propagandist of ideology?
It is well known now that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime frequently used deception and propaganda to mask their true intentions and advance their agenda.
Yes, so do/did every other socialist/communist country - that's why need for total control/ownership of the media. In USSR "samizdat" (underground press) was prosecuted, and typewriters issued only to "good communists."
__________
__________
Something about word "nuclear" is always getting some people all hyper and buggered.
The premise of the article is idiotic - that "This should stop before an arms race, atomic terrorism or even nuclear war results."
"This" being R&D of nuclear energy for peaceful and safe(r) nuclear plants and reactors. As if any of that will result in (new?) "arms race, atomic terrorism or even nuclear war."
On the contrary, the new reactors are designed to be safe from exactly the ills author describes, that previous designs and plants were susceptible to, and move from costly and un-safe LWR into multiple solutions that have nothing to do with "arms race" because they don't depend on "enriched" U-235 or Pu-239.
For example, 30 safe CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) reactors are currently deployed worldwide - 19 in Canada, 4 in Korea, 18 (16-modified) in India, 2 in China, 2 in Romania, etc.
FTA: |------- ... Biden also gave nearly $2 billion to TerraPower, a nuclear energy venture founded by billionaire Bill Gates, for a similar but larger "fast" reactor that also is touted for export. Experts say this inevitably would entail far greater plutonium extraction, even though the company denies any intention to do so. The U.S. Department of Energy also has funded the American branch of Terrestrial Energy, which seeks to build exotic "molten salt" reactors that use liquid rather than solid nuclear fuel. ...
-------|
LFT/thorium MSRs (Malten Salt Reactors) are hardly "exotic" - they burn ALL nuclear fuel, some MSR designs go back 60+ years (one went "live" at Oak Ridge NL, TN in 1965) - and newer U-Pu "fast reactors" designs depend on cheap repurposed fuel that can be "extracted" from spent nuclear rods used in now-predominant LWRs, at the same time helping solve problem of storing the accumulated "nuclear waste."
Author "instead" is pushing for vague "... new reactor types that use tiny particles of coated fuel, which can bolster resistance to both accidents and plutonium extraction" (IOW, he means tristructural isotopic coated-fuel particles / TRISO CFP, which are also safe) ... but fails to mention that they also require processed uranium in UCO or UO2 (or Pu), and that TRISO-based reactors emit l2x-15x of SNF (Spent Nuclear Fuel) per unit of energy produced than a typical LWR. This creates several problems of both pre-processing and post-processing of radioactive materials, not to mention the total cost and radiation safety outside of reactor time, which also reduces the time the fuel can be stored and/or transported.
Different designs have different immediate and lifetime cost structures, and issues of operational and storage/transport safety, emissions, etc., so may need to be balanced depending on environment. But once built (amortized) they can produce immense amount of clean cheap energy.
Some of these companies are public or planning to go public via SPACs... Few, like Oklo (NYSE:OKLO), look like "vaporware" with nothing but slick PR and gov't ties. Be careful if you want to invest in them - remember a slew of "renewable energy" companies that spectacularly went bust.
There have been R&D funded by the US and other governments (Germany, UK et al) on improving all these designs, including bipartisan in the US (see above), so the author pushing the panic button because Trump admin (just like Biden admin before him) chose to fund some R&D outside of his fav solution, using "arms race, atomic terrorism or even nuclear war" rhetoric is nonsensical and plain scaremongering, playing on people's fear of "Nukes!" like use of "depleted uranium" in armor-piercing shells.
Not cool.
__________