The Nazi's socialist?

Lord Invictus

Never Forget Injustice.
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Reaction score
5,625
Destruction of civilization? no. The destruction of your repulsive culture? Absolutely. Don't conflate the two. You want to create a new darkage.

And yes I am aware that reactionaries will oppose us. I am also aware that as of yet the masses are not on our side. Just as I am aware that the future is either fascism or libertarian socialism. And I am also very much aware that in the end it will come to revolution. There will be nothing glorious about it and anyone who thinks there will is delusional. However as you have just made abundantly clear and as others have indicated you plan on murdering people to get your way when the tide turns against you politically. Revolutions are never certain so its the last thing I want. But I don't get a choice. All I can do is be ready wen you jackasses start the shooting.
Rosa Luxemburg and her comrades felt the same way. And they ended up rotting in a canal.

So think twice before you threaten us.

In fact, what happened to lady rosa should be a lesson to all revolutionists. An iron bell of reminder of the cost of their subversion.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
2,457
No system is going to work if everybody is selfish and materialistic. If a society that cares more about money than people, it’s going to have problems. Those problems are going to be reduced in a capitalistic free market system where there are more limits on the ways you get other people’s money - voluntarily - than in a socialist system where violence is the preferred method of getting the fruits of other people’s labor.
I would argue that in a capitalist system, the selfish desires are actually harnessed for good. You are rewarded in money for being as good as possible at providing goods and services to others.
Actually... Would you like me to pull up the relevant quotes where they each admitted not socialism. The Lenin quote in particular is a beautiful explicit denial of the USSR being socialist.
That doesn't matter. If you allow that nazi's can deny being nazi's you must allow that socialists deny being socialist. Literally initial post makes this claim. If this is your go to argument they aren't socialists, when USSR has socialist in the name, this is sad.

Also, please stop double posting. Either wait or edit you post.
 
Last edited:

Navarro

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
3,494
Destruction of civilization? no. The destruction of your repulsive culture? Absolutely. Don't conflate the two. You want to create a new darkage.
Socialism in its various (Nazi, Soviet, Chinese) manifestations is the closest ideology that has come the closest to creating a new dark age - one that as Churchill said, "would be made more sinister by the light of perverted science".

Just as I am aware that the future is either fascism or libertarian socialism.
That's a hell of a false dilemma you've got going on there. Not to mention that "libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron in reality. So really, you're saying that the only way forward is into bloodthirsty totalitarian dictatorship.

And I am also very much aware that in the end it will come to revolution. There will be nothing glorious about it and anyone who thinks there will is delusional. However as you have just made abundantly clear and as others have indicated you plan on murdering people to get your way when the tide turns against you politically.Revolutions are never certain so its the last thing I want. But I don't get a choice. All I can do is be ready wen you jackasses start the shooting.
For "the last thing I want" you seem to be hyping yourself up for it.

BTW, your socialist ideology is itself derived from a distortion of Christian philosophy, representing a non-religious attempt at replicating Christian virtues and teachings without properly understanding them. Where would that lead you, I wonder, after you do that?

"The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?” “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Reaction score
30
Socialism in its various (Nazi, Soviet, Chinese) manifestations is the closest ideology that has come the closest to creating a new dark age - one that as Churchill said, "would be made more sinister by the light of perverted science".
What is the definition of socialism again? remind me.



That's a hell of a false dilemma you've got going on there. Not to mention that "libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron in reality.
If you say so.



For "the last thing I want" you seem to be hyping yourself up for it.
Yes. After being subtly threatened with indirect and cowardice threats of violence I responded in a much more explicit fashion. Ah if only I were as much of a coward and a liar as reactionaries. Look you stupid motherfucker. I am unimpressed with threats of violence or terrorism. I know you reactionaries give yourselves wet dreams over that one day future glorious revolution in which you fight to take back your country from the brown man and instill a government with degenerate Christian laws. Don't be surprised if we take your threats of violence seriously and plan to stage a counter revolution. No. I absolutely do not want violence. I am damn near a pacifist. Except when you fuckers try to murder me I will defend myself.

BTW, your socialist ideology is itself derived from a distortion of Christian philosophy, representing a non-religious attempt at replicating Christian virtues and teachings without properly understanding them. Where would that lead you, I wonder, after you do that?

"The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?” “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”
Considering that socialism predates Christianity by a few hundred years. I am well aware of the myth that socialism originates from Christianity. I am also aware of the development of socialism within Christianity going back as far as the early monastic period all the way up through and past the Franciscan era. The history of Christian Socialism is long. As to the early non-theistic socialists being dumb enough to think that they could strip magic out of the bible and suddenly that would make it sane or rational or even somehow morally acceptable. Ya. no. I won't even try to defend that. I mean it's understandable as the manufacturing of a complete moral system is difficult and when you consider the decades of indoctrination. Ya. It's understandable if not forgivable.

What you get by attempting such an insanely stupid thing as stripping away Yahweh and keeping the morality of the bible is Soviet Russia and the like. Mao's China while inspired by Marx and Lenin but Chinese socialism actually comes out of Taoism with ML China being based in Confucianism.

Nice Orwell quote. The right doesn't know how to meme so it steals from the left. Gonna start busing out matrix meme's next? How about V for Vendetta? Orwell was a socialist you moron. He lived a socialist and died a socialist. He wrote socialist themed books. 1984 isn't about what you think it's about you pathetic looser. Use your own damn material. "Gott mit uns" is always a classic as is "Believe. Obey. Fight." or the classic "More force. More Honor." or a personal favorite of your degenerate types "The Leader is my Light".

I however hold to Lord Acton's maxim "It is said that power corrupts, but actually its more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power."
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Reaction score
30
In case any of you are wondering the socialist playbook is called "From dictatorship to democracy" It will give you an outline as to our tactics and strategies. Rather short book and worth the read.
 

Senor Hortler

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2020
Reaction score
947
Orwell is a socialist in the sense that he hated capitalism and the abuse of power that stems from it. He was not and never would have been a socialist as you; an anti civilization, Utopian loon that I'm sure would be totally fine with shooting a few more Kulacks if you thought it would make a 'perfect society'.
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Reaction score
30
Rosa Luxemburg and her comrades felt the same way. And they ended up rotting in a canal.

So think twice before you threaten us.

In fact, what happened to lady rosa should be a lesson to all revolutionists. An iron bell of reminder of the cost of their subversion.
Always standing on your head and telling others they are upside down. I am well aware of the Marxist revolution of Germany and the fact that the counter-revolution was lead by socialists who later regretted it. The thinking at the time was justifiable but hindsight is as they say 2020. The revolution of the Marxists and the counter revolution lead by the socialist party weakened both. As a result the Marxists (who planned and attempted a violent revolution and were stopped by the socialists) refused to work with any and all other non-revolutionary groups. This directly contributed to the rise of the Nazi party.

Don't fucking threaten me and then pretend you are all innocent. You puffed up and concern troll when I make it clear I will act in self defense. You threatened me. Don't gas light me. And yes what happened to lady Rosa is a lesson for all revolutionaries. It's just not the lesson you want it to be. Some of us actually read and learn from history. Better to be on the side of the counter revolutionaries than on the side of the revolutionaries.
 

Senor Hortler

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2020
Reaction score
947
Always standing on your head and telling others they are upside down. I am well aware of the Marxist revolution of Germany and the fact that the counter-revolution was lead by socialists who later regretted it. The thinking at the time was justifiable but hindsight is as they say 2020. The revolution of the Marxists and the counter revolution lead by the socialist party weakened both. As a result the Marxists (who planned and attempted a violent revolution and were stopped by the socialists) refused to work with any and all other non-revolutionary groups. This directly contributed to the rise of the Nazi party.

Don't fucking threaten me and then pretend you are all innocent. You puffed up and concern troll when I make it clear I will act in self defense. You threatened me. Don't gas light me. And yes what happened to lady Rosa is a lesson for all revolutionaries. It's just not the lesson you want it to be. Some of us actually read and learn from history. Better to be on the side of the counter revolutionaries than on the side of the revolutionaries.
Mate, you're reeing about socialism on a niche internet forum at 3am UK local time. You're not on the 'side' of any 'counter revolutionaries' because they don't exist. There is no coming revolution, there is no need for violence. You just like indulging in power fantasies where you get to kill your political enemies; go play Papers Please, it'll calm you down.

EDIT: Hell, everyone in general should calm down and get some perspective. We're shittalking each others pet political baby on an internet forum. It's not exactly serious business and there's no need for threats of violence, or talks of violence. Most of us would get machine gunned in a ditch no matter which sides were engaging in a bit of civil violence, it would be bad no matter what. 293 million lived in the USSR, only one of them got to be Stalin, 90 million in Germany and only one got to be Hitler. Rolling the 'I win' dice during a revolution is a very, very dicey game.
 
Last edited:

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Reaction score
30
I would argue that in a capitalist system, the selfish desires are actually harnessed for good. You are rewarded in money for being as good as possible at providing goods and services to others.

That doesn't matter. If you allow that nazi's can deny being nazi's you must allow that socialists deny being socialist. Literally initial post makes this claim. If this is your go to argument they aren't socialists, when USSR has socialist in the name, this is sad.

Also, please stop double posting. Either wait or edit you post.
Yes. Which is why i keep saying over and over again you define the term and then you see if the organization which is claiming to be that thing meets that definition. If socialism is defined at the minimum by "the workers owning the means of production" then by no stretch of the imagination were they socialist. Did the workers own the means of production? No. Then forget what you call it. You can call it flobknobgeter for all I care. That is not what I am describing. It wasn't that thing. You on the right seem to have a really hard time distinguishing between a term and a definition. The definition is the thing described. Every single socialist writer, thinker, and activist I am aware of has at the very least the workers owning the means of production as a base definition for that particular term (socialism). Lenin himself said that socialism was the workers owning the means of production. Therefore if the workers do not own the means of production... conclusion.
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Reaction score
30
Mate, you're reeing about socialism on a niche internet forum at 3am UK local time. You're not on the 'side' of any 'counter revolutionaries' because they don't exist. There is no coming revolution, there is no need for violence. You just like indulging in power fantasies where you get to kill your political enemies; go play Papers Please, it'll calm you down.

EDIT: Hell, everyone in general should calm down and get some perspective. We're shittalking each others pet political baby on an internet forum. It's not exactly serious business and there's no need for threats of violence, or talks of violence. Most of us would get machine gunned in a ditch no matter which sides were engaging in a bit of civil violence, it would be bad no matter what. 293 million lived in the USSR, only one of them got to be Stalin, 90 million in Germany and only one got to be Hitler. Rolling the 'I win' dice during a revolution is a very, very dicey game.
I hope that is true that there is no revolution is coming. However strictly speaking as a fan of the art of war says. He who plans wins. Examine all possibilities and plan. Or in the words of general Mattis when talking about his experience meeting with terrorists "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."

As to my desire to indulge in a power fantasy there are much better power fantasies like subjecting my political enemies to 100 consecutive hours of Barney with no breaks. Or 30 hours of the Bible Man television show. Death is permanent and final. When you die it's over. 30 hours of bible man...

As to your edit about most of us getting machine gunned and ending up in a ditch. That is exactly why I don't fantasize about about a revolution. It doesn't mean I am dumb enough not to think some moron out there thinks revolution is actually a good thing. It's been a growing sentiment on the right since the 80's.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
2,457
Yes. Which is why i keep saying over and over again you define the term and then you see if the organization which is claiming to be that thing meets that definition. If socialism is defined at the minimum by "the workers owning the means of production" then by no stretch of the imagination were they socialist. Did the workers own the means of production? No. Then forget what you call it. You can call it flobknobgeter for all I care. That is not what I am describing. It wasn't that thing. You on the right seem to have a really hard time distinguishing between a term and a definition. The definition is the thing described. Every single socialist writer, thinker, and activist I am aware of has at the very least the workers owning the means of production as a base definition for that particular term (socialism). Lenin himself said that socialism was the workers owning the means of production. Therefore if the workers do not own the means of production... conclusion.
... Because no one outside of socailists use that definition, so it's jargony and useless in a general conversation. Even though North Korea would deny it, it is a monarchy, because it fits that definition. It doesn't matter that all of the North Korean philosophers define it using Juche, which somehow means it isn't one. Anyone looking at it can see it's an inherited dictatorship, so it's a monarchy.

Similarly, socialism has throughout history been exemplified by states seizing and owning the means of production. So regardless of what you and the weird subset of socialists you follow believe (because that book Markets, not Capitalism, besides consisting of economically illiterate AnCaps who just don't get that, also frequently includes state socialism as a branch of socialism. So they do.

USSR literally had the word socialist in it's name. So there were socialists in the USSR who believed the USSR was Socialist.

Because of this, the definition "Socialism is when workers control the means of production" is incomplete. A proper definition that reflects both history and common understanding would be "Socialism is when the vast majority of the means of production are collectively owned."

ALSO, STOP DOUBLE POSTING. I hate to shout, but this is my third request. It is considered rude, and can easily be avoided by editing your posts.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
3,494
Orwell is a socialist in the sense that he hated capitalism and the abuse of power that stems from it. He was not and never would have been a socialist as you; an anti civilization, Utopian loon that I'm sure would be totally fine with shooting a few more Kulacks if you thought it would make a 'perfect society'.
He was smart enough to see the flaws in socialism, but seemed to run away from the logical conclusion of what they indicated because he was emotionally attached to the idea.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
3,494
Yes. Which is why i keep saying over and over again you define the term and then you see if the organization which is claiming to be that thing meets that definition. If socialism is defined at the minimum by "the workers owning the means of production" then by no stretch of the imagination were they socialist. Did the workers own the means of production? No. Then forget what you call it. You can call it flobknobgeter for all I care. That is not what I am describing. It wasn't that thing. You on the right seem to have a really hard time distinguishing between a term and a definition. The definition is the thing described. Every single socialist writer, thinker, and activist I am aware of has at the very least the workers owning the means of production as a base definition for that particular term (socialism). Lenin himself said that socialism was the workers owning the means of production. Therefore if the workers do not own the means of production... conclusion.
Therefore "real socialism" has never existed and has never been achieved by all those who were seeking it. Over a period of 2,000 years or so by your understanding of history, which just makes it even more of a failed idea.

It's not that we conservatives don't understand the distinction between the term and the definition, it's that we realise that socialism-as-presented (utopia where no-one has to work, all bad things go away, and the oceans turn to lemonade) and socialism-in-actuality (tyranny, mass killings, economic collapse) are two very different things, and that the former is irrelevant as it can't actually exist in the real world for various reasons.

If an idea is tried over a period of a 100 year in multiple countries, multiple continants and keeps having consistently bad results that result in mass starvation poverity and death then its time to admit that maybe its a bad idea.
But you see, it's because they were sabotaged. Or because they didn't kill enough kulaks. Or because their attempt to overthrow the government was halted in its tracks. Anything to avoid the notion that socialism might be a bad idea.
 
Last edited:

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Reaction score
847
Location
England
He was smart enough to see the flaws in socialism, but seemed to run away from the logical conclusion of what they indicated because he was emotionally attached to the idea.
I think he was slowly veering away from socialism, already in disagreement with some of its core ideals. Had he lived a few more decades, seen what the post war consensus wrought on the country he loved and how the Unions brought Britain to its knees, I wouldn't be shocked if he wholeheartedly abandoned it.
 

DirtbagLeft

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Reaction score
30
... Because no one outside of socailists use that definition, so it's jargony and useless in a general conversation. Even though North Korea would deny it, it is a monarchy, because it fits that definition. It doesn't matter that all of the North Korean philosophers define it using Juche, which somehow means it isn't one. Anyone looking at it can see it's an inherited dictatorship, so it's a monarchy.
I have been attempting to avoid saying it but apparently it's not getting through so I am going to have to. Your argument here is the same argument used by young earth creationists. Your definition is the the jargon definition and you are trying to tell me that mine is which is demonstrably false. Like a young earth creationists you think that by imposing your own definition onto the term you can make the term nonsense. And it does.

Similarly, socialism has throughout history been exemplified by states seizing and owning the means of production. So regardless of what you and the weird subset of socialists you follow believe (because that book Markets, not Capitalism, besides consisting of economically illiterate AnCaps who just don't get that, also frequently includes state socialism as a branch of socialism. So they do.
It's not just a subset of socialists, it's socialists who hold to that definition. Aside from tankies none will deny that the majority of socialist movements have been taken over by strongmen, this is one reason why aside from tankies and ML's no socialist likes strongmen. This problem isn't unique to socialism. To quote Acton again "It is said that power corrupts, but actually it is more true that power corrupts attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by things other than power."
The central thesis of socialism is that by flattening power structures as much as possible and that by making those who run the power structures democratically accountable, both the scope and the limit of corruptibility can be reduced. This is something which is born out by the studies that compare co-ops and traditional firms, and politically by Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and New Zealand.

USSR literally had the word socialist in it's name. So there were socialists in the USSR who believed the USSR was Socialist.
No they didn't. The fact that the word socialist in the name does not mean that they believed it was socialist. If you wish to say that most people associate socialism with the USSR then I won't deny that. But to say "it has the word in it's name" is to appeal to a type of etymological fallacy

Because of this, the definition "Socialism is when workers control the means of production" is incomplete. A proper definition that reflects both history and common understanding would be "Socialism is when the vast majority of the means of production are collectively owned."
Collectively owned by who? And no I am not going to let you get away with that. Collectively owned by the workers. If the workers don't own it then it ain't socialism. This is why I gave ground on NK so easily. While I do not consider what they have to be ownership it is arguable enough that I am willing to grant it. What you wish to imply however is ownership by the state. What you are attempting by leaving out who owns the means of production collectively is the old YEC trick of implying that "dogs can produce non-dogs".

Not even Marx the one person your lot read when they happen to read any socialist held State Ownership as socialism. Socialist reject private property theory in favor of personal property. You are attempting to impose a private property understanding to the term ownership which makes that statement read radically differently.

"Socialism is when the vast majority of the means of production are collectively owned."
"Term 1 is when the vast majority of the means of production are collectively Term 2."
"Term 1 is when the vast majority of the means of production are collectively owned through use and occupancy."
"A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned(Personal Property) or regulated by the community as a whole is when the vast majority of the means of production are collectively owned through use and occupancy."
Within socialism the terms common and collective do not mean that the entire community owns it. Rather it means that those who's personal property it is owns it. You can ignore this all you want but I will keep correcting you.

How does what you are trying to say socialism is fit with a rejection of title ownership (private property) and an acceptance of personal property? It doesn't.

Your argument relies very heavily on two fallacies. The etymological fallacy and the appeal to the populous. Both are fallacies.

"My disillusionment with Russia" is a good account and critique on the USSR from a socialist who was actually there. Emma Goldman was one of the foremost Anarchist writers at the time and lays out Lenin's betrayal of socialism in rather clear and unflattering terms.

Russia and the repeated failures of the Vanguard ideology of Marxist Leninists has taught most of us (fuck the tankies) what not to do to bring about socialism. The arrogant belief that socialism is something which can be imposed from the top down is rejected by all but a few. The ML's falsely believed that the masses could be educated after the party took over. Socialism to be successful requires a bottom up implementation with education being the first step.
Orwell is a socialist in the sense that he hated capitalism and the abuse of power that stems from it. He was not and never would have been a socialist as you; an anti civilization, Utopian loon that I'm sure would be totally fine with shooting a few more Kulacks if you thought it would make a 'perfect society'.
Very interesting have you ever read Orwell's Essays on socialism? I have and I tend to agree with them. So I guess Orwell and I are not that far apart after all.
 
Last edited:

Navarro

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
3,494
Always standing on your head and telling others they are upside down. I am well aware of the Marxist revolution of Germany and the fact that the counter-revolution was lead by socialists who later regretted it. The thinking at the time was justifiable but hindsight is as they say 2020. The revolution of the Marxists and the counter revolution lead by the socialist party weakened both. As a result the Marxists (who planned and attempted a violent revolution and were stopped by the socialists) refused to work with any and all other non-revolutionary groups. This directly contributed to the rise of the Nazi party.

Don't fucking threaten me and then pretend you are all innocent. You puffed up and concern troll when I make it clear I will act in self defense. You threatened me. Don't gas light me. And yes what happened to lady Rosa is a lesson for all revolutionaries. It's just not the lesson you want it to be. Some of us actually read and learn from history. Better to be on the side of the counter revolutionaries than on the side of the revolutionaries.
I mean, strictly speaking, you were the one who started making threats when you said you were going to exterminate Invictus' religion in a cultural revolution once you took power.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
2,457
I have been attempting to avoid saying it but apparently it's not getting through so I am going to have to. Your argument here is the same argument used by young earth creationists. Your definition is the the jargon definition and you are trying to tell me that mine is which is demonstrably false. Like a young earth creationists you think that by imposing your own definition onto the term you can make the term nonsense. And it does.
I'd actually say the opposite is true. If you ask a plll of people if the USSR was socialist, you'd get a near unanimous yes. Hence if you don't, you are on the outside.

Let's look at all the redefinitions you proposed:
Your definition of socialism doesn't include the USSR, your definition of racism doesn't include an individual klukker. You simply aren't good at defining things.

Collectively owned by who? And no I am not going to let you get away with that. Collectively owned by the workers. If the workers don't own it then it ain't socialism. This is why I gave ground on NK so easily. While I do not consider what they have to be ownership it is arguable enough that I am willing to grant it. What you wish to imply however is ownership by the state. What you are attempting by leaving out who owns the means of production collectively is the old YEC trick of implying that "dogs can produce non-dogs".
Collectively owned by anyone, including the state. That's because if you don't consider the USSR socialist, you are simply wrong.
No they didn't. The fact that the word socialist in the name does not mean that they believed it was socialist. If you wish to say that most people associate socialism with the USSR then I won't deny that. But to say "it has the word in it's name" is to appeal to a type of etymological fallacy
No, this is different. It is in regards to your claim that socialists don't believe the USSR is socialist. In response, I'm citing socialists (who named the country) that claim that the USSR is socialism. Basically, I'm saying that there are people who do believe that the USSR is socialist, not that being called the USSR means that it is socialist (it is, because of collective ownership of property, not because of the name).
 

Chaos Marine

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
955
Location
Ireland.

Hitler and the Nazis were socialists. This video goes into it quite well and I'd advise anyone with some time to watch it and thanks to everyone's favourite, communist failure of a government, the CCP, more of us have a lot of free time to look into it.
Socialism is such a bad/impossible system that every single attempt to impliment socialism/communism has failed. Do you know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting something to change but it never does so you keep trying and trying and trying?
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
2,457
Hitler and the Nazis were socialists. This video goes into it quite well and I'd advise anyone with some time to watch it and thanks to everyone's favourite, communist failure of a government, the CCP, more of us have a lot of free time to look into it.
Oddly, I actually disagree that the Nazi's were socialists though. I do think there is a large difference between state capitalism and State Socialism, and the Nazi's fall under state capitalism. Crucially, the companies were mostly privately owned. If we allow state control of factories to constitute socialism, then most countries in a war economy would be considered socialist, including WW2 America.
 
Top Bottom