It’s been know for decades that NSAIDs and acetaminophen are more dangerous then the pharmaceutical companies want us to think. They are the cause of the most overdose deaths in America (legal drugs).

To find a causal relationship between acetaminophen and autism will likely never happen, but a correlation is worth paying attention to. If people are telling you it’s perfectly safe, they’re confused or lying to you. There’s no free lunch. Everything has a cost.

Fuck yeah! I’m with you brother.

We may need to agree to disagree on this one. I take the position that since 1913 w/ the addition of the 16th amendment the USA became socialist. Again though, I do understand why that can be viewed as an overly provocative stance. The distinction for some of these terminologies can get messy.

Out of curiosity, from your perspective, what additional policies would need to be enacted to make the USA socialist?

What is the correct way to define the Nazi ideology?

My friend…

Water, electricity, sewage, the postal service, the FAA, the FDA, the SEC, the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, SNAP, Housing vouchers, Welfare, K-12 public education, public universities, federal loans, government subsidies, bailouts, the interstate highway system, bridges, dams, national parks, progressive taxation…

Like…which other industry would you like the government to get involved in before you entertain calling it socialist? I gather that the argument can be a provocative overstatement. However, I think you would agree that “the USA has successfully integrated many socialist inspired policies into its capitalist system” is an easily defensible position.

That’s not the gotcha you think it is. I was trying to be less provocative by saying ‘aspects’. I do think the USA is socialist.

Yes, aspects of the US government are socialist. This isn’t news. The most glaring example being the Central banks and Federal reserve.

I don’t subscribe to any peer reviewed history journals and I could talk at length about the corruption endemic to the peer review process, but if you are interested in well regarded historians that also make the case that the Nazis both stated and enacted state control of the means of production:

Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) is a great souce and Carl Joachim Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (1956) is another.

If you’d rather just look at the inarguable timeline of events regarding the unions and come to your own conclusion: May 2, 1933 - Nazi forces (SA and SS) occupy the offices of all free trade unions across Germany. Union leaders are arrested, beaten, and sent to concentration camps. Their funds and properties are confiscated.

Mid-May 1933 - The remaining, now Nazi-controlled, union structure is merged into the German Labor Front (DAF).

By Law (1934): The DAF is made the only legal organization representing workers and employers.

If you want to say that a misrepresentation of socialism or there are other key events that I’m overlooking, I’m more than willing to listen.

Listening to what someone says is the first step in understanding their motives. That’s not to say that you should just believe them off hand, but it is a useful data point. Disregarding that information would be an incredible disservice to your understanding of what was going on.

The unions got rolled up into the state. Many will say the unions got dissolved, which is kind of true, but misses the part where the state took control of them. The Decree of the Reich Government (May 19, 1933) makes this evident, the “Act on the Order of National Labor” (January 20, 1934) as well, the newspaper the Völkischer Beobachter, ran headlines on May 2 and 3, 1933, announcing the “coordination of the trade unions” and their incorporation into the new Nazi-led structure, and Richard J. Evans “The Coming of the Third Reich” takes about all this in depth.

You’re right, I don’t care for your evidence. The provided article was lazy and inaccurate.

I appreciate the link to the article, but that article did not mention any of the stated motives that came directly from the mouths of the Nazi leadership, misrepresented what happened to the unions, and completely ignored the various socialist programs that were enacted once the Nazis got power. Again, the Nazis stated that they wanted to seize the means of production and then seized the means of production once in power. What evidence do you have to say otherwise?

Yeah, I’m here. Please engage with the points I made earlier. Evidence and motives are important to get right when looking back at history so that we don’t keep making the same mistakes again and again, especially the ones with truly dire consequences.

I’m defining socialism as the state controlling the means of production. In what way did the National Socialists not represent socialism?

Yes … the national socialist party were socialists. They implemented a great deal of social welfare programs and seized the means to production in various industries during their reign. They were very vocal about being anti-capitalist and anti-communist, both of which they viewed as Jewish systems and sought a third way that was clearly a spin off of socialism. This has been well documented from various speeches, articles, and books that were produced by the Nazis at the time; and, most importantly, their actions. Hitler was even in a Russian backed communist group at one point.

The easiest way to think of the Nazi ideology is to take communism, drop the class warfare and insert racial warfare and ethno supremacy(and add in a bunch of ancient Norse, German, and Greek/Roman mythology).

Where did you get the impression that they weren’t socialists?