Because it is relevant:

Unemployed individuals are roughly 60% to 87% more likely to die by suicide compared to employed peers, with some studies estimating that up to 1 in 10 global suicides are directly attributable to labor underutilization (job loss or underemployment).

A study using data from 175 countries between 1991 and 2017 showed that for every 1% increase in unemployment, there was a 2–3% increase in suicide rates in those aged 30–59 years, suggesting that if such an increase in unemployment could be prevented then so would the corresponding increase in suicides.

The old “hair” is better. Spyro is a dragon but a human.

What is the connection to your claims that nazis are social Democrats or that democratic socialism is fascism?

Why can’t you just google things for once?

I think a division of power is important, as are: fair and free elections, multiple options in the elections, social programs to ensure the population has the resources to take part in the process, low corruption (ideally none but that is unrealistic). There is probably more but I am done doing your homework.

I will block you now, as you are the most clueless tankie that I have met to an embarrassing degree, so I think you are full of shit and not a tankie. I mean calling yourself a tankie and calling socialism fascistic is wild. Calling nazis social Democrats is more believable for a tankie but I am fairly certain they would realise that murdering disabled people isn’t fulfilling the “social” part in social democracy and e.g. the lack of fair and free elections doesn’t really match with the “democracy” part.

What? Do you understand logic?

If something fails to fulfill 1 requirement, It can’t pass anymore, otherwise it is not a requirement.

If you are not a woman, you can’t be a 186cm tall woman. You can be 186cm tall, but you aren’t a woman, so you can’t be a 186cm tall woman.

So if being multiparty is a requirement for being a democracy, then not being multiparty, makes you not a democracy. Even if you pass all other requirements.

They aren’t used interchangeably? Unless you are talking about people who also use communism and socialism interchangeably, then sure but i don’t think we should have a discussion on nazi politics based on utter lack of knowledge what words mean.

I implied that historically speaking Leninist Revolution led to single party systems? I mean yeah. That is just fact.

But you understand how saying “1 party systems aren’t democratic” doesn’t mean “multiparty systems are democratic”? If anything, it means “multiparty is one of the requirements of a democracy”.

e.g. i don’t think America is a proper democracy. Technically speaking, a person with 21% of the votes could win the presidential election. Yes, even if the other candidate has 79% of the votes. The obvious corruption and Oligarchy is another issue. I would argue that the use of voting computers makes them undemocratic. And there are probably more reasons but I am lazy.

I never said multiparty means democracy. But okay.

Who said it was hogwash? Who said it presents no threat to status quo?

We are talking about how the nazis weren’t socialist, or social Democrats. And how you don’t know the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. And to say that you are a tankie after saying that socialism is capitalism, is wild.

Well, tankies might disagree with me on some of this.

Democratic socialism got popular under socialist that opposed the Soviet Union.

China would like to be seen as democratic and would like to be socialistic but they are effectively a one party system (not very democratic) and they have special economic zones and simplified: the state owns the meaning of production and the worker only by proxy. China admit that they aren’t socialist yet but that they are working towards it. So currently not socialist, and the state owned means of production is in conflict with democratic socialism (or at least, that is my opinion and given that it became popular in opposition to the Soviet Union, I think I have a good case for that)

The whole state owned means of production issue and/or 1 party system, tend to be the reasons why no country was considered a democratic socialist country to my knowledge.

The distinction is between socialism and capitalism.

There are no democratic socialist countries.

Germany is a social democracy.

Socialism is not the same as democratic.

Socialism describe how Property right should work.

Democratic describe how the government works.

Both are independent Ideologies.

Socialism is not capitalism and to claim that is ridiculous.

Nope.

Democratic socialism is socialism. So the idea that workers should own the mean of production. But it is Democratic. So the government should be Democratic.

Social democracy is capitalism. But that it should be Democratic and soften the weakness of capitalism by providing social programs.

You see, 1 is capitalism, the other is socialism.

Because that guy uses words without knowing their meaning. That is why I want his definition. So he either acknowledge his lack of knowledge or learn or stay silent.

Social Democracy is not the same as democratic socialism. (E.g. germany understands itself as a social democracy but don’t do socialism nor democratic socialism)

The nazi murdered democratic socialists though.

Could you define fascism and socialism, please? For the sake of the argument, as you seem confused over social democracy and democratic socialism.

Saying that is about as stupid and uninformed as it gets.

Please, seriously please, look into actual nazi policies and ask yourself if those policies fit the claim.

Please look at the actions of the nazis. E.g. the Night of the long knives. Or ask if the systematic murders of disabled people, would be something that fits with social Democrats values.

Every historian with a focus on nazi germany disagrees with you.

For context:

500kg cash in 100 USD bills (like on the picture) would be roughly 50.000.000 USD.

And 500kg of Gold would currently be 71,396,000 USD.

That is okay. Their silence is louder anyway.

I can respect that. Focused, determined, protective!

I thought it was fun…

The thing is… not doing it at all, is better than doing those 300 moves. What made you do this? Also a bit spicy?

Yes. Why?

Most people? 100% not. Me who has probably autism and has internalised the algorithm, I can.

I love and hate my brain.

You are right but also suicide rates.

See my comment for my points. https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/26077027