US Politics Mega-thread - Page 786

On January 14 2014 08:30 Mercy13 wrote:


But doesn't National Socialism actually mean Nazism? Or am I missing something...

On January 14 2014 06:30 xDaunt wrote:

I'm just talking off-the-cuff here, but it seems to me that inherent to any communist regime is a need to disregard the rule of law (the "revolution") so as to effect communist policy on the rubble of the previous system. How else do you get a communist redistribution of wealth and power without trampling the rights of those at the top (and the middle, and pretty much everyone else to one degree or another, but I digress...)? I know that it's rather cute to say that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," but there is no communism without the wielding of that absolute power that stretches beyond the confines of traditional law. The inherent danger there is obvious.

On January 14 2014 08:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Not really. "Nazi Party" stands for National Socialist Party, but again, the name has as much relation to their ideologies as the People's Republic of China.

A new analysis of the National Security Agency’s data-collection programs suggests that some of its most controversial techniques may not be effective in stopping Al-Qaeda and other groups from attacking the United States.

The study, released Monday by the New America Foundation, checked claims by NSA officials and President Barack Obama that the agency’s bulk data-collection programs helped stop dozens of attacks on U.S. targets. The study examined records for investigations into 225 people who have been indicted, convicted or killed by the U.S. for their reported ties to Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups like Al-Shabab after Sept. 11, 2001.

The review found that the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone metadata, justified under the Patriot Act, was responsible for initiating investigations in only four of the 225 cases detailed by the New America Foundation and that none of those four prevented attacks.

That counters claims by Obama and other administration officials that the program has prevented 50 terrorist attacks.
“We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted because of this information not just in the United States but, in some cases, threats here in Germany,” Obama said in Berlin in June. “So lives have been saved.”

Gen. Keith Alexander and Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., of the House Intelligence Committee, repeated similar claims.

On January 14 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:

Sorry but you are completely clueless and wrong. Key policies included nationalization of key industries, demanding profits of the heavy industries, excessive welfare and abolition of "unearned" income, such as land ownership.

The party was heavily anti-academic and socialist.

On January 14 2014 09:28 mcc wrote:

That is because you also confuse communism with part of the movement. Many communists do not argue for violent revolution. Many communist parties participate in democratic process as constructive participants. The fact that you do not know does not mean that it does not exist.

And if you change the rule of law by democratic process of changing the constitution there is no reason why nationalization and redistribution would necessitate breaking the rule of law or violence.

On January 14 2014 10:33 xDaunt wrote:


I'm aware that there are some communists who prefer to work through democratic channels to attain their goals. I just don't see them ever getting that far any time in the near future without a hefty dosage of abuse of power. At some point communism requires an abolition of the traditional western concept of property rights. That isn't going to happen peacefully.

On January 14 2014 10:46 mcc wrote:

The point is that there is nothing violent or "evil" in the goals and ideas of communists in general.

That is completely another matter and rather subjective judgement. -mcc

On January 14 2014 10:27 Doublemint wrote:


The way I learned it and still convince(and still believe it's true) myself that it's true is that - yes, there are quite a lot of similarities to an authoritarian communist regime, state control of basically all major institutions/means of economic production in society - "Gleichschaltung" or "cooptation", but when talking about the third reich/mussollini italy you call it fascism and definitely NOT "Socialism" per se. Fascists and Communists have a lot in common, but they are ideological archenemies. I think this voluntary misunderstanding happened because it was opportune for some Americans to have another arrow in the quiver in the neverending struggle against "Socialism".

//edit: To make my point a bit clearer. Communists sought to unite the workers of the world in their struggle against all the bad capitalists etc. Nationalism oder nationality was of no concern. Fascists in the third reich wanted to enslave "everyone"(not accurate but you catch my drift) because they thought they were the master race. In this sense they are about as right wing as it gets, putting your "people", race before all others - based on ideology. I also haven't really heard of Euthanasia in a communist regime. Political oppression and gulag etc. yes, but wide spread organized mass murdering of the "unworthy" - mentally challenged, handicapped people - no sir, I don't think Communists ever did that. They let their people starve instead and called it the great leap forward.

On January 14 2014 10:46 mcc wrote:

That is completely another matter and rather subjective judgement. The point is that there is nothing violent or "evil" in the goals and ideas of communists in general. That cannot be said for fascists and especially not for nazis. There you have things that are inherent to the ideology that cannot be taken away without it stopping being nazism or fascism. You could maybe get the obviously ugly parts out of the way, but they are both based on tribalism and thus have inherent issues involved in it.

On January 14 2014 10:54 mcc wrote:

Communists in some countries were not much better, and were mass-murdering people in the name of ideology also.

The issue here is that leninists and stalinists and ... used the term communism and now its meaning is mostly associated with them. Maybe people who call themselves "communist" should just create new name or something, but that seems to be too much work and frankly the communist idea was here long before it was co-opted by those mentioned above and seems unfair to be forced to abandon the name. In the same vein I could argue that moderate modern Christians should also abandon the name Christians.

On January 14 2014 10:56 mcc wrote:

I do not consider ethics subjective so no Or were you making some other point ? Or you could show me which part of core communist ideals is inherently evil ?

On January 14 2014 10:55 xDaunt wrote:


When the means of implementing communism are functionally inseparable from the exercise of "evil" as I have pointed out, it can't be said that communism is inherently benign. Uncoincidentally, history has proven me right so far.

On January 14 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:

Sorry but you are completely clueless and wrong. Key policies included nationalization of key industries, demanding profits of the heavy industries, excessive welfare and abolition of "unearned" income, such as land ownership.

The party was heavily anti-academic and socialist.

On January 14 2014 11:03 mcc wrote:

But I already pointed out to you that you are confusing part of the movement with the whole ? Unless you consider democratic abolishment of current private property rights evil in itself. History has not proven you right in the slightest, considering that communism is very diverse ideology and even the end-goals of those groups differ. History has proven very little in general and if anything just that marxism-leninism and its offshoots in practice led to pretty bad results.

I still have to see any argument how that can be extrapolated to other communist movements or even general ideals.

On January 14 2014 10:58 Doublemint wrote:


well don't they already call themselves trotzkyists or stalinists... does not change the fact that they are members of the same "family",communism. - ones seek their goals with nonmilitary means and the others are ready to take some more severe actions.



My point was, sry if it was not clear enough, that some more freedom cherishing people will have a problem when a broad statement is made like " there is nothing inherently evil/bad about communism".

On January 14 2014 11:13 Doublemint wrote:


I know what you are saying, and on an academic level you have a point. Yet not in the court of public opinion. The term Communist is tainted and dead weight. In the same way you could name your child Adolf in Israel, it might not be a bad name but after what happened in history you will never be able "clear the name" of its tainted past.

On January 14 2014 11:14 mcc wrote:

Not really some communist movements have completely different ideas on how the state of communism should be reached. Some do not advocate the state route at all and are more akin to libertarians(the anarcho-capitalist variety). Some consider communism long term end-goal in "post-scarcity" society and in the meantime are more-or-less social-democrats. And so on.

The core ideals involve equality on all levels of life (at least to some extent). They have problem with current incarnation of property rights and exploitation. Internationalism is also common theme. And end goal seems to be some kind of decentralized society with little-to-no state involvement.

Unless you are some completely fanatical anarcho-capitalist I do not see how communist ideals in general are any antithesis to freedom ?

Just to clarify, I am arguing about communists in general. The discussion started due to mention of communist partied in Europe, and if I limited myself to them I might actually agree with many of them being of the same vein as the ones that caused so much suffering in the communist countries.