|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 14 2014 08:30 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 08:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:34 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:07 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:01 Nyxisto wrote:
I think we would do this thread a huge favour if we'd stop the ideological battles and discuss practical political stuff instead. No, Americans really need to learn how to engage ideology and actually learn what the words mean. There is nothing more goddamn frustrating when I say something like "economic liberalism" or "liberal democracy" or the word liberalism in general and people seem to associate it with "big government" for example. Also, people such as xDaunt could learn what the world socialism means. And as a quick disclaimer, when I say the study of ideology, I do not mean obscure continental thinkers such as Zizek or Althusser. Here is political ideology for dummies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies Where exactly did I say that I was talking about "socialism," smart guy? On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar.
This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? That example just shows a clear lack of understanding about ideology in general assuming you were not being facetious. Do you even fucking know what "National Socialism" is? Does the term "Nazi" ring a bell? Seriously, get your shit together before you flame someone --- much less flame someone twice. You're pretty much proving his point here. "Nazism" is as related to socialism as Chinese Totalitarianism is to a republic of the people. Not to defend xDaunt here but this is a misunderstanding and xDaunt is right. He was talking about the Nazis as a standalone example of a group you wouldn't give another chance, not because he thinks socialists are Nazis (I hope). xDaunt is basically saying "if you know who the Nazis are it should be abundantly obvious that I didn't mean socialism when I said National Socialism", as far as I can tell. Well, when the entire discussion line was about how Communism is not directly Stalinism, saying "National Socialism obviously means Nazism" is pretty much repeating the problem. Which, again, kinda proves Shiragaku's point, that having a political ideological discussion is incredibly irritating when people latch onto "buzzwords" and immediately jump to the "popular" representations of that word (whether its applicable or not). But doesn't National Socialism actually mean Nazism? Or am I missing something...
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.
There are a number of National Socialist parties that have nothing to do with Nazism (though mostly before the 1920's, or in regions with less connection to Europe).
|
On January 14 2014 06:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 06:18 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:52 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:43 corumjhaelen wrote:
[quote]
Like when ? You know, I've (honestly) tried to engage with Marxists / Communists on this thread and others before and it keeps boiling down to the same thing - some nice theoretical ideas that have no substance. At the end of the day, to me, that looks too much like communism in Russia or China or some of the wacky-taffy policies going on in Venezuela today. So you've not actually heard "this time it's different" before and seen it shown to be wrong? You just believe that it won't be different and want to now use that belief as evidence that it's the same? People say "this time it's different" all the time, only for it to turn out the same. The burden of proof is on the guy saying that this time it'll be different. If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar. This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? If they said "we'll do it without the xenophobia, the invading Poland, the persecution of minorities and the creation of a dictatorship" then I wouldn't go "well, I heard you say it and all sounds are lies". Now maybe some of those things are intrinsically linked to national socialism but the traits of Stalinism are not intrinsically linked to communism, indeed they generally predate communist rule. 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.
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 08:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 08:30 Mercy13 wrote:On January 14 2014 08:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:34 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:07 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:01 Nyxisto wrote:
I think we would do this thread a huge favour if we'd stop the ideological battles and discuss practical political stuff instead. No, Americans really need to learn how to engage ideology and actually learn what the words mean. There is nothing more goddamn frustrating when I say something like "economic liberalism" or "liberal democracy" or the word liberalism in general and people seem to associate it with "big government" for example. Also, people such as xDaunt could learn what the world socialism means. And as a quick disclaimer, when I say the study of ideology, I do not mean obscure continental thinkers such as Zizek or Althusser. Here is political ideology for dummies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies Where exactly did I say that I was talking about "socialism," smart guy? On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality?
The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? That example just shows a clear lack of understanding about ideology in general assuming you were not being facetious. Do you even fucking know what "National Socialism" is? Does the term "Nazi" ring a bell? Seriously, get your shit together before you flame someone --- much less flame someone twice. You're pretty much proving his point here. "Nazism" is as related to socialism as Chinese Totalitarianism is to a republic of the people. Not to defend xDaunt here but this is a misunderstanding and xDaunt is right. He was talking about the Nazis as a standalone example of a group you wouldn't give another chance, not because he thinks socialists are Nazis (I hope). xDaunt is basically saying "if you know who the Nazis are it should be abundantly obvious that I didn't mean socialism when I said National Socialism", as far as I can tell. Well, when the entire discussion line was about how Communism is not directly Stalinism, saying "National Socialism obviously means Nazism" is pretty much repeating the problem. Which, again, kinda proves Shiragaku's point, that having a political ideological discussion is incredibly irritating when people latch onto "buzzwords" and immediately jump to the "popular" representations of that word (whether its applicable or not). But doesn't National Socialism actually mean Nazism? Or am I missing something... 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.
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.
|
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.
Source
|
On January 14 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 08:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 08:30 Mercy13 wrote:On January 14 2014 08:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:34 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:07 Shiragaku wrote:[quote] No, Americans really need to learn how to engage ideology and actually learn what the words mean. There is nothing more goddamn frustrating when I say something like "economic liberalism" or "liberal democracy" or the word liberalism in general and people seem to associate it with "big government" for example. Also, people such as xDaunt could learn what the world socialism means. And as a quick disclaimer, when I say the study of ideology, I do not mean obscure continental thinkers such as Zizek or Althusser. Here is political ideology for dummies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies Where exactly did I say that I was talking about "socialism," smart guy? On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? That example just shows a clear lack of understanding about ideology in general assuming you were not being facetious. Do you even fucking know what "National Socialism" is? Does the term "Nazi" ring a bell? Seriously, get your shit together before you flame someone --- much less flame someone twice. You're pretty much proving his point here. "Nazism" is as related to socialism as Chinese Totalitarianism is to a republic of the people. Not to defend xDaunt here but this is a misunderstanding and xDaunt is right. He was talking about the Nazis as a standalone example of a group you wouldn't give another chance, not because he thinks socialists are Nazis (I hope). xDaunt is basically saying "if you know who the Nazis are it should be abundantly obvious that I didn't mean socialism when I said National Socialism", as far as I can tell. Well, when the entire discussion line was about how Communism is not directly Stalinism, saying "National Socialism obviously means Nazism" is pretty much repeating the problem. Which, again, kinda proves Shiragaku's point, that having a political ideological discussion is incredibly irritating when people latch onto "buzzwords" and immediately jump to the "popular" representations of that word (whether its applicable or not). But doesn't National Socialism actually mean Nazism? Or am I missing something... 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. 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.
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 or 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 09:28 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:18 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:52 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
You know, I've (honestly) tried to engage with Marxists / Communists on this thread and others before and it keeps boiling down to the same thing - some nice theoretical ideas that have no substance. At the end of the day, to me, that looks too much like communism in Russia or China or some of the wacky-taffy policies going on in Venezuela today. So you've not actually heard "this time it's different" before and seen it shown to be wrong? You just believe that it won't be different and want to now use that belief as evidence that it's the same? People say "this time it's different" all the time, only for it to turn out the same. The burden of proof is on the guy saying that this time it'll be different. If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar. This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? If they said "we'll do it without the xenophobia, the invading Poland, the persecution of minorities and the creation of a dictatorship" then I wouldn't go "well, I heard you say it and all sounds are lies". Now maybe some of those things are intrinsically linked to national socialism but the traits of Stalinism are not intrinsically linked to communism, indeed they generally predate communist rule. 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. 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.
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 10:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 09:28 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:18 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 14 2014 05:52 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
So you've not actually heard "this time it's different" before and seen it shown to be wrong? You just believe that it won't be different and want to now use that belief as evidence that it's the same? People say "this time it's different" all the time, only for it to turn out the same. The burden of proof is on the guy saying that this time it'll be different. If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar. This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? If they said "we'll do it without the xenophobia, the invading Poland, the persecution of minorities and the creation of a dictatorship" then I wouldn't go "well, I heard you say it and all sounds are lies". Now maybe some of those things are intrinsically linked to national socialism but the traits of Stalinism are not intrinsically linked to communism, indeed they generally predate communist rule. 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. 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. 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.
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 10:46 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 10:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 09:28 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:18 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
People say "this time it's different" all the time, only for it to turn out the same. The burden of proof is on the guy saying that this time it'll be different. If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar. This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? If they said "we'll do it without the xenophobia, the invading Poland, the persecution of minorities and the creation of a dictatorship" then I wouldn't go "well, I heard you say it and all sounds are lies". Now maybe some of those things are intrinsically linked to national socialism but the traits of Stalinism are not intrinsically linked to communism, indeed they generally predate communist rule. 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. 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. 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. 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:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:On January 14 2014 08:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 08:30 Mercy13 wrote:On January 14 2014 08:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:34 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:29 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Where exactly did I say that I was talking about "socialism," smart guy? On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? That example just shows a clear lack of understanding about ideology in general assuming you were not being facetious. Do you even fucking know what "National Socialism" is? Does the term "Nazi" ring a bell? Seriously, get your shit together before you flame someone --- much less flame someone twice. You're pretty much proving his point here. "Nazism" is as related to socialism as Chinese Totalitarianism is to a republic of the people. Not to defend xDaunt here but this is a misunderstanding and xDaunt is right. He was talking about the Nazis as a standalone example of a group you wouldn't give another chance, not because he thinks socialists are Nazis (I hope). xDaunt is basically saying "if you know who the Nazis are it should be abundantly obvious that I didn't mean socialism when I said National Socialism", as far as I can tell. Well, when the entire discussion line was about how Communism is not directly Stalinism, saying "National Socialism obviously means Nazism" is pretty much repeating the problem. Which, again, kinda proves Shiragaku's point, that having a political ideological discussion is incredibly irritating when people latch onto "buzzwords" and immediately jump to the "popular" representations of that word (whether its applicable or not). But doesn't National Socialism actually mean Nazism? Or am I missing something... 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. 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. 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.
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 10:46 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 10:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 09:28 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:18 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
People say "this time it's different" all the time, only for it to turn out the same. The burden of proof is on the guy saying that this time it'll be different. If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar. This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? If they said "we'll do it without the xenophobia, the invading Poland, the persecution of minorities and the creation of a dictatorship" then I wouldn't go "well, I heard you say it and all sounds are lies". Now maybe some of those things are intrinsically linked to national socialism but the traits of Stalinism are not intrinsically linked to communism, indeed they generally predate communist rule. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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 10:51 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 10:46 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 10:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 09:28 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:18 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar.
This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? If they said "we'll do it without the xenophobia, the invading Poland, the persecution of minorities and the creation of a dictatorship" then I wouldn't go "well, I heard you say it and all sounds are lies". Now maybe some of those things are intrinsically linked to national socialism but the traits of Stalinism are not intrinsically linked to communism, indeed they generally predate communist rule. 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. 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. 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. The point is that there is nothing violent or "evil" in the goals and ideas of communists in general.
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 10:54 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 10:27 Doublemint wrote:On January 14 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:On January 14 2014 08:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 08:30 Mercy13 wrote:On January 14 2014 08:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:34 Shiragaku wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
That example just shows a clear lack of understanding about ideology in general assuming you were not being facetious. Do you even fucking know what "National Socialism" is? Does the term "Nazi" ring a bell? Seriously, get your shit together before you flame someone --- much less flame someone twice. You're pretty much proving his point here. "Nazism" is as related to socialism as Chinese Totalitarianism is to a republic of the people. Not to defend xDaunt here but this is a misunderstanding and xDaunt is right. He was talking about the Nazis as a standalone example of a group you wouldn't give another chance, not because he thinks socialists are Nazis (I hope). xDaunt is basically saying "if you know who the Nazis are it should be abundantly obvious that I didn't mean socialism when I said National Socialism", as far as I can tell. Well, when the entire discussion line was about how Communism is not directly Stalinism, saying "National Socialism obviously means Nazism" is pretty much repeating the problem. Which, again, kinda proves Shiragaku's point, that having a political ideological discussion is incredibly irritating when people latch onto "buzzwords" and immediately jump to the "popular" representations of that word (whether its applicable or not). But doesn't National Socialism actually mean Nazism? Or am I missing something... 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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
On January 14 2014 10:56 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 10:51 Doublemint wrote:On January 14 2014 10:46 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 10:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 09:28 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:18 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality?
The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? If they said "we'll do it without the xenophobia, the invading Poland, the persecution of minorities and the creation of a dictatorship" then I wouldn't go "well, I heard you say it and all sounds are lies". Now maybe some of those things are intrinsically linked to national socialism but the traits of Stalinism are not intrinsically linked to communism, indeed they generally predate communist rule. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 ?
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".
//edit: I am not an expert on communist ideology, yet from what I understand is that there won't be something like private property -> expropriation. No elected officials but soviets, bureaucrats, deciding what's good for others with hardly to no responsibility to their "constituents" -> basically a govnerment of technocrats(if you are lucky). The means of production are in the hand of the state. etc...
|
|
|
On January 14 2014 10:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 10:46 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 10:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 09:28 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:18 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 05:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If they say it all the time then why could you not give an example of it when pressed. You argued that all Communists are basically Stalinists because anyone who says they're different has "been heard before" and everyone who has been heard before is a liar.
This is not how logic works Jonny. You can't go "they must be the same because they claim to be different and all people who claim to be different turn out the same". The burden of proof is on you. What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality? The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? If they said "we'll do it without the xenophobia, the invading Poland, the persecution of minorities and the creation of a dictatorship" then I wouldn't go "well, I heard you say it and all sounds are lies". Now maybe some of those things are intrinsically linked to national socialism but the traits of Stalinism are not intrinsically linked to communism, indeed they generally predate communist rule. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 08:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 08:30 Mercy13 wrote:On January 14 2014 08:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:34 Shiragaku wrote:On January 14 2014 07:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 07:07 Shiragaku wrote:[quote] No, Americans really need to learn how to engage ideology and actually learn what the words mean. There is nothing more goddamn frustrating when I say something like "economic liberalism" or "liberal democracy" or the word liberalism in general and people seem to associate it with "big government" for example. Also, people such as xDaunt could learn what the world socialism means. And as a quick disclaimer, when I say the study of ideology, I do not mean obscure continental thinkers such as Zizek or Althusser. Here is political ideology for dummies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies Where exactly did I say that I was talking about "socialism," smart guy? On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? That example just shows a clear lack of understanding about ideology in general assuming you were not being facetious. Do you even fucking know what "National Socialism" is? Does the term "Nazi" ring a bell? Seriously, get your shit together before you flame someone --- much less flame someone twice. You're pretty much proving his point here. "Nazism" is as related to socialism as Chinese Totalitarianism is to a republic of the people. Not to defend xDaunt here but this is a misunderstanding and xDaunt is right. He was talking about the Nazis as a standalone example of a group you wouldn't give another chance, not because he thinks socialists are Nazis (I hope). xDaunt is basically saying "if you know who the Nazis are it should be abundantly obvious that I didn't mean socialism when I said National Socialism", as far as I can tell. Well, when the entire discussion line was about how Communism is not directly Stalinism, saying "National Socialism obviously means Nazism" is pretty much repeating the problem. Which, again, kinda proves Shiragaku's point, that having a political ideological discussion is incredibly irritating when people latch onto "buzzwords" and immediately jump to the "popular" representations of that word (whether its applicable or not). But doesn't National Socialism actually mean Nazism? Or am I missing something... 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. 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.
Nazi economic policy was mostly not nationalizing industries, it was keeping privatization, but forcing monopolies and cartels, which obviously meant control of industries belonging to small groups. Eventually, once they started heavily militarizing the country, and once the war broke out, the propaganda machine, secret police, etc. and general power of the Nazis basically created a system where industries would all work to bettering the war effort.
And yes, there were heavy welfare programs, but this was the depression period, and every nation had excessive welfare.
So basically...it was never "policy" for the nation to control all industries, it's simply what happened when the regime became more totalitarian, and when the country became more focused on war.
In general, the depression era and WW2 is extremely muddled when it comes to "ideologies", because everyone pushed social welfare programs and every leadership tried to create jobs through government industries. And once war broke out, many businesses and industries became restructured for military manufacturing, money was siphoned (through taxes, national control, war bonds, etc.) and put to the war effort, and propaganda and nationalism forced every nation (whether they were democratic, fascist, or socialist) to become single-minded.
|
On January 14 2014 11:03 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 10:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 10:46 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 10:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 09:28 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:18 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:07 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
What really matters more in this instance? The logical reality or the statistical reality?
The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? If they said "we'll do it without the xenophobia, the invading Poland, the persecution of minorities and the creation of a dictatorship" then I wouldn't go "well, I heard you say it and all sounds are lies". Now maybe some of those things are intrinsically linked to national socialism but the traits of Stalinism are not intrinsically linked to communism, indeed they generally predate communist rule. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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 10:58 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 10:54 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 10:27 Doublemint wrote:On January 14 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:On January 14 2014 08:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 08:30 Mercy13 wrote:On January 14 2014 08:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 07:36 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Do you even fucking know what "National Socialism" is? Does the term "Nazi" ring a bell?
Seriously, get your shit together before you flame someone --- much less flame someone twice. You're pretty much proving his point here. "Nazism" is as related to socialism as Chinese Totalitarianism is to a republic of the people. Not to defend xDaunt here but this is a misunderstanding and xDaunt is right. He was talking about the Nazis as a standalone example of a group you wouldn't give another chance, not because he thinks socialists are Nazis (I hope). xDaunt is basically saying "if you know who the Nazis are it should be abundantly obvious that I didn't mean socialism when I said National Socialism", as far as I can tell. Well, when the entire discussion line was about how Communism is not directly Stalinism, saying "National Socialism obviously means Nazism" is pretty much repeating the problem. Which, again, kinda proves Shiragaku's point, that having a political ideological discussion is incredibly irritating when people latch onto "buzzwords" and immediately jump to the "popular" representations of that word (whether its applicable or not). But doesn't National Socialism actually mean Nazism? Or am I missing something... 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 10:56 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 10:51 Doublemint wrote:On January 14 2014 10:46 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 10:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 09:28 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:18 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? If they said "we'll do it without the xenophobia, the invading Poland, the persecution of minorities and the creation of a dictatorship" then I wouldn't go "well, I heard you say it and all sounds are lies". Now maybe some of those things are intrinsically linked to national socialism but the traits of Stalinism are not intrinsically linked to communism, indeed they generally predate communist rule. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 ? 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".
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 parties 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.
|
On January 14 2014 11:13 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 11:03 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 10:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 10:46 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 10:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 09:28 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:18 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:10 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The statistical reality is that the sample size is way too small, lacks control groups and can largely be explained by outside factors. Are you really trying to use a half dozen examples without any context to prove a point? I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? If they said "we'll do it without the xenophobia, the invading Poland, the persecution of minorities and the creation of a dictatorship" then I wouldn't go "well, I heard you say it and all sounds are lies". Now maybe some of those things are intrinsically linked to national socialism but the traits of Stalinism are not intrinsically linked to communism, indeed they generally predate communist rule. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
That is possible, but I think it is much too good a name for the movement to be abandoned.
|
On January 14 2014 11:14 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 10:58 Doublemint wrote:On January 14 2014 10:54 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 10:27 Doublemint wrote:On January 14 2014 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:On January 14 2014 08:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 08:30 Mercy13 wrote:On January 14 2014 08:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 14 2014 08:00 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
You're pretty much proving his point here. "Nazism" is as related to socialism as Chinese Totalitarianism is to a republic of the people. Not to defend xDaunt here but this is a misunderstanding and xDaunt is right. He was talking about the Nazis as a standalone example of a group you wouldn't give another chance, not because he thinks socialists are Nazis (I hope). xDaunt is basically saying "if you know who the Nazis are it should be abundantly obvious that I didn't mean socialism when I said National Socialism", as far as I can tell. Well, when the entire discussion line was about how Communism is not directly Stalinism, saying "National Socialism obviously means Nazism" is pretty much repeating the problem. Which, again, kinda proves Shiragaku's point, that having a political ideological discussion is incredibly irritating when people latch onto "buzzwords" and immediately jump to the "popular" representations of that word (whether its applicable or not). But doesn't National Socialism actually mean Nazism? Or am I missing something... 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. On January 14 2014 10:56 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 10:51 Doublemint wrote:On January 14 2014 10:46 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 10:33 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 09:28 mcc wrote:On January 14 2014 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On January 14 2014 06:18 KwarK wrote:On January 14 2014 06:15 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I guess you're willing to give National Socialism another go, too, then? If they said "we'll do it without the xenophobia, the invading Poland, the persecution of minorities and the creation of a dictatorship" then I wouldn't go "well, I heard you say it and all sounds are lies". Now maybe some of those things are intrinsically linked to national socialism but the traits of Stalinism are not intrinsically linked to communism, indeed they generally predate communist rule. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 ? 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". 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.
I like the very daring "equality on all levels!" and then in the bracket " at least to some extent" ^_^
I can see me agreeing on the exploitation methods and unsustainable economic logic we still apply to things. Equality on all levels howevery is rather utopian. I believe in equality of chance, not outcome. And I don't want to know how this "equality on all levels" would have to be implemented... I can see some people having a problem with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
