Bernie Sanders The 2nd Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 capitalism has killed more then hitler. capitalism needs to be removed and a North Korea or Khmer Rouge style society brought into place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 There are both similarities and differences between Fascism and National Socialism, and a lot of people interchange the two terms freely. In the end, they're both extreme far-right ideologies that need to be smashed. I am not arguing with you, but why is National Socialism and Fascism considered Right-Wing ideologies? That has always made me question when I hear it. Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) capitalism has killed more then hitler. capitalism needs to be removed and a North Korea or Khmer Rouge style society brought into place. Your role-playing of Bernie Sanders fails. Your statements coincide more along the lines of Chairman Mao. Edited November 4, 2015 by VasiliusKonstantinos Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Brother Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I am not arguing with you, but why is National Socialism and Fascism considered Right-Wing ideologies? That has always made me question when I hear it. National Socialism and Fascism are considered to be right-wing ideologies for several reasons, but maybe mainly because of where they stand on the economic spectrum of politics, which is a reflection of the economic policies they put into practice. Fascism is big on corporatism, hierarchy, nationalism, conservatism and all of these are characteristics of right-wing politics. Nazism shares a lot of these traits with Fascism, but is perhaps less right-wing on the economic scale. Look at this for example: "Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical".[185] Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could nationalise it.[186] Although the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, they also increased economic state control.[187] Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished; nevertheless, Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him reluctant to entirely disregard business competition and private property as economic engines." Now, nationalizing an industry is something you typically see left-wing governments doing nowadays, but privatizing public properties and public services, that's straight up right-wing. It's also worth mentioning that wherever Nazis and fascists gain power, they ruthlessly persecute supporters of the left-wing, which is an indication that they consider themselves to be opposed to the left. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Wait hold up, are you saying the National Socialist version of the German economy was bad? Now, this may sound biased, but Germany actually was able to raise up from the Great Depression. The National Socialist did many programs to help improve their economy and GDP. For instance; The Autobahn. An program to construct highway systems (which U.S.A later adopted after WW2) around the country, it resulted in lowering the unemployement rate and actually building back up the German economy. http://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/nazi-economic-recovery/ The reason why Germany rose out of the Great Depression was due more or less to two reasons. The first was the nationalizing of industry and the distribution of strict and anti-union monopolies, allowing for the government to essentially dictate the market and insulate the German economy. That economic policy is a defining characteristic of "National Socialism." It's not a sound economic policy now, even if you have a recession today. The only reason why this economic policy works is due to the second reason why Germany was able to rise out of the Depression: a nation-wide mobilization of the industrial military complex. It is the same reason why the US, or any other country for that matter, rose out of the Great Depression, and should not be something unique to National Socalism. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vassili Dovgan Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 By your logic, all Soviets including Stalin, are Communist, correct? True murderous Communist? Wow, you're really making Socialism and Communism sound bad. Again, there's a clear difference between Fascism and National Socialism. (Mussolini even had Jewish-religious people in the Fascist Party of Italy, before Hitler started pressuring him). You really need to do more research, besides being an ignorant person. I don't think that any leader of the USSR after Lenin was really communist. But I don't really care about that, since I'm not a communist either. I already knew that Jews were basically tolerated in the Italian fascist system. Being half-Italian myself, I had many fascist relatives. But still, fascism comes in many different shapes. One of them is National Socialism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) Oh heil, Ogaden, look what you've started. Don't jew dare make another thread like this. >_> Edited November 4, 2015 by Kurdanak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyStroke Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 It is convenient that when a leader of a country that identified itself as Communist later is labeled by history as a failure of some sort that those who still cling to Communist ideals 'rewrite' history calling that failed leader 'not a real Communist'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Brother Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) It is convenient that when a leader of a country that identified itself as Communist later is labeled by history as a failure of some sort that those who still cling to Communist ideals 'rewrite' history calling that failed leader 'not a real Communist'. Well this is just plain wrong. A country cannot identity itself as Communist, because there cannot be any countries under Communism. The USSR does stand for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, after all. Even if the governing system of a country is considered to adhere to a specific ideology, this doesn't mean the leader of that country actually practices the predominant ideology. Anyone with a clear understanding of what Communism is and an understanding of Stalin's actions will be able to realize that the things he did and the policies he set in motion, don't really fit in with the ideology of Communism. Also, how did Stalin fail? He was the son of a poor, abusive, alcoholic Georgian cobbler and yet Stalin managed to rise to the top of what was then one of the world's two superpowers. That's quite an achievement. Regardless of any personal opinion of him, his accomplishments in rising to power, in defeating Germany and in building the Soviet Union into a powerhouse, are quite impressive. I don't think anyone who managed those things can be said to have failed. Edited November 5, 2015 by Big Brother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Well this is just plain wrong. A country cannot identity itself as Communist, because there cannot be any countries under Communism. The USSR does stand for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, after all. Even if the governing system of a country is considered to adhere to a specific ideology, this doesn't mean the leader of that country actually practices the predominant ideology. Anyone with a clear understanding of what Communism is and an understanding of Stalin's actions will be able to realize that the things he did and the policies he set in motion, don't really fit in with the ideology of Communism. Also, how did Stalin fail? He was the son of a poor, abusive, alcoholic Georgian cobbler and yet Stalin managed to rise to the top of what was then one of the world's two superpowers. That's quite an achievement. Regardless of any personal opinion of him, his accomplishments in rising to power, in defeating Germany and in building the Soviet Union into a powerhouse, are quite impressive. I don't think anyone who managed those things can be said to have failed. To be fair, the Democratic Republic of Korea is neither democratic nor a republic. I do agree with your statement with Stalin not being an ideologue of traditional Marxist communism. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 To be fair, the Democratic Republic of Korea is neither democratic nor a republic. I do agree with your statement with Stalin not being an ideologue of traditional Marxist communism. You mean the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Who's ideology is Juche? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 You mean the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Who's ideology is Juche? Smartass. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vassili Dovgan Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Juche is best! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Juche is best! No? DPRK isn't even surviving because of it. Another reason why Central planning fails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Brother Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 To be fair, the Democratic Republic of Korea is neither democratic nor a republic. I do agree with your statement with Stalin not being an ideologue of traditional Marxist communism. Oh I know, I was just pointing out how they themselves chose to use "socialist" to describe their country as opposed to "communist". I realize that official country names can be misleading, especially in the case of the DPRK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vassili Dovgan Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 No? DPRK isn't even surviving because of it. Another reason why Central planning fails. I admit that planned economy is indeed not perfect. The planned economy is rather part of a communist economy, than socialist economy. Many socialist countries made this mistake in that past. That's why they are currently having economic reforms there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 I admit that planned economy is indeed not perfect. The planned economy is rather part of a communist economy, than socialist economy. Many socialist countries made this mistake in that past. That's why they are currently having economic reforms there. Um no, there's never been a Communist state. Central Planning is mainly associated with Socialist states, such as; USSR, PRC (before the 70's), Vietnam (before the 90's) and Laos currently, Cuba is reduced to black markets in order to replace its broken economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Stalin like Pol Pot, Mao and other communist leaders, was a militant atheist who had a policy of systematically attacking people of faith. What a great man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Director Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 This time of the year again is it? Srsly, they all killed a bunch of people while strengthening their states and by extension themselves. Its just that Commies didn't wind up on the wrong end of WW2. Quote http://7kingdoms.net/skrp/ ^Forum based nation building RP. You should join it^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vassili Dovgan Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Um no, there's never been a Communist state. Central Planning is mainly associated with Socialist states, such as; USSR, PRC (before the 70's), Vietnam (before the 90's) and Laos currently, Cuba is reduced to black markets in order to replace its broken economy. My dear fascist, I never said that there ever was a communist state. What I'm trying to say is that socialist states in the past worked a little too much on achieving communism, instead of perfectioning socialism. I'm not saying that planned economy doesn't work in socialism, it just doesn't work as good as other types of economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 My dear fascist, I never said that there ever was a communist state. What I'm trying to say is that socialist states in the past worked a little too much on achieving communism, instead of perfectioning socialism. I'm not saying that planned economy doesn't work in socialism, it just doesn't work as good as other types of economy. No? You stated "A planned economy is apart of a Communist state" when it really isn't. Many Socialist states have shown planned economies. That's why China had to change their economic system in order to get a high economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Potato Potatoe Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vassili Dovgan Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 No? You stated "A planned economy is apart of a Communist state" when it really isn't. Many Socialist states have shown planned economies. That's why China had to change their economic system in order to get a high economy. What I'm saying is that s socialist state can work with a planned economy, but it doesn't have to have one. Potato Potatoe I like potatoes! They're delicious and nutritious. We should have a holiday to honour the potatoes! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Potato Potatoe Kurwa! What I'm saying is that s socialist state can work with a planned economy, but it doesn't have to have one. I like potatoes! They're delicious and nutritious. We should have a holiday to honour the potatoes! No? The fact that planned economies doesn't allow competition and ensures most of the economy is state owned, ensures it cannot progress with international standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vassili Dovgan Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Kurwa! No? The fact that planned economies doesn't allow competition and ensures most of the economy is state owned, ensures it cannot progress with international standards. State owned and planned are two different things. Also, what do you think of Potato Day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.