View Poll Results: Can an idealogy be bad?

Voters
46. You may not vote on this poll
  • no

    4 8.70%
  • yes

    34 73.91%
  • depends (let me explain)

    8 17.39%
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 111 to 120 of 120

Thread: National Socialism and Communism AREN'T necessarily bad

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: National Socialism and Communism AREN'T necessarily bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Good Guy View Post
    I'm not a communist, Nazi, socialist, fascist, or anything like that though.
    I got news for you dude - you are. I'll let you figure it for yourself what exactly you are.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

    Re: National Socialism and Communism AREN'T necessarily bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Proud South Korean View Post
    If they were so ideologically similar, why would have Hitler and the NSDAP built their careers on bashing communists? The Moltov-Ribbentrop pact was broken for ideological reasons also. Yes, they were totalitarian, but their entire structures were different. For the National Socialists, they were centered on race, ethnicity, and the only aspect in which they were socialist were their names. For the Communists, everything was centered on class warfare and therefore, race and nationality need no matter.
    Only the major points. Also, I didn't like your last line. Not only does it sound pompous, it also sounds childish, as you accused me of.
    This will require a bit of history but I will keep it light.

    1) after WW1, the economy of Germany was in ruin. Add to that the fact that it had to pay off a lot of war reparations and it was in ever greater ruin. There is an educated joke that tells you how bad things were back then: A german man goes into a coffee house and orders a cup of coffee that costs 1 Deutschemark. When he finished his coffee, and he had to pay for the coffee he ordered, the price was 2 Deutschemarks. This should tell you how bad it was.

    2) In time, because of some clever administration and economics, Germany recovered to some degree. Things started looking up... but then the financial collapse came in 1929 and things went downhill. Anyway. What happened here was interesting. The political class, in head with the Kaiser and his favorite parties, were losing group, other fringe groups started gaining ground. The most predominant group which gained influence, votes and political power were... the communists. The communists, with their promises and their propaganda had constantly gained power over 10-12 years after WW1. Who were the most targetted group? The workers who lost their jobs in industries and factories and agriculture and what naught. The communists appealed to them... after all, if you promise power to a people who never had power... they will support you.

    3) Hitler comes in and him, and his supporters, promote their own agenda. Who were they targetting? Everybody really... but most importantly they were targetting the same group that the communists were. The workers. The disenfranchized. This is why the translation in English of NDSAP is National Socialist German Workers Party. A=Arbeiter which means worker.
    So... in order to gain grounds they had to run a campaign against the communists who also appealed to the same demographic -> the workers. Because the national socialist program and platform was not just better but also more realistic than the communist party's platform which was, as communists always are, full of ****, Hitler and his party gained more popularity and more and people joined his party.
    He won eventually by a small majority by forming a coalition with the brown shirts and the rest is history.

    So. They were vying for the same class. This war to get the workers didn't end in 1933. It continued through underground propaganda and such. They were the greatest ideological enemy because they were so similar rather than so different. They both argued for nationalization... only the communists were much more extreme. The Nazis realized the importance and the benefit of having private business. It also gave the people a sense of freedom... because they could keep and open businesses. It also allowed for foreigners to come in and invest in Germany. This is why under the Nazi programs, from 1933 to 1935, the aproximately 6-7mil germans who were unemployed became employed and the economy boomed.

    I still stick by the last line of my former comment. Prove me wrong.

  3. #113
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: National Socialism and Communism AREN'T necessarily bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    meh, sort of right but not quite but also very, very wrong.
    Fascism and communism are completely different doctrines. Adolf Hitler had nothing but hatred and contempt for the communists, which is why he had them killed. He despised all forms of Marxism, and sought to destroy it. NSDAP was "socialist" in name only.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

    Re: National Socialism and Communism AREN'T necessarily bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Surtr View Post
    Fascism and communism are completely different doctrines. Adolf Hitler had nothing but hatred and contempt for the communists, which is why he had them killed. He despised all forms of Marxism, and sought to destroy it. NSDAP was "socialist" in name only.
    You should read the above comment I made.

    Your comment just goes to show what a simplistic attitude you have towards world history.

  5. #115
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: National Socialism and Communism AREN'T necessarily bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Good Guy View Post
    Following that logic, Islam is a evil religion then?
    Does the Koran teach intolerance and killing of non Islamics as has been reported in the press many,many times and proclaimed by their religious leaders? If the source document, the Koran, of the religion calls for the murder of people because of religious choice, then absolutely it is evil at it's core.

    Christianity, namely the Catholic Church has persecuted and killed many in the name of religion throughout history, but the Bible does not call for it. Hence, those actions by the Catholic Church can be said to be evil, however Christianity is not evil in nature because the Bible does not call for the killing of anyone.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  6. #116
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: National Socialism and Communism AREN'T necessarily bad

    This quote pretty much incorporates my view.

    "Any political ambition that is inherently impossible to achieve is ultimately corrupting...You cannot engender, or force to be engendered, a state of perfection...That line of action leads only to disaster, because perfection is an absolute that cannot be attained by an imperfect species...Utopia is a dangerous myth and only a fool would chase it...It is better to manage and maintain the flaws of man on an ongoing basis."---Dan Abnett, Legion

    National Socialism (fascism) and communism are Utopian ideals, even socialism and it's offshoots of Liberalism in the US pursue a Utopian ideal and their goals are ultimately counter intuitive to species survival. Because they all depend upon the idealistic behavior of all people, they ultimately fail because mankind as a whole cannot be made to be idealistic nor is mankind naturally idealistic. Even those who are naturally inclined to idealism are not all inclined to the same ideal, thus the ideals of these ideologues must conflict.

    This is why such idealogical political leans are inherently evil, only through martial means can they begin to force their ideologies upon mankind and achieve their goals. Even if they are not directly violent at the beginning, the must become militaristic and violent to attempt to achieve their goals. At least some of mankind that are not accepting of the ideal will fight against it.
    Last edited by DVSentinel; 12-02-12 at 01:04 PM.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  7. #117
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: National Socialism and Communism AREN'T necessarily bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    You should read the above comment I made.

    Your comment just goes to show what a simplistic attitude you have towards world history.
    Because Marx was the only guy to ever consider the economy, and the workers place in his socioeconomic philosophy. Take your accusation of "simplistic attitude" elsewhere. All you did was see "socialist" and worker, and decided that the Nazi Party had to be Marxists. Socialism is a state where industry and economy is owned by the people, with minimalist government presence. In Hitler's Germany the state owned the industry, the people, and the economy. You know why Hitler appealed to the working class? Because that's the social class that gives the most votes. That's the class that powers cities. That's the class that builds bombers, rifles, and tanks, and that's the class who fills those uniforms. Fascism is nothing without a strong military foundation, and that's what Hitler built.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

    Re: National Socialism and Communism AREN'T necessarily bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Surtr View Post
    Because Marx was the only guy to ever consider the economy, and the workers place in his socioeconomic philosophy. Take your accusation of "simplistic attitude" elsewhere. All you did was see "socialist" and worker, and decided that the Nazi Party had to be Marxists. Socialism is a state where industry and economy is owned by the people, with minimalist government presence. In Hitler's Germany the state owned the industry, the people, and the economy. You know why Hitler appealed to the working class? Because that's the social class that gives the most votes. That's the class that powers cities. That's the class that builds bombers, rifles, and tanks, and that's the class who fills those uniforms. Fascism is nothing without a strong military foundation, and that's what Hitler built.
    Heh. I like you.

    Ok, lets get to it. Maybe we can come to a consensus after some confusion is rid of.

    I never said that the nazi party was marxist. They weren't. But as you said yourself, Marx wasn't the only one to include the working class in his socioeconomic philosophy.

    "Socialism is a state where industry and economy is owned by the people, with minimalist government presence."
    Ok... you are a very confused individual. When you say that something is owned by the people you are talking about the government. Because the government represents the people whether they want it or not. So when you talk about the industry and the economy owned by the people you are talking about nationalization of what was private property. That is, the government takes a piece of property from private individuals and considers it as part of the people's property. So to say that socialism is a state where the industry and economy is owned by the people with minimalist government presence is outright a logical fallacy. Either that, or you mean free market CAPITALISM... where indeed, the government lets the people, not collectively, but individuals within the population, to own the means of production, like the industry and the economy. Did I clarify this or not?

    " In Hitler's Germany the state owned the industry, the people, and the economy. "
    Yes. The nazi party nationalized part of the private sector but not all. A lot of it was still left untouched and in the hands of private individuals. And they also were open to foreign investment and they did have foreign investment. They didn't own the people but they did oppress them by denying them certain rights. The first right to fall victim to nazism was the right to vote since Hitler named himself dictator.
    It was the communists that nationalized ALL of the major private sector. This means that yes, there were windmills or pubs that could still be operated by private individuals. But everything that was somewhat important to the communists, they took it.

    "You know why Hitler appealed to the working class? Because that's the social class that gives the most votes. That's the class that powers cities. That's the class that builds bombers, rifles, and tanks, and that's the class who fills those uniforms.".
    This doesn't invalidate what I said in the slightest. it is true ofc and it is one way to look at it. I just informed you that 6-7mil germans were out of work and they were targetted by the communists. It was Hitler whom, because he and his partners were better than the communists, won the vote of the downtrotten and the disenfranchized.

    "Fascism is nothing without a strong military foundation, and that's what Hitler built."
    History proves you correct to some degree. We can argue on this but it is small fry.

  9. #119
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,731

    Re: National Socialism and Communism AREN'T necessarily bad

    Lumping together communism and national socialism = epic fail.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  10. #120
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: National Socialism and Communism AREN'T necessarily bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Surtr View Post
    Because Marx was the only guy to ever consider the economy, and the workers place in his socioeconomic philosophy. Take your accusation of "simplistic attitude" elsewhere. All you did was see "socialist" and worker, and decided that the Nazi Party had to be Marxists.
    No kidding, since the term Socialism was first coined by Marx. Anyone claiming to be Socialist are either something else or they are related directly to Marx. All use and understanding of the Terms Socialism and Communism are related to and have to be related to Marx. Socialist today, even those who don't want to claim Marx as a source, are called socialist because they incorporate elements into their philosophy that were defined by Marx. Marx called for, in socialism, the government seizing all industry, that is why when the government becomes involved or takes over elements of a previously capitalist market, it is called Socialism, although it is not full and complete socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Surtr View Post
    Socialism is a state where industry and economy is owned by the people, with minimalist government presence.
    No, that is Communism. Socialism, according to Marx was the transition from Capitalism to Communism. Some adherents to Marx chose to accept his ideas but stop short of Communism and have labeled themselves Socialist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Surtr View Post
    In Hitler's Germany the state owned the industry, the people, and the economy.
    And thus, he was practicing elements of Socialism as defined by Marx and acting in accordance with some of Marx's teachings. Fascism, as defined and taught by Hitler and others is Authoritarian Socialism while Communism is Libertarian Socialism. The conflict between Hitler and Communist was not socialism, they both were going after similar ideals, they just didn't agree on the approach to take to achieve it and who should control the process.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •