Page 44 of 53 FirstFirst ... 344243444546 ... LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 525

Thread: Soviet ("Muscovite") vs. Nazi posters - amazing 100% similarity!

  1. #431
    Finite and Precious
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    9,561
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Soviet ("Muscovite") vs. Nazi posters - amazing 100% similarity!

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    We can quibble over just how much they should have spent without ever reaching a solid answer. The point is that they had to spend more than Weimar; I don't think there can be any question about that.
    ...why though? The only justification the Nazis had to spend so much on the Wehrmacht was because they intended to use it to conquer other people. There's no economic benefit in doing so, and Germany faced no existential threats.


    Because you're trying to blame the situation exclusively on economic policies. Getting rid of the Jews isn't an economic policy. They pursued a social policy that hindered their economic aims.
    The whole problem with foreign currency was directly because of the Nazi emphasis on imports for raw materials while exports of industrial products, the mainstay of the German economy, were falling.

    Let's just debate this point then. By what objective measures ought I to consider the New Deal more successful than Nazi economic policies?
    The fact that it managed to half unemployment without resorting to measures like mass conscription and dropping segments of the population from the employment list, that it didn't force the United States to engage in currency wars to sustain it's international trade, and it didn't cripple the economy in the long run as the Nazis did. Because as it's been said countless times by now, German rearmament was absolutely a drain on the economy that was leading Germany to financial ruin. We can argue all day on the effectiveness of the New Deal but that doesn't change the nothing the New Deal provided a drain on the American economy as did Germany spending more than 10% of her GNP on the Wehrmacht by 1936 and 70% of the Reich's spending was dedicated to rearmament.
    “We were all of us cogs in a great machine which sometimes rolled forward, nobody knew where, sometimes backwards, nobody knew why.”

    ― Ernst Toller

  2. #432
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:18 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,365

    Re: Soviet ("Muscovite") vs. Nazi posters - amazing 100% similarity!

    Quote Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
    No that is called quote mining and really does nothing more than demonstrate a lack of education on your part. The quote of dictatorship of the proleteriat in marxism means that the workers have the right to control political power rather than the elite class of royal and wealthy that controlled politics in his time. In actual practice that means that various political parties have a right to compete for the seats of government as in any democracy.
    The dictatorship of the proletariat was predicated upon the idea that the workers made up the majority of the people in any given country. In a democratic country then, the proletariat would rule, they would dictate.

    E Germany had two political parties when the wall came down. It was technically in a unity government with the ruling party. Thus is an example of dictatorship of the proletariat.

  3. #433
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:18 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,365

    Re: Soviet ("Muscovite") vs. Nazi posters - amazing 100% similarity!

    Quote Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
    Disagree. the only difference between communist economics and capitalist is where the profit goes. Otherwise the intent of making profit is the same.

    Then the objective of the socialist enterprise is to produce a profit. Will need to explain what exactly has changed from its capitalist competitor.

  4. #434
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    new zealand.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,103

    Re: Soviet ("Muscovite") vs. Nazi posters - amazing 100% similarity!

    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius68 View Post
    The dictatorship of the proletariat was predicated upon the idea that the workers made up the majority of the people in any given country. In a democratic country then, the proletariat would rule, they would dictate.

    E Germany had two political parties when the wall came down. It was technically in a unity government with the ruling party. Thus is an example of dictatorship of the proletariat.

    Any democracy that has a labour party or similar is also an example. But as well democracies also have parties that lean towards the capitalist wealthy and balance those parties leaning towards the workers.

    The difference is that in marx's time only the wealthy, the religious powers and the monarchy had the eight to rule.

  5. #435
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    new zealand.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,103

    Re: Soviet ("Muscovite") vs. Nazi posters - amazing 100% similarity!

    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius68 View Post
    Then the objective of the socialist enterprise is to produce a profit. Will need to explain what exactly has changed from its capitalist competitor.
    The difference is where the profit goes. In capitalism the owner of the business has the right to profit. With communism the workers have the right to the profit.

    However in capitalism where the owner is also the worker then that balance is met. But unfortunately capitalism was not meant to also include corporate monopolies where shareholders and an elites ruling class only had means to the profit. That particular capitalism is a branch off it called laissez faire and is as ridiculous a philosophy as the other end of the extreme such as bolshevism.

  6. #436
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,017

    Re: Soviet ("Muscovite") vs. Nazi posters - amazing 100% similarity!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jredbaron96 View Post
    Your attempts to equate Soviet desire to spread communism and the Nazi's fundamental need to conquer is a false equivalence.

    The Soviets never shared the Nazi tendency for overt and large scale seizures of land and territory. It's not that they had any moral qualms about subjugating people or forcing their ideology on it, but it was against their own stated ideological purposes.
    Poland, and all of Eastern Europe for that matter, would like to have a word with you.

    Why you feel the Soviets somehow shared that sentiment is beyond me. Arguing that they would revert to the same kind of overt military action to spread communism doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Seizing the Baltics, parts of Finland, and eastern Poland does nothing substantial to help the spread of international communism. By their own admission the Soviets justification of seizing the Baltics was entirely strategic in nature in order to protect the most direct overland route to Leningrad and Soviet ports in the Baltic Sea.

    The idea that without Hitler and the Nazis that Stalin would order the Red Army to invade Europe to spread Communism isn't supported by any credible evidence. The RKKA certainly wasn't preparing for it, it was counter to the Soviets own ideological stances, as well as what we know about Stalin and his foreign policy.
    You have to explain to me why, in the fact of the fact that THEY ACTUALLY DID IT, I should believe that they wouldn't have done it.

    Well if you know as well as I do, then surely you know the Far Eastern Front still did not represent a critical component in sustaining the survival of the Soviet Union.
    If the Japanese had invaded, then the Soviet Union would have fallen. Of course, after the oil embargo there was no way that Japan could have done it, which is why they bombed Pearl Harbor. However, given that the Soviet Union nearly fell facing Germany alone, there is no way that they would have survived a two-front war.

    I don't see why you would think that. Hitler planned his invasion of Poland starting in April 1939 months before the MRP was made.
    Then why does Hitler even bother getting the Soviet Union to agree to that pact? He knows Britain and France are seriously threatening war. He doesn't want to go to war with the Soviet Union also at that time. He's trying to prevent a two-front war.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "To exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one's profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine." - Pope Leo XIII

  7. #437
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:18 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,365

    Re: Soviet ("Muscovite") vs. Nazi posters - amazing 100% similarity!

    Quote Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
    The difference is where the profit goes. In capitalism the owner of the business has the right to profit. With communism the workers have the right to the profit.

    However in capitalism where the owner is also the worker then that balance is met. But unfortunately capitalism was not meant to also include corporate monopolies where shareholders and an elites ruling class only had means to the profit. That particular capitalism is a branch off it called laissez faire and is as ridiculous a philosophy as the other end of the extreme such as bolshevism.
    The objective of profit is what socialists complain is a problem of capitalism. So for example, unemployment exists in a capitalist society so as to keep a pool of labor available to the capitalist at low wages so as to keep profits high. If this socialist interpretation is true, does unemployment exist in a socialist society as a means to increase profit to other workers in a particular firm? If unemployment does not exist in the socialist society, then what does it do to make up for that missing avenue of profit? Whatever it decides, it would be different than how the capitalist would decide.
    Last edited by Athanasius68; 01-13-19 at 01:51 PM.

  8. #438
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:18 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,365

    Re: Soviet ("Muscovite") vs. Nazi posters - amazing 100% similarity!

    Quote Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
    Any democracy that has a labour party or similar is also an example. But as well democracies also have parties that lean towards the capitalist wealthy and balance those parties leaning towards the workers.

    The difference is that in marx's time only the wealthy, the religious powers and the monarchy had the eight to rule.
    The communists didn't want a balance between the worker and capitalist though. And how does socialism advance if the objective is to keep capitalism in some sort of balance? And in any event, as the belief is that there are more workers than capitalists, such balance in government must therefore be undemocratic and needs to end. And the communists always argued that the capitalists would not peacefully give up their power. But if the capitalists don't give up their power, how is socialism built?

  9. #439
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,017

    Re: Soviet ("Muscovite") vs. Nazi posters - amazing 100% similarity!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jredbaron96 View Post
    ...why though? The only justification the Nazis had to spend so much on the Wehrmacht was because they intended to use it to conquer other people. There's no economic benefit in doing so, and Germany faced no existential threats.
    Because you are surrounded by other countries with bigger, better armies, especially France, who just recently conquered you. Like I said before, we can disagree on the extent of their rearmament, but there is no good rationale for not rearming at all.

    The whole problem with foreign currency was directly because of the Nazi emphasis on imports for raw materials while exports of industrial products, the mainstay of the German economy, were falling.
    Yet I've shown you that Jewish emigration accounted for more loss of foreign reserves that the Reichsbank even held. You can't just ignore that.

    The fact that it managed to half unemployment without resorting to measures like mass conscription and dropping segments of the population from the employment list, that it didn't force the United States to engage in currency wars to sustain it's international trade, and it didn't cripple the economy in the long run as the Nazis did. Because as it's been said countless times by now, German rearmament was absolutely a drain on the economy that was leading Germany to financial ruin. We can argue all day on the effectiveness of the New Deal but that doesn't change the nothing the New Deal provided a drain on the American economy as did Germany spending more than 10% of her GNP on the Wehrmacht by 1936 and 70% of the Reich's spending was dedicated to rearmament.
    I'm still here unconvinced that the New Deal was better than Nazi economic policy. I'm far better off as a German worker where I'm guaranteed work and a paycheck, I have the KdF providing cheap vacations, I get subsidies for starting and raising my family, etc. What was the American experience? High unemployment, little relief, and a stagnant economy.



    So Germany by 1935 had reached the average income of 1930. The US didn't do that until nearly 1940. Plus, and we cannot ignore this fact, Germany did that with everyone working. The US still had 15% unemployment, which ought to lower their average wages, yet that's not accounted for in this graph.

    Germany wins here easily.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "To exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one's profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine." - Pope Leo XIII

  10. #440
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    new zealand.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,103

    Re: Soviet ("Muscovite") vs. Nazi posters - amazing 100% similarity!

    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius68 View Post
    The objective of profit is what socialists complain is a problem of capitalism. So for example, unemployment exists in a capitalist society so as to keep a pool of labor available to the capitalist at low wages so as to keep profits high. If this socialist interpretation is true, does unemployment exist in a socialist society as a means to increase profit to other workers in a particular firm? If unemployment does not exist in the socialist society, then what does it do to make up for that missing avenue of profit? Whatever it decides, it would be different than how the capitalist would decide.
    No, there is nothing inherently evil about profit, it is the basis of all economic transactions. What is evil is the hording of profit by theft from those who actually produce it which monopolistic capitalism does.

    And again, no. Unemployment is in today's society, a natural part of nearly everyone's lives. Long gone is the idea that a person takes one job for life. Now the average person will have several careers and experience unemployment at some stages.

    Unemployment is not really the evil of capitalism either. This is more an evil of a christian class system which keeps the poor locked into poverty through generations by a charity system that does nothing more than reduce the poor to beggars.

    Socialist system should not be about eliminating that which is necessary for a working environment. It is about breaking the cycle of poverty and creating opportunity for the unemployed to not only get work but to be able to live without the stigma that is currently placed upon them by those who are as you say capitalists.

    It is not the unemployed who are the problem. It is the capitalist desire to make their lives miserable as possible that is the problem even though as you say it is the capitalist system that creates them in the first place.
    Last edited by soylentgreen; 01-13-19 at 02:40 PM.

Page 44 of 53 FirstFirst ... 344243444546 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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