Nazism or Communism; which one do you hate more

[Gilly]

Hey Rob. Don't be a douche unless you can back it up.

Love,
Gilly

[Absurd]

Most of yous posting in this thread are homosexuals, OP as well. I seriously don't know what like and dislike has to do with it at all. As for both idealogies being the same, they're not. Only a homosexual can come to such an conclusion.

Go and be more subjective, please.

[Gilly]

Subjective homosexuals

LSE WORST NIGHTMARE

[mu4]

Firstly, the Dalai Lama is not a Marxist, nor is China socialist or even close to communism (in fact, it's impossible for communism cannot be achieved by a single country.) Yet, because you are completely and utterly fucking ignorant of the topic of which you surround with a fantastic array of logically erroneous scarecrows, you confuse yourself. If we consider that you open your post with the notion that the laws of history were but the mere construct of the human definition and that their objective existences rested firmly on the shoulders of subjective interpretation and then, quite ironiclly, spend the rest of your post paying a lip-service to the objective laws beyond our control; oblivious to fact that what we call communism is the logical consequence of a species that is antagonistic to it's own continued existence, that as capital centralizes, as more and more industries are brought under one roof, or taken control by the state out of ever increasing frequency/necessity, it is society making impulses towards socialization. There is more and more connectivity, travel, industrial parks and parking lot malls, society is socializing beyond our active control and that by simply reflecting about the concept is nothing more than the conscious reflection of it's objective unfolding- weather such reflection is in favor or against is of no importance. The relationship between your ignorance and confusion is reciprocal.

I find your pretense to clarity amusing, you talk like a religious person. People call themselves various things and generally fail to live up to the billing. Sorry to disappoint you but you're one of them along with many many others.

Society has always socialized beyond our active control and in general we've made attempts to control it with limited success and sometimes catastrophic failure, yet people try.

I think models are useful, they generally predict inevitable, catastrophic collapse and those that don't are fantasies. The are ways to prolong things and ways to make things pleasant but there is no model that reflect reality which tells you, things will be just fine in perpetuity.

Capitalist model might leads to it's own self-destruction, that's fine, in general I think he's right about that part since I tend to view everything as eventually collapsing on itself. Communist model leading to a stateless classless society, well I think this might as well be religious.

[munenori2]

total sausage fest in here

[Gilly]

total sausage fest in here

Duuhh, politics...

[Absurd]

Subjective homosexuals

LSE WORST NIGHTMARE

I knew you're going to point that out, Gilly. Oh, so eager and willing to bite me. Quite heroic but futile. Thing is, you wouldn't know how to object if it wasn't for those two words I used, so think about it as of me doing you a favour.

I find your pretense to clarity amusing, you talk like a religious person.

Well, religious or not. I don't know. Calling a guy who owns/owned slaves marxist is hilarious, hkkmr.

[mu4]

Well, religious or not. I don't know. Calling a guy who owns/owned slaves marxist is hilarious, hkkmr.

I don't call him a Marxist. He calls himself one.

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T5rRhrNYs-Y

[Absurd]

I don't call him a Marxist. He calls himself one.

I know quite a bit about this pope from Tibet from various sources and the image he paints himself is quite different.

[marooned]

I think Nazism is way more clear about what it is, so I think I can safely hate it more. It narrows itself to a fine point. I think it's the baby of several deranged men who had little but ill intent. Communism on the other hand seems to often be taken up by deranged men, but perhaps did not arise of such ill intent. It's difficult to compare the amount of harm done by each system. But I once again feel Nazism made itself more clear. This is lame since I'm going with the one that is more precise and specific just because it is more precise and specific. With Communism, do I blame the system or its leaders in various parts of the world? Were its leaders not usually dictators (deranged men)? With Nazism, its leaders and the system seem more deeply intertwined (one and the same).

National Socialism (common short form Nazism, German: Nationalsozialismus) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany, and derivatives of it in other countries.^[1][2][3][4] It is a unique variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.^[5] Nazism was founded out of elements of the far-right racist völkisch German nationalist movement and the violent anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the uprisings of communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany.^[6] The ideology was developed first by Anton Drexler and then Adolf ****** as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.^[7] Initially Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, though such aspects were later downplayed in the 1930s to gain the support from industrial owners for the Nazis; the focus shifting to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes.^[8] Nazism promoted political violence, militarism, and war, it conceived of politics as being a "battle", and the Nazis utilized their paramilitary organization, the Sturmabteilung (SA) for violent attacks upon their opponents, particularly communists, Jews, and social democrats.^[9] ****** and the Nazis openly promoted German territorial expansionism into Eastern Europe to be Lebensraum ("living space") for German settlers and assimilation of Germanic peoples into Germans that would result in the creation of a "Greater Germanic Realm of the German Nation".^[10]

I suppose Communism poses a greater threat to the world though. Nazism is such clear fascism that people can react to it more quickly and overthrow it while Communism is like a silent, gradual killer sapping the energy of possible revolt as it goes along, draining away culture so that new things are less likely to arise. Feudal System 2.0? (I don't seem to have any feelings about that though. Hate is such a strong word, etc.)

/ignorant $0.02

Edit: Perhaps it's quick death & terrible rebirth vs. slow and ultimate death. Now I don't know which I hate more.

[Absurd]

Interesting fact is, most of what NS was comprised of between 1933 to 1945 pertaining to its ideology was heavily influenced by one guy who wrote a book. Later "Mein Kampf" saw the light of day and ironically it bears the same name as the former.

[mu4]

Were its leaders not usually dictators (deranged men)? With Nazism, its leaders and the system seem more deeply intertwined (one and the same).

Recent socialist progressivism(generally social democracy, without the desire to move to communism) is changing circumstances imo, but I don't think most Americans even understand or know what is happening.

In South America

Brazil(Lula, Dilma), Chile(Michelle Bachelet), Uruguay(Jose Mujica) are representatives of this peaceful democratic reform with fair distribution of wealth to the citizens and workers

What is interesting of these figures is that these are former revolutionaries or children of people who have been oppressed by American backed military dictatorships.

Chile(Pinochet), Brazil(Military Junta), Uruguay(Military Coup)



You think anything scares this lady? She was tortured for 22 days and in prison for 3 years.

Capitalism and communism are dead, those who succeed to make their countries better will set the stage for future generations. Those who cling to grandiose ideological wankery get to go thru the same bullshit the rest of the world went thru because they clung on to grandiose ideological wankery.

[marooned]

I don't know that I see Socialism and Communism as the same thing... The nations I was referring to are mainly in Europe and Asia (the most classic being the former USSR). I don't think that Brazil, Chile or Uruguay were ever technically considered Communist states.

[mu4]

I don't know that I see Socialism and Communism as the same thing... The nations I was referring to are mainly in Europe and Asia (the most classic being the former USSR). I don't think that Brazil, Chile or Uruguay were ever technically considered Communist states.

I was talking about leaders and not system. But Socialism under some interpretations is supposed to be a intermediate step towards Communism, that interpretation is largely gone as most people don't really think Communism is possible or desirable.

Dilma is a former member of a Marxist rebel group and so is Jose. Lula is founder of the Worker's Party in Brazil and wear Che Guevara t-shirts. These are at the very least, Marxist/Marx influenced leaders.

As far as those communist leaders you referred to, they made their government after a revolution, generally in a impractical fashion.

[marooned]

Sigh. I also don't necessarily see Marxism and Communism as the same thing. I'm looking for nations that did or do practice what is considered "Communism" so as to see examples of it in action. It need not be a system that Marx himself would approve of from the grave.

[mu4]

Sigh. I also don't necessarily see Marxism and Communism as the same thing. I'm looking for nations that did or do practice what is considered "Communism" so as to see examples of it in action. It need not be a system that Marx himself would approve of from the grave.

I don't think there is a universal idea of what is Communism or Marxism. People generally use it as political rhetoric for or against.

I simply presented leaders who are Marx influenced and not dictators. Maybe it's just that dictators make dictatorships. There are examples of those in South America too, Cuba(Castro), Bolivia(Evo Morales), Venezuela(Hugo Chavez).

[Crispy]

I chose Nazism cause the relative shittiness of their ideas, but would probably rather live in a historical Nazi regime than Commy, due to having a better chance of surviving there.

[marooned]

I don't think there is a universal idea of what is Communism or Marxism. People generally use it as political rhetoric for or against.

I simply presented leaders who are Marx influenced and not dictators. Maybe it's just that dictators make dictatorships. There are examples of those in South America too, Cuba(Castro), Bolivia(Evo Morales), Venezuela(Hugo Chavez).

The point is you're tagging onto what I'm saying to make your political anti-Capitalism arguments and since I haven't said anything regarding those subjects, I'd appreciate being left out of it. I'm not criticizing your beloved Socialist leaders.

And, certain nations are and have been widely considered Communist, I stake my claim on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state

I'm not looking at pure ideologies (and if you are, we're not even on the same page to begin with). I care more about what actually happened under certain systems to make any attempt at an evaluation. I also said very specifically already, 'do I blame the system or its leaders.' That's why I said I hated Nazism more to begin with (there is little to no confusion about whether or not Nazism in practice was twisted around into something it was never meant to be since its developers happened to also pretty much be its implementers). So I don't understand why you're nit-picking.

[Pa3s]

I'm looking for nations that did or do practice what is considered "Communism" so as to see examples of it in action. It need not be a system that Marx himself would approve of from the grave.

Two examples come to mind: Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine and the anarchist movement during the Spanish Civil War. Other than that, you'll not find a considerable manifestation of actual communism, especially not a whole nation.

I don't know if Marx approved these initiatives (since he hated Bakunin and other anarchists) but it's as close as it can get to the communist goal of a "classless, moneyless and stateless(!)" society. Anarchist communists and authoritarian communists actually had the same goal (or that's at least what they said), but they debated over the "right" way of achieving it.

The authoritan group formed parties and a revolutionary avant-garde. They said it's necessary to seize power and form a strong state to destroy capitalism and then, after introducing communism, let the state "wither away" (which never actually happened in practice). The anarchists strictly rejected the idea of a "revolutionary state" and want to reach their goal through a grassroots movement.

[mu4]

The point is you're tagging onto what I'm saying to make your political anti-Capitalism arguments and since I haven't said anything regarding those subjects, I'd appreciate being left out of it. I'm not criticizing your beloved Socialist leaders.

Were its leaders not usually dictators (deranged men)?

I responded to this question you asked, I wasn't nit picking. I'm showing you places where the actual leaders are Marxist/Communist/Social democrats and not dictators....

I care more about what actually happened under certain systems to make any attempt at an evaluation.

I'm trying to report on exactly what I see happening today, that's all. The system of the totalitarian communists were made by those leaders(I really don't think you can seperate the system these people made from the leadership, they were the founders of their states). I don't think the leaders I have noted have tried to make those systems.

Also on the page you linked, two of these countries have Communist parties as part of the ruling coalition.

Communist parties as part of other ruling coalition

There are also some parties that participate as junior partners in ruling coalitions, as listed below.

• Brazil – Communist Party of Brazil – participates in the ruling coalition
• Peru – Peruvian Communist Party – participates in the ruling coalition
• South Africa – South African Communist Party – participates in the ruling coalition
• Sri Lanka – Communist Party of Sri Lanka – participates in the ruling coalition
• Syria – Syrian Communist Party (Bakdash), Syrian Communist Party (Faisal) – participates in the ruling coalition
• Ukraine – Communist Party of Ukraine – participates in the ruling coalition
• Uruguay – Communist Party of Uruguay – participates in the ruling coalition

If you want a simple answer, I'm afraid there isn't one.

Anyways, I'm not anti-entrepreneurship, or even anti-capitalist. I am an enterprising person and I believe business, trade and commerce is one of those things every individual should have a right to engage in. However I also believe in progressive taxation, social welfare programs such as universal healthcare and free/or nearly free education for all. I'm very much against people who think these ideas are mutually exclusive. People can call me a capitalist or socialist or what not but I'm a heterodox mixed economy person. Closer to someone like Ha Joon Chang then any of the "classical" economists.

Anyways thinking in terms of capitalism and communism is trapping yourself in a pattern from which there is no advancements. I think one must view these as antiquities to be made obsolete and improved upon.

[marooned]

I responded to this question you asked, I wasn't nit picking. I'm showing you places where the actual leaders are Marxist/Communist/Social democrats and not dictators....

They don't seem commie enough to be my commies.

If you want a simple answer, I'm afraid there isn't one.

I was more focused on wanting to know which system I hate more.

And, okay, it was unfair of me to use the term "anti-Capitalist" in referring to you.

[mu4]

I was more focused on wanting to know which system I hate more.

I hate dictators and assholes and the systems they create pretty much equally, but the cartoonish evil that was Nazi Germany is very easy to despise above others.

I would say the system I hate the most isn't Nazi Germany, but Pol Pot's Cambodia(hell on earth if there ever was one).

[Absurd]

[...]I don't know if Marx approved these initiatives (since he hated Bakunin and other anarchists) but it's as close as it can get to the communist goal of a "classless, moneyless and stateless(!)" society. Anarchist communists and authoritarian communists actually had the same goal (or that's at least what they said), but they debated over the "right" way of achieving it[...]

As much I love you and want to make out with you - nah kidding again -, I can't fully agree with those bits. Anyhow, back to OP and anyone who is responding. When voicing your, let's say, like towards one thing, you automatically dislike the other. This thread, to me is about morality. And if it is about morality, then how is it moral to voice one's like in favour of one murderous system over another murderous system?

[marooned]

Hmm, I thought it was more, I hate both X and Y but I HATE X MORE! sort of thing. Of course what X and Y even are, is up to debate.

[Red Villain]

As much I love you and want to make out with you - nah kidding again -, I can't fully agree with those bits. Anyhow, back to OP and anyone who is responding. When voicing your, let's say, like towards one thing, you automatically dislike the other. This thread, to me is about morality. And if it is about morality, then how is it moral to voice one's like in favour of one murderous system over another murderous system?

I wouldn't sweat it. No one in this thread even knows what Communism is.

[Pa3s]

I can't fully agree with those bits.

You are of course free to disagree, I don't say I'm never wrong. This is just how I understood it.

[Absurd]

Hmm, I thought it was more, I hate both X and Y but I HATE X MORE! sort of thing.

Oh my mistake, then. Anyway, it is still a question of ethics.

Of course what X and Y even are, is up to debate.

It's not. Both are fundamentally different from each other. It's like you're starting an organisation being a leader of it, out of your initiative I mean, and what you witness is a guy once being on your side stabbing you in the back, taking a small portion of people with him and forging a new organisation not noticing the previous one is growing in numbers even after his recession.

I wouldn't sweat it. No one in this thread even knows what Communism is.

Well, this is indeed a soconics forum so cut them some slack.

You are of course free to disagree, I don't say I'm never wrong. This is just how I understood it.

It's alright, I'm quite authoritarian myself so that makes me this red fascist or something in your eyes.

Check out Proudhon

[Absurd]

It's silly to use history to back up a distaste for communism, because no country has ever been communist as defined by Karl Marx. Nazism is more hate-worthy, unless by "communism" OP meant what we commonly refer to as communism - in that case, "communist" regimes have caused much more loss (by starvation) than Nazism.

I can preliminary agree with that.

[Gilly]

I knew you're going to point that out, Gilly. Oh, so eager and willing to bite me. Quite heroic but futile. Thing is, you wouldn't know how to object if it wasn't for those two words I used, so think about it as of me doing you a favour.

...who said anything about biting?



Besides, picking on you wouldn't be heroic, just...pointless.

[Gilly]

or Obamanation Oh, politix!

lolitics

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

how society operates imo:

The mass population gets seriously pissed and fed up of the jews sucking everybody else for money. They live incredibly well while the rest of the world seems to suffer, they are labeled as 'sneaky', and 'evil' and sniveling. And so they advocate for socialism and communism instead of capitalism. They then have to have dictators in order to force everybody to be equal since there are so many people that want to make a lot of money. The independent willpower is so strong and in order to be fair and equal they have to tie everybody down. It doesn't work and its ugly and inhumane etc. People then decide capitalism is the lesser of two evils and let the jews have their way and have a trillion dollars while the middle class episcopalian middle-class gets condescended against. Who really has it rough though is the blue collar working class as they get stuck doing the actual work in society while the people with the most smarts (magic power) live the most comfortably.

[Absurd]

...who said anything about biting?

I did.

Besides, picking on you wouldn't be heroic, just...pointless.

That's what I said.

[strangeling]

[IMG]http://images.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2010/08/******-cat.jpg[/IMG]


How can you hate that Trevor?

[Taknamay]

I hope this helps.

[geneiouws]

they both suck imo

[Anglas]

[Capitalist Pig]

How precisely does one rationalize two highly distinct socio-economic systems in being similar unless by broad generalizations and stupidly obvious characterizations such as "they were both systems"?

A difference of philosophy doesn't change the tangible result of material ruin and a body count in the millions. The economic policies aren't all that different. Socialism is the backbone of statolatry, thereby it becomes the tool of despots.

[Absurd]

A difference of philosophy doesn't change the tangible result of material ruin and a body count in the millions. The economic policies aren't all that different. Socialism is the backbone of statolatry, thereby it becomes the tool of despots.

Augusto Pinochet?

[Absurd]

Oh come on you very smart revolutionary person, CPig, oblige me.

[Creepy-male]

how society operates imo:

The mass population gets seriously pissed and fed up of the jews sucking everybody else for money. They live incredibly well while the rest of the world seems to suffer, they are labeled as 'sneaky', and 'evil' and sniveling. And so they advocate for socialism and communism instead of capitalism. They then have to have dictators in order to force everybody to be equal since there are so many people that want to make a lot of money. The independent willpower is so strong and in order to be fair and equal they have to tie everybody down. It doesn't work and its ugly and inhumane etc. People then decide capitalism is the lesser of two evils and let the jews have their way and have a trillion dollars while the middle class episcopalian middle-class gets condescended against. Who really has it rough though is the blue collar working class as they get stuck doing the actual work in society while the people with the most smarts (magic power) live the most comfortably.

You know I think there are positives and negatives to many different classes;

Consider a blue collar worker, like a janitor or truck driver. They have to deal with dirty work on the negative but on the positive people don't expect them to deal with the dirt in politics. They have to do boring physical tasks like repetitively sweeping, cleaning, driver, or moving objects but at least their mind is free to wander and think about whatever they like.

Consider now a cubicle worker. They don't have to get their hands dirty and they sit in a desk but they have to be loyal to the organization and deal with the politics in that. They have to do boring monotonous mental labor like adding up numbers, organizing data, sending emails, filing paper, and other such office tasks but at least they don't have to physically exert themselves.

Consider now an elite, someone with influence and wealth. They once again have the dirt associated with politics but now the game has intensified, they however don't do boring monotonous mental or physical labor when they don't want to -- however they have to constantly maintain integrity in their organization and stay on top or else the pyramid will collapse underneath them.

A lot of people think they want to be wealthy and famous but they don't realize that in reality power comes from those underneath and if you screw over those that support you things will collapse beneath you. The problem isn't any one class but the the relationships between them. Elites are able to maintain integrity by satisfying the short term urges of the people beneath them and exploiting them in the long term, while blue collar worker remain ignorant to those that want to help them because they are brainwashed by the elite. I think that's what causes the problems. There are few leaders and a lot of narcissistic exploiters.

The narcissistic exploiters believe delusionally that from birth they are special and have a right to exert themselves over others as superior versus one who is elevated to that position through their merit and naturally becomes a leader. This belief I think is fueled by an entire engine of teachers, parents, and the general media that shelters kids in certain classes and feeds their egos unconditionally in exchange for compliance with social standards.

This whole interest is itself a product of the real elite imposing social standards -- if you comply with our way of doing things, we will let you into the "club". A real leader doesn't operate this way. They either form an alliance with the club or remain an adversary to it depending on whether or not their vision and interest converge or diverge.

In some ways the blue collar types and poor are more individualistic and anti-social and acknowledge their ability to go with or against the social current. The upper middle class are less individualistic and almost always go with the current. The upper class is in a battle between those that exploit and those that lead -- and the battle is a media one imo. This battle is primarily driven by the lower classes too as they actually command whether or not they respect the upper class, without this respect the legitmacy of the upper class is worthless. If everyone stopped watching oprah tomorrow she would be a nobody.