Nazism or Communism; which one do you hate more

[Trevor]

chose wisely

[Capitalist Pig]

I voted "other" because you are asking us to pick between two of the same, really.

[ArchonAlarion]

I think communist regimes have killed more people and have more apologists.

[mu4]

Depends on what people consider Communism/Socialism. I'm pretty sure what Nazism is. I mean the Dalai Lama is still a Marxist and he was exiled from a communist country.

I think ultimately wealth equity is one of the fundamental problems of society and if it's not somewhat fair people will be oppressed. Inequity occur in both capitalistic and communist models and the only real way to deal with it is not thru ideology but thru practical systems and regulations.

If people want to talk body counts, I'm pretty sure Capitalism has killed far more people then Nazism or Communism. Probably more people then Nazi and Communist regimes combined.

If you live in a country like China, people there purged/killed by both Japanese, KMT, CCP, British, Russian, German, East Indies Trading Company, Opium peddlers, etc. And not just small amounts but tens of millions by all these groups or thru instability caused by all these groups. Ideology is meaningless, you have to be strong as a individual no matter what ideology you hold and you have to organize your very mean gang to ensure that you're not abused by others, regardless of their ideology. If you want you can even be nice and kind to those less fortunate then you are instead of being a tool.

[ArchonAlarion]

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

Communism in large scale forms has only turned out one way. Many regimes may be labeled "capitalist," but the one's that practice capitalism as espoused in capitalist theory have a far lower death count than communism or nazism. Don't try and pin "capitalism" on imperialism or mercantilism, or w/e the hell you have in mind.

[Gilly]

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

Communism in large scale forms has only turned out one way. Many regimes may be labeled "capitalist," but the one's that practice capitalism as espoused in capitalist theory have a far lower death count than communism or nazism. Don't try and pin "capitalism" on imperialism or mercantilism, or w/e the hell you have in mind.

See, therein lies the problem, because nobody has practiced communism as it is espoused by Marx, either.

I'm not a communist, I think -isms are pretty retarded and, just like religions, are essentially brain-molding memes that, in the hands of people, serve only their own ends. Having an -ism is just joining a potentially disastrous cultural mind-massification wave. Stop with your fucking -isms.

[mu4]

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

Communism in large scale forms has only turned out one way. Many regimes may be labeled "capitalist," but the one's that practice capitalism as espoused in capitalist theory have a far lower death count than communism or nazism. Don't try and pin "capitalism" on imperialism or mercantilism, or w/e the hell you have in mind.

Capitalist apologist, you sound remarkably similar to communist apologist.... lol... Oh yea, there are more capitalist apologists then communist apologist too.

The truth is nobody really knows what capitalism is either. Capitalism and communism are both fantasies. The only real truth is evolution, survival of the fittest. But nothing lasts forever.

Oh yea, name one modern capitalist country...

[ArchonAlarion]

Oh Hkkmr, how you love to twist things.

I guess no ideologies actually exist at all, so let's pack up everything and leave the thread.

I hate Nazism because it is more phonetically deceptive.

[Gilly]

Both of them seem to inevitably fuck up and lead to senseless mass-slaughter over time, so whoever makes more whoopy has my blessing.

Oh, and whoever has the best recipe for purple drank.

[mu4]

Oh Hkkmr, how you love to twist things.

I guess no ideologies actually exist at all, so let's pack up everything and leave the thread.

I hate Nazism because it is more phonetically deceptive.

I never said ideologies don't exist. I said they're fantasies. There is a difference difference. Way to twist my words around.

You still haven't named me a capitalist country. You can't actually apply communism or capitalism without encountering contradictions or areas where these ideologies simply don't work and have to be ignored.

[InvisibleJim]

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

Why didn't I see the pro-communist mouth drool in this thread?

I've been considering how far 2nd generation syndrome goes, somewhat similar to Islamic Jihadists in Europe: Asian communists in the US.

[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

[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]

[Absurd]

Hahaha, that was clever.

[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.

[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?

[marooned]

So I was saying that we're like the good banana gone bad intimidating people and that we can all be better bananas, and it was kind of silly?



I am a little confused. It looks like they picked a slick surface for that guy to slip on all those banana peels. I don't tend to slip on them when I'm swimming.

[Absurd]

[Gilly]

Jake don't worry, its all going to be ok.

[Gilly]

Don't throw stubbornness out like its an effective point. Nobody is ever convinced by anything said on the internet.

[Gilly]

I'm advocating my viewpoint that people should not impose their viewpoints or desires through fraud, coercion, or force.

Your claim is analogous to coming upon a scene of gang rape and not wanting to "impose" your viewpoint on the rapists to stop them raping (i.e. imposing their own viewpoints).

And your actions are analogous to standing across the street and babbling incoherently.

[ArchonAlarion]

Yeah, basically.

[Gilly]

So why aren't you kicking those mean robbers' asses already?

[Gilly]

And why are you ridiculing the guy who's just minding his own business instead?

[ArchonAlarion]

Well, I'm an awkward, nerdy college kid who lives with his parents

It's cool that he minds his own business. His professed lifestyle is libertarian in essence, despite his implicit rejection of the ideology.

[mu4]

Well, I'm an awkward, nerdy college kid who lives with his parents

It's cool that he minds his own business. His professed lifestyle is libertarian in essence, despite his implicit rejection of the ideology.

I don't reject the ideology, I think it's not worth going on about. However, I do reject the often implicit assumption that everyone in the world would have to comply with this ideology.

The world will contain democrats, socialists, communists, nazis, libertarians, anarchists, capitalists, etc, however the implicit practice of many of the followers of these ideology is simply to eliminate the rest either by force, persuasion, "education", the non-believers. It's the implicit religious adherence to dogma and doctrine that make whatever belief they happen to follow meaningless.

The thing is that anarchists and libertarians are never going to be in a position organized enough to take on more aggressive groups and followers. My analysis and history tells me the victories(Paris commune) would be short-lived and/or tragic. To me communism/anarchism/libertarians are the same and equally naive but I view it currently as akin to Christianity circa 100 bc. Marxism(using Marxism instead of communism because I want to reflect the ideological nature and not the practical implementation) is a secular "religious" movement against imperialism(European) motivated by the same sense of injustice and res-sentiment as the Christians had against the Roman Empire. Consequently most of the places that adopted Marxist policies and regimes were colonies and former colonies emancipated by the decline of European empires.

Marx is simply the most visible "prophet" of this "religion", much as Jesus became the most visible "prophet" of Christianity, but in my estimation the underlying motivations for these movements is the same and these are fundamental human desires. A number of charlatans and con-men have used this motivation to sway their followers one way or another to further their own causes but that motivation is not going away, however I would say how it is communicated has been modernized.

You live in the US which is a bubble, and you don't really understand how the world is or what forces in the world are in motion. You don't really understand that in the US, Marx is taboo, and elsewhere Marx more or less required reading. America is a bubble, made by it's own fears, resulting in McCarthy and the various red purges which occurred, the cold war, religious fundamentalism and ignorance. Americans don't even understand May 1, international workers day commemorates a American event, which is celebrated by most other countries. The wool's been pulled over America's eyes for over 100 years. It's a wounded lion hiding in a cave, lashing out blindly. America is a great country founded on great ideals, but it's people(not it's Government) no longer have a good grasp of the ideals. Ultimately this affects the quality of it's Government and administration as many of these are elected officials.

I view the rot in America as something that goes to the very core of it's existence, it's people, and unless the American citizens gain a fuller understanding of the greater world, how the world is, I don't see any system or non-system established in the US as being worth a damn.

I don't particularly care about the government or ideology, but it's important that the people gain a adequate understanding of the world and the world around them, after that, I'll figure out a way to let them decide, a system by which everyone's voice can join the song. Thankfully, I don't have to do the heavy lifting, most of that mechanism has already been built.

If I had to characterize my ideological position, I would be a Geolibertarianism, with taxes applied to things like intellectual property as well as physical property and in a sense all private property. So property value tax. I don't believe in income tax as a fair tax in that sense but there would be reasons for its existence.

However, I'm a pragmatist, and I do not believe the rich and property owners would allow the only tax to be a property value tax nor would it be easy to make a assessment on the value of property, and in that sense a highly progress income tax becomes the only other way to fund the system in a non regressive fashion. Also there may be other issues with having a single tax and it may be necessary to have other taxes such as a sales tax to prevent catastrophic(and really only catastrophic) failure in the event of economic adjustments.

[ArchonAlarion]

Okay, cool. Geo-libertarianism or something akin to that is an alternative to anarchism that I still readily consider. It may surprise you, me being an ideologue and all, but when I first began considering anarchism several years ago, my first objection to it was the problem of owning fixed plots of space. Owning transportable objects makes sense because they generally do not impede the free movement of others. Land however, is relatively permanent and can be used to "block" people in or out of areas if the strictures of private property are followed to a T. For instance, if plots of land are situated in a 3x3 arrangement, and if I own the outer plots, then I could block the person in the center plot from leaving. that scenario is extreme, but a more realistic one would be the imposition of tolls and fees for moving across property. Further, if I do own a plot of space how far vertically does it extend into the sky, and how far into the ground? That problem is more easily solved by defining the extent when transferring the property in the first place. Another issue becomes apparent only for space-faring civilizations when it is recognized that fixed plots on the Earth move through different areas of space as the planet revolves. Some anarchists have thought about this issue and proposed/initiated the "Seasteading" movement or "dynamic geography" http://www.seasteading.org/?gclid=CJ...eIQNAodCiUb0w#. Living on the sea in a mobile unit would alleviate the costs of movement somewhat. "Airsteading" and "spacesteading" are also possibilities. Although steading is far from feasible now, it may become increasingly beneficial as the population increases. In general, I believe future migrations of people into new, unpopulated environments will lead to more libertarian systems, while ancient Terra maintains a quasi-religious/quasi-necessary attachment to geographical state monopolies.

Definitely check out seasteading if you haven't already. I think that might be what you are getting at when you tell me about needing a plan and such for libertarianism and not just voicing ideology.

[mu4]

Okay, cool. Geo-libertarianism or something akin to that is an alternative to anarchism that I still readily consider. It may surprise you, me being an ideologue and all, but when I first began considering anarchism several years ago, my first objection to it was the problem of owning fixed plots of space. Owning transportable objects makes sense because they generally do not impede the free movement of others. Land however, is relatively permanent and can be used to "block" people in or out of areas if the strictures of private property are followed to a T. For instance, if plots of land are situated in a 3x3 arrangement, and if I own the outer plots, then I could block the person in the center plot from leaving. that scenario is extreme, but a more realistic one would be the imposition of tolls and fees for moving across property. Further, if I do own a plot of space how far vertically does it extend into the sky, and how far into the ground? That problem is more easily solved by defining the extent when transferring the property in the first place. Another issue becomes apparent only for space-faring civilizations when it is recognized that fixed plots on the Earth move through different areas of space as the planet revolves. Some anarchists have thought about this issue and proposed/initiated the "Seasteading" movement or "dynamic geography" http://www.seasteading.org/?gclid=CJ...eIQNAodCiUb0w#. Living on the sea in a mobile unit would alleviate the costs of movement somewhat. "Airsteading" and "spacesteading" are also possibilities. Although steading is far from feasible now, it may become increasingly beneficial as the population increases. In general, I believe future migrations of people into new, unpopulated environments will lead to more libertarian systems, while ancient Terra maintains a quasi-religious/quasi-necessary attachment to geographical state monopolies.

Definitely check out seasteading if you haven't already. I think that might be what you are getting at when you tell me about needing a plan and such for libertarianism and not just voicing ideology.

I would say this is very isolationist, and I would lose many freedoms by choosing to remove myself from a vast majority of the humanity. People join organizations to be able to do things outside of their individual abilities, and in that act give up certain freedoms. I think most plans for anarchist communities are well intention-ed but flawed as they all require significant initial capital, often become communities of elite which in turn need to acquire cheap labor for basic necessities and maintenance(often in very oppressive conditions and without full rights). Fundamentally I think if humans left earth, a somewhat anarchist society will start on those worlds, then the highly funded oligarchy will make a venture onto those worlds and form exploitative systems absent legal intervention in which people are oppressed. This is more or less what happened in America, a mix of anarchists, debtor, religious fanatics and aristocrats settled on to it's lands and each implemented their own form of governance, some better then others. It's no coincidence the slave trade was a major source of labor in the New World, absent moral and ethical oversight, people with the will and the ruthlessness were able to perpetuate oppression they could not in their home environment. It's also no surprise the indigenous populations were exterminated.

I do believe that these exploration of unsettled territory provide a vital experimental ground for development of new societal techniques. A example would be the many countries which has made the attempt to adapt American constitutional democracy after their revolutions. Even the Chinese model with it's single party rule and communist ideology is an adaptation of American constitutional democracy. This is imo due to the legacy of Sun Yat Sen(who was American educated in Honolulu, Hawaii) who was a founding forefather of both Republic of China and People's Republic of China. Fun fact, he was married to one of the Soong Sisters and Chiang Kai Shek is married to another. Soong Ching Ling became vice chairman of the People's Republic of China while Soong, her sister Soong May Ling is of course the former First lady of the Republic of China.

Anyways, it's my belief that capitalism and libertarian-ism are weaker organizing forces(but perhaps more consistant) than nationalism and religion, however the most powerful unifying force is still understanding, knowledge, pragmatism and kindness. It's my believe that any society founded on the latter(understanding, knowledge, pragmatism and kindness), while giving room for the former will be freeier, more prosperous and probably a more enjoyable experience.

[Aquagraph]

I don't really hate ideologies. I just find anything fanatic to be stupid. But which of the factions in during WWII I disliked the most?

 

Russians were demanding a lot of things that we found threatening to our sovereignty and we knew that we needed allies. We sent out Finnish volunteers to aid ****** fight communists, among these men was my underage grandfather with his fake IDs.
When Finland joined the WWII, it was due to a false flag operation that Russians made. They had shot down one of their outposts with artillery and said that it's an attempt to invade Russia.

Yeah, right.
Since we had good relations with ****** and he wanted to stop the Rusky hordes, he sent us men and equipment. This in turn made England declare a war on us. After 70 thousand Finns and 300 thousand Russians were killed, caught or missing, Russians figured that they can't afford killing in the unforgiving cold while:
- Being bombarded by recently coined Molotov cocktails. (Molotov told their domestic media that those bomber plains going to Finland weren't carrying bombs, but bread baskets. Finns started to call Russian bombs breadbaskets and gave Russians petroleum drink to go with it.)
-Sniped by men like Simo Häyhä (200 kills, survived operative after a headshot, the Red Army nicknamed him the White Death)
-Fought in the air by men like Ilmari Juutilainen, which is the best non-German flying ace, downed a bit less than hundred planes, shot down only once and that was under friendly fire away from battle. Also, been said that he granted the rookies some kills by letting them finish the job.

In time Russians realized that they had to back off and we made a peace treaty. Unfortunately, it involved repelling the German soldiers. The leaders understood the bond between brother's in arms and the Finnish men that had fought along the Germans didn't have to participate in this.

Commies make good enemies, you will never run out of things to kill and Nazi's make loyal allies.

[Absurd]

Hmm, I always thought you were some kind of commie, Aqua. I mean Pirate parties often branch off Communist parties and in some cases Communist parties are the Pirate Party.

[Absurd]

Create a party called Damn Fine Smelling Socks and run against Aqua's Pirates in upcoming elections, William. It's common knowledge pirates have stinky socks or none at all.

[Kim]

This thread is giving me a Ti aneurysm.

[Absurd]

Welcome to Socionics. Anyway, I thought you wanted to be politician, Kim. I mean I read so in some thread.