Capitalist apologist, you sound remarkably similar to communist apologist.... lol... Oh yea, there are more capitalist apologists then communist apologist too.Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
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...
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.
The end is nigh
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.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
The end is nigh
Then what? It is a "system" that narrows over space and time.
i don't think you quite understand how Nazism works. ****** was systematically purging your kind from the gene pool long before he turned to any of the groups you mention:
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/disabilities/On July 14, 1933, the German government instituted the “Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases.” This law called for the sterilization of all persons who suffered from diseases considered hereditary, including mental illness, learning disabilities, physical deformity, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, and severe alcoholism.
What the fuck is this shit?
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".
Lol good point.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I think it's wrong to censor my post. Nazism a legitimate ideology, and at least hasn't killed as many people as capitalism. We should censor capitalist remarks instead, seeing as it is actually a more harmful ideology.
The racism inherent in Nazism is about survival of the fittest. Therefore it makes sense as a practical solution to a problem. One gang fighting against the rest. In the end, it is more logical. My race wins, yours loses. Practical solutions.
The end is nigh
Well Nazism obviously isn't very fit. Just because you pretend to be about it doesn't make it so.
What survive is fittest, not what pretends to be fittest.
Certain parts of capitalism and communism I find very fit, others, not so much. I find the basic premise of Nazism is actually a bit suicidal.
Troll harder
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"?
Can I get some sauce with that bullshit sandwich? I would advise you cease while you have not yet fully limped, for if you utter such banalities in an attempt to express your "special" opinion in the hopes of looking very clever and to advance them as solid reasoning, you will no doubtingly find yourself drowning in the pools of urine ushered in by your ad-hoc pissing contest.
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.
You're all knuckle-fucks.
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".
Eh, it's all too ironic anyways. I wish you all the best of luck.
The end is nigh
A wise decision, comrade.
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".
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.
total sausage fest in here
No alternative way *so far discovered*. I think it's possible to change and be better.
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?
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.
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).
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.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
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.
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....Were its leaders not usually dictators (deranged men)?
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.I care more about what actually happened under certain systems to make any attempt at an evaluation.
Also on the page you linked, two of these countries have Communist parties as part of the ruling coalition.
If you want a simple answer, I'm afraid there isn't one.
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
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.
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.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
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.
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".
You are of course free to disagree, I don't say I'm never wrong. This is just how I understood it.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
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.
Capitalism exists despite countries.
The end is nigh
I could say the same about Communism and Nazism.
props to hkkmr for not outright censoring despite the wrist-slapping...
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
And infections exist despite doctors. Your point?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
yeah, I chose communism, solely because of the lofty bloat and hypocritical premise of collective equality; at least nazism admits a godhead, and inspires a certain randian nostalgia.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Yeah I suppose successful aggressive expansion would at least be a bit like ripping the bandaid, evolutionarily speaking...
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I'm glad we live in Nazi-communist society now, or otherwise we couldn't be sitting here sarcastically remarking about it!
The end is nigh
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).
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.)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]
/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.
Last edited by marooned; 04-27-2012 at 06:02 PM.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote