How can people prefer National Socialism over Communism?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Boddington's
Andz, you're making the false assumption that National Socialism = Hitler.

Then explain your vision of National Socialism.

[Ecthy]

Well Serb, I wouldn't go so far and use the brainwashing terminology. Alas, even those which I thought were fine people have been acting by pretty superficial standards lately. I'm worried...

So I used the name Hitler when I should have used the term National Socialism, so sue me. And explain what the difference is in your eyes, I thought it would be obvious we're talking about the same former German regime, and that was guided by Adolf H. without a doubt... If not, give sources.

Now get back into the discussion of the matter or keep out of this thread, your will to irritate others is more than noticeable...

[Solly]

I'm just saying that National Socialism is not the same as what Hitler's methods of governing were.

OK?

[Serb]

Originally posted by faded glory
Yes.....but Communist's butchered way more than the fascists. And all that crap about ethnic cleansing the jews. Well, the Communists killed there share of jews. And dotn forget, if you were an Uzbek, or Chechen.....tsk...tsk...you were saying? Racial hatred? Both were festering with it. But Nazi's treated there people better.

This is not true. One of the major goals of Stalin’s propaganda was proclamation of equality of all nationalities of SU.And he was succsessful in this. Watch any old soviet movies of this time (I wonder if you have one. And btw, Uzbeks is not national minority. Uzbekistan was one of the 15 republics of SU.

Irrelevant... Before the war, the majority German people lived like human beings. The same cannot be said for the Russians.

Human beings? You do not know in what type of monster can nazism turn a human being. You do not know nothing about atrocities nazists done in my country. I cannot say that human beings may act like they done.

No it isnt. Have you any idea how many were sent to the Gulags? If you thinking a few hundred thousand.....think higher. Try 10 million. Most died of course.

Of course you right. Stalin's regime done terrible things.

Very true. But remember what Stalin did to the Ukranians and Eastern Europeans...Rake up another 15 million dead civilians. Cause he used the state authority to create a famine in the Ukraine. Not once, TWICE!

When? I do not realize what are you talking about.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Boddington's
I'm just saying that National Socialism is not the same as what Hitler's methods of governing were.

OK?

Then name other methods to achieve National Socialist’s goals. I don’t know any. Enlighten me.

[Bereta_Eder]

Communism is not near as bad as national socialism.

Only dipsh!t brainless people would say that it is

[Ecthy]

Well paiktis, you can see there are many people at Apolyton who think that way... it's a shame...

[Bereta_Eder]

most of Apolyton off - topics are americans. Communism was their biggest enemy. What do you expect? Rational thinking

[Solly]

You obviously haven't studied this in enough detail, Andz.

[David Floyd]

Of course I'm one of the brainless morons who thinks that if he had to fight either Nazism or Communism in WW2, we picked the wrong enemy

[Ecthy]

I don't think this has anything to do with WWII. As I have said earlier on, it might be wise to analyse both the "Stalinism / Hitler-style National Socialism question" and the "1932 election Communist/National Socialist" question, but as it seems the posters at Apolyton are quite lazy bums :rollyes:

This place used to be a lot better concerning discussions... just imagine, a topic like this and they stay away...

[Az]

*cough* , Serb ,don't you think that the movies during Stalin aren't exactly picturing the reality ? ( contrary to 50s-70s soviet cinema , according to my mother testimony. )


P.S. Sergey , skolko tebe let ?

[Provost Harrison]

So are you now tending towards national socialism Stew? Anything for a troll

Well it would have been interesting if Germany had have gone 'Red' in the 1920s. Now lets face it, at that point, the Germans had the revolutionary background, the ideological brains within it, and the industrial backbone which was postulated as being necessary for a communist revolution. They would obviously have been the 'dominant' communist nation at the time, way above the Soviet union, not just in terms of power and productivity, but politically, and it makes it feasible that someone such as Stalin would not have lasted in that kind of environment. There would obviously be a very strong relationship between the two nations, one strengthening the other in terms of industrialisation and resources.

So things could have been very different if the Germans had gone communist, although it is only speculation. But if both had have become worker's states, I couldn't have seen the rest of Europe remaining capitalist for very long either. It makes you think how things could have been rather than sinking into the horrors that were Soviet bureaucratic totalitarianism or Nazism. You had to fear whoever you were under the Soviets. Under the Nazi's you were relatively safe if you 'towed the line' and looked and behaved the right way. If not, you had more to fear.

The tragedy about the clash of Stalin and Hitler was that all the people and soldiers involved became nothing but porns, Hitler so determined to throw people at the cause and Stalin was prepared to sacrifice as many as he deemed necessary. He was prepared to lose a significant proportion, probably even majority of the Soviet population to fend off the Nazi onslaught. Both were bastards, so it is a bit of a Hobson's choice as to which to desire.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
*cough* , Serb ,don't you think that the movies during Stalin aren't exactly picturing the reality ? ( contrary to 50s-70s soviet cinema , according to my mother testimony. )


P.S. Sergey , skolko tebe let ?

Of course, this is what I want to said. They were a propaganda, propaganda proclaiming equality of all nationalities. While Nazi propaganda proclaiming the superiority of one nation.

P.S. 25 A chto?

[Bereta_Eder]

Hey Dal! You can speak Russian?!

Damn I wanted to learn but all my free of charge University - affiliated classes were full

[Ecthy]

Dalgetti, why is that the only thing you can reply? You call yourself a communist, you're Jewish... why can't you contribute a thing to the core debate?

Provost Harrison, I'm happy at least one has had the backbone to speak a decent word. And luckily you managed to draw the line between communism and Stalinism. Interesting analysis on the German economic situation in the 20s as well, don't you think the high inflation and debts might have been a problem? but then, who pays reparation to a capitalist country?

Apart from that, I'm shocked about the fact this topic is gaining so little respect and careful evaluation. Communism is considered equal to Stalinism, National Socialism is considered just not worse than a system that strives for an equal society and the rights of workers.
I find this highly insulting to all mankind. Haven't we learned anything after all? Just because the Americans had their private ideological war that lasted 50 years, all communist ideals are now condemned as evil stuff, and communism itself is talked worse than national socialism.... it is such a shame, it's unbelievable, I mean we're talking about Hitler here! I won't deny Stalin was just about as evil, but...

Communism and Stalinism are just not the same thing!

[Serb]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Hey Dal! You can speak Russian?!

Damn I wanted to learn but all my free of charge University - affiliated classes were full

And speak perfectly.
I suppose He used to live in Russia not so long ago. Look at his flag.

[David Floyd]

All communist ideals actually ARE evil, Serb/Ecthelion, because they deny one of the most basic human rights - the right to private property. Without that right, IMO the others - life and liberty, become pointless. And really in many ways the right to liberty is the same as the right to property.

What, then, is life, without the associated natural rights that go with it?

Communism seeks to deny those in favor of an unnatural "equality" - except of course for the ruling class, the Communist Party elite.

[Az]

Quite a point there , Serb.
but still , the reality was different. And that's what really matters.

Paiktis : I was born in the USSR , moy dorogoy grek.

PH:

He was prepared to lose a significant proportion, probably even majority of the Soviet population to fend off the Nazi onslaught

errm.. you making me defend Stalin. I don't like it ...
still , did he have a choice ? what do you want him to do ? sign a peace treaty ???


P.S. prosto tak.... . nakontsto yest na etom saite dostatochno ludei iz rassiye.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
Paiktis : I was born in the USSR , moy dorogoy grek.

Ton POULO Israeliti!

[Ecthy]

Davic Floyd, that Communist Party elite doesn't have to exist if the system works.

After all, you're saying killing millions of people for the pretext they'd be inferior is better than having no or only little property. I'm impressed, honestly. It must take big efforts to make people think that their right to own a Porsche and a villa justifies the killing of many innocent people.

Dalgetti must be ignoring me. Dal, I did not receive an ICQ message by you on the 3rd of December or whatever that day was! Would you stop acting like a little child now?

[David Floyd]

Ecth, you're putting words in my mouth. What I'm actually saying is that the natural right to life is pretty useless and even worthless if you don't also recognize the natural right to property.

That doesn't justify killing people - but opposing murder doesn't justify communism, either.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by David Floyd
All communist ideals actually ARE evil, Serb/Ecthelion, because they deny one of the most basic human rights - the right to private property. Without that right, IMO the others - life and liberty, become pointless. And really in many ways the right to liberty is the same as the right to property.

What, then, is life, without the associated natural rights that go with it?

Communism seeks to deny those in favor of an unnatural "equality" - except of course for the ruling class, the Communist Party elite.

So how do you define natural rights? Your definition seems to be somewhat arbitrary, and actually, incorrect. And how in the name of hell does property, whether financial or territorial constitute a natural right. I would define the natural rights of a human those of a comfortable existance, nutritional satiety, freedom and to have something to do. Property is just the way that capitalism tries to pander to so called 'Natural rights'. However we are beyond the stage of dogs who piss up lamp posts and trees to mark out their territory, such arbitrary divides are divisive and unnecessary...

[David Floyd]

Well, I'm an adherent to the ideals of John Locke rather than Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and considering some of Rousseau's ideals arguably caused things such as the Terror, I think I'm better off for my beliefs

Seriously, though, I don't see how one can possibly deny that the ownership of private property, that others can't take, is a natural right.

[Ecthy]

And if... who says you can't possess small things in a socialist system? What I'm talking about is the fact some of you are so fond of their big stuff they are just afraid to lose it and therefor eoppose communism.

And yes, opposing mass murder is a reason to be for communism if you have the choice between the 2. And that was the question from the first point on...

[David Floyd]

Wrong, on the mass murder question. Maybe in a perfect world, or whatever....but you have to look at reality. And in reality, countries claiming to be communist have killed far more than countries claiming to be Nazi or Fascist.

And what is the difference between possessing small things and possessing large things? Morally, none, in my opinion.

[Az]

Ecthelion : ... sorry , I kinda feel weird facing people like Floyd and Boddington's ...

but you've just managed to persuade me to give it a shot.

David Floyd :

There are no natural rights. Rights is a concept made by man. You agree with that, right?

in what I would imagine as a perfect society , I would see people having personal belongings , but not ownership of means of production, media or whatever.

A planned system is actually superior to free market . The soviet union was not able to plan correctly , due to the fact that it was not democratic , or to be more precise , pluralistic. Many people had great Ideas , but were not able impliment them because of the bureaucracy . People that believed in the planned economy , and were skilled and able in a manner that would make it work .

if media was independent ( that means a separate branch of the government ) , many things would be achieved .

People that go up the scale of management ( note : management , not society ) , should recieve higher salaries . competition can be in place , without privilege for parts of the society.

My father was a specialist in systems , and planned management, in the naval trade , and the exploitation of the naval transportation and storage resources . He had many plans to impove the system , but he faced a wall of bureaucracy.
Had he, and many others , the chance of speaking out , he would make the soviet union stand on it's feet to this very day,
and progress in all matters of life would be achieved .

If the soviet union was pluralist , and greater freedom of speech would be in place , we would reach greatness... the military spending would be much smaller , and we could beat you yankees at your own game , which is strong industrial output of consumer goods.


Do you believe that if you would side with the Nazis , it wouldn't bite you in the ass in the end ? ( I suppose it wouldn't bite you , after all , you are white ... )

[Az]

Ecthelion : I didn't send 'em !!!!! I haven't been to ICQ for over a month or so !!!!! I think something is ****ed up with my ICQ !!!

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
Ecthelion : ... sorry , I kinda feel weird facing people like Floyd and Boddington's ...

but you've just managed to persuade me to give it a shot.

David Floyd :

There are no natural rights. Rights is a concept made by man. You agree with that, right?

in what I would imagine as a perfect society , I would see people having personal belongings , but not ownership of means of production, media or whatever.

A planned system is actually superior to free market . The soviet union was not able to plan correctly , due to the fact that it was not democratic , or to be more precise , pluralistic. Many people had great Ideas , but were not able impliment them because of the bureaucracy . People that believed in the planned economy , and were skilled and able in a manner that would make it work .

if media was independent ( that means a separate branch of the government ) , many things would be achieved .

People that go up the scale of management ( note : management , not society ) , should recieve higher salaries . competition can be in place , without privilege for parts of the society.

My father was a specialist in systems , and planned management, in the naval trade , and the exploitation of the naval transportation and storage resources . He had many plans to impove the system , but he faced a wall of bureaucracy.
Had he, and many others , the chance of speaking out , he would make the soviet union stand on it's feet to this very day,
and progress in all matters of life would be achieved .

If the soviet union was pluralist , and greater freedom of speech would be in place , we would reach greatness... the military spending would be much smaller , and we could beat you yankees at your own game , which is strong industrial output of consumer goods.


Do you believe that if you would side with the Nazis , it wouldn't bite you in the ass in the end ? ( I suppose it wouldn't bite you , after all , you are white ... )

все в порядке

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, I'm an adherent to the ideals of John Locke rather than Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and considering some of Rousseau's ideals arguably caused things such as the Terror, I think I'm better off for my beliefs

Seriously, though, I don't see how one can possibly deny that the ownership of private property, that others can't take, is a natural right.

Ah, yes, property, that great ideal of capitalism, which perculiarly enough can be given or taken from you willy nilly by the state and the apparatus of capitalism. It's kind of ironic how you claim that as your major bastion of a theory when it is one that the present system doesn't even adhere to. It is not some kind of divine right, and certainly not one you possess.

Now what I am stating is that property should be dealt with on a totally different manner. Rather than the attitude of grabbing what you can and bugger the other concept, quite often, this is not necessary. The system of status and hierarchy within capitalism perpetuates this need for materialist possession, it even happened within the Soviet Union as it had difficulty competing with the rest of the world. The leaders of the USSR wanted what their peers in other nations had, and certainly didn't adhere to their ideals. This is why it was never appropriate for the workers revolution to start in a backward country such as Russia but Germany, as stated earlier.

Remember, we need to distribute more fairly. This may seem totally unjust to you, but think about how unjustly things work at the moment, and only work as they do whilst you are constantly told and brainwashed that this system of 'grab it whilst you can, tread on the other man' is the best way of resource management and dividing property. As you can quite clearly see, from the disparity between one man and another, between one nation and another, this is not working in the slightest. Those with power keep power, those with money keep money, and the concentration is still carrying on in that regard.