Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/5/08 01:02 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

One might argue that the current american capitalism has been tried (by america and dozens of other countries) and doesn't work
(as these countries have contributed a lot to degeneration of society,

A subjective term, and society has every right to degenarate itself. Sure two girls one cup may be a sure sign of the utter degradation of society, yet that doesn ot mean the U.S. is right in banning it.

global poverty, and environmental problems).

lulz. Global poverty. The system which has lead to the most wild and unrestrained growth in the history of man, over the past couple of centuries has made the globe more poor? Only by comparison to 1st world heights. Not to historical wealth.

My objection to communism is not merely that is does not work well.
Even if it was more effective than capitalism at producing wealth I would still be extremely opposed to it.
The system is a vile system from a moral point of view, not just an economic one.

Ok Mr. Nazi, Nazism is much worse than a Socialist Republic for the People (Communism). Communism is a great idea that was unfortunatley horribly carried out by Stalin and others. The idea behind communism is universal equality, so that you can't have someone telling you they're better. In communism, the perople have as much power as their leader(s). This way, if the People don't like it, it won't happen. It may seem wrong, because of the way that Stalin carried it out with his Secret Police, and his practical Dictatorship, but in all theory, it is an excellent idea. As for Nazism, that is just plain wrong! The mindless killing of others due to their religious and physical differences from the "Master Race"? You seriously think that is better than Communism?

At 5/4/08 05:26 PM, Diederick wrote: I was not talking about Communism as it has been attempted. And your final statement, unlike the other two, is simply not true. Communism has peace and harmony at its heart, the heart of Nazis is only filled with hatred.

Uh, not quite. Nazism is about bringing about peace amongst the race, but about violent confrontation with those outside of it.

Communism is about violent confrontation outside the proletariate.

The difference is who gets peace.

How did you come to such a conclusion, since the evidence against it is out there for your eyes to see. Do you ever see communists march for special rights for Whites, or do you ever hear of communists beating up gay guys? Don't think so. It's the Nazis that are the greater evil here.

Uh yea. Communists wracked up 10 times the kills of the nazis. They killed millions upon millions of people. They march for the rights of the proletariate. Communists are as violent as nazis. And that Nazis and communists are both socialists says it all.

Don't try to argue out of your depth junior.

At 5/5/08 04:17 PM, Poly-Wolf wrote: Hope you don't mind if I debate this point.

You're going to being proven wrong...but try.

You underestimate communism by a longshot. The Soviet Union, under Stalin, has risen from a nation crippled by war to the second greatest power in the world. Communist China, under Mao, had adopted a radical change in mindset, and although Mao was a crap leader, his policies were a major proponent of change within China. Under Deng Xiaoping and later leaders, China's economy went through a rapid turnabout and advanced to first-world status within two decades. Many other (non-European) countries had also experienced positive economic changes under Communism while it's under effect, and unlike the National Socialists, Communism NEVER brought about the ruins of its adoptees through a pointless fight with foreigners.

Are we talking about the long ass lines for basic neccessities suffered under communism? This was true under both Mao and Stalin. Millions died from widespread famine alone. Lysenkoism caused food shortages with governmental blessing. (This doesn't even count state sponsored murder).

None of these are true communism; true, but practical communism is basically a modified totalitarian rule, so there's no reason that a communist leader would be unable to reform a nation as well as a Nazi leader. North Korea isn't representative of real-world one-party rule "communism," after all.

What a bullshit excuse. Communism has never been tried...is the most ridiculous excuse in the book. The USSR is EXACTLY what Marx had in mind when he came up with his theories.

First, we're talking absolute. Nazi Germany had less people than either China or Russia, so when you take the ratios, Germany was considerably worse.

Or not. If you consider all the areas Germany controlled, they had a comparable populous. Moreover, their surrogates never turned into the blood thirsty monsters that all Russian surrogates did.

Secondly, most of the statistics that I've seen laughably listed some of the least attributive deaths to Communist leaders. Mao's great leap forward, for example, indirectly killed millions when combined with FAMINE (which, by the way, are included in most statistics as "killed by Mao"). Yet, none of those deaths were the result of GENOCIDE, and attributing them to Mao in the same way that the Holocaust is attributed to Hitler is like saying that George W. Bush is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for ALL deaths within the US attributable to decreasing social security. Stalin is more understandable, although his killings were still mostly political and often mixed with statistics from indirect causes that are not racial purges.

Is racial the only issue? Really? Is that your only defense?
Mao killed more people for simply disagreeing with him than Hitler killed for being Jewish. If famine is a direct result of your policy...then of course it is your fault. If you reduce food supplies and people die, you are to blame. Comparing this to Bush INCREASING social security (no decrease has happened) and the zero people who have died from his policies is absolutely idiotic.

Multitudes of difference. Seriously, notice the absense of such things as "racial nationalism" and "white supremacy" in the modern Communist party. Biased much?

That's it? The racial nationalism of nazism is superficial. Look past that and the goals are identical. Nationalized health care. Racial quotas *(and don't even try to argue that both grups argue for them). Stronger state control.

Basic socialist agendas.

At 5/5/08 10:16 PM, sgtkennedy wrote: Ok Mr. Nazi, Nazism is much worse than a Socialist Republic for the People (Communism). Communism is a great idea that was unfortunatley horribly carried out by Stalin and others. The idea behind communism is universal equality, so that you can't have someone telling you they're better. In communism, the perople have as much power as their leader(s). This way, if the People don't like it, it won't happen. It may seem wrong, because of the way that Stalin carried it out with his Secret Police, and his practical Dictatorship, but in all theory, it is an excellent idea. As for Nazism, that is just plain wrong! The mindless killing of others due to their religious and physical differences from the "Master Race"? You seriously think that is better than Communism?

You're an idiot. Both communism and Nazism were branches of socialism. The platforms ONLY difference was on the focus of the world wide proletariat vs the Aryan nation.

At 5/6/08 02:19 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

You're an idiot. Both communism and Nazism were branches of socialism. The platforms ONLY difference was on the focus of the world wide proletariat vs the Aryan nation.

Which deals with eugenics, right?

At 5/6/08 02:29 AM, n64kid wrote: Which deals with eugenics, right?

Which was used to a lesser degree in Communist China, Fascist America (1920s), a very light degree in Fascist Italy, and more.

Tho, eugenics is not the deciding, or even a relevant factor. If you replace race, with class, the two are STILL identical.

At 5/6/08 02:18 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Uh, not quite. Nazism is about bringing about peace amongst the race, but about violent confrontation with those outside of it.

not neccessarily since part of the Nazi's vision was a land for each people.

At 5/5/08 09:20 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 5/5/08 01:02 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

One might argue that the current american capitalism has been tried (by america and dozens of other countries) and doesn't work
(as these countries have contributed a lot to degeneration of society,

A subjective term, and society has every right to degenarate itself. Sure two girls one cup may be a sure sign of the utter degradation of society, yet that doesn ot mean the U.S. is right in banning it.

global poverty, and environmental problems).

lulz. Global poverty. The system which has lead to the most wild and unrestrained growth in the history of man, over the past couple of centuries has made the globe more poor? Only by comparison to 1st world heights. Not to historical wealth.

My objection to communism is not merely that is does not work well.
Even if it was more effective than capitalism at producing wealth I would still be extremely opposed to it.
The system is a vile system from a moral point of view, not just an economic one.

Still, morals are always subjective. It's a bit of hypocracy to say that one can't make a valid argument of the subjective thesis "Capitalism has led to the degeneration of society and that is bad" and at the same time stating the subjective thesis "Communism is morally bad". While I don't support communism (since it almost REQUIRES violence and I'm a pacifist, I don't like the idea), I, and many others, think that capitalism is a vile system from a moral point of view.
Actually, from a pure moral point of view, I'd say that it's better to share stuff and care about each other, than to just tend to oneself. Also, I like the idea of democracy, something capitalism can never fully achieve, but socialism can (although it isn't easy).

And about the poverty: Of course its relatively to the rest of the world. From the socialistic point of view, the capitalistic system has denied the 3rd world countries the benefits of todays knowledge and resources (which I may agree with). Furthermore, the argument goes that if the world had a working socialistic system in every country, all countries would have gotten the share of the cake (the question is, how to get a working socialistic system in a capitalistic world?).
So if these thesises are correct in any way, capitalism is a major factor in world poverty. Seen Darwin's Nightmare? A movie I strongly recommend, and I promise you, it's not socialistic.

At 5/6/08 02:18 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Uh yea. Communists wracked up 10 times the kills of the nazis. They killed millions upon millions of people. They march for the rights of the proletariate. Communists are as violent as nazis. And that Nazis and communists are both socialists says it all.

You have to agree with me though, that there is a difference between putting people in working camps and not caring if they die and putting them in a gas chamber and right off killing them.
Now, Staling & co was really bad boys, but still, they have few things in common with Marx or socialism. Stalin had more in common with Mousolini than Marx.

At 5/3/08 03:28 PM, TheNihilist wrote: Hitler received his hateful ideas from a teacher who was in a cult that believed in the "Aryan" race and considered all others inferior. The teacher pitied Hitler so much he gave the young boy his magazines for free.
I didn't know Hitler introduced all the hateful and anti-communist stuff. Makes sense.

Was this teacher in Venice? Because if I remember correctly, that's where Hitler HIMSELF saidf that was where he first began to develop his anti-semitic feelings. Hitler was also heavily inspired by Martin Luther, yes, the guy who started Lutheranism and more or less started the protestant movement in the church. That guy was one hell of a jew-hater.

At 5/3/08 02:14 PM, andrease wrote: Communism is more accepted then NationalSocialism. Why?
As far as i'm concerned, Communisms crimes are much worse, and they're still commited, while NationalSocialisms crimes stopped 60 years ago (except criminal underground groups that is).

Why is that?
How can anyone accept Communism?

Ok, you are confused, or miss informed. It is communist countries that caused those crimes. Not the government itself.

There is nothing wrong with communisim except that it just cant work.

Communisim is everyone is equal and the motivation isnt money but to better the country and everone else. It cant work in this age.

Nazi-ism is making the white race the only race on earth.

At 5/6/08 09:07 PM, penis-plant wrote: Nazi-ism is making the white race the only race on earth.

Wrong. Nazism is making the Aryan race the only race on earth. And being white doesn't automatically put you in the aryan race.

At 5/6/08 07:05 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 5/5/08 09:20 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 5/5/08 01:02 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

Still, morals are always subjective.

Not really, no.

It's a bit of hypocracy to say that one can't make a valid argument of the subjective thesis "Capitalism has led to the degeneration of society and that is bad" and at the same time stating the subjective thesis "Communism is morally bad".

See what constitutes social degeneration is subjective, since that deals with what one values more, individuality or modesty, free expression or propriety et al.

Actually, from a pure moral point of view, I'd say that it's better to share stuff and care about each other, than to just tend to oneself. Also, I like the idea of democracy, something capitalism can never fully achieve, but socialism can (although it isn't easy).

Not without force it can't (or threat of force). And besides in capitalism you are free to care about others and share, but you deny another's right to force you to share.
Here imagine you are in charge of a group of 6 year old kids.
Situation A: One kid see's another kid didn't bring his snack and gives him his bag of potato chips from him.
Sit. B: One kid forgets his snack and forcibly takes another kids bag of chips.

Which kid would you praise and which would you reprimand.
Now obviously capitalism is not necessarily going to lead to A but the socialist attempt at morality is at the heart of B (provided the kid "needed" it more).

And about the poverty: Of course its relatively to the rest of the world. From the socialistic point of view, the capitalistic system has denied the 3rd world countries the benefits of todays knowledge and resources (which I may agree with).

There is no doubting there is a discrepancy in the quality of life between 1st and 3rd world countries.
And our semi-capitalist as schanneled billions of dollars in aid to them from able volunteers. Do you really think it is moral to forcibly take away from someone who is not willing to part with it of his own volition?

Furthermore, the argument goes that if the world had a working socialistic system in every country, all countries would have gotten the share of the cake (the question is, how to get a working socialistic system in a capitalistic world?).

This basically boils down to Egalatarianism (or however the hell you spell it). I once read that when Allende and his cronies got booted from Chile, their chemical plants were in such a state of disarray that a tragedy of high magnitude was very close to happening. Simply because the people who were running it were totally negligent about following basic safety procedures.
So how can you say the people who provide energy to millions of people in a safe and efficient manner have the same value to society as the incompetent ones who nearly killed thousands and nearly left millions without energy.

For an even better example just look at what happened just look at Zimbabwe

So if these thesises are correct in any way, capitalism is a major factor in world poverty.

See thats twisting it in weird ways. They are certainly no poorer than they were before capitalism. They are only "poor" because of the wild growth experienced under capitalism makes them seem poor by comparison.capitalism didn't rob them of their wealth. It may have provided an incentive for some people to rob 3rd countried of resources. However robbing countried of resources is NOT a part of capitalism.

A true pacifist really should be in favor of laissez-faire capitalism.

Seen Darwin's Nightmare? A movie I strongly recommend, and I promise you, it's not socialistic.

Nope. Is it about how social darwinism is responsible for the situation is Africa?

At 5/6/08 10:26 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 5/6/08 07:05 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: Still, morals are always subjective.

Not really, no.

Morals are per definition a persons way of viewing right and wrong. There is no universal moral. A christian might say it's immoral to work on a sunday, while a fascist might say it's immoral not to work all the time. Morals are extremely subjective.

See what constitutes social degeneration is subjective, since that deals with what one values more, individuality or modesty, free expression or propriety et al.

Yes, it's subjective. I haven't said anything else. But stating that communism is immoral is also subjective, very much so. Still, why does it matter? If where talking about what constitutes a working society, it's always gonna be subjective since we have different points of views.

Actually, from a pure moral point of view, I'd say that it's better to share stuff and care about each other, than to just tend to oneself. Also, I like the idea of democracy, something capitalism can never fully achieve, but socialism can (although it isn't easy).

Not without force it can't (or threat of force). And besides in capitalism you are free to care about others and share, but you deny another's right to force you to share.

Socialism can achieve democracy without force, if that's what you meant. Capitalism can't achieve democracy at all.

Here imagine you are in charge of a group of 6 year old kids.
Situation A: One kid see's another kid didn't bring his snack and gives him his bag of potato chips from him.
Sit. B: One kid forgets his snack and forcibly takes another kids bag of chips.

Which kid would you praise and which would you reprimand.
Now obviously capitalism is not necessarily going to lead to A but the socialist attempt at morality is at the heart of B (provided the kid "needed" it more).

It's not. First off, if I was in charge of a group of 6-year olds, I would probably not allow them to bring their own snacks (there's enough obese people) and if I would, I would have as a requirement of them to in that case share it with the other kids. Actually, when I was in the Scouts, that's excactly the rule that were: If we were gonna bring candy to a camp, we should share it with the others.
Secondly, socialism is about democratically choosing how to share the resources. 6-year-olds are too young to just by themselves understand democracy, but if you teach them that, you might easily have a democratically chosen rule, if it's okay to bring candy and if you want to share.

And about the poverty: Of course its relatively to the rest of the world. From the socialistic point of view, the capitalistic system has denied the 3rd world countries the benefits of todays knowledge and resources (which I may agree with).

There is no doubting there is a discrepancy in the quality of life between 1st and 3rd world countries.
And our semi-capitalist as schanneled billions of dollars in aid to them from able volunteers. Do you really think it is moral to forcibly take away from someone who is not willing to part with it of his own volition?

Yes, I think it can be moral to forcibly take away from someone who is not willing to part with something. I think it's right to remove a key from a drunk guy who says he's gonna take a car ride. I think it's okay to remove the gun of a bank robberer. I think that it is okay to democratically set rules about what things are allowed to be owned and what are not, and I think it's okay to tax people. I know that the US has gotten democracy to be the right of private ownership above everything else, but seriously, that right more often than not denies people their democratic rights.

So how can you say the people who provide energy to millions of people in a safe and efficient manner have the same value to society as the incompetent ones who nearly killed thousands and nearly left millions without energy.

First off, I believe that all human beings (and all intelligent animals) have a fundamental value that may not be taken away from them. Still, I don't know where I've said that they have the same. Please quote me. Actually, please quote me on where I've anywhere said anything about peoples value. I really don't have any idea what the fuck you're talking about.

See thats twisting it in weird ways. They are certainly no poorer than they were before capitalism. They are only "poor" because of the wild growth experienced under capitalism makes them seem poor by comparison.capitalism didn't rob them of their wealth.

First off, it is right now, all the time.
Secondly, no, they may not be poorer (although there are such instances), but in the same way, the jews of the holocaust are no deader now than they would have been anyway, so Hitler didn't kill them?
One must not think "where they richer before capitalism?", but rather, "would they have been richer now under a different economic system?". We can never know that, but the communists believe they would.

A true pacifist really should be in favor of laissez-faire capitalism.

No. Pacifism is a stance against violence, nothing else. I am about as true a pacifist one can get, I believe, as I don't ever use or promote violence, even if my own safety is at risk. It's one of the few standpoints I'm actually proud of taking.

Seen Darwin's Nightmare? A movie I strongly recommend, and I promise you, it's not socialistic.

Nope. Is it about how social darwinism is responsible for the situation is Africa?

Nope. It's about the nile bass (it's called that in english, right?) and how it has killed everything else in Lake Victoria. It's about the people living around the lake, how they get by by fishing. It's a really great documentary, one of the best I've seen.

At 5/6/08 02:19 AM, WolvenBear wrote: You're an idiot. Both communism and Nazism were branches of socialism. The platforms ONLY difference was on the focus of the world wide proletariat vs the Aryan nation.

So we're calling names now?

You've got your information mixed up. Communism isn't a branch of socialism, and it has absolutely nothing to do with a proletariat. Besides that Nazism keeps a hatred for non-Aryans alive while a succeeded communist state would have no such thing (at least not in theory). The Nazis knew they were better than some others so they claimed several countries, the communists wanted to be equal.

At 5/7/08 03:34 AM, Diederick wrote: Communism isn't a branch of socialism, and it has absolutely nothing to do with a proletariat. Besides that Nazism keeps a hatred for non-Aryans alive while a succeeded communist state would have no such thing (at least not in theory). The Nazis knew they were better than some others so they claimed several countries, the communists wanted to be equal.

Uhm, communism is very much related to socialism.

"Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.[1] It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution"

The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century working class movement. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution, in which the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.

On the other hand, national socialism (nazism) has no more than the name in common with socialism. Socialism is internationalistic, nazism is nationalistic. Socialism focuses on the rights of the weak, nazism is elitistic. Socialism strives for democracy (although for example many communists would say that it can't be done without first having a dictatorship) while nazism strives for one dictator.

At 5/7/08 09:53 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Uhm, communism is very much related to socialism.

In that context, yes. I was more of the opinion that communism stood on itself, being a the ultimate form of socialism. And I don't see the distillate as a branch of the mixture, since it has been corrupted. Same as Hydrogen isn't a branch of water, but rather the other way around.

Ah well, it's not very important to this debate. What is important is that Nazis are nasty discriminators, and that communists are initially good-hearted. Problem is that both don't quite work.

At 5/7/08 11:42 AM, Diederick wrote:

At 5/7/08 09:53 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Uhm, communism is very much related to socialism.

In that context, yes. I was more of the opinion that communism stood on itself, being a the ultimate form of socialism. And I don't see the distillate as a branch of the mixture, since it has been corrupted. Same as Hydrogen isn't a branch of water, but rather the other way around.

Ah well, it's not very important to this debate. What is important is that Nazis are nasty discriminators, and that communists are initially good-hearted. Problem is that both don't quite work.

I absolutely agree with you... Oh wait, this is my own post! Anyway, to say a little more there:

Both sides only want the best. The difference is that the Communist want the best for the people, regardless of what kind of people they are. Nazis only want the best for a select group of people. And we've made laws against that sort of discrimination a long time ago.

At 5/6/08 02:19 AM, WolvenBear wrote: You're an idiot. Both communism and Nazism were branches of socialism. The platforms ONLY difference was on the focus of the world wide proletariat vs the Aryan nation.

I think it's a bit blinkered to call communism and Nazism similar. Nazism most certainly wasn't a branch of socialism. The name of the party, and Hitler's meaningless socialist slogans, were just a means to attract votes. Nazism was just an extreme form of Nationalism- restoring Germany's glory, strengthening of the German race, etc.

They differed significantly in their policies too. Hitler was very keen to please the factory owners and rich capitalists, while Stalin nationalised big industries and made sure that the soviets were in control.

Communism, as created by Karl Marx, at the very least has an actual concept. Everyone sharing to make a worldwide utopia of people working together for each other. Communism does not necessarily depend on violence, and so a communist party can exist without advocating it.

The only element of Nazism that is really unique is the master race thing. All Nazi parties must support this, and so they are therefore racist. They are still allowed to exist, free speech and all that, but the real hardliners who actually advocate violence are breaking the law.

At 5/7/08 01:28 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:
Morals are per definition a persons way of viewing right and wrong.

No, morals are a system of right and wrong. We may have different views on what is moral. That does not mean one of us is not incorrect.

There is no universal moral. A christian might say it's immoral to work on a sunday, while a fascist might say it's immoral not to work all the time. Morals are extremely subjective.

Yes there is. You are right they both have their opinion on what is moral.
They are both wrong.

See what constitutes social degeneration is subjective, since that deals with what one values more, individuality or modesty, free expression or propriety et al.

Yes, it's subjective. I haven't said anything else. But stating that communism is immoral is also subjective, very much so. Still, why does it matter? If where talking about what constitutes a working society, it's always gonna be subjective since we have different points of views.

I was drawing a distinction between "social degenaration" and morality.

Socialism can achieve democracy without force, if that's what you meant. Capitalism can't achieve democracy at all.

No. If there is no force, or threat of force then it is not a "command" economy. So by defintion you are incorrect.
And if by capitalism not being able to be a democracy, unless you refer to constitutionally protected rights, I can't imagine what you mean.

It's not. First off, if I was in charge of a group of 6-year olds, I would probably not allow them to bring their own snacks (there's enough obese people) and if I would, I would have as a requirement of them to in that case share it with the other kids. Actually, when I was in the Scouts, that's excactly the rule that were: If we were gonna bring candy to a camp, we should share it with the others.

operative word being "should". Why would you force parents to buy food for another kid?

Secondly, socialism is about democratically choosing how to share the resources. 6-year-olds are too young to just by themselves understand democracy, but if you teach them that, you might easily have a democratically chosen rule, if it's okay to bring candy and if you want to share.

And yet to me, democracy isn't about championing tyranny of the majority

Yes, I think it can be moral to forcibly take away from someone who is not willing to part with something. I think it's right to remove a key from a drunk guy who says he's gonna take a car ride. I think it's okay to remove the gun of a bank robberer.

You're not serious are you? You don't believe those to me morally equivalent with forcible redistribution of income do you?

I think that it is okay to democratically set rules about what things are allowed to be owned and what are not, and I think it's okay to tax people. I know that the US has gotten democracy to be the right of private ownership above everything else, but seriously, that right more often than not denies people their democratic rights.

Really? How so? If you mean their democratic rights to control what other people do with their resources, would you be against a constitutional amendment repealing the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. constitution?

First off, I believe that all human beings (and all intelligent animals) have a fundamental value that may not be taken away from them.

Agreed, except for the animals.

Still, I don't know where I've said that they have the same. Please quote me. Actually, please quote me on where I've anywhere said anything about peoples value. I really don't have any idea what the fuck you're talking about.

"Furthermore, the argument goes that if the world had a working socialistic system in every country, all countries would have gotten the share of the cake (the question is, how to get a working socialistic system in a capitalistic world?)."

I read into this an underlying egalitarian viewpoint, and took it from there, was I wrong for making this assumption?

Secondly, no, they may not be poorer (although there are such instances), but in the same way, the jews of the holocaust are no deader now than they would have been anyway, so Hitler didn't kill them?

What? I totally missed the boat with your logic there.
Hitler violently killed millions of people TAKING their lives and everything they value.
Capitalist countries did not GIVE wealth to countries.
Care to show me the bridge here?

One must not think "where they richer before capitalism?", but rather, "would they have been richer now under a different economic system?". We can never know that, but the communists believe they would.

Perhaps but even assuming they would be, it could have only been achieved through force. Which makes it morally reprehensible.

A true pacifist really should be in favor of laissez-faire capitalism.

No. Pacifism is a stance against violence, nothing else. I am about as true a pacifist one can get, I believe, as I don't ever use or promote violence, even if my own safety is at risk. It's one of the few standpoints I'm actually proud of taking.

I don't promote violence except for when my safety, or the safety of an innocent person is at risk. Then I promote with gusto.
But putting that aside, Capitalism is basically the moral premise you are so proud of taking, applied to economics.
Capitalism is the refusal to be dealt with by use of force over persuasion. Just because Tom, Dick and Harry would like me to work for their benefit, capitalism denies them any right to force me to do so, and they must rely on persuasion.

Whereas your championining of democracy can be applied to 3 savages gang-raping a girl in the back of their car.
They didn't "gang-rape" her, they democratically assigned her resources.

Nope. Is it about how social darwinism is responsible for the situation is Africa?

Nope. It's about the nile bass (it's called that in english, right?) and how it has killed everything else in Lake Victoria. It's about the people living around the lake, how they get by by fishing. It's a really great documentary, one of the best I've seen.

Very well. I enjoy nature documentaries so I'll keep an eye of out for it and try to check it out.

At 5/7/08 11:32 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Yes there is. You are right they both have their opinion on what is moral.

Okay, so what you want to say is that you don't dislike communism because it IS immoral, but because your SUBJECTIVE opinion on moral says it isn't moral.

I was drawing a distinction between "social degenaration" and morality.

So? To me, a degenerated society is one where people act immoral (what I think is moral, if you will). If you want, I can rephrase it: One can be against capitalism because it's immoral. Maybe you don't think so, but rather that communism is, but many people do.

No. If there is no force, or threat of force then it is not a "command" economy. So by defintion you are incorrect.
And if by capitalism not being able to be a democracy, unless you refer to constitutionally protected rights, I can't imagine what you mean.

Of course it can. Sweden is a rather socialized country, and here, we could constantly vote for more socialistic reforms and more democratic votings, for example, we could first vote for making all factories state-owned, then we get to vote what should be produced and how much of things. More socialism and more democracy.

I mean that a full-blown capitalism would be utterly ruled by money, more than it is now. A democracy is where the PEOPLE decide what their country should do, and yet, the owner of McDonalds can probably affect the country more than fifty thousand bums can.
Say that Bill Gates would use his money to fund a giant campaign for one of the presidental candidates. From what I've understood, the candidate can't take money from him, but he could of course by himself print giant posters saying "Vote for XXX! Free porn for everyone!". Of course that would gain the candidate LOTS of votes. He could even do it by threat, "Vote for XXX or I'll give my money to Iran!". That would also add votes. Capitalism is saying "Hey, anyone can vote!" and then make YOUR vote matter less for every day. And yet, USA isn't a full-blown capitalism, rather a mixed economy with a large part capitalism. The more capitalistic your country gets, the less your vote is gonna matter. One CAN vote away democracy, just look at Germany.

operative word being "should". Why would you force parents to buy food for another kid?

I wouldn't. It's better that I organize the food since I'm the one who's gonna take care of them. I was in charge, right?

And yet to me, democracy isn't about championing tyranny of the majority

Of course it isn't. Minorities (all kinds off) ARE at fault in a democracy, but in capitalism it's the other way around: The majority are at fault. Still, many people want everyone to get equal rights, and it's part of socialism, including the social and economic rights, which many capitalist countries don't give a damn about.

Yes, I think it can be moral to forcibly take away from someone who is not willing to part with something. I think it's right to remove a key from a drunk guy who says he's gonna take a car ride. I think it's okay to remove the gun of a bank robberer.

You're not serious are you? You don't believe those to me morally equivalent with forcible redistribution of income do you?

"Forcible redistribution of income"? First off, that's excactly what taxes are, and secondly, it's not needed at all in a socialistic society, since the state is the employer. Your income is democratically decided, just in the same way as your income now i non-democratically decided by your employer.
And no, I don't see anything wrong in having the state as employer.

Really? How so? If you mean their democratic rights to control what other people do with their resources, would you be against a constitutional amendment repealing the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. constitution?

Actually, I don't know what the fourtheenth is, but the 13th and 15th are good ones.
But I don't get what you're talking about at all.

"Furthermore, the argument goes that if the world had a working socialistic system in every country, all countries would have gotten the share of the cake (the question is, how to get a working socialistic system in a capitalistic world?)."

I read into this an underlying egalitarian viewpoint, and took it from there, was I wrong for making this assumption?

I say that all people are of equal worth to the world, although they may not be so to individuals or groups. But that quote was about COUNTRIES (or rather, geographical locations), not INDIVIDUALS.

Secondly, no, they may not be poorer (although there are such instances), but in the same way, the jews of the holocaust are no deader now than they would have been anyway, so Hitler didn't kill them?

What? I totally missed the boat with your logic there.
Hitler violently killed millions of people TAKING their lives and everything they value.
Capitalist countries did not GIVE wealth to countries.
Care to show me the bridge here?

Well, if you take away the people Hitler directly kill, the others died because the nazis didn't give them enough food or shelter. That's a pretty clear bridge.
Still, I make little difference between passive and active actions. Both are a choice.

One must not think "where they richer before capitalism?", but rather, "would they have been richer now under a different economic system?". We can never know that, but the communists believe they would.

Perhaps but even assuming they would be, it could have only been achieved through force. Which makes it morally reprehensible.

First off, sometimes force is good. Secondly, according to communism, the current system is taking the resources from the people under threat of passive force; Work for an employer that steals your value or starve to death.
It's that threat that the communists want to end, or rather, it's the theft of value that they want to end.

I don't promote violence except for when my safety, or the safety of an innocent person is at risk. Then I promote with gusto.
But putting that aside, Capitalism is basically the moral premise you are so proud of taking, applied to economics.

No, it's not. Persuading people to consume poisonous liquids is promoted (as long as it's succesful) by the capitalistic system, and is totally against everything I stand for.

Whereas your championining of democracy can be applied to 3 savages gang-raping a girl in the back of their car.
They didn't "gang-rape" her, they democratically assigned her resources.

First off, democracy in such a small society is seriously fucked up. Second, that goes against what I said about fundamental rights of a human. And thirdly, as I said earlier, minorities are at fault in a democracy, it's one of democracys greatest problems. However, in the capitalistic world, they could instead own the ground and say that "Hey, you're trespassing, if you wanna leave, then you'll have to let us gang-rape you..."

Nope. Is it about how social darwinism is responsible for the situation is Africa?

Nope. It's about the nile bass (it's called that in english, right?) and how it has killed everything else in Lake Victoria. It's about the people living around the lake, how they get by by fishing. It's a really great documentary, one of the best I've seen.

Very well. I enjoy nature documentaries so I'll keep an eye of out for it and try to check it out.

At 5/6/08 06:50 PM, SolInvictus wrote: not neccessarily since part of the Nazi's vision was a land for each people.

The Nazi vision was of the master race owning the globe and the weaker races dying off.

This is little different from the vision of the proletariat rising up and killing off the burgeouis class to take over.

At 5/6/08 07:08 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: You have to agree with me though, that there is a difference between putting people in working camps and not caring if they die and putting them in a gas chamber and right off killing them.

There were concentration camps in USSR, and there were show executions. You fail to make a point.

Besides, what a stupid point. The nazis killed less than 1/3 of the people of the USSR. The REASON those people were senselessly massacred is irrelevant.

Now, Staling & co was really bad boys, but still, they have few things in common with Marx or socialism. Stalin had more in common with Mousolini than Marx.

Communism was Marx brainchild, and the USSR was exactly how he envisioned it. Saying Stalin had more in common with Mussolini than Marx is saying that 2.1 has more in common with 2.11 than 2.12. They're all so close as to be irrelevant.

At 5/7/08 03:34 AM, Diederick wrote: So we're calling names now?

Only of people who deserve them.

You've got your information mixed up. Communism isn't a branch of socialism, and it has absolutely nothing to do with a proletariat. Besides that Nazism keeps a hatred for non-Aryans alive while a succeeded communist state would have no such thing (at least not in theory). The Nazis knew they were better than some others so they claimed several countries, the communists wanted to be equal.

Communism is a branch of socialism.

The propeganda of the Nazis and the Communists is indistinquishable in it's rhetoric except for a small part. The Nazis were racists and classists. And the Communists were just classists.

At 5/7/08 09:53 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: On the other hand, national socialism (nazism) has no more than the name in common with socialism.

Except that it's identical in every way shape and form.

Socialism is internationalistic, nazism is nationalistic.

And?

Socialism focuses on the rights of the weak, nazism is elitistic. Socialism strives for democracy (although for example many communists would say that it can't be done without first having a dictatorship) while nazism strives for one dictator.

What a load of crap. The goals of Nazism and Communism were identical. Because Nazism and Communism were the same thing. Trying to seperate the two is no different than claiming different colored soccer balls are not the same thing.

At 5/7/08 11:45 AM, Diederick wrote: Both sides only want the best. The difference is that the Communist want the best for the people, regardless of what kind of people they are. Nazis only want the best for a select group of people. And we've made laws against that sort of discrimination a long time ago.

This is again, an unmitigated load of horseshit. The communists were very against the capitalists (not our people). Communism has always been intertwined with anti-Semetism. Both are "equality for who we like". Trying to seperate the two is trying to pretend Communism wasn't that bad, while making Nazism out to be the devil. Considering the Nazis killed far less people than even the Vietnamese....thats an idiotic white wash of Stalin, Marx, Mao, et al.

At 5/7/08 11:53 AM, Britkid wrote: I think it's a bit blinkered to call communism and Nazism similar. Nazism most certainly wasn't a branch of socialism. The name of the party, and Hitler's meaningless socialist slogans, were just a means to attract votes. Nazism was just an extreme form of Nationalism- restoring Germany's glory, strengthening of the German race, etc.

It was certainly a branch of socialism. It wasn't the "National Socialist" party for nothing. Hitler was quite fond of Mussolini, Marx and Stalin. He had books by all three in his library. He set a minimum wage, demanded socialized heallth care, etc. He was clearly a socialist.

They differed significantly in their policies too. Hitler was very keen to please the factory owners and rich capitalists, while Stalin nationalised big industries and made sure that the soviets were in control.

The country owning the businesses vs teh country micro managing the businesses is a VERY small difference.

Communism, as created by Karl Marx, at the very least has an actual concept. Everyone sharing to make a worldwide utopia of people working together for each other. Communism does not necessarily depend on violence, and so a communist party can exist without advocating it.

Yet no communist party ever has. And it CAN'T, because even Marx advocated violence. Thwe system is based on forced redistibution. There is no way communism can work without force.

The only element of Nazism that is really unique is the master race thing. All Nazi parties must support this, and so they are therefore racist. They are still allowed to exist, free speech and all that, but the real hardliners who actually advocate violence are breaking the law.

On a practical level, hating blacks or jews, is no diffferent than hating the rich or the facotry owners.

Ah, the old "National Socialists were Socialist" argument. I've always wondered why this keeps cropping up, considering that it's glaringly obvious that the Nazis were fascists who advocated a union between the state and business (with the workers silently forgotten.) I think it stems from the view that there is this "pure" idea of capitalism (where there is a completely free market) and anything that involves the state in any way shape or form is socialist. Sadly, this dichotomy is incorrect and the argument is founded on a basic fallacy (it's not "capitalism", so it's socialism) that works on ill-defined and ill-understood concepts.

Out of interest, has anyone thought to count the deaths that stem from the current global capitalist system? I'm not talking genocide here, but about people who starve to death, etc because of the capitalist system.

*waits for excuses for these deaths and people defending the system by generating positions that, in fact, make them hypocrits*

At 5/8/08 07:52 AM, WolvenBear wrote: It was certainly a branch of socialism. It wasn't the "National Socialist" party for nothing. Hitler was quite fond of Mussolini, Marx and Stalin. He had books by all three in his library. He set a minimum wage, demanded socialized heallth care, etc. He was clearly a socialist.

What?! First of all, Mussolini was another fascist, which would tend to explain why Hitler was fond of him. He hated Marx and Stalin. Communism was the absolute enemy of his Fatherland. That's why he shipped them all off to concentration camps.

The country owning the businesses vs teh country micro managing the businesses is a VERY small difference.

Apart from they didn't micro manage the businesses. It's a pretty big difference between a large body of workers owning a factory to some rich fatcat.

Yet no communist party ever has. And it CAN'T, because even Marx advocated violence. Thwe system is based on forced redistibution. There is no way communism can work without force.

But the current legal communist parties do not advocate any kind of violent revolution, so they are legal. If they somehow got elected, then they would probably use force to keep in power. But they don't talk about a revolution these days.

On a practical level, hating blacks or jews, is no diffferent than hating the rich or the facotry owners.

But then you don't have to hate the rich or even the factory owners to be a communist. You want to dissolve those two particular groups, but that does not necessarily involve slaughtering all of them in their beds.

I think communism is great, everybody equal. No rich and poor. On the other hand, everyone has the same, and luxurys are taboo. And you have to work hard. I guess it's better then the facism.

At 5/8/08 11:29 AM, TheBelgianBeast wrote: I think communism is great, everybody equal. No rich and poor. On the other hand, everyone has the same, and luxurys are taboo. And you have to work hard. I guess it's better then the facism.

I think this is the reason I hate Heckler and Koch and don't buy any of their products.

At 5/8/08 09:44 AM, Slizor wrote: Ah, the old "National Socialists were Socialist" argument. I've always wondered why this keeps cropping up, considering that it's glaringly obvious that the Nazis were fascists who advocated a union between the state and business (with the workers silently forgotten.) I think it stems from the view that there is this "pure" idea of capitalism (where there is a completely free market) and anything that involves the state in any way shape or form is socialist. Sadly, this dichotomy is incorrect and the argument is founded on a basic fallacy (it's not "capitalism", so it's socialism) that works on ill-defined and ill-understood concepts.

The argument keeps popping up because it's true. Jesus. What kind of a stupid counter argument is "nu uh, they were fascists"? Fascists were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS.

The idea that the fascists were pro-business and anti-worker is a fabrication. They demanded wage controls, limited work hours, free health and child care. Likewize, painting Nazis as capitalists is based on the absurd idea that unless the state owns and runs the business itself that it is a free market. From the Nazi party economic platform:
Outright state ownership and operation, advancing in all fields, are particularly ascendant in the extensive areas of new enterprise opened up during the Nazi rule....virtually all economic enterprise is subject to rigid state control; and it is control which we have seen to be decisive in relation to the instruments of production. Legal forms, even income privileges, are in the end subordinate to de facto control.
Even where private owners still exist in Germany, the decisions about "their" property are not in their hands. They do not decide what to make or not to make. They do not establish prices or bargain about wages. They are not at liberty to buy the raw materials they might choose nor to seek the most profitable markets. They cannot, as a rule, decide how to invest or not invest their surplus funds. In short, they are no longer owners, no longer effective capitalists
The regulation of production in Germany is no longer left to the market. What is to be produced, and how much, is decided, deliberately, by groups of men, by the state boards and bureaus and commissions. It is they that decide whether a new plant shall be built or an old plant retired, how raw materials shall be allotted and orders distributed, what quotas must be fulfilled by various branches of industry, what goods shall be put aside for export, how prices shall be fixed and credit and exchange extended. There is no requirement that these decisions of the bureaus must be based on any profit aim in the capitalist sense. If it is thought expedient, for whatever reason, to produce, for example, an ersatz rubber or wool or food, this will be done even if the production entails, from a capitalist point of view, a heavy loss. Similarly, in order to accumulate foreign exchange or to stimulate some political effect in a foreign nation, goods will be exported regardless of loss. A factory may be compelled to shut down, even though it could operate at a high profit. Banks and individuals are forced to invest their funds with no reference to the private and voluntary opinions about "risks" from a profit standpoint. It is literally true to say that the Nazi economy, already, is not a "profit economy."

Sounds like socialism to me. The difference between state owned and state run is so small as to be irrelevant.

Out of interest, has anyone thought to count the deaths that stem from the current global capitalist system? I'm not talking genocide here, but about people who starve to death, etc because of the capitalist system.

"OK fine, sure millions died of deliberate state CAUSED food shortages, but surely, somewhere, a handful of people died of insufficient funds because of capitalism right?" Moral equivalence of the worst variety. Starvation is next to unknown in the capitalist world. Capitalism has next to eliminated hunger, poverty and disease. Yet everyone maligns it as eeeevil.

*waits for excuses for these deaths and people defending the system by generating positions that, in fact, make them hypocrits*

I don't have to excuse these deaths as they aren't happening. Even the homeless have options to eat in capitalist countries.

At 5/8/08 11:25 AM, Britkid wrote: What?! First of all, Mussolini was another fascist, which would tend to explain why Hitler was fond of him. He hated Marx and Stalin. Communism was the absolute enemy of his Fatherland. That's why he shipped them all off to concentration camps.

Mussolini was not fond of Hitler tho. He called Mein Kamph "an intolerable book that he couldn't plod through". I will repeat: Fascism was socialism. The communists were his enemies cause they were trying to overthrow him. "First brown then red." was the phrase of the communists.

Far from being enemies, Hitler and Stalin were on friendly terms until the invasion, signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. It was such a friendly document that many Communists who saw it as their right to overthrow Hitler's fascism with communism were outraged.

Apart from they didn't micro manage the businesses. It's a pretty big difference between a large body of workers owning a factory to some rich fatcat.

Yes, they did. See above. Stupid teenagers.

But the current legal communist parties do not advocate any kind of violent revolution, so they are legal. If they somehow got elected, then they would probably use force to keep in power. But they don't talk about a revolution these days.

Though many socialist groups indeed do engage in violence. Code Pink is a great example.

But then you don't have to hate the rich or even the factory owners to be a communist. You want to dissolve those two particular groups, but that does not necessarily involve slaughtering all of them in their beds.

Though it did lead to just that.

The historical whitewashing of the Communists is appaling. If Hitler is a monster, then Stalin and the communists are on a level with Satan. Their body count was far higher (with or without teh famine). 6 million is terrible, but 20 million is worse. That they were nice murderers is irrelevant.

At 5/8/08 07:19 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Mussolini was not fond of Hitler tho. He called Mein Kamph "an intolerable book that he couldn't plod through"

Their political systems were quite similar. The book is rubbish, the fact that Mussolini is honest enough to admit this doesn't mean their methods of rule were significantly different.

I will repeat: Fascism was socialism.

Sure.

Far from being enemies, Hitler and Stalin were on friendly terms until the invasion, signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. It was such a friendly document that many Communists who saw it as their right to overthrow Hitler's fascism with communism were outraged.

Hitler and Stalin only did that because they were worried about their own safety. Hitler was apprehensive that the USSR would hit back if he invaded Poland, while Stalin knew that no one in Europe wanted to ally with him, while he also had designs on territories nearby. The bastards hated each other though, and both of them always planned for war.

Yes, they did. See above. Stupid teenagers.

I've been sidetracked here. It's not about the actions of the Nazi Germany or USSR regimes, but how communist parties exist today.

Though many socialist groups indeed do engage in violence. Code Pink is a great example.

Never heard of it. Is it legal?

Though it did lead to just that.

But that's irrelevant. Why should a modern party be held responsible for the actions of a historic regime similarly positioned on the political spectrum. That's like saying no one should ever vote for the Conservatives because Maggie Thatcher screwed up the country in the seventies.

The historical whitewashing of the Communists is appaling. If Hitler is a monster, then Stalin and the communists are on a level with Satan. Their body count was far higher (with or without teh famine). 6 million is terrible, but 20 million is worse. That they were nice murderers is irrelevant.

Yet that is not the original discussion. No one is trying to condone the Soviet Union.

The argument keeps popping up because it's true. Jesus. What kind of a stupid counter argument is "nu uh, they were fascists"? Fascists were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS.

Nazis were fascists, not the other way round (i.e. you can be a fascist without being a nazi) and the words are not synonyms.

The idea that the fascists were pro-business and anti-worker is a fabrication. They demanded wage controls, limited work hours, free health and child care.

And the destruction of the bourgeoisie? The advancement of Unionism? Equality between the sexes and the classes?

I thought not. Limited social programs do not equal socialism.

Likewize, painting Nazis as capitalists is based on the absurd idea that unless the state owns and runs the business itself that it is a free market.

No it's not. It's based on the idea that inequality between the classes continues to exist on the basis of the means of production being privately owned.

Sounds like socialism to me. The difference between state owned and state run is so small as to be irrelevant.

Which is the problem, you don't know what socialism is or what it aims to do.

Out of interest, has anyone thought to count the deaths that stem from the current global capitalist system? I'm not talking genocide here, but about people who starve to death, etc because of the capitalist system.

"OK fine, sure millions died of deliberate state CAUSED food shortages, but surely, somewhere, a handful of people died of insufficient funds because of capitalism right?" Moral equivalence of the worst variety. Starvation is next to unknown in the capitalist world. Capitalism has next to eliminated hunger, poverty and disease. Yet everyone maligns it as eeeevil.

Sorry, what definition of the Capitalist world are you using? One that only includes first world countries?