Liberal Fascism [Archive]

AnthArmo

23rd October 2009, 13:06

Are you familiar with the concept of Newspeak? its the process by which the state and figures of authority attempt to deliberately change the meaning of words in order to make it impossible to discuss revolutionary ideas or to challenge the status quo.

This is what this book, as well as much of the American Right, are attempting to do. Completely and utterly change the definition of not only the word "Fascism", but also the words "Communism", "Socialism" and "Democracy".

Fascism is Not Left-wing. I have not read the book, nor do I plan to, but apparently, it attempts to link Fascism to the left through really tenous associations. Leftists are often vegans, Hitler was a vegan...gasp! :rolleyes:

Try going back to the original seating arrangements of the French national assembly and then look at the Objective facts about the ideology of Fascism.

The Right stood for the protection of the property of the upper-class, it stood for the respect of authority, and it stood for strong social conservatism.

Not look at the Ideology of fascism.

Try not to pay attention to the American Right, they have a tendency to deliberately twist the facts.

Green Dragon

23rd October 2009, 13:32

[QUOTE=AnthArmo;1576869]Are you familiar with the concept of Newspeak? its the process by which the state and figures of authority attempt to deliberately change the meaning of words in order to make it impossible to discuss revolutionary ideas or to challenge the status quo.

It is more of an observation that the fascists certainly sought to challenge the "status-quo," among other things.

This is what this book, as well as much of the American Right, are attempting to do. Completely and utterly change the definition of not only the word "Fascism", but also the words "Communism", "Socialism" and "Democracy".

No. It means that the American "Right" prefers not to pretend it is 1850 and that terms such as "communism" and "socialism" has to be analysed for what they have done over the decades, why it was done, and whether such actions is a more accurate description, despite the otherwise best intentions of the socialist.

Try going back to the original seating arrangements of the French national assembly and then look at the Objective facts about the ideology of Fascism.

Fair enough.

The Right stood for the protection of the property of the upper-class

Not entirely true.

, it stood for the respect of authority

Which is a meaningless description. In order for a democracy to function, for example, the losing minority has to respect the authority of the majority to do what it wants.

,
and it stood for strong social conservatism.

Not entirely true. For example, the fascists were quite hostile to organised religion (the nazis anyways), and certainly encouraged "out of wedlock" births.

RGacky3

23rd October 2009, 19:06

The fact is in the 30s socialism had a strong moral backing, in otherwords, it was getting to the point where people used the word socialism the same way they used the word democracy or freedom, so, just the same way many african dictators say they are freedom fighters or democrats, some fascists used some socialist talking points, as they did democracy talking points, as they did liberty talking points, as they did religious talking points, in other words they were opportunists.

No. It means that the American "Right" prefers not to pretend it is 1850 and that terms such as "communism" and "socialism" has to be analysed for what they have done over the decades, why it was done, and whether such actions is a more accurate description, despite the otherwise best intentions of the socialist.

Thats fine, but don't pretend it that, those are what socialists are fighting for (which is democracy in the economy), and then say see, democracy in the economy leads to tyrrany, because those tyrants called them selves socialists, and so do you guys.

Not entirely true.

That was'nt the whole thing, but the DID stand for the property of the upper class, almost always.

Which is a meaningless description. In order for a democracy to function, for example, the losing minority has to respect the authority of the majority to do what it wants.

In other words innate authority.

Not entirely true. For example, the fascists were quite hostile to organised religion (the nazis anyways), and certainly encouraged "out of wedlock" births.

only when orgalized religion went against their goals, its the same with the right today.

RedKnight

23rd October 2009, 20:02

From what I've read the Fascists were originaly broadly left-wing. However the original Fascism has little to do with what we know as Fascism. But before they sold out to the big money interests, they were leftist, in a non-marxian way. So historicly Fascism was leftist, politicly no way.

AnthArmo

24th October 2009, 05:18

It is more of an observation that the fascists certainly sought to challenge the "status-quo," among other things.How did they challenge the status quo?

No. It means that the American "Right" prefers not to pretend it is 1850 and that terms such as "communism" and "socialism" has to be analysed for what they have done over the decades, why it was done, and whether such actions is a more accurate description, despite the otherwise best intentions of the socialist.You can't change the definiton of a word. the word Socialism arose in the 16th century meaning an economy that is democratically controlled by the working class. Just because despotic dictators have hijacked the term for their own purposes in the last century does not change this, nor does it give the American Right the power to change the definiton of words.

*disagreements with my definiton of the French assembly*Fair enough, I'm going directly off the top of my head here. My point is that the values of the Fascist ideology bear absolutely no relevance to the Left, they are on the Right for a reason.

Not entirely true. For example, the fascists were quite hostile to organised religion (the nazis anyways), and certainly encouraged "out of wedlock" births.I haven't heard of this, can you give me a source?

Conquer or Die

24th October 2009, 09:25

The left can be anything and the right can be anything. The right is the status quo at the time and the left is change at the time. I don't like it when people jack an otherwise simple procedure for identifying your core belief set in relation to real politics of your time. (In other words, if I say I'm left I can be called a socialist when I'm merely seeking a different course of action than what the current political climate is proposing)

Libertarians who believe in property rights are doing more to promote fascism than communists are. Negative liberties, sacrifice for the state or for God, and moral codes are examples of the modern conservative ideology. They believe there is an inherent structure for the strong to rule the weak (though they may believe in helping the weak or killing them off, they believe in two different races of humanity) and they think that the weak are tools for the exceptional.

Oh, and Protestants and Catholics and Max Weber and Martin Luther and small business owners and wealthy industrialists and Royalists and Nietzchean anarchists and a majority of the working class were/would be happily okay with something like the Nazi regime. Who were firmly against them? That would be the Jews, Jehovah Witness, and the Communist party.

Green Dragon

25th October 2009, 03:44

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1577096]The fact is in the 30s socialism had a strong moral backing, in otherwords, it was getting to the point where people used the word socialism the same way they used the word democracy or freedom, so, just the same way many african dictators say they are freedom fighters or democrats, some fascists used some socialist talking points, as they did democracy talking points, as they did liberty talking points, as they did religious talking points, in other words they were opportunists.

Yes. Somebody around 1922 said, "We are all socialists now."
I am not particularly fond of the "we were duped" explanation of inconvenient facts and trends.

Thats fine, but don't pretend it that, those are what socialists are fighting for (which is democracy in the economy), and then say see, democracy in the economy leads to tyrrany, because those tyrants called them selves socialists, and so do you guys.

What the argument usually revolves around is the demand for the socialist to describe and explain their system; saying "democracy in the workplace" says nothing.

That was'nt the whole thing, but the DID stand for the property of the upper class, almost always.

To the extent they backed the objectives of the National Socialists, sure.

only when orgalized religion went against their goals, its the same with the right today.

Their party platform from 1920(?) condemns the established Catholic and Lutheran Churches.

Green Dragon

25th October 2009, 03:51

[QUOTE=AnthArmo;1577557]How did they challenge the status quo?

They were against the perceived "dominance" of the Jews in german life, for starters.

You can't change the definiton of a word.

I am not changing the definition of a word.

the word Socialism arose in the 16th century meaning an economy that is democratically controlled by the working class. Just because despotic dictators have hijacked the term for their own purposes in the last century does not change this, nor does it give the American Right the power to change the definiton of words.

The question becomes does the quest to realise the definition yield those unpleasant results?
In other words, are the socialists wrong? The insistence of looking at the dictionary, and reasoning backwards, is not helpful to te socialist cause.

I
haven't heard of this, can you give me a source?

Shirer Rise and Fall.

Green Dragon

25th October 2009, 04:14

The
[QUOTE]Libertarians who believe in property rights are doing more to promote fascism than communists are.

Considering that the fascists believe property rights exist to serve the state, or the people, rather than the selfish interests of the owner, the above claim is highly unlikely.

Negative liberties, sacrifice for the state or for God, and moral codes are examples of the modern conservative ideology.

What is the "moral code" which says its okay to exterminate an entire group of people because they are of not the correct ethnic status? Perhaps that lack of moral code is similiar to the belief that a group of people can be targeted because they are not of the correct economic group?

They believe there is an inherent structure for the strong to rule the weak

Considering that the entire justification for socialism rests upon the proposition that since the workers are the majority of the population they deserve to rule all, such a complaint is laughable.

Oh, and Protestants and Catholics and Max Weber and Martin Luther and small business owners and wealthy industrialists and Royalists and Nietzchean anarchists and a majority of the working class were/would be happily okay with something like the Nazi regime.

From a religious perspective, National Socialism was absolutely a Protestant movement. The nazis had basically no support in Southern, Catholic Germany, and they never took off as a political party until they moved their headquarters from Munich to Berlin.

"wealthy" industrialists were never big supporters of the nazis until the bitter end (and why would they be? labor unions run by the nazis were just as apt to go on strike as were unions controlled by the Social Democrats or Communists. Indeed, they often struck side by side during the 20s).

During the 20s, the monarchists were weak and divided over who to support as the proper heir. The eldest son would be the normal choice, except that he was considered very much a radical and supported a radical party and could not be supported (the radical party was the National Socialists). Naturally, being staunch republicans, the nazis had no use for the defunct crown prince. They continued their anti-monarchism most notably by working with the communists to block the Hohenzollern restoration effort introduced in the Reichtag in 1932. In Austria, the nazis there worked to block any sort of Hapsburg restoration.

Who were firmly against them? That would be the Jews, Jehovah Witness, and the Communist party.

The two former to be sure, but the latter? Hell no. As above, and also witness Hitler's declaration that only Communists shared with the National Socialist the proper revolutionary zeal (and as a result, those party members could join the nazis).

Jimmie Higgins

25th October 2009, 04:25

Anyone read it. It sure to start a heap of controversy stating that fascism started from the left. I read some of the book and its quite interesting, the authour hjs numerous archival evidence of fascist thought in socialist doctrine in its inception. Thoughts?

While some fascists were at one time socialists, that doesn't mean much considering that pre-WWI social-democracy was very broad and like the new left has its David Horowitzes and Todd Gitlins and so on, some social-democrats later became liberals or conservatives or fascists.

But the argument that fascism is left wing or came from the left wing is historically ridiculous because fascists consciously saw themselves as a reaction AGAINST worker movements. In Italy, fascism gained allies after the two red years when there were massive strikes, worker councils (soviets), and factory occupations. In both Italy and Germany fascists presented themselves as "non-political" (kind of like how Glenn Beck used to say that he's not right or left) and that they wanted to end the class and political conflicts which were tearing apart and dividing their countries. In France in the 1920s, the fascists marched in response to the worker's movement and the coalition governmnet that included social-democratic parties. In central Europe, fascism was more monarchist and christian than in other countries, but again, it came about after socialist governments came to power following the Russian and German Revolutions and the end of WWI.

Fascism is the definition of the term "reactionary" because the movement is a reaction to the rise of worker movements of the early 20th century.

Jimmie Higgins

25th October 2009, 05:12

What is the "moral code" which says its okay to exterminate an entire group of people because they are of not the correct ethnic status? Perhaps that lack of moral code is similiar to the belief that a group of people can be targeted because they are not of the correct economic group?Well I think you are being too harsh in calling cops that target poor kids driving around on a Friday night for possibly doing drugs fascists; or banks that target poor people for risky home-loans; or a court system that treats poor meth or crack users more severely than bankers or lawyers or actors who do coke.

Oh, I get it. Radicals target the rich:rolleyes:. Well, a very obvious difference between NAZIs targeting jews, gypsies, communists, gays, and so on is that NAZIs were not actually living under a system run by jews despite what their Glenn Becks and Lou Dobbs told them.

A Jew or Gypsy was hated for what "blood" they were born with. Radicals could care less about the individual capitalists and many capitalist may actually join our causes - as individuals. We hate the system of exploitation and profit - all of which could be replaced without a drop of blood. If a rich guy wanted to help me and become a socialist, great because maybe he can buy photocopies of fliers - maybe he has a great education background which can help the movement.

Considering that the entire justification for socialism rests upon the proposition that since the workers are the majority of the population they deserve to rule all, such a complaint is laughable.No the justifucation for true democracy is that the majority of the population should decide things. I agree with that. The reason workers should run society, however is that production can not be accomplished without them. If you were on an island with 30 castaways, would you accept a deal where you and 24 other castaways work for 8 hours a day building an irrigation system, but then the 5 other castaways that didn't build it but saw the island before anyone else got to decide who gets the water and how much of it? No, you would probably get everyone together and say, ok, let's all build this if you are able and then figure out how to deal with distribution together.

[/quote]The two former to be sure, but the latter? Hell no. As above, and also witness Hitler's declaration that only Communists shared with the National Socialist the proper revolutionary zeal (and as a result, those party members could join the nazis).[/QUOTE]A revolutionary zeal which their party and philosophy saw as its main target to crush. I don't doubt that Hitler said this at all - but what's the context? During the Stalin-Hitler pact? After the NAZIs were in power? The NAZIs wanted to absorb communists after they came to power... not that surprising they also wanted to absorb religious groups, the boy scouts and everyone else - their goal was to get rid of all national class divisions and parties.

Green Dragon

25th October 2009, 05:18

[QUOTE=Gravedigger;1578532]While some fascists were at one time socialists, that doesn't mean much considering that pre-WWI social-democracy was very broad and like the new left has its David Horowitzes and Todd Gitlins and so on, some social-democrats later became liberals or conservatives or fascists.

If the switches by the David Horowitzes of the world were due to to a change in belief of tactics, of approach, perhaps. But in his case he renounced his entire belief system. Men like Mussolini certainly reacted to the disasters in Soviet Russia, but not neccessarily the belief that socialism was the way to go.

But the argument that fascism is left wing or came from the left wing is historically ridiculous because fascists consciously saw themselves as a reaction AGAINST worker movements.

No, against particular kinds.

In Italy, fascism gained allies after the two red years when there were massive strikes, worker councils (soviets), and factory occupations.

Yes. They saw the Comunist model, as being demonstrated in Russia, as stillborn. Communists flocked to the Fascists in 1922, and back again in 1945.

In both Italy and Germany fascists presented themselves as "non-political" (kind of like how Glenn Beck used to say that he's not right or left) and that they wanted to end the class and political conflicts which were tearing apart and dividing their countries.

True. Yet a victory by any socialist party would, theoretically, end class conflict.

In central Europe, fascism was more monarchist and christian than in other countries,

Then why were fascists so opposed to either a Habsburg or Hohnzollern restoration?

Green Dragon

25th October 2009, 05:37

[QUOTE]Oh, I get it. Radicals target the rich:rolleyes:. Well, a very obvious difference between NAZIs targeting jews, gypsies, communists, gays, and so on is that NAZIs were not actually living under a system run by jews despite what their Glenn Becks and Lou Dobbs told them.

So what? The issue isn't whether the National Socialists were correct in their claims.

A Jew or Gypsy was hated for what "blood" they were born with. Radicals could care less about the individual capitalists and many capitalist may actually join our causes - as individuals. We hate the system of exploitation and profit - all of which could be replaced without a drop of blood. If a rich guy wanted to help me and become a socialist, great because maybe he can buy photocopies of fliers - maybe he has a great education background which can help the movement.

Yep. The National Socialist ideology was definitely weak and handicapped, not helped, Germany. Failure is not proof of lack of socialism.

No the justifucation for true democracy is that the majority of the population should decide things.

Yes. that is what I said- "might makes right" The "strong" (numerically) rule the "weak" (numerically).

The reason workers should run society, however is that production can not be accomplished without them.

Which does not say anything.

If you were on an island with 30 castaways, would you accept a deal where you and 24 other castaways work for 8 hours a day building an irrigation system, but then the 5 other castaways that didn't build it but saw the island before anyone else got to decide who gets the water and how much of it?

No.

No, you would probably get everyone together and say, ok, let's all build this if you are able and then figure out how to deal with distribution together.

I would wonder the sense of a system which saved for later the decision of distribution of a product. It seems wasteful to produce goods for which demand is determined AFTER the fact.

A revolutionary zeal which their party and philosophy saw as its main target to crush.

Oh, I don't know about that. Goebbels, for example, was of the opinion, at one point, that since there was no real difference between the National Socialists and Communists, the two should merge their parties. Agriculture was reorganised using Soviet Russia as the model.

I
don't doubt that Hitler said this at all - but what's the context? During the Stalin-Hitler pact? After the NAZIs were in power?

The latter.

Jimmie Higgins

25th October 2009, 06:07

[QUOTE]
If the switches by the David Horowitzes of the world were due to to a change in belief of tactics, of approach, perhaps. But in his case he renounced his entire belief system. Men like Mussolini certainly reacted to the disasters in Soviet Russia, but not neccessarily the belief that socialism was the way to go.Did you read recently that in 1919 he worked for M15 where he organized people to beat up socialist and Bolshevik anti-war protesters?

No, against particular kinds.Oh you mean that because the NAZIs wanted "socialism" for Aryan Germans. Well they were against strikes, they were against workers who were foreign or Jewish or whatever else... that's not a worker's movement. There's a minutman-nazi in my area who tries to argue that he's a "socialist" but only for native-born US workers... he's not a socialist in any Marxist sense.

Yes. They saw the Comunist model, as being demonstrated in Russia, as stillborn. Communists flocked to the Fascists in 1922, and back again in 1945. Recently in Italy, an anti-globalization left-wing coalition carried many towns and won electoral gains. They got bogged down in establishment politics and ended up backing many of the neo-liberal reforms that they campaigned against. In towns where this coalition had basically swept the election, the same voters voted for extreme right-wing groups.

That was the process in both Germany and Italy... In 1919 the Italian movement was on the upswing, but by 1922 people were disillusioned because the social-democrats had stalled the movement and the communists were too small and too late to the game. In Germany it took several failed revolutions before workers began to give up and look to the NAZIs as a possible alternative.

True. Yet a victory by any socialist party would, theoretically, end class conflict. No, by definition a socialist revolution, would mean that the working class won the position as the new ruling class in society. In Marxist communism or anarchy, there is a stateless and classless society, but it's not "willpower" of the leaders or the party or the socialists or even the workers that accomplish this, class has "withered away" because it's not longer necessary for running society.

Then why were fascists so opposed to either a Habsburg or Hohnzollern restoration?Sorry, I guess I meant eastern europe like Bulgaria - not Germany or Austria. The NAZIs were against the monarchy... my point was that fascism was a reaction to left-wing popular movements and so the ideological features are all over the place: pagan-ish in Italy and Germany, Christian in eastern-Europe (not central Europe - I need a geography class). Really the main thing that unifies the movement is opposition to working class movements and Bolshevism. Look at the US fascist movement: some worship Hitler while others hate the neo-nazis who celebrate Nazism because then they are supporting an enemy of the US or foreign ideas.

For any US right-wingers (and it's only US right-wingers for some reason) who believe this total re-write of history, here's an empirical test for ya.
1. Call up any US fascist group.
2. Arrange a meeting
3. Show up at whatever Dennys they decide to meet you at
4. Tell them that they are actually leftists.
...
5. Don't actually do this because as much as I might politically dislike you, I do not wish to see you beaten by a bunch of NAZIs.

Red Icepick

25th October 2009, 08:54

I think this sort of thing is pretty funny. Conservatives try to cast liberals as fascists because Nazis had things like socialized medicine and labor forces. Italian Fascism(which is the original and only true brand of it) is particularly close to the modern American system of corporatism. Mussolini did call himself "a socialist of the anarchist kind" and he was once a Marxist, but he is what I view as the far right wing. The National-Socialists went light on socialism after the Night of the Long Knives killed a lot of the left-leaning leadership of the SA at the behest of the Prussian General Staff. It seems like it would be a particular long shot to try and brand a wretched feudal lord like Franco as a liberal, but it's kind of humorous.

It's funny how American discourse has degenerated into calling eachother Nazis all the time. Sometimes I'm tempted to tune into Fox News just to see the creepy baby head of Glenn Beck patronizingly explain how Obama is at once Adolf Hitler and Chairman Mao.

Conquer or Die

25th October 2009, 11:31

Considering that the fascists believe property rights exist to serve the state, or the people, rather than the selfish interests of the owner, the above claim is highly unlikely.

Property rights exist to serve the state? Well, uh, that's like, your, opinion, dude. Property rights are provisos for protection of private property. National Socialists and fascists in general had different ideas about private property and aristocratic systems, whatever, I'm not sitting here claiming they are an anarcho capitalist enterprise. I made a claim that negative liberty is part of a roundabout means of hampering growth and productivity for the benefit of some sort of superman or owner or man at the top.

And you're pretty wrong about the "selfish interests of the owner" part. They were heavily influenced by Nietzhea. They considered themselves owners of various things. And various owners (such as corporations) supported them.

What is the "moral code" which says its okay to exterminate an entire group of people because they are of not the correct ethnic status? Perhaps that lack of moral code is similiar to the belief that a group of people can be targeted because they are not of the correct economic group?

If we're talking about American history I can think of at least a great many examples, starting with Manifest Destiny.

Considering that the entire justification for socialism rests upon the proposition that since the workers are the majority of the population they deserve to rule all, such a complaint is laughable.

The proposition of socialism is for the idea of ownership to be transferred to the productive class away from the rent class. The rent class is unnecessary and inherently destructive so they are morphed into the productive class. A belief that Blonde Haired John Galts are necessary for the function of the world are purely fantasy.

From a religious perspective, National Socialism was absolutely a Protestant movement. The nazis had basically no support in Southern, Catholic Germany, and they never took off as a political party until they moved their headquarters from Munich to Berlin.

There was plenty of church and Catholic support for fascists everywhere, actually. The catholic church at its best was neutral towards Fascism, and at its worst going hand in hand.

"wealthy" industrialists were never big supporters of the nazis until the bitter end (and why would they be? labor unions run by the nazis were just as apt to go on strike as were unions controlled by the Social Democrats or Communists. Indeed, they often struck side by side during the 20s).

German industrialism and growth (similar in many ways to France) was internal and state driven. They all liked fascists in the same way that Italian corporations liked fascists despite Italy once being a bastion of liberalism. Wealth inherently concentrates at the top, the state protects it, and then the state either compromises or takes sides.

Libertarians would rush to the side of small business owners; but that group of people actually constituted National Socialism's strongest base of support. Maybe they needed to be collectively liberated by the words of the Austrian liberty's, but those guys were busy helping out their own fascist regime. Whoops.

During the 20s, the monarchists were weak and divided over who to support as the proper heir. The eldest son would be the normal choice, except that he was considered very much a radical and supported a radical party and could not be supported (the radical party was the National Socialists). Naturally, being staunch republicans, the nazis had no use for the defunct crown prince. They continued their anti-monarchism most notably by working with the communists to block the Hohenzollern restoration effort introduced in the Reichtag in 1932. In Austria, the nazis there worked to block any sort of Hapsburg restoration.

I was speaking more ideologically then political. Austria, Romania, and Italy were notable in their attempts to create a virtuosity of the past and its ideals that mirrored the idealist visions of an aristocratic past.

Of course, just like the top brass of the Nazis were hardcore atheists doesn't mean that they didn't have an enormous protestant and catholic base also doesn't mean that the monarchists were a significant force of change or disagreement in the country against the fascists (or nazis).

You can cherrypick your way to an ugly and lopsided argument that identifies fascism as progressivism and communism. An easier argument would be to label it conservative. The best argument is to explain it for what it really was, something the extremist libertarian mind (and indeed, the Trotskyite mind) simply cannot compute.

The two former to be sure, but the latter? Hell no. As above, and also witness Hitler's declaration that only Communists shared with the National Socialist the proper revolutionary zeal (and as a result, those party members could join the nazis).

What other party or group of people were standing in the way of the National Socialist party?

Either way you're going to have to come up with some way to counterbalance your erroneous claims with realities at the time. The communists were working class representation, radical, and anti social democrat. This meant exclusively dedicated to the class struggle which means that all other formations of people and ideologies needed some sort of voice, and they chose the moderate counter balance to them all and received the Nazi party.

Green Dragon

26th October 2009, 14:16

[QUOTE=Gravedigger;1578601][QUOTE=Green Dragon;1578569]Did you read recently that in 1919 he worked for M15 where he organized people to beat up socialist and Bolshevik anti-war protesters?

What 1919 war? Mussolini??

Oh you mean that because the NAZIs wanted "socialism" for Aryan Germans.

Yes. They were "national" socialists, after all.

Well they were against strikes,

No. During the 20s their labor unions often struck against their capitalist employers. It was not an uncommon site to see nazo and communist workers picketing side by side.

they were against workers who were foreign or Jewish or whatever else... that's not a worker's movement.

Of course it is. Its just not an "international" socialist workers movement.

There's a minutman-nazi in my area who tries to argue that he's a "socialist" but only for native-born US workers... he's not a socialist in any Marxist sense.

OK. So can one be a socialist without being a Marxist?

Recently in Italy, an anti-globalization left-wing coalition carried many towns and won electoral gains. They got bogged down in establishment politics and ended up backing many of the neo-liberal reforms that they campaigned against. In towns where this coalition had basically swept the election, the same voters voted for extreme right-wing groups.

Ok. So the coalition failed and then... what? The Italian electorate voted for people who would continue that failure? Or voted for different people who pledged the same original goal, via different means?

That was the process in both Germany and Italy... In 1919 the Italian movement was on the upswing, but by 1922 people were disillusioned because the social-democrats had stalled the movement and the communists were too small and too late to the game. In Germany it took several failed revolutions before workers began to give up and look to the NAZIs as a possible alternative.

Yes. The nazis being the other alternative for a "revolution."

No, by definition a socialist revolution, would mean that the working class won the position as the new ruling class in society. In Marxist communism or anarchy, there is a stateless and classless society, but it's not "willpower" of the leaders or the party or the socialists or even the workers that accomplish this, class has "withered away" because it's not longer necessary for running society.

Fair enough. I probably should have said a victory by a socialist party would mean the implementation of socialist policies which would result in socialism.

Green Dragon

26th October 2009, 14:22

The National-Socialists went light on socialism after the Night of the Long Knives killed a lot of the left-leaning leadership of the SA at the behest of the Prussian General Staff.

That "left-leaning" leadership completely agreed in Aryan superiority, that the Jews needed to be eliminated, lebresraum and all the things which made the nazis famous. The Night of the Long Knives was not a non-socialist element removing a socialist element; but a socialist element removing another socialist element. Stalin would copy the process a few years later.

Green Dragon

26th October 2009, 14:40

The proposition of socialism is for the idea of ownership to be transferred to the productive class away from the rent class. The rent class is unnecessary and inherently destructive so they are morphed into the productive class. A belief that Blonde Haired John Galts are necessary for the function of the world are purely fantasy.

And the National Socialists would not, substantively, dissagree,

There was plenty of church and Catholic support for fascists everywhere, actually. The catholic church at its best was neutral towards Fascism, and at its worst going hand in hand.

In Germany, the Church was the first to speak against euthanasia.

Libertarians would rush to the side of small business owners; but that group of people actually constituted National Socialism's strongest base of support. Maybe they needed to be collectively liberated by the words of the Austrian liberty's, but those guys were busy helping out their own fascist regime. Whoops.

The National Socialists campaigned against the formation of the big department stores, supermarkets and the like. In other words, they would have been firmly on the "anti-WalMart" bandwagon.

Of course, just like the top brass of the Nazis were hardcore atheists doesn't mean that they didn't have an enormous protestant and catholic base also doesn't mean that the monarchists were a significant force of change or disagreement in the country against the fascists (or nazis).

A monarchial restoration in Germany would have severly limited the power of the nazis, as it would have left an institution out of their hands, and a rallying point for the critics. Naturally, a monarchy is anti-democratic, so the communists and nazis worked together to block the efforts in 1932.
The National Socialists were extremely popular, which accounts for the failures of the varies millitary plots during the 30s.

What other party or group of people were standing in the way of the National Socialist party?

Very few, as the nazis were extremely popular. The communists flocked to the brown banner. We do know the millitary was a hotbed of treason and dissent.

Either way you're going to have to come up with some way to counterbalance your erroneous claims with realities at the time. The communists were working class representation, radical, and anti social democrat. This meant exclusively dedicated to the class struggle which means that all other formations of people and ideologies needed some sort of voice,

Of course a communist is going to say his party is exclusively dedicated to the class struggle and the interests of the workers (why join the party if it is not believed?). And of course opposition to the Communists means opposition to the "working class." But such an analysis is simply pure partisanship, as the Social Democrat would dissagree.

Conquer or Die

26th October 2009, 22:31

Red Icepick is himself a fascist. He is a national bolshevik type. He doesn't understand communism or try to identify with it. His arguments are completely useless to the discussion.

And the National Socialists would not, substantively, dissagree,

Well yes, they would. They required "living space" for the racial heirarchy. They supported property rights. They supported a caste. Communists do not support property rights, a hierarchy, living space, or a caste. Communists break the chain of slavery.

And the National Socialist party did believe in blond haired supermen enslaving the planet, actually.

So no, you're wrong.

In Germany, the Church was the first to speak against euthanasia.

When is this stupid tit for tat going to end? Catholic church members were part of the party. Catholic church members killed jews, gays, gimps, and socialists. The Catholic church loved its authority and state and military and imperialism and luxury.

The National Socialists campaigned against the formation of the big department stores, supermarkets and the like. In other words, they would have been firmly on the "anti-WalMart" bandwagon.

So they were libertarians.

A monarchial restoration in Germany would have severly limited the power of the nazis, as it would have left an institution out of their hands, and a rallying point for the critics. Naturally, a monarchy is anti-democratic, so the communists and nazis worked together to block the efforts in 1932.
The National Socialists were extremely popular, which accounts for the failures of the varies millitary plots during the 30s.

You're picking and choosing criticism at the moment. This is a banal discussion.

"Communists and Nazis did this"
"Catholic church did this"
"Anti-Walmart"

It's a cyclical piece of shit argument. You'll choose whatever association possible for and against the argument to paint the national socialists as identifying with communists. Where they disagreed, or when the glorious members of the right took sides with der fuhrer you have a brief point of almost useless contention.

Very few, as the nazis were extremely popular. The communists flocked to the brown banner. We do know the millitary was a hotbed of treason and dissent.

The Communists were the last party in charge before the Nazis took over their regime. And sheeple were lead. Sheeple have been lead in all regimes everywhere. The communists failed, but they were the last group of people to do so. Everybody else, from protestant to small farmer to corporate master to pope all sided with the fascists. You're argument is still cyclical and banal.

Of course a communist is going to say his party is exclusively dedicated to the class struggle and the interests of the workers (why join the party if it is not believed?). And of course opposition to the Communists means opposition to the "working class." But such an analysis is simply pure partisanship, as the Social Democrat would dissagree.

Of course a libertarian/monarchist/catholic/capitalist/conservative is going to say he or his group was exclusively committed to anti fascism. Except that didn't happen at all.

National "socialist" party.

See British National Party: Freedom, Democracy, and justice.
National "Democrat" party: Freedom, Democracy, and justice.
Chile, South Africa, India, Russia, etcetera.

You're reaching for a consensus/point that isn't there. You're calling out communists for being the most opposed to the regime because the National Socialists were third way. Communists are also explicitly committed to anti imperialism; something which the modern American libertarian, conservative, democrat, and working class member are perfectly kosher with.

So, basically, you're boring.

Kwisatz Haderach

27th October 2009, 04:25

The Nazis were not remotely close to being "socialists" in any way - national or otherwise. They called themselves "National Socialists" for the same reasons why there is a fascist party in Austria today called the Austrian Freedom Party (and another one in the Netherlands called the Party for Freedom). The Nazis, just like present-day fascists, were very good at propaganda. They knew it would be to their advantage to give themselves names that contained positive-sounding buzzwords, like "socialism" in the 1920s or "freedom" today.

The kind of society the Nazis wanted - even for Germans - was the polar opposite of socialism, because it was based on hierarchy, individual leadership, and absolute opposition to any kind of collective or democratic decision-making. Here is a lengthy quote from Adolf Hitler in which he explains his vision:

"It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality.

The first consequence of this fact is comparatively simple. It demands that those elements within the folk-community which show the best racial qualities ought to be encouraged more than the others and especially they should be encouraged to increase and multiply.

[...]

A philosophy of life which repudiates the democratic principle of the rule of the masses and aims at giving this world to the best people – that is, to the highest quality of mankind – must also apply that same aristocratic postulate to the individuals within the folk-community. It must take care that the positions of leadership and highest influence are given to the best men. Hence it is not based on the idea of the majority, but on that of personality."

-- Mein Kampf, Volume Two, Chapter 4

Rosa Provokateur

27th October 2009, 04:32

Fascism is Not Left-wing.

I wouldn't be so sure; the State worship found in Communist and Fascist regimes as very, very similar.

RGacky3

27th October 2009, 04:50

I wouldn't be so sure; the State worship found in Communist and Fascist regimes as very, very similar.

The so-called Communist regiems, when you add up the people that actually believe in them, are small part of the left. Also, you have state worship in many countries, including the United States.

Kwisatz Haderach

27th October 2009, 04:58

The two former to be sure, but the latter? Hell no. As above, and also witness Hitler's declaration that only Communists shared with the National Socialist the proper revolutionary zeal (and as a result, those party members could join the nazis).
Where do you come up with this bullshit? Seriously, there's an online version of Mein Kampf, and finding out what Hitler thought about Communists is as simple as doing a word search for "Marxist" and "Marxism" throughout that document. Here are some quotes I found after about 5 minutes of searching through Mein Kampf. For bonus points, some of the very same paragraphs in which Hitler expresses his unrelenting hatred of communism also contain statements in favour of aristocracy and religion:

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.
Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism, which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread. In its most extreme form, parliamentarianism created a 'monstrosity of excrement and fire,' in which, however, sad to say, the 'fire' seems to me at the moment to be burned out.

In the years 1913 and 1914, I, for the first time in various circles which today in part faithfully support the National Socialist movement, expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism.

Marxism, whose goal is and remains the destruction of all non-Jewish national states, was forced to look on in horror as, in the July days of 1914, the German working class it had ensnared, awakened and from hour to hour began to enter the service of the fatherland with ever-increasing rapidity. In a few days the whole mist and swindle of this infamous betrayal of the people had scattered away, and suddenly the gang of Jewish leaders stood there lonely and forsaken, as though not a trace remained of the nonsense and madness which for sixty years they had been funneling into the masses. It was a bad moment for the betrayers of the German working class, but as soon as the leaders recognized the danger which menaced them, they rapidly pulled the tarn-cap of lies over their ears, and insolently mimicked the national awakening.
But now the time had come to take steps against the whole treacherous brotherhood of the Jewish poisoners of the people. Now was the time to deal with them summarily without the slightest consideration for any screams and complaints that might arise. In August, 1914, the whole Jewish jabber about international solidarity had vanished at one stroke from the heads of the German working class, and in its stead, only a few weeks later, American shrapnel began to pour down the blessings of brotherhood on the helmets of our march columns. It would have been the duty of a serious government, now that the German worker had found his way back to his nation, to exterminate mercilessly the agitators who were misleading the nation.
If the best men were dying at the front, the least we could do was to wipe out the vermin.
"Exterminate mercilessly the agitators"! "Wipe out the vermin"! Oh yes, Hitler had such nice things to say about communists, didn't he? :rolleyes:

And all that was just from the first five chapters of Mein Kampf alone. There are 21 other chapters left to go through. But I'm not going to post any more of that filth on Revleft. My point has been proven.

Kwisatz Haderach

27th October 2009, 05:12

I wouldn't be so sure; the State worship found in Communist and Fascist regimes as very, very similar.
Leaving aside the fact that those "Communist" regimes were anything but communist, "state worship" has been around for about five thousand years. You can still see the earliest example (http://www.cybertraveltips.com/images/Ancient-Egypt-Pyramids.jpg) today. "State worship" is very common in history.

The similarity between Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Germany was about as great as the similarity between Stalin's USSR and Ancient Rome under Octavian Augustus - in other words, hardly any similarity at all, except for perhaps a few common points. Yeah, they both had charismatic dictators. Big deal. History is chock full of charismatic dictators.

Die Rote Fahne

27th October 2009, 05:19

I don't have the patience to read these things.

I would rage so fast.

fatpanda

27th October 2009, 15:59

Fascism is Not Left-wing. I have not read the book, nor do I plan to, but apparently, it attempts to link Fascism to the left through really tenous associations. Leftists are often vegans, Hitler was a vegan...gasp! :rolleyes:

Try not to pay attention to the American Right, they have a tendency to deliberately twist the facts.

Yes, and you do too!
Hitler was not a Vegan or Vegetarian

http://www.naturalnews.com/025163_Hitler_vegetarian_vegetarianism.html

Jimmie Higgins

30th October 2009, 17:05

What 1919 war? Mussolini??Read up dude:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/benito-mussolini-recruited-mi5-italy

I'm sorry it was 1917, not 1919 - good catch. But at any rate it was before the 2 red years, so to argue that since he was a Marxist before he was a fascist, socialism and fascism are related is just idiotic. Using the same logic you would have to say that the M15 and British government leads to Italian fascism.

Yes. They were "national" socialists, after all.:rolleyes:Yes and The People's Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic. And Buffalo Wings are made out of buffaloes.

Are you really that thick as to believe naming something makes it so? Socialism is working class rule of society - there is no crossover between this and Nazism.

OK. So can one be a socialist without being a Marxist?Yes, the concept of Utopian socialist societies has been around probably as long as class society. Some early British settlements in the Americas were socialist communes. Hippie communes are socialist but not marxist. Marx and Engles developed "scientific socialism" meaning that their idea about socialism was rooted not in plans for a perfect society but based around the forces in modern capitalist society and the working class.

Ok. So the coalition failed and then... what? The Italian electorate voted for people who would continue that failure? Or voted for different people who pledged the same original goal, via different means?Why are you arguing this? Did you really miss the whole point of this anecdote? My point was that fascism often gains support when people loose faith in a left-wing solution to the problems of capitalism. This doesn't mean that socialism is related to fascism just that both ideologies try to offer solutions to the problems of capitalism. It's like with modern medicine - when people loose faith in the treatments offered by doctors, they turn to faith-healing and new-age solutions. Would you say that faith healing developed out of modern medicine because some mainstream doctors as well as patients switched over to new-age methods?

#FF0000

30th October 2009, 17:24

I wouldn't be so sure; the State worship found in Communist and Fascist regimes as very, very similar.

Elaborate on this.

OK. So can one be a socialist without being a Marxist?

Yes. Socialism is a term that's been around for aaaaaages before Marx came about. The first Socialist was some French Aristocrat who wanted public schools. Utopian socialism and Marxist (scientific) socialism can be worlds apart.

The only possible way you can say that the Nazis were socialist is if you believe that heavy government involvement in an economy is all you need for socialism, which, at least by the Marxist definition for socialism and for capitalism (Marx coined the latter term, btw), is still very much capitalist.

Skooma Addict

30th October 2009, 18:10

Jimmie Higgins

30th October 2009, 21:06

I read the book years ago only because everybody was talking about it. I thought the book was pretty bad, and it didn't really convince me of anything. I vaugely recall the author going on about how nazis loved organic food or something crazy like that.

While fascism and liberalism are unquestionably different, working in an area with a lot of wealthy people - many of which are liberals, I can tell you that some people who love organic food really do seem like "nazis" in the crude sense (i.e. very ridged, only caring about themselves and their status). Or maybe not "nazis" -- maybe it's more like "good Germans".

I mean seeing yuppies freaking out because a homeless person is smoking a cigarette next to the entrance to a fancy restaurant; seeing yuppies care more about the welfare and treatment of the food they want to eat than the welfare of people being killed in Afghanistan or Iraq or being kicked out of their homes by banks here in the same town is evidence of a severe disconnection from reality.

Never the less, POLITICALLY liberals and fascists, liberals and radicals, fascists and radicals are not the same - comparing them is like comparing apples to baseballs.

Green Dragon

31st October 2009, 00:56

[QUOTE=Kwisatz Haderach;1580316]Where do you come up with this bullshit?

Shirer, Kershaw, Burleigh come to mind.

Green Dragon

31st October 2009, 01:20

I'm sorry it was 1917, not 1919 - good catch. But at any rate it was before the 2 red years, so to argue that since he was a Marxist before he was a fascist, socialism and fascism are related is just idiotic.

No. That is not the claim.

Are you really that thick as to believe naming something makes it so? Socialism is working class rule of society - there is no crossover between this and Nazism.

Of course not. However, this very board is testament to the lack of unity as to what does, and does not constitute, socialism.

My point was that fascism often gains support when people loose faith in a left-wing solution to the problems of capitalism.

And my counter-suggestion is that fascism can result when people loose faith in the solutions by a particular left-wing party.
And then look to another.

This doesn't mean that socialism is related to fascism just that both ideologies try to offer solutions to the problems of capitalism.

Yes. Both define capitalism as a problem which has to be solved. Others suggest capitalism is the solution.
Who is more closely related?

It's like with modern medicine - when people loose faith in the treatments offered by doctors, they turn to faith-healing and new-age solutions. Would you say that faith healing developed out of modern medicine because some mainstream doctors as well as patients switched over to new-age methods?

Faith healing is an attempt to solve the problem a different way.

But as above, what if the "problem" is rejected as being a "problem" that has to be "solved?"

Skooma Addict

31st October 2009, 02:16

While fascism and liberalism are unquestionably different, working in an area with a lot of wealthy people - many of which are liberals, I can tell you that some people who love organic food really do seem like "nazis" in the crude sense (i.e. very ridged, only caring about themselves and their status). Or maybe not "nazis" -- maybe it's more like "good Germans".

I mean seeing yuppies freaking out because a homeless person is smoking a cigarette next to the entrance to a fancy restaurant; seeing yuppies care more about the welfare and treatment of the food they want to eat than the welfare of people being killed in Afghanistan or Iraq or being kicked out of their homes by banks here in the same town is evidence of a severe disconnection from reality.

Haha. Yea, status freaks are annoying. If you want to see a real disconnection from reality, watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDPQpcF_PVg

Kwisatz Haderach

31st October 2009, 03:45

Yes. Both define capitalism as a problem which has to be solved. Others suggest capitalism is the solution.
Who is more closely related?
Both Churchill and Stalin defined fascism as a problem which had to be solved. Others (like Hitler) suggested fascism was the solution.
Who is more closely related?

Having a common enemy is not evidence that two ideologies are related or similar in any way.

Unless you wish to argue that American conservatism is related to Islamism because they had a common enemy in the 1980s, for example. Or that liberal democracy and Soviet "communism" are related because they fought against a common enemy in World War II.

Dimentio

31st October 2009, 21:53

Dimentio

31st October 2009, 22:15

Literally all politicians in the 1930's were very authoritarian. Some traits which US libertarians identify with what they call "socialism" (meaning "authoritarian government") was prevalent everywhere during that time.

Green Dragon

2nd November 2009, 12:29

Having a common enemy is not evidence that two ideologies are related or similar in any way.

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy?

Except that evidence suggests it was not looked upon that way. And its not just a Musolini or a Quisling. Tens of thousands of voters often moved between the two at the polls.

The way to look at is this:
Shoemaker A is a competitor to shoemaker B. But the movement to abolish footwear is the enemy to both.

#FF0000

2nd November 2009, 21:01

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy?

Except that evidence suggests it was not looked upon that way. And its not just a Musolini or a Quisling. Tens of thousands of voters often moved between the two at the polls.

The way to look at is this:
Shoemaker A is a competitor to shoemaker B. But the movement to abolish footwear is the enemy to both.

Capitalists and Fascists are the same because they don't like communists

Kwisatz Haderach

3rd November 2009, 23:27

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy?
The enemy of my enemy can be either a friend or an enemy, depending on the strategic situation. But he is certainly not the same as me.

Except that evidence suggests it was not looked upon that way.
Oh really? So that whole Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War/greatest-war-in-human-history thing was just a slight misunderstanding between friends?

And its not just a Musolini or a Quisling. Tens of thousands of voters often moved between the two at the polls.
Yes, fascists often seek to attract working class support. Then again, so does the U.S. Republican Party. I don't see your point.

Capitalists use all sorts of tactics to deflect working class anger and discontent away from capitalism and towards other targets. Foreigners have been a favourite scapegoat. For example, the capitalists would say to the workers, "your lives are not bad because of the existence of banks! Banks would be fine if only they were not run by Jews! Let's get rid of the Jews!" If successful, such arguments can persuade working class people to switch over from voting for socialist parties to voting for fascist parties, as they become convinced that foreigners, not capitalism, are the problem.

And that is one of the many reasons why socialists fight against racism and nationalism.

The way to look at is this:
Shoemaker A is a competitor to shoemaker B. But the movement to abolish footwear is the enemy to both.
Fascist parties are in competition with liberal parties within capitalist society. But the movement to abolish capitalism is the enemy to both.

Green Dragon

4th November 2009, 13:35

Oh really? So that whole Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War/greatest-war-in-human-history thing was just a slight misunderstanding between friends?

National Socialisl versus international socialism.

Capitalists use all sorts of tactics to deflect working class anger and discontent away from capitalism and towards other targets. Foreigners have been a favourite scapegoat. For example, the capitalists would say to the workers, "your lives are not bad because of the existence of banks! Banks would be fine if only they were not run by Jews! Let's get rid of the Jews!" If successful, such arguments can persuade working class people to switch over from voting for socialist parties to voting for fascist parties, as they become convinced that foreigners, not capitalism, are the problem.

The conspitatorial theory of the capitalist is a nice way of explaining away the very real problem that it is the socialist who seem far more prone to fall for the arguments of the fascist. Its also a dodge from examining socialism on its own terms.

There is no ideological reason to suppose why a capitalist, Jewish bank owner would denounce capitalism, or to be a target along those lines from a fellow capitalist. It is reasonable, though, to assume that that Jewish banker will be targeted by the fascist AND the socialist. The counter-claim that the socialist persecution will be for class and not ethnic reasons only makes that persecution slightly less odious (the Jewish banker cannot be become "formerly Jewish" to the fascist, but can become "formerly banker" to the socialist (and to the fascist as well). The end result is basically the same- a bank "controlled" by the people, for the people, with the objections made by both as to the accuracy of the claim by the other.

Zanthorus

4th November 2009, 13:51

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy?

Except that evidence suggests it was not looked upon that way. And its not just a Musolini or a Quisling. Tens of thousands of voters often moved between the two at the polls.

The way to look at is this:
Shoemaker A is a competitor to shoemaker B. But the movement to abolish footwear is the enemy to both.

Correct. Fascists and capitalists aim to prepetuate class divide through different though related means while socialists seek to abolish classes.

GPDP

4th November 2009, 19:46

Jazzratt

4th November 2009, 20:24

Given the book is more about (American) liberalism than socialism... are there any books that try to make the argument Green Dragon is making (i.e. socialism and fascism are two sides of the same ideological coin)? Or should I wait for him to write it?

Apparently that famous exemplar of scholarly honesty and acedmic inquiry The Black Book of Communism makes similar claims; although I don't know if they are precisly the same as the point Green Dragon is making. Also Robert Service's magnum opus* Comrades: A World History of Communism may well do so toward the end, I never did finish it [give me some credit, I did manage to get through a chapter that begun - and I shit you not - with a description of how Karl Marx's eyes looked demonic].

* Actually a big steraming turd of a book that would have greater intrinsic value as wood pulp.

Skooma Addict

5th November 2009, 02:33

According to the book, how many people did Communism kill? Wasn't it around 100 million people?

Kwisatz Haderach

5th November 2009, 02:40

National Socialisl versus international socialism.
Let us look at the facts:

We have two political groups, created at different times. From its birth, the second group proclaimed itself to be the greatest enemy of the first group. The first group agreed that they were mortal enemies. The entire common history of these two political groups was one of intense, uncompromising, often violent confrontation, punctuated only by an uneasy 2-year peace which ended when one group launched the greatest land invasion in human history against the other. Their followers insisted that they were absolute opposites, locked in a battle to the death for the future of mankind. Millions on each side shed blood in a quest for the complete annihilation of the other. Being a member of one group, in territory controlled by the other, was a crime punishable by death.

Simply put, there have never been two political groups in the whole of human history more violently opposed to each other than these two. There was no way they could fight each other harder than they did.

And Green Dragon expects us to believe that these two groups were, in fact, close cousins engaged in minor disagreements over unimportant issues.

There is no ideological reason to suppose why a capitalist, Jewish bank owner would denounce capitalism, or to be a target along those lines from a fellow capitalist.
When did I say that bankers denounced capitalism...?

And perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but capitalists aren't exactly the best of friends among themselves. Non-Jewish bankers would love to get rid of the competition. And if some fascists offer to eliminate the competition from Jewish bankers... well, that sounds like the beginning of a lucrative business venture.

It is reasonable, though, to assume that that Jewish banker will be targeted by the fascist AND the socialist. The counter-claim that the socialist persecution will be for class and not ethnic reasons...
"Persecution"? Oh, how sad, the poor little capitalist exploiters who abuse the working class are going to be persecuted! By having their stolen wealth taken away and given to the people who worked for it!

Punishing capitalists is not persecution any more than punishing a murderer is "persecution". It is something called justice.

Or let me put it another way: What do you think about, say, the North Korean leadership? Would you support removing them from power? Would you support punishing them for their actions in some way? HOW DARE YOU SUPPORT THE PERSECUTION OF INNOCENT KOREANS, YOU MONSTER!!! :rolleyes:

Skooma Addict

5th November 2009, 02:46

Kwisatz, just out of curiosity, what do you think should be done with the capitalists who resist? Is it off to the Gulags?

Conquer or Die

5th November 2009, 03:15

Kwisatz, just out of curiosity, what do you think should be done with the capitalists who resist? Is it off to the Gulags?

Traitors, criminals, and savages do not receive similar treatment in capitalist utopias?

Skooma Addict

5th November 2009, 03:24

Traitors, criminals, and savages do not receive similar treatment in capitalist utopias?

No. There certainly are no Gulags in a free society. In fact, there may not even be jails. If there were jails, they would be far less common than they are now. But anyways, while it is just to punish a murder, it is not just to punish a capitalist. That is the main difference.

IcarusAngel

5th November 2009, 03:40

The Black Book of Communism is effectively the 'Austrian economics' of historical research. It should be pointed out that several of Courtios' co-authors distanced themselves from Courtios' research, such as the claim that 65 million were killed under Mao from starvation even though the regime had not yet fallen and the archives were not opened up to Western scrutiny. (They still aren't, I believe.) Serious historians place the number at 30 million dead. So how did Courtios arrive at the 65 million figure by the way? Quite simply, she made it up. Dishonoring the dead like that for capitalist propaganda is quite immoral.

Furthermore, there is a fundamental difference between 'let die,' as what happened in most of the communist regimes, and 'murder,' as what happened under the capitalist regime of Adolf Hitler and the millions murdered directly by the United States invasions and destructions of the third world countries (and millions more indirectly although we do not blame the US for those deaths). The fact is that millions of people were dying pre-Maoist China as well, and conditions were just as bad if not worse for most people, especially women. The historical records speaks to this fact but it's even known in popular literature as well, classics like the Good Earth.

Also, the number who've been 'murdered' by capitalism, using the standards of The Black Book is far higher. The Black Book of Captialism written by a series of European scholars estimates that at least 100 million people died due to the industrial revolution and the capitalist wars that the capitalist nations got themselves into during the twentieth century.

Furthermore, the amount of people who died ever 8 years in India, due to a government that was doing virtually nothing (laissez-faire) to take care of their population except protect the rich land owners, lack of basic health care and so on, has been estimated to be tens of millions of people every 8 years. That's well over the amount killed by communism since 1949 and this number continued to exist in the 1990s while India supposedly went even 'more capitalist' - now they have all kinds of environmental issues as well.

One well known economist who looked into this is Amartya Sen. India and China had "similarities [that] were quite striking, " including death rates, when development planning began 50 years ago, Sen and his associate Jean Drèze observe, "but there is little doubt that as far as morbity, mortality, and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India," as in education and other social indicators. From 1949 to 1979, "China...achieved a remarkable transition in health and nutrition," while "no comparable transformation has occurred in India." As a result, "the life of the average Chinese has tended to be much more secure than that of the average Indian."

If India had adopted China's social programs, "There would have been about 3.8 million fewer deaths a year around the middle 1980s." That indicates that every eight years or so more people in addition die in India -- in comparison with Chinese mortality rates - than the total number that died in the gigantic Chinese famine (even though it was the biggest famine in the world in this century)." India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put in there in its years of shame," 1958-61.

He then says that it was China's social nets that prevented millions of deaths, not its 'growth,' which was comparable to India's. Chomsky documents in his book "Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs," and while the book is his usual condemnation of US aggression (for which he should be given a nobel peace prize) it includes an essay about the Black Book.

There are other problems with Courtios' research, such as the claim that Stalin killed 20-30 million. That figure has also been reconsidered. Probably he killed around 2 million directly, and the amount of political prisoners was a small fraction of the population, 1 to 2% at most. There were not 'millions dying' in Gulags. Another example is Cambodia. The place it at 3 million. The Yale Genocide Project (YGP) estimates the number at 1.7 million, which was certainly not 60% of their population or whatever Courtios claims. Furthermore, as the YGP points out, it ignores the role the Republican Party played in forcing Cambodia into communism by destroying the moderate party led by Prince Sihanouk. Sihanouk was a moderate who kept off the forces of the right, and the left. He let the US use Cambodian borders as well. The US still bombed inner Cambodia which weakened the opposition to Pol Pot. The Reagan administration helped Pol Pot escape to Taiwan and it was Vietnam, not the US, that put an end to the brutal regime in 1979 or so.

IcarusAngel

5th November 2009, 03:47

1. USSR: UNKNOWN NUMBER KILLED. No verifiable data exists in the period of 1917 through to 1939. Census reports during this period that show no massive loss of life, but these are considered to be tainted. There was also a few extraducial executions, but it is impossible to tell how many exactly, only that the most famous and well-known events taken together probably amount to less than 50,000 dead. All documented deaths due to Stalin's policies is less than 10 million.

2. Cambodia: UNKNOWN NUMBER KILLED. The only strong documented data which exists is from Toul Sleng which shows tens of thousands of deaths. Unfortunately there is very little documented data from Cambodia during this period. Documentation is so poor that historians are not even sure what the population of the the country was supposed to be at this time, and depending on population estimates, guesses for total non-normal deaths (including disaease, famine and the impact of US military actions) range from as low as 400,000 to as high as 1.7 million. However these are just estimates and do not reflect the actual number because the actual number is now and forever completely unknowable. Right-wing historians who say otherwise are just liars and propagandists who prevent serious research into the issue.

3. China: UNKNOWN NUMBER KILLED. Documentation almost non-existant or kept from scrutiny by the Chinese goverment. Any numbers given are completely without merit. Any historians who claim otherwise (such as Rummel) have been discredited.

:4. Vietnam: UNKNOWN NUMBER KILLED. See above.

None of these places, of course, even represented communism. There were no worker run factories in any of them.

So:
Deaths caused by communism: 0

Deaths caused by state capitalist regimes: UNKNOWN (probably somewhere between 100 million and 500 million:

30 million in Latin America
50 to 100 million in India
100 million + during the industrial revolution).

Kwisatz Haderach

5th November 2009, 03:51

Kwisatz, just out of curiosity, what do you think should be done with the capitalists who resist? Is it off to the Gulags?
It depends on the kind of resistance you have in mind. If they simply complain very loudly, nothing should be done to them, of course. They have the right to complain as much as they like.

If they resist by force of arms, but fight for themselves, they should be punished with jail terms.

If they employ other people to fight and die for them, that is an odious crime, and capitalists who do that should be punished very harshly - either by life in prison or by a shorter sentence involving hard labour.

And then there is a special punishment I have in mind for people like you - the ideologues of capitalism, those who sang the praises of private property under the old regime (including particularly ideological capitalists). I want to condemn you to liberty. Since you hate the state so much and want to be free from its evil oppression, I think the socialist state should grant you your wish. It should refuse to have anything to do with you. It should say: "From this day forward, in the eyes of this workers' state, you no longer exist. We demand nothing from you. We offer nothing to you. We will not tax you. We will impose no obligations on you. We will not protect you when you are attacked. We will not defend your property. We will not trade with you. You have no rights and no duties. We do not want you. We do not need you. Goodbye, and good riddance."

Without the state's protection and without the ability to trade with citizens of the socialist community, I expect you will be lynched, or starve to death. Then you will learn your lesson about the consequences of individualism, and, if I am still alive, I will enjoy the show and gloat.

But anyways, while it is just to punish a murder, it is not just to punish a capitalist. That is the main difference.
In other words, we do not disagree about what constitutes proper punishment. We disagree about what constitutes crime.

Skooma Addict

5th November 2009, 04:03

And then there is a special punishment I have in mind for people like you - the ideologues of capitalism, those who sang the praises of private property under the old regime (including particularly ideological capitalists). I want to condemn you to liberty. Since you hate the state so much and want to be free from its evil oppression, I think the socialist state should grant you your wish. It should refuse to have anything to do with you. It should say: "From this day forward, in the eyes of this workers' state, you no longer exist. We demand nothing from you. We offer nothing to you. We will not tax you. We will impose no obligations on you. We will not protect you when you are attacked. We will not defend your property. We will not trade with you. You have no rights and no duties. We do not want you. We do not need you. Goodbye, and good riddance."

If this were the case, then why not just support some form of anarchism where people can choose to live in a community that shares similar values?

In other words, we do not disagree about what constitutes proper punishment. We disagree about what constitutes crime.

Maybe. I do not know what you consider proper punishment. I assume and hope that you oppose torture. But yea, we definitely disagree about what constitutes a crime (although there are instances where we agree).

Kwisatz Haderach

5th November 2009, 04:30

If this were the case, then why not just support some form of anarchism where people can choose to live in a community that shares similar values?
Because I believe that all the land and property that exists prior to the revolution should become the collective property of all the people.

I have nothing against you setting up your own separate community with your own rules on how to distribute property created after that point. But, unlike you, I do not stupidly pretend that owning property is separate and distinct from having power over people. It is not. Let me put it this way: where will you set up your capitalist utopia? If all land is owned by the people, you will have to pay us rent. Or we may simply refuse to let you set up your community anywhere. You will be at the people's mercy, by virtue of our ownership of land. Property is power.

I am not an anarchist because I recognize that property is power, and that, because of this, different communities with different conceptions of property cannot coexist peacefully side by side unless they reach some agreement to carve up the available land surface between them. And I will not agree to give up public ownership over a single inch of land. Not to mention that we'd have to divide up between our communities all the means of production that existed before the revolution, too. I am not willing to let you have any of those, either. They belong to the working class.

So you see, any capitalist community you set up will have to exist on land rented from socialists, and will have to buy its startup capital from socialists - if they are willing to sell. I will not insult your intelligence by claiming that such a capitalist community can have any degree of real independence.

The same principle also applies to a socialist community in a capitalist world, of course. It would have to buy land and means of production from the capitalists, so it could not be truly independent. That is why your offers of tolerating socialist communities in your capitalist "anarchy" are a cruel joke.

Maybe. I do not know what you consider proper punishment. I assume and hope that you oppose torture. But yea, we definitely disagree about what constitutes a crime (although there are instances where we agree).
I certainly oppose torture as a method of interrogation in any circumstances, and as a punishment for any ordinary crime. I may accept it as a punishment for particularly severe and highly exceptional crimes involving numerous deaths and where guilt can be established without the slightest doubt. Some cases of genocide, for example. Hitler should have been tortured to death.

Skooma Addict

5th November 2009, 04:50

Let me put it this way: where will you set up your capitalist utopia? If all land is owned by the people, you will have to pay us rent.

There will be an inevitable black market as your economy begins to collapse. I will not pay you rent, I will simply purchase land on the Black Market. I am more concerned with your initial revolution than anything else. Because after the revolution occurs and the economy starts to fall apart, the market will emerge once again. Or I will just find some land that nobody is using and live there.

I highly doubt you would be able to stop this from happening. You wont have 100% control over the population.

But, unlike you, I do not stupidly pretend that owning property is separate and distinct from having power over people.

Depends what you mean by "power." I might actually agree with you. But most likely not.

The same principle also applies to a socialist community in a capitalist world, of course. It would have to buy land and means of production from the capitalists, so it could not be truly independent. That is why your offers of tolerating socialist communities in your capitalist "anarchy" are a cruel joke.

There is no guarantee that people will agree with my conception of legitimate property (even though it is very likely). But the best solution is to allow people to choose what kind of community they want to live in. It is not true that you would have to buy any land. You could use formerly public land for example.

Kwisatz Haderach

5th November 2009, 05:29

There will be an inevitable black market as your economy begins to collapse. I will not pay you rent, I will simply purchase land on the Black Market. I am more concerned with your initial revolution than anything else. Because after the revolution occurs and the economy starts to fall apart, the market will emerge once again. Or I will just find some land that nobody is using and live there.
Oh, I see. We're playing the game of "I will overcome any and all difficulties because God/The Law of Nature/The Invisible Hand shall smite my enemies."

Well, if your answer to the problem is to call upon a deux ex machina and claim that everything will fix itself, there is not much to discuss.

Oh wait, calling upon a deux ex machina and claiming that everything will fix itself is the basis of your entire economic ideology. I should have seen this coming.

I highly doubt you would be able to stop this from happening. You wont have 100% control over the population.
We have no intention to have 100% control over anyone. But tell me, in a society where private property over land is not recognized, how exactly do you intend to buy land? Who will you buy it from, if no one privately owns any land? And how could you hold it as your private property if you live among people who do not recognize your right to hold it as private property?

Your plan is as ridiculous as if I intended to declare my house an independent country in present-day conditions. The state would not send in an army to "conquer" me. They would just ignore my declaration of independence and carry on as before. Without recognition from other people, my declaration of independence is meaningless. The same would hold true for your declaration of private ownership.

But the best solution is to allow people to choose what kind of community they want to live in. It is not true that you would have to buy any land. You could use formerly public land for example.
And if there is not enough formerly public land to accommodate everyone's claims?

Skooma Addict

5th November 2009, 13:45

Oh, I see. We're playing the game of "I will overcome any and all difficulties because God/The Law of Nature/The Invisible Hand shall smite my enemies."

Well, if your answer to the problem is to call upon a deux ex machina and claim that everything will fix itself, there is not much to discuss.

Oh wait, calling upon a deux ex machina and claiming that everything will fix itself is the basis of your entire economic ideology. I should have seen this coming.

Do you really think you can eliminate the black market? If so, please tell me how. Maybe you know some new technique that nobody has ever tried before. If anything, you cannot just assume that there won't be a black market.

We have no intention to have 100% control over anyone. But tell me, in a society where private property over land is not recognized, how exactly do you intend to buy land? Who will you buy it from, if no one privately owns any land? And how could you hold it as your private property if you live among people who do not recognize your right to hold it as private property?

I am sure there would be some communities that did not recognize private property as legitimate. I wouldn't live there. I am positive that I would have no difficulty finding a good place to live. Lots of people support private property.

Your plan is as ridiculous as if I intended to declare my house an independent country in present-day conditions. The state would not send in an army to "conquer" me. They would just ignore my declaration of independence and carry on as before. Without recognition from other people, my declaration of independence is meaningless. The same would hold true for your declaration of private ownership.That would depend. If I live in a community full of Socialists, then your probably right.

And if there is not enough formerly public land to accommodate everyone's claims?

Then you have to find the next best community. Or acquire land another way. I think your Socialist community will fail anyways unless you somehow integrate it with the price system. Whether or not you could achieve your dream community really is the least of my concerns. If the livings standards of the entire population rise at a rapid rate, but you still incorrectly think workers are being exploited, then so be it.

It is obvious that we disagree to the point where compromise is very difficult.

Edit: I just noticed this very funny quote.

Without the state's protection and without the ability to trade with citizens of the socialist community, I expect you will be lynched, or starve to death. Then you will learn your lesson about the consequences of individualism, and, if I am still alive, I will enjoy the show and gloat.

I won't starve or die. I will just pretend to be a good Communist comerade. I will go to your rallies and praise the enlightened Planners or whatever it is you guys do. But I will produce more than my quota requires, and then I will keep the rest. I will trade/sell my extras in the black market. If there are no quotas, all the better. Maybe I will fail to fulfill my quota once to see if anyone even notices.

Kwisatz Haderach

5th November 2009, 22:29

Do you really think you can eliminate the black market? If so, please tell me how. Maybe you know some new technique that nobody has ever tried before. If anything, you cannot just assume that there won't be a black market.
Oh, I'm sure there will always be some black market trade, but we can greatly reduce it and keep it at an absolute minimum. We will do this in four different ways:

1. First, we will simply take advantage of the fact that you can only own something illegally if you can hide it. You can hide drugs, guns, apples, funny hats, and all sorts of other consumer goods. But hiding means of production is much more difficult - sometimes outright impossible. You cannot hide land. You cannot hide entire factories. So you will not be able to trade these things on the black market.

2. Second, exploitation will be a crime, and anyone being exploited (i.e. employed by a private businessman for a wage) will be able to report the criminal activity of the exploiter without any risk to himself. In other words, if you start an illegal business, you'd better make sure all your workers love you, because a single disgruntled worker is all it takes to inform the state about your crimes and have you arrested.

In current conditions, illegal businesses can continue to exist because the workers themselves would be punished by the state if they reported the existence of the business - so they don't report it. But in socialist society, the workers will not be punished. In fact, they may even be rewarded, as the state confiscates the profits of the illegal capitalists and distributes them to the workers.

Good luck running an illegal business when your employees have a financial incentive to report you to the state. Hehe. :cool:

3. We will use a form of money that is not transferable between individuals. For example, everyone will have something like a debit card that records the number of labour-hours they have worked, and they will be able to use these labour-hours to buy goods and services from the publicly owned shops. But there will be no way to transfer labour-hours from my card to your card. Thus, all black market transactions will have to use either barter or some form of underground currency - an underground currency which is worthless in the legal shops and cannot be exchanged for legal money. People will have a serious disincentive to keep their wealth in this underground currency, given its limitations. Especially if they're not even sure if all the black market traders will accept it.

4. Unlike the old Soviet economy, the socialist economy of the future will use advanced computer software in the planning process. This will allow us to keep track of all goods and services we produce. We will immediately notice if things disappear for no apparent reason. You will not be able to take things from the legal planned economy and sell them on the black market - you'll have to produce special black market goods in your spare time.

Skooma Addict

5th November 2009, 22:56

1. First, we will simply take advantage of the fact that you can only own something illegally if you can hide it. You can hide drugs, guns, apples, funny hats, and all sorts of other consumer goods. But hiding means of production is much more difficult - sometimes outright impossible. You cannot hide land. You cannot hide entire factories. So you will not be able to trade these things on the black market.

You would be surprised. There are many ways to hide a factory.

2. Second, exploitation will be a crime, and anyone being exploited (i.e. employed by a private businessman for a wage) will be able to report the criminal activity of the exploiter without any risk to himself. In other words, if you start an illegal business, you'd better make sure all your workers love you, because a single disgruntled worker is all it takes to inform the state about your crimes and have you arrested.

Well then I will make sure I only hire people with good morals or similar ideological values. I will compensate my worker if they are fired. Also, I don't think the other workers would be very happy with the snitch. Not everyone believes in your exploitation theory.

In current conditions, illegal businesses can continue to exist because the workers themselves would be punished by the state if they reported the existence of the business - so they don't report it. But in socialist society, the workers will not be punished. In fact, they may even be rewarded, as the state confiscates the profits of the illegal capitalists and distributes them to the workers.

But in the long term, they could have profited more if they had been working for me.

3. We will use a form of money that is not transferable between individuals. For example, everyone will have something like a debit card that records the number of labour-hours they have worked, and they will be able to use these labour-hours to buy goods and services from the publicly owned shops. But there will be no way to transfer labour-hours from my card to your card. Thus, all black market transactions will have to use either barter or some form of underground currency - an underground currency which is worthless in the legal shops and cannot be exchanged for legal money. People will have a serious disincentive to keep their wealth in this underground currency, given its limitations. Especially if they're not even sure if all the black market traders will accept it.

I wouldn't reward them with currency until it naturally develops. Oh, and German POWs in world war 2 prison camps developed a currency that worked just fine (cigarettes). If they did it, then people living under your oppressive rule can do it.

4. Unlike the old Soviet economy, the socialist economy of the future will use advanced computer software in the planning process. This will allow us to keep track of all goods and services we produce. We will immediately notice if things disappear for no apparent reason. You will not be able to take things from the legal planned economy and sell them on the black market - you'll have to produce special black market goods in your spare time.

How is this supposed to pose a problem for me?

By the way, there are people out there who are experts when it comes to the black market. So even if I cannot come up with any ideas, that doesn't mean someone else couldn't.

But for fun, I will wear all red and I will go to all your parades. I will hold up a giant poster of Marx and cheer for the proletariat revolution. I would also prank phone call the planners. That would be fun.

Kwisatz Haderach

5th November 2009, 23:45

You would be surprised. There are many ways to hide a factory.
Such as...?

Seriously, factories tend to be rather, ummm, big. They also tend to have large numbers of people going into them and staying there for 8 hours every day. And they tend to make a lot of noise. You really don't think the neighbors might notice something suspicious?

And how on Earth do you intend to build your own factory when you cannot legally employ the workers and buy the materials necessary to do so?

Well then I will make sure I only hire people with good morals or similar ideological values. I will compensate my worker if they are fired.
One of the great insights of Marxism is that material interest trumps ideology and "moral values" nearly all the time.

So yeah, go ahead and try.

Also, I don't think the other workers would be very happy with the snitch. Not everyone believes in your exploitation theory.
All people believe in their own material interests. The workers will see that they have more to gain by working for one of the public enterprises in the legal economy, so they will do so.

The only reason I consider it at all possible that you might be able to find people to work for you as wage slaves is because you might kidnap children (or otherwise vulnerable people).

But in the long term, they could have profited more if they had been working for me.
ROFLMAO. Yeah, you go ahead and tell them that. Maybe you can even "prove" it to them with some of your Austrian School bullshit. I'm sure they'll be very inclined to listen. :lol:

I wouldn't reward them with currency until it naturally develops. Oh, and German POWs in world war 2 prison camps developed a currency that worked just fine (cigarettes). If they did it, then people living under your oppressive rule can do it.
German POWs in World War 2 prison camps did not have an alternative, legal currency competing with their cigarettes. They also did not have an entire planned economy competing with their black market.

My whole point is that people living under "my oppressive rule" will have very little incentive to engage in black market activities. Notice I didn't even talk about enforcement at all. I only talked about how we will ensure the black market is unattractive.

How is this supposed to pose a problem for me?
It's supposed to pose a problem for you because you might value your leisure time more than anything you could gain from using that time to produce black market products.

By the way, there are people out there who are experts when it comes to the black market. So even if I cannot come up with any ideas, that doesn't mean someone else couldn't.
They are experts at avoiding the state. Which is why I did not talk about enforcement measures. I am granting you the point that no matter what enforcement measures we use, some people will get away with it. That's where your experts come in.

But my argument is that we can ensure the black market is unattractive even if you can get away with it.

But for fun, I will wear all red and I will go to all your parades. I will hold up a giant poster of Marx and cheer for the proletariat revolution. I would also prank phone call the planners. That would be fun.
See, this is why I oppose totalitarian measures. They make scum like you pretend to not be scum. I don't like that. I want you to be free to say how much you hate Marxism, and working class control over the means of production, and economic equality and so on. I want you to shout your discontent as hard as you can, so that people can see you for who you really are - and stay away.

Skooma Addict

6th November 2009, 00:10

Such as...?

Seriously, factories tend to be rather, ummm, big. They also tend to have large numbers of people going into them and staying there for 8 hours every day. And they tend to make a lot of noise. You really don't think the neighbors might notice something suspicious?

And how on Earth do you intend to build your own factory when you cannot legally employ the workers and buy the materials necessary to do so?

A factory can be underground for example. I have no idea how to build a highly complex factory. It doesn't have to be a modern factory or anything. Sorry, but I am not going to figure out how or where to set up shop now. I wont figure that stuff out unless I actually need to.

All people believe in their own material interests. The workers will see that they have more to gain by working for one of the public enterprises in the legal economy, so they will do so.

The only reason I consider it at all possible that you might be able to find people to work for you as wage slaves is because you might kidnap children (or otherwise vulnerable people).

Well we just disagree here. Although it is very disheartening to know that your Socialist government couldn't even protect children.

German POWs in World War 2 prison camps did not have an alternative, legal currency competing with their cigarettes. They also did not have an entire planned economy competing with their black market.

My whole point is that people living under "my oppressive rule" will have very little incentive to engage in black market activities. Notice I didn't even talk about enforcement at all. I only talked about how we will ensure the black market is unattractive.

A currency will form even with your oppressive rule. More than 1 currency can exist at the same time. But there wouldn't be a market currency for a very long time. You don't even have an actual currency. By the way, I guess people cannot trade with each other because your pathetic currency doesn't even allow for that.

They are experts at avoiding the state. Which is why I did not talk about enforcement measures. I am granting you the point that no matter what enforcement measures we use, some people will get away with it. That's where your experts come in.

But my argument is that we can ensure the black market is unattractive even if you can get away with it.

Well, good luck. I wonder if there has ever been a government in history that has successfully made the black market unattractive.

See, this is why I oppose totalitarian measures.

No, you support totalitarian measures. Generally, when you want to throw innocent people in cages, that is a sign that you support totalitarian measures.

They make scum like you pretend to not be scum. I don't like that. I want you to be free to say how much you hate Marxism, and working class control over the means of production, and economic equality and so on. I want you to shout your discontent as hard as you can, so that people can see you for who you really are - and stay away.

Why would I do this? I would rather go to your rallies and cheer and throw flowers at the floats as they pass by. Then I would prank call the planners and tell them I am being exploited.

Conquer or Die

6th November 2009, 18:09

No. There certainly are no Gulags in a free society. In fact, there may not even be jails. If there were jails, they would be far less common than they are now. But anyways, while it is just to punish a murder, it is not just to punish a capitalist. That is the main difference.

An anarchist free society is always prevented by power interests. A free society does not exist outside of Max Stirner "all for my ability" ethics. This free society inherently leads to a lack of "freedom" by giving power to the most ruthless Napoleon out there.

Capitalist states can be barbaric, so can socialist states, so can fascist states, so can autocratic states. All four types of states have proven to be imperialist with few exceptions.

Non-states have proven to be just as barbaric.

I don't have a problem with anarchists, so long as they sink all landed/capitalist privileges with the government ship.

Green Dragon

8th November 2009, 03:05

Kwisatz Haderach

8th November 2009, 03:12

Leftism, by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn comes to mind.
Yes, but that book makes the argument that every single ideology created since the French Revolution is a branch of "Leftism". Poor Erik was still fighting the war against the Enlightenment, 150 years after his side lost.

Green Dragon

8th November 2009, 03:37

[QUOTE]We have two political groups, created at different times. From its birth, the second group proclaimed itself to be the greatest enemy of the first group. The first group agreed that they were mortal enemies. The entire common history of these two political groups was one of intense, uncompromising, often violent confrontation,

National Socialists and Communists often walked side by side in strikes. There were nazis who thought the browns and reds should merge as their was no real difference between the two; there were communists who claimed Mussolini was Lenin's true heir. National Socialist Germany modeled its agricultural policy after the USSR collectives; The USSR copied the nazi method of dealing inter-party disputes.

Their followers insisted that they were absolute opposites, locked in a battle to the death for the future of mankind.

Yes. Each argued they were the true socialist

Simply put, there have never been two political groups in the whole of human history more violently opposed to each other than these two. There was no way they could fight each other harder than they did.

And Green Dragon expects us to believe that these two groups were, in fact, close cousins engaged in minor disagreements over unimportant issues.

No. I ask who fights more often and fiercely: People who have nothing in common, or the People who do?

"Persecution"? Oh, how sad, the poor little capitalist exploiters who abuse the working class are going to be persecuted! By having their stolen wealth taken away and given to the people who worked for it!

Of course, the National Socialists made the same argument. Only in their version of the fantasy, it was the Jews (and capitalists secondary) who would have their taken away and given to the German, who truly deserved above all others...

Punishing capitalists is not persecution any more than punishing a murderer is "persecution". It is something called justice.

Yep... The National Socialists said the same about the Jews...

Kwisatz Haderach

8th November 2009, 04:20

National Socialists and Communists often walked side by side in strikes.
When? Where? Was this approved by the party leadership? Was this before or after the Nazis and Communists fought each other in the streets? Who participated in these strikes? What happened to them?

Give me details and credible sources, or your claims are bullshit.

There were nazis who thought the browns and reds should merge as their was no real difference between the two;
Who? When? Where? What was Hitler's attitude towards them? What happened to them? I want sources and details, otherwise this is just as much bullshit as your previous claims.

there were communists who claimed Mussolini was Lenin's true heir.
Really? Despite the fact that Mussolini himself said the exact opposite (claiming he was the anti-Lenin), and started killing communists while Lenin was still alive? Again, I want names, dates, locations, and credible sources.

National Socialist Germany modeled its agricultural policy after the USSR collectives;
Complete and absolute bullshit. Nazi Germany never had any kind of collectivized agriculture (neither modeled on the USSR nor otherwise).

The USSR copied the nazi method of dealing inter-party disputes.
Are you referring to Stalin's purges? Are you so immensely ignorant of human history that you imagine the practice of eliminating one's rivals within a ruling elite was invented in the 20th century?

I am seriously losing patience with idiots who talk as if dictatorship itself was somehow invented after 1914.

Yes. Each argued they were the true socialist.
You mean like the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea both argue that their model represents true democracy? Or like Ludwig von Mises and Franklin Delano Roosevelt both claimed to be the true liberal?

Examples of utterly opposite groups of people using similar labels for themselves are a dime a dozen.

No. I ask who fights more often and fiercely: People who have nothing in common, or the People who do?
One tends to find more disagreement - and thus more reasons to fight - between people who have nothing in common.

Of course, the National Socialists made the same argument. Only in their version of the fantasy, it was the Jews (and capitalists secondary) who would have their taken away and given to the German, who truly deserved above all others...

Yep... The National Socialists said the same about the Jews...
Oh for fuck's sake...

I assume you must therefore believe that no one should ever be punished in any way for anything - because the Nazis punished the Jews, so every time you punish anyone for anything, you are being a Nazi. Any ideology that claims anyone is guilty of anything is just as bad as Nazism. :rolleyes:

Hey, I have another analogy for you: The Nazis said that the Jews were the enemy. Therefore, anyone who thinks he has any enemies is a Nazi.

In fact, if we're going down that route, might as well go all the way. The Nazis said things about politics. You are saying things about politics. I am saying things about politics. ZOMG - we're all Nazis! :ohmy:

Green Dragon

9th November 2009, 13:51

[QUOTE=Kwisatz Haderach;1592201]When? Where? Was this approved by the party leadership? Was this before or after the Nazis and Communists fought each other in the streets? Who participated in these strikes? What happened to them?

William Shirer in his RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH talks about this. As does Kershaw in recent biography of Hitler.

Who? When? Where? What was Hitler's attitude towards them? What happened to them? I want sources and details, otherwise this is just as much bullshit as your previous claims.

As above. The person cited by Shirer was Joseph Goebbels.

Complete and absolute bullshit. Nazi Germany never had any kind of collectivized agriculture (neither modeled on the USSR nor otherwise).

Yet again, RISE AND FALL...

I am seriously losing patience with idiots who talk as if dictatorship itself was somehow invented after 1914.

No. But dictatorship and tyranny was far worse during the 20th century than what had been experieced prior to.

I assume you must therefore believe that no one should ever be punished in any way for anything - because the Nazis punished the Jews, so every time you punish anyone for anything, you are being a Nazi. Any ideology that claims anyone is guilty of anything is just as bad as Nazism. :rolleyes:

The nazis "punished" the Jews? For what? What was their crime?

Kwisatz Haderach

9th November 2009, 18:45

Heh. I ask you for details and you provide none. It's nice that you can at least remember the name of a book - you know, one among dozens of books about the Third Reich. But, given your dishonest and trollish behavior (see below, and many times in previous posts for that matter), I will assume you are at least bending Shirer's words... if not simply lying outright.

Nevertheless, I will pick up the book and give it a look. I'm curious to see just how much context you are omitting - if in fact your claims are supported by the book at all. I know that Goebbels flirted with Strasserism in the early 20s, for example (before Hitler persuaded him to fully endorse capitalism), but that's a very, very long way from your claim that Goebbels was in any way sympathetic to "the reds" (unless by "reds" you mean left-wing German nationalists, which would be a completely dishonest use of the term).

No. But dictatorship and tyranny was far worse during the 20th century than what had been experieced prior to.
Actually, that depends. It's certainly true that advanced technology in the 20th century made it easier for dictators to keep people under surveillance and enforce their rule across large areas of land with numerous populations. Advanced technology also made wars more devastating, and genocide easier to carry out (imagine how much more difficult it would have been for the Nazis to carry out the Holocaust, for example, if they had to kill people with swords).

However, that same advanced technology meant that people who lived under non-genocidal dictatorships in the 20th century had a standard of living far higher than people who lived under any dictatorships in previous centuries. Thus, many 20th century dictatorships were far "better" than any dictatorships in previous centuries, as far as their people's living standards were concerned.

The nazis "punished" the Jews? For what? What was their crime?
See, this is an example of the dishonesty and trolling that makes me assume you are a liar until proven otherwise. You're seriously trying to imply that I endorsed the view that the Jews were guilty of something. How pathetic.

Of course the Jews did not actually do anything wrong. They were punished for imaginary wrongs.

And our conversation went like this:

Me: The capitalists are guilty of exploiting the working class, and deserve to be punished for this. It's a matter of justice.
You: Hey, guess who else thought that some people were guilty for some stuff and deserved to be punished in the name of justice? HITLER!!!11 You're just like a Nazi!
Me: Are you seriously implying that anyone who believes that anyone else is guilty of anything... is just like a Nazi? The Nazis thought that the Jews were guilty of something, so if I think that anyone else is guilty of anything, I'm being a Nazi? ... You're an idiot.

Alright, I'm sick of feeding trolls, so I'm done talking to you here. Goodbye.

eyedrop

9th November 2009, 19:27

Green Dragon

9th November 2009, 20:13

Heh. I ask you for details and you provide none. It's nice that you can at least remember the name of a book - you know, one among dozens of books about the Third Reich. But, given your dishonest and trollish behavior (see below, and many times in previous posts for that matter), I will assume you are at least bending Shirer's words... if not simply lying outright.

No, it s pretty straightforward.

Nevertheless, I will pick up the book and give it a look. I'm curious to see just how much context you are omitting - if in fact your claims are supported by the book at all. I know that Goebbels flirted with Strasserism in the early 20s, for example (before Hitler persuaded him to fully endorse capitalism), but that's a very, very long way from your claim that Goebbels was in any way sympathetic to "the reds" (unless by "reds" you mean left-wing German nationalists, which would be a completely dishonest use of the term).

Its in there.

Thus, many 20th century dictatorships were far "better" than any dictatorships in previous centuries, as far as their people's living standards were concerned.

Yep. A fellow like Louis XIV lived the life a pauper, 20th century style.

But, the 20th century president of France...? He has more power over France and the French than Louis XIV ever had.

Of course the Jews did not actually do anything wrong. They were punished for imaginary wrongs.

Yes. Just like the capitalists would be in any socialist community.

And our conversation went like this:

[QUOTE]
Me: The capitalists are guilty of exploiting the working class, and deserve to be punished for this. It's a matter of justice.
You: Hey, guess who else thought that some people were guilty for some stuff and deserved to be punished in the name of justice? HITLER!!!11 You're just like a Nazi!

You have been disigenuous here. The claim is being made that capitalists were guilty of some great crime against the people. The National Socialists simply shifted the villain slightly.

Me: Are you seriously implying that anyone who believes that anyone else is guilty of anything...

You are not saying "anyone." You are saying "everyone."