Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Haven't Nazi Party done any good work really?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedHaven't Nazi Party done any good work really?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>
Author
Message
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 12 2017 at 12:01
Originally posted by Upbeat Tango Monday Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:


Btw, I never said Hitler was a marxist. I said he was a staunch socialist.
Not so sure about the "staunch" part but certainly in its early form National Socialism was grounded in expedient socialism but that rapidly mutated into something that no socialist would recognise as socialism. As is pretty evident, Hitler's socialism was a long way removed from communism since one is primarily an economic system while the other is predominantly a political ideology so are non-comparative. Politically Hitler was an authoritarian centrist (slightly right of centre but not certainly not an extreme right-winger that modern fascists tend to be) but notions of left and right are all relative - Hitler would appear left-wing to someone more right-wing than him and as a right-wing to someone more leftist (and frankly apart from Pinochet everyone on the planet would probably regard themselves as being more libertarian than Hitler).
Originally posted by Upbeat Tango Monday Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:


To everyone:

The thing some of you don't understand is that you can live your "communist dream" in a free country. Go right now and gather thousands of people, pool your money and resources together and live your communal life. I'm all for it! Why don't you do it ASAP? Just keep me out of it, man. Don't point a gun at me, don't take my money and don't make me work for you for free.
In a communist country I can't have private property, I can't choose were to work, I can't help others and I can't live my life. I have to do everything for the leader or the community.
That's the difference. You can be a commie in a free country, I can't be a libertarian inside a communist country. Communism is all about being an egomaniac, stealing resources, and making everyone equal...to you!
You don't want to live in a community right now, but you want to force me into one. How can that be done without force? How can I give you my home and money, how can I leave my family behind in order to gather rocks twenty hours a day if not by coercion? I mean, really... to say it can be achieved without force and without killing everyone who does not agree with you is childish.
I sometimes don't know how to live my life...and some of you think you can manage the lives of millions of people thorugh slavery. This is not a math problem we are talking about, but human lives.
LOL

Sorry, that's not right, I mean...


You cannot be a libertarian in any economic/political system other than a libertarian system, and you cannot do that without imposing your beliefs on everyone else whether they like it or not. The "Libertarian Untopia" is just as fanciful and untenable as any other single-ideology dream, regardless of what -ism you tack onto the end of it.
Originally posted by Upbeat Tango Monday Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:


Anyway, I'm done with this topic. Cheers.
Good. Bye.


Edited by Dean - February 12 2017 at 12:03
What?
Back to Top
CPicard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10837
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 13 2017 at 03:16
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Upbeat Tango Monday Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:


Btw, I never said Hitler was a marxist. I said he was a staunch socialist.
Not so sure about the "staunch" part but certainly in its early form National Socialism was grounded in expedient socialism but that rapidly mutated into something that no socialist would recognise as socialism. As is pretty evident, Hitler's socialism was a long way removed from communism since one is primarily an economic system while the other is predominantly a political ideology so are non-comparative. Politically Hitler was an authoritarian centrist (slightly right of centre but not certainly not an extreme right-winger that modern fascists tend to be) but notions of left and right are all relative - Hitler would appear left-wing to someone more right-wing than him and as a right-wing to someone more leftist (and frankly apart from Pinochet everyone on the planet would probably regard themselves as being more libertarian than Hitler).



It could be useful to precise that we're discussing "left" and "right" from an economical point of view. We must keep in mind that Hitler ordered the destruction of the SA and the arrestation of Roehm (leader of said SA) which were seen as the "revolutionary" wing of the NSDAP (they were also brutal, dangerous and murderous, not the kind of people that the old elite wanted to see roaming in the streets).
After all, it's one of the main (and confusing) caracteristics of fascism and nazism (which are not to be confused): the alliance of extreme authoritarian traits and some social preoccupations, reactionary positions (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc...) and anti-capitalist ideas (even if the way that fascists and nazis organised the economical life should be described as populist rather than socialist!)

Maybe it's because of this unusual combination that people get confused about the "socialist" aspects of the totalitarian regimes.
Back to Top
BaldJean View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10377
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 13 2017 at 03:54
Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Upbeat Tango Monday Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:


Btw, I never said Hitler was a marxist. I said he was a staunch socialist.
Not so sure about the "staunch" part but certainly in its early form National Socialism was grounded in expedient socialism but that rapidly mutated into something that no socialist would recognise as socialism. As is pretty evident, Hitler's socialism was a long way removed from communism since one is primarily an economic system while the other is predominantly a political ideology so are non-comparative. Politically Hitler was an authoritarian centrist (slightly right of centre but not certainly not an extreme right-winger that modern fascists tend to be) but notions of left and right are all relative - Hitler would appear left-wing to someone more right-wing than him and as a right-wing to someone more leftist (and frankly apart from Pinochet everyone on the planet would probably regard themselves as being more libertarian than Hitler).



It could be useful to precise that we're discussing "left" and "right" from an economical point of view. We must keep in mind that Hitler ordered the destruction of the SA and the arrestation of Roehm (leader of said SA) which were seen as the "revolutionary" wing of the NSDAP (they were also brutal, dangerous and murderous, not the kind of people that the old elite wanted to see roaming in the streets).
After all, it's one of the main (and confusing) caracteristics of fascism and nazism (which are not to be confused): the alliance of extreme authoritarian traits and some social preoccupations, reactionary positions (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc...) and anti-capitalist ideas (even if the way that fascists and nazis organised the economical life should be described as populist rather than socialist!)

Maybe it's because of this unusual combination that people get confused about the "socialist" aspects of the totalitarian regimes.

or maybe it is because "Nazism" is short for "Nationalsozialismus" meaning "National Socialism"


A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20503
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 13 2017 at 03:58
Originally posted by Raff Raff wrote:

The Old Italian word meaning "point" is "pizzo", and it is still used in some Southern Italian dialects (my father did use it). However, the verb is "pizzicare", not "pizziare". Anyway, Wikipedia (and other sources) report a different etymology of the word.
No problem Raff! Just consider my history of pizza to be "alternate facts"! LOL
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 13 2017 at 04:24
Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Upbeat Tango Monday Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:


Btw, I never said Hitler was a marxist. I said he was a staunch socialist.
Not so sure about the "staunch" part but certainly in its early form National Socialism was grounded in expedient socialism but that rapidly mutated into something that no socialist would recognise as socialism. As is pretty evident, Hitler's socialism was a long way removed from communism since one is primarily an economic system while the other is predominantly a political ideology so are non-comparative. Politically Hitler was an authoritarian centrist (slightly right of centre but not certainly not an extreme right-winger that modern fascists tend to be) but notions of left and right are all relative - Hitler would appear left-wing to someone more right-wing than him and as a right-wing to someone more leftist (and frankly apart from Pinochet everyone on the planet would probably regard themselves as being more libertarian than Hitler).



It could be useful to precise that we're discussing "left" and "right" from an economical point of view. We must keep in mind that Hitler ordered the destruction of the SA and the arrestation of Roehm (leader of said SA) which were seen as the "revolutionary" wing of the NSDAP (they were also brutal, dangerous and murderous, not the kind of people that the old elite wanted to see roaming in the streets).
After all, it's one of the main (and confusing) caracteristics of fascism and nazism (which are not to be confused): the alliance of extreme authoritarian traits and some social preoccupations, reactionary positions (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc...) and anti-capitalist ideas (even if the way that fascists and nazis organised the economical life should be described as populist rather than socialist!)

Maybe it's because of this unusual combination that people get confused about the "socialist" aspects of the totalitarian regimes.
Precisely Thumbs Up
What?
Back to Top
CPicard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10837
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 13 2017 at 05:14
Originally posted by BaldJean BaldJean wrote:

Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Upbeat Tango Monday Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:


Btw, I never said Hitler was a marxist. I said he was a staunch socialist.
Not so sure about the "staunch" part but certainly in its early form National Socialism was grounded in expedient socialism but that rapidly mutated into something that no socialist would recognise as socialism. As is pretty evident, Hitler's socialism was a long way removed from communism since one is primarily an economic system while the other is predominantly a political ideology so are non-comparative. Politically Hitler was an authoritarian centrist (slightly right of centre but not certainly not an extreme right-winger that modern fascists tend to be) but notions of left and right are all relative - Hitler would appear left-wing to someone more right-wing than him and as a right-wing to someone more leftist (and frankly apart from Pinochet everyone on the planet would probably regard themselves as being more libertarian than Hitler).



It could be useful to precise that we're discussing "left" and "right" from an economical point of view. We must keep in mind that Hitler ordered the destruction of the SA and the arrestation of Roehm (leader of said SA) which were seen as the "revolutionary" wing of the NSDAP (they were also brutal, dangerous and murderous, not the kind of people that the old elite wanted to see roaming in the streets).
After all, it's one of the main (and confusing) caracteristics of fascism and nazism (which are not to be confused): the alliance of extreme authoritarian traits and some social preoccupations, reactionary positions (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc...) and anti-capitalist ideas (even if the way that fascists and nazis organised the economical life should be described as populist rather than socialist!)

Maybe it's because of this unusual combination that people get confused about the "socialist" aspects of the totalitarian regimes.

or maybe it is because "Nazism" is short for "Nationalsozialismus" meaning "National Socialism"


Yes, of course. Yet, it's not sure that everyone gets the idea from the sole name of Nazism.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 13 2017 at 07:49
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Because....few people want that? Most don't wanna point a gun at you and certainly not make you work for free. You are just very very biased, and I think this is why you see everything not strict laissez-faire as "socialist" and also why you confused some of Hitler's rhetoric and his real life actions, which were not socialist in any real way. Unless you (which I think you do) just call everything done by gov intervention socialist which is still not correct but whatever. The bias of your views also turns your debate into a bit of nonsense, taking your home? Managing millions through slavery? Dude, what on Earth are you going on about? I said before I don't even disagree with much of the words, just you should use statism and not call it all leftism which you then jump lump all under communism. That's....nuttyLOL

And I sure as HELL don't wanna go live in some commune away from society. It's the die hard libertarians that want thatLOL I like most people understand society is good, and to live in a functioning society you gotta pay taxes, live by rules you didn't agree to, etc etc I hate to say it but it sounds like you are the one who should pool resources with a few like minded people and go live in a commune somewhere. I sincerely would not stop you and would wish you well.

Especially since an attempt at that once before failed because having a society of people who all don't want to fully participate in a collective entity and may not be willing to do things for other if it impacts them....is likely not gunna work. Especially since you'd not be able to use our roads, electricity or any tax funded service. Tis only fair, if you wanna be free from taxes and coercion OK but on the flip side you then cant mooch off usSmile

Well, outside W Europe and USA, all kinds of systems have been experimented with and often with disastrous results.  So while the way he presents it is hyperbolic, to some extent I can relate to his fear.  Once the state becomes greedy to hold onto power, there's no saying where it will stop.  Maybe the ideological meaning of communism is something different but when the experience of govts run by self proclaimed communists is consistently bad, it is difficult to accept this dichotomy.  Calcutta, now Kolkata, was once the pre-eminent metropolis of India and the communists ruined it.  Imagine living in a democratic country and not being able to cast your vote because the goons employed by the communists won't let you within a hundred feet of the voting booth.  And the central government won't do anything about it because...good ol' electoral calculations. Dictatorship of the proletariat indeed!  Like many others, my family fled the despair of Calcutta for the urban sprawl of decadent capitalism that is Bombay.  The point is once you accept in principle the idea that property can be taken away from an individual and vested in a faceless state, it WILL come true against your wishes even if at first the state seems benevolent and even if they didn't tell you they will do that in the beginning.  I am not a libertarian and I don't oppose taxes but that's far as I will go.  Whatever property we own today (which isn't much to begin with), my father worked hard to earn it and earned it by lawful means.  Nobody has the right to tell my father it is an undeserved privilege and they will take it away from him but that's what communism is in essence.
Back to Top
A Person View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 13 2017 at 10:10
Originally posted by BaldJean BaldJean wrote:

Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Upbeat Tango Monday Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:


Btw, I never said Hitler was a marxist. I said he was a staunch socialist.
Not so sure about the "staunch" part but certainly in its early form National Socialism was grounded in expedient socialism but that rapidly mutated into something that no socialist would recognise as socialism. As is pretty evident, Hitler's socialism was a long way removed from communism since one is primarily an economic system while the other is predominantly a political ideology so are non-comparative. Politically Hitler was an authoritarian centrist (slightly right of centre but not certainly not an extreme right-winger that modern fascists tend to be) but notions of left and right are all relative - Hitler would appear left-wing to someone more right-wing than him and as a right-wing to someone more leftist (and frankly apart from Pinochet everyone on the planet would probably regard themselves as being more libertarian than Hitler).



It could be useful to precise that we're discussing "left" and "right" from an economical point of view. We must keep in mind that Hitler ordered the destruction of the SA and the arrestation of Roehm (leader of said SA) which were seen as the "revolutionary" wing of the NSDAP (they were also brutal, dangerous and murderous, not the kind of people that the old elite wanted to see roaming in the streets).
After all, it's one of the main (and confusing) caracteristics of fascism and nazism (which are not to be confused): the alliance of extreme authoritarian traits and some social preoccupations, reactionary positions (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc...) and anti-capitalist ideas (even if the way that fascists and nazis organised the economical life should be described as populist rather than socialist!)

Maybe it's because of this unusual combination that people get confused about the "socialist" aspects of the totalitarian regimes.

or maybe it is because "Nazism" is short for "Nationalsozialismus" meaning "National Socialism"

National socialists are as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.
Back to Top
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14110
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 13 2017 at 10:19
Originally posted by Upbeat Tango Monday Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:

To Lewian:

Right wing killed more people through history...yeah, sure. Italian and german socialists are not really socialists...yeah, sure.
You've said many things that are flat out wrong...and you are comparing a civil war and posterior military deaths that happened inside a country (Austria) who had lost its autonomy with the actual killing of millions of unarmed innocents in a wide array of countries and every single time communism was tried.
 

There wasn't a single word about numbers of deaths and war in my posting, so I may have said "many things that are flat out wrong" in your imagination but your posting isn't about much stuff that I actually said.
Originally posted by Upbeat Tango Monday Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:


Btw, I never said Hitler was a marxist. I said he was a staunch socialist.


My earlier posting with quotes from Mein Kampf addressed this, at least partly. Although you may have your own definition of socialism as you have your own ideas of what I had written.
Back to Top
BaldJean View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10377
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 13 2017 at 10:26
Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by BaldJean BaldJean wrote:

Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Upbeat Tango Monday Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:


Btw, I never said Hitler was a marxist. I said he was a staunch socialist.
Not so sure about the "staunch" part but certainly in its early form National Socialism was grounded in expedient socialism but that rapidly mutated into something that no socialist would recognise as socialism. As is pretty evident, Hitler's socialism was a long way removed from communism since one is primarily an economic system while the other is predominantly a political ideology so are non-comparative. Politically Hitler was an authoritarian centrist (slightly right of centre but not certainly not an extreme right-winger that modern fascists tend to be) but notions of left and right are all relative - Hitler would appear left-wing to someone more right-wing than him and as a right-wing to someone more leftist (and frankly apart from Pinochet everyone on the planet would probably regard themselves as being more libertarian than Hitler).



It could be useful to precise that we're discussing "left" and "right" from an economical point of view. We must keep in mind that Hitler ordered the destruction of the SA and the arrestation of Roehm (leader of said SA) which were seen as the "revolutionary" wing of the NSDAP (they were also brutal, dangerous and murderous, not the kind of people that the old elite wanted to see roaming in the streets).
After all, it's one of the main (and confusing) caracteristics of fascism and nazism (which are not to be confused): the alliance of extreme authoritarian traits and some social preoccupations, reactionary positions (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc...) and anti-capitalist ideas (even if the way that fascists and nazis organised the economical life should be described as populist rather than socialist!)

Maybe it's because of this unusual combination that people get confused about the "socialist" aspects of the totalitarian regimes.

or maybe it is because "Nazism" is short for "Nationalsozialismus" meaning "National Socialism"

National socialists are as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.

I know. I did not mean the Nazis were socialists, I meant that some people might mistake them for socialists because of their name


A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Back to Top
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14110
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 13 2017 at 10:30
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

well.. they did save the whole of continental Europe from a half century or more of complete Soviet domination..thus changing history as we know it today... as it was the Soviets still got half of it.

...except that in the beginning of the war they helped Stalin winning ground. And one could also argue that they weakened much of continental Europe so much that later it'd fall easily to the Soviets.
Your claim implies that you know what would've happened otherwise; please explain!
Back to Top
Tillerman88 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 31 2015
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Offline
Points: 495
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 03 2017 at 14:19
Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

 Surprised by the existence of this thread...  and that it was started by an Admin...
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

They gave the world the VW Beetle, the autobahn and anti-vivisectionism, (though rather than experiment on animals they used concentration camp victims instead), and if you were white, christian and German you would have had a pretty good standard of life as they improved the German welfare system considerably. But they aren't really a product or consequence of fascism.
 
 
mmmmmmmmmm.... I would think that the best contribution is that Mengele's experiments provided huge progress for modern surgery and medicine in general. At least the atrocities he did were not completely lost... By now, we (medicine) have probably saved many million people more since the death camp than the death camps achieved
 
Ditto with reaction engine, which are for planes and rockets... but given the huge pollution of this invention, is that "any good" to mankind or our planet? Confused
 
Yeah but then for all that to work what other huge pollution agent there would be if not oil in all its forms?
And the truth that never was pointed out on this thread is - oil was the indispensable product for the WW2 stages. Let us remember that oil, once processed or refined in various ways, became the source or indispensable material for laying runways, making toluene (the chief component of TNT) for bombs, the manufacturing of synthetic rubber for tires, and the distilling into gasoline (particularly at 100-octane levels) for use in trucks, tanks, jeeps, and airplanes.  And, that is not to mention the need for oil as a lubricant for guns and machinery.
..
.



Edited by Tillerman88 - March 03 2017 at 14:20
The overwhelming amount of information on a daily basis restrains people from rewinding the news record archives to refresh their memories...
Back to Top
Tillerman88 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 31 2015
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Offline
Points: 495
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 03 2017 at 14:23
Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Ivan, a pact with the devil remains a pact with the devil: no matter what you gain for it you lose your soul. 
 
As pacts with the devil were an endlessly debated issue on this thread, the first post WW2 pact ever made should not miss:
The Faustian bargain between U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Saudi King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud in 1945 was truly a pact with the devil (from which the U.S. may never be able to extricate itself from), as neither Christian morality nor American democratic values would hinder their quest for ready access to oil on an inexpensive and dependable basis.


Edited by Tillerman88 - March 03 2017 at 14:24
The overwhelming amount of information on a daily basis restrains people from rewinding the news record archives to refresh their memories...
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: @ wicker man
Status: Offline
Points: 32690
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 03 2017 at 14:29
Hopefully new technology will remove our oil dependency, but a lot of industry/ big business will resist, and are resisting, such a shift.
Just a fanboy passin' through.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 03 2017 at 14:44
Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Ivan, a pact with the devil remains a pact with the devil: no matter what you gain for it you lose your soul. 
I think that the entire Catholic church's history could be summed up in one phrase in an encyclopedia: "A pact with the devil". 
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 03 2017 at 15:37
^ There is a devil?
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 03 2017 at 15:44
^Several 
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 08 2017 at 14:51
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Because....few people want that? Most don't wanna point a gun at you and certainly not make you work for free. You are just very very biased, and I think this is why you see everything not strict laissez-faire as "socialist" and also why you confused some of Hitler's rhetoric and his real life actions, which were not socialist in any real way. Unless you (which I think you do) just call everything done by gov intervention socialist which is still not correct but whatever. The bias of your views also turns your debate into a bit of nonsense, taking your home? Managing millions through slavery? Dude, what on Earth are you going on about? I said before I don't even disagree with much of the words, just you should use statism and not call it all leftism which you then jump lump all under communism. That's....nuttyLOL

And I sure as HELL don't wanna go live in some commune away from society. It's the die hard libertarians that want thatLOL I like most people understand society is good, and to live in a functioning society you gotta pay taxes, live by rules you didn't agree to, etc etc I hate to say it but it sounds like you are the one who should pool resources with a few like minded people and go live in a commune somewhere. I sincerely would not stop you and would wish you well.

Especially since an attempt at that once before failed because having a society of people who all don't want to fully participate in a collective entity and may not be willing to do things for other if it impacts them....is likely not gunna work. Especially since you'd not be able to use our roads, electricity or any tax funded service. Tis only fair, if you wanna be free from taxes and coercion OK but on the flip side you then cant mooch off usSmile

Well, outside W Europe and USA, all kinds of systems have been experimented with and often with disastrous results.  So while the way he presents it is hyperbolic, to some extent I can relate to his fear.  Once the state becomes greedy to hold onto power, there's no saying where it will stop.  Maybe the ideological meaning of communism is something different but when the experience of govts run by self proclaimed communists is consistently bad, it is difficult to accept this dichotomy.  Calcutta, now Kolkata, was once the pre-eminent metropolis of India and the communists ruined it.  Imagine living in a democratic country and not being able to cast your vote because the goons employed by the communists won't let you within a hundred feet of the voting booth.  And the central government won't do anything about it because...good ol' electoral calculations. Dictatorship of the proletariat indeed!  Like many others, my family fled the despair of Calcutta for the urban sprawl of decadent capitalism that is Bombay.  The point is once you accept in principle the idea that property can be taken away from an individual and vested in a faceless state, it WILL come true against your wishes even if at first the state seems benevolent and even if they didn't tell you they will do that in the beginning.  I am not a libertarian and I don't oppose taxes but that's far as I will go.  Whatever property we own today (which isn't much to begin with), my father worked hard to earn it and earned it by lawful means.  Nobody has the right to tell my father it is an undeserved privilege and they will take it away from him but that's what communism is in essence.

That's fair but he also says none of that, just lumps it all under "leftism" which is of course clearly just "socialism" and thus "communism"LOL I just found it odd he correctly notes some issues but puts it all under leftism. 
Most people dont disagree with much of that, or even what he said. But he was being a bit loony. I can read between his lines, saw it many many times before. It was basically all the "if it's not strict 19th century laissez-faire it's big government socialism and all authoritarianism is leftism" Thats why I was getting annoyed, its lazy and wrong
Back to Top
siLLy puPPy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
PSIKE, JRF/Canterbury, P Metal, Eclectic

Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 14721
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 08 2017 at 15:25
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Ivan, a pact with the devil remains a pact with the devil: no matter what you gain for it you lose your soul. 
I think that the entire Catholic church's history could be summed up in one phrase in an encyclopedia: "A pact with the devil". 


I think religion and many philosophies fail to see the oneness of it all and that duality is an innate function of the universe just as quantum particles are composed of opposite charges. When individuals, institutions, collective bodies try to separate these aspects and categorize them is when distortion of reality occurs and ultimate entropy that leads to dystopia until the universal forces balance them again

https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy
Back to Top
Magnum Vaeltaja View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 01 2015
Location: Out East
Status: Offline
Points: 6777
Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 08 2017 at 22:35
Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

Ivan, a pact with the devil remains a pact with the devil: no matter what you gain for it you lose your soul. 
I think that the entire Catholic church's history could be summed up in one phrase in an encyclopedia: "A pact with the devil". 


I think religion and many philosophies fail to see the oneness of it all and that duality is an innate function of the universe just as quantum particles are composed of opposite charges. When individuals, institutions, collective bodies try to separate these aspects and categorize them is when distortion of reality occurs and ultimate entropy that leads to dystopia until the universal forces balance them again

Whatever you're on... where can I get some? LOL
when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.262 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.