CFC Off Topic Turned Me Into a Fascist

[Virote_Considon]

Asserting that pacifism is a philosophy, rather than a theory, is the "opposite" of questioning the sincerity of self-proclaimed "socialist" regimes? How so? I honestly can't see how the two issues are even related.

No, arguing that Pacifists calling themselves a philosophy rather than a theory is the opposite to arguing that a state which calls itself socialist is not a socialist.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

I wonder how many countries had these aims. I guess it's enough for you if they merely profess them?



How nice, we have a scholar.

Unfortunately, the Pacifists themselves would tell you that it is a philosophy and a way of life. It's something that they embrace, not merely something that you study.



Firstly, I didn't say "Socialism=Struggle" (i.e. in such mathematical terms). Secondly, class struggle is struggle. That seems kind of obvious.

Thirdly, from a general point of view, the oppressive class does not do the struggling. It puts down. It is the oppressed that does the struggling. It seems kind of absurd to say that one struggles to keep the strong strong. On the other hand, it makes a lot of sense to say that one struggles against oppression. Therefore, there is nothing surprising in calling it struggle without having to qualify the term all the time.

There is nothing sophisticated about your reductio.



Those are kind of the same?

Besides, did I not say this:



I believe your "umbrella terms" are none other these ideas.

And on that note:



Which is more romantic? An appeal to some abstract idea that has perceived benefits, or the struggle against the oppression and exploitation that you see around you?

There is nothing deep or profound about the desire for human dignity. And it's certainly not "vacuous". What is vacuous is sitting around pretending that political philosophy is all about comparisons between fixed systems.

I would also remind you that the struggle for democracy involved violence. Do I see you being disapproving to those revolutionaries for their "clarion call to violence"?



I don't know about you, but I think I'm real. The human essence refers to nothing but the materially existent human being, who is the essence of society.

Notice you didn't bold the collectivization part or the abolishing of distinct social classes. As an addendum, running the rich out of the country, converting them, or murdering them is also an aspect.

At least people striving for a capitalistic economy have something to point to and say "Here is what we built", while socialists only can point at ruined states and say "Here is what we wrought"

Besides that, well, you are simply dollying up a simple idea, that man is society. How profound.

 

[aelf]

You can fully embrace a theory. Theories aren't just there to be studied.

I find it rather unusual to describe something like Pacifism firstly as a theory. Certainly it can be, but those who treat it as theory is almost assuredly not someone who embraces it.

No, arguing that Pacifists calling themselves a philosophy rather than a theory is the opposite to arguing that a state which calls itself socialist is not a socialist.

I see your logic, I think, but it's a simple misdirection.

I don't assert that Pacifism is a philosophy simply because Pacifists consider it to be. I'm assuming certain characteristics of both Pacifism and a life philosophy that make both very compatible with each other, something which Pacifists certainly understand. On the other hand, the characteristics of some 'socialist' states and those of the philosophy behind socialism are incompatible.

Notice you didn't bold the collectivization part or the abolishing of distinct social classes. As an addendum, running the rich out of the country, converting them, or murdering them is also an aspect.

What a terrible assumption.

At least I can't be accused of being the political hack.

At least people striving for a capitalistic economy have something to point to and say "Here is what we built", while socialists only can point at ruined states and say "Here is what we wrought"

Well, back to square one, not unexpectedly.

And maybe you'd like to point at a underdeveloped Third World country and say "Here is what we built"?

Besides that, well, you are simply dollying up a simple idea, that man is society. How profound.

I've already pointed out why this is a stupid thing to say. But I guess you tire of real discussion. Well, I didn't expect very much after a while anyway.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

At least people striving for a capitalistic economy have something to point to and say "Here is what we built", while socialists only can point at ruined states and say "Here is what we wrought"

Someone is apparently rather ignorant of the not-bad things that went on in the USSR between 1920 and 1945.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Someone is apparently rather ignorant of the not-bad things that went on in the USSR between 1920 and 1945.

Yep, and where is the Soviet Union now?

Sure, it industrialized in a rapid amount of time (I guess having a brutal dictator can speed up the process) and made itself into a Superpower because of that, but it didn't have the staying power, now did it? It couldn't feed itself, it's light industry was a joke, and of course the whole totalitarian under Stalin and Authoritarian under everyone else thing was certainly a buzz kill.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yep, and where is the Soviet Union now?

The most classic retreat of someone who senses they are wrong but is unwilling to admit it.

The discontinuation of something has no bearing on its accomplishments.

Or are you one of those fools who thinks Alexander's Empire was nothing because it collapsed after his death?

Sure, it industrialized in a rapid amount of time (I guess having a brutal dictator can speed up the process)

He was so brutal, he wasn't even head of state until 1941. That's talent.

and made itself into a Superpower because of that, but it didn't have the staying power, now did it?

It has a staying power against Nazism, which is more than many other nations can say.

It couldn't feed itself, it's light industry was a joke, and of course the whole totalitarian under Stalin and Authoritarian under everyone else thing was certainly a buzz kill.

The issue at hand is not a "how high did x nation reach on an arbitrary scale of advancement" penis-measuring contest, it is the accomplishments of communist powers, which you have claimed were naught. I find it impossible to regard taking a backwards feudal nation regarded by the West as ignorant, barbaric degenerates, and in the space of a generation, send them to school, extend medical care to the entirety of society, build levels of industrialization and electrification in ten years which it took Britain a hundred to create, and fend off a brutal invasion and the single greatest threat to freedom in history, as being anything less than miraculous, to say nothing of its greatness in accomplishment.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

The most classic retreat of someone who senses they are wrong but is unwilling to admit it.

The discontinuation of something has no bearing on its accomplishments.

Or are you one of those fools who thinks Alexander's Empire was nothing because it collapsed after his death?



He was so brutal, he wasn't even head of state until 1941. That's talent.



It has a staying power against Nazism, which is more than many other nations can say.



The issue at hand is not a "how high did x nation reach on an arbitrary scale of advancement" penis-measuring contest, it is the accomplishments of communist powers, which you have claimed were naught. I find it impossible to regard taking a backwards feudal nation regarded by the West as ignorant, barbaric degenerates, and in the space of a generation, send them to school, extend medical care to the entirety of society, build levels of industrialization and electrification in ten years which it took Britain a hundred to create, and fend off a brutal invasion and the single greatest threat to freedom in history, as being anything less than miraculous, to say nothing of its greatness in accomplishment.

And it achieved such rapid industrialization allowing for those achievements by killing off millions of its population. Fine, the communists can boast that accomplishment.

It has no bearing on its accomplishments, but it certainly has bearing on the longevity of a system of government.

Well, he was certainly de facto leader for some time

Russia surviving the Nazi's is a product of rapid industrialization, which came at a terrible price.

Stop pretending that it is miraculous that Russia industrialized so quickly. It was simply inhumanity writ large.
.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And it achieved such rapid industrialization allowing for those achievements by killing off millions of its population. Fine, the communists can boast that accomplishment.

Incorrect. The two events coincided but were independent of one another.

It has no bearing on its accomplishments, but it certainly has bearing on the longevity of a system of government.

No it doesn't.

Well, he was certainly de facto leader for some time

Yes, but leader/= dictator.

Russia surviving the Nazi's is a product of rapid industrialization, which came at a terrible price.

And was the price worth it to end fascism? Or would you prefer the Nazis?

Stop pretending that it is miraculous that Russia industrialized so quickly. It was simply inhumanity writ large.
.

Oh really? And where would we be had Russia been turned over to the victorious Entente to colonize and imperialize like it had the rest of the world?

And yes, Russia's industrialization was miraculous, it would not have occurred otherwise, because Russia was, for all intents and purposes, in the 18th century when the Bolsheviks took power. As I said, they forced their industrialization to catch up with Western Europe, and they achieved in ten short years when it had taken Britain and wonderful capitalist a century to create. That would quite simply not have happened had anyone else been in power but Stalin, and it is the only reason I defend him.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Incorrect. The two events coincided but were independent of one another.



No it doesn't.


Yes, but leader/= dictator.



And was the price worth it to end fascism? Or would you prefer the Nazis?



Oh really? And where would we be had Russia been turned over to the victorious Entente to colonize and imperialize like it had the rest of the world?

And yes, Russia's industrialization was miraculous, it would not have occurred otherwise, because Russia was, for all intents and purposes, in the 18th century when the Bolsheviks took power. As I said, they forced their industrialization to catch up with Western Europe, and they achieved in ten short years when it had taken Britain and wonderful capitalist a century to create. That would quite simply not have happened had anyone else been in power but Stalin, and it is the only reason I defend him.

How was the millions who died and Stalins Five Year plans independent of each other?

Well, not for all Socialist systems, sure, but it surely showed the unworkability of the major systems of socialism, namely Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism. Of course, Maoism also ultimately failed, but that is another story.

Yes, well, he was certainly a bad man, or do you disagree with that point?

I reply to that with another question, would Hitler have even risen to power if the Soviet Union didn't exist?

It isn't a miracle when it is apparent what happened, a evil man wanted something, and did whatever was necessary irregardless of morality.

Now, it would have been a miracle if Stalin had achieved industrialization without resorting to such brutality.

 

[Quackers]

Lol It seems we have Soviet Union apologists on the forum.

You! Are on the scrap heap of history you card-carrying commie scum!

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Lol It seems we have Soviet Union apologists on the forum.

You! Are on the scrap heap of history you card-carrying commie scum!

You! Troll in sentence fragments!

 

[Imperialmajesty]

You! Troll in sentence fragments!

Would have been funnier if you had said

"You! Troll in sentence! Fragments!"

 

[Quackers]

Yeah it was a grammatical fail. We all make mistakes lets just try and move on

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I wasn't focusing on the grammar so much as the stupidity of the statement.

 

[Quackers]

I wasn't focusing on the grammar so much as the stupidity of the statement.

Maybe I wasn't referring to you...

 

[Kraznaya]

You don't have to be the recipient of a ******** statement to point it out; allow me to demonstrate: That statement was stupid.

 

[Quackers]

Why was is ********? (Apart from grammatical failings)

Using a slight varient on the original quote from a relatively unknown Russian revolutionary (to the rest of the UK population) in this context seems quite apropreate and charming

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

How was the millions who died and Stalins Five Year plans independent of each other?

Because the purges were separate. Its not a hard concept.

Well, not for all Socialist systems, sure, but it surely showed the unworkability of the major systems of socialism, namely Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism. Of course, Maoism also ultimately failed, but that is another story.

No it didn't, it showed that one man was capable in this situation of playing people off each other to cement his own power. Which is, again, independent of ideology.

Yes, well, he was certainly a bad man, or do you disagree with that point?

Is a bad man someone who simply does bad things, or are they bad because they do things for bad reasons?

I reply to that with another question, would Hitler have even risen to power if the Soviet Union didn't exist?

That you would even think this is a question worth asking shows your very clear ignorance of history.

It isn't a miracle when it is apparent what happened, a evil man wanted something, and did whatever was necessary irregardless of morality.

So you would rather have Nazism then. Pathetic.

Now, it would have been a miracle if Stalin had achieved industrialization without resorting to such brutality.

Complete nonsense.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

No it didn't, it showed that one man was capable in this situation of playing people off each other to cement his own power. Which is, again, independent of ideology.

Would you extend such a view to Fascism and Nazism?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Would you extend such a view to Fascism and Nazism?

I should have written "their ideology."

Anyway, no, because such an existence is part of Fascist ideology. It is not a part of socialist ideology. Of course, neither is creating socialism in an agrarian, backwards society, which should further illustrate to you how no existent socialist nation can be taken as an example of what socialism "is."