Communism/Nazism

[Patroklos]

Pretty damn well.

again...

Really? What was their general profitability and market share in 1945?

Actually, that is a good question to ask for pretty much all of Hitler's reign. Since you maintain they were so damn well of, please show us proof of this.

 

[Princeps]

False, the companies did what the Party said, how they said it, and when they said to do it. This was usually done at the expense of profits, efficiency, market share (again, German firms had nearly zero control of foreign trade), etc. etc. No interest of big business was ever served ahead of that of the party or state, and the actually very rearely dovetailed. Nazi Germany was big business friendly the same way pedophiles are child friendly.

Again, no, the economic history of the Third Reich shows clearly that is not the case, no matter what the Austrian-school cranks might tell you. The nazi regime constantly worked with big business, and nowhere was the intertwining of profit and politics more dramatic than in the case of IG Farben. The Nazi Party received its funding from big business and its most fanatical supporters consitently came from the business sector.

The Nazi organization was statist, but few actually opposed it in the business community. Nowhere is this more dramatically demonstrated than in the creation of the compulsory cartelization program. The regulatory agencies saw the conclusion of no less than 1600 voluntary cartels and only 120 imposed carterls. Again, the business sector welcomed these nazi policies with enthusiasm. Through these cartels, state orders travelled downwards and complaints and suggestions travelled upwards, so they were essential to the nazi program.

The nazis did not harness the business sector for international trade, which is why German companies had no market-share internationally. But as if to compensate for this, the Nazis also put an end to foreign competition in Germany, so it was difficult for the big business not to make healthy profits. The Nazis wanted the industries and manifactures for world conquest, not for trade. Also, global trade was not appealing because all the economies at this point were very protectionist.

The conquest of Europe also saw some dramatic cases of pro-business imperialism. The nazis harnassed the conquered resources into the vast cartels and monopolies, and the big business was a pioneer in the use of slave labour.

 

[holy king]

Really? What was their general profitability and market share in 1945?

not much in just having broke down germany i guess, but they still owned the means of production, know-how and realty they had aquired thanks to the war, plus the capital in swiss bank accounts.

what are you trying to argue, that losing the war was a bad thing for overall german economy?
well, i ackowledge that....

 

[Patroklos]

"collective impoverishment" as a goal?

What, did you think everyone was going to be rich? What has every experiment in communism produced?

anyway, there was a huge qualitative difference between stalin's mass murders and hitler's mass murders.

We will never know, primarily because the Soviets had 60 years to sanatize Siberia. Of course some Ukranians would probably like to weigh in on your opinion of the level of brutality communsim used. I am inclined to agree with you that Nazism was accutely more brutal, communism cronically more brutal.

anyone who deliberately fails to see that in order to equate communism with nazism is doing so by downplaying nazism. period.

Why is Ukranian pain and lives less important than Jewish pain and lives?

 

[RedRalph]

Why is Ukranian pain and lives less important than Jewish pain and lives?

so you think communism is as inherently anti-Ukranian as Nazism is inherently anti Jewish? funny, i doubt Nazi Germany would have had any Jewish leaders had it survived...

 

[holy king]

We will never know, primarily because the Soviets had 60 years to sanatize Siberia. Of course some Ukranians would probably like to weigh in on your opinion of the level of brutality communsim used. I am inclined to agree with you that Nazism was accutely more brutal, communism cronically more brutal.

it's not the brutality, it's the burocratic and cold bloded way of determining whose life is unworthy, assembling those people, transporting them through whole europe like cattle and then killing them in industrial complexes.

 

[z_step18]

For me, I'd much rather live under a communist leadership than Nazi Germany, which I think has legitimacy in determining which is worse. At least under communism I'd have a chance, while under Nazi Germany, I'd most likely be gone.

 

[nonconformist]

Why is Ukranian pain and lives less important than Jewish pain and lives?

You mean the Ukrainians who had a nasty habit of manning concentration camps and gassing jews?

Also the fact that it took the Nazis about 4 years to achieve what had taken the USSR over twenty

 

[holy king]

You mean the Ukrainians who had a nasty habit of manning concentration camps and gassing jews?

we arent talking about machno here, are we?

 

[nonconformist]

we arent talking about machno here, are we?

Machno?

 

[Patroklos]

Again, no, the economic history of the Third Reich shows clearly that is not the case, no matter what the Austrian-school cranks might tell you. The nazi regime constantly worked with big business, and nowhere was the intertwining of profit and politics more damatic than in the case of IG Farben. The Nazi Party received its funding from big business and its most fanatical supporters consitently came from the business sector.

Intertwined? Well OBVIOUSLY, again what society or political system is this not the case? It is a recognized fact that Nazi interferance in big buisness (note that word, interferance) lead to production inefficiencies, labor ineffiencies, duplication, nonproductive competiton, disasterous foriegn trade reductions unheard of in the western world (though common place in the Soviet Union).

So you are saying dispite all that these firms were profitable and large and in charge?

The Nazi organization was statist, but few actually opposed it in the business community. Nowhere is this more dramatically demonstrated than in the creation of the compulsory cartelization program. The regulatory agencies saw the conclusion of no less than 1600 voluntary cartels and only 120 imposed carterls. Again, the business sector welcomed these nazi policies with enthusiasm.

Nice. So since the education establishment of Germany didn't oppose Nazism the Nazi's were big education friendly? Since no economic strata of Germany opposed Nazism were they lower, middle and upper class friendly?

Nazi policy totally hamstrung German businesses, whether businesses went along with it or not. That is an important distinction; the businesses went along with the state not the other way around. If Big Business wasn't the master of it's own destiny to any degree, the state isn't big business friendly.

The nazis did not harness the business sector for international trade, which is why German companies had no market-share internationally.

But yet this massive, profit, resource access, and market share destroying policy was somehow big business friendly?

But as if to compensate for this, the Nazis also put an end to foreign competition in Germany, so it was difficult for the big business not to make healthy profits.

Wow, lose access to the whole world for a depression straddled impoverished Germany. Awesome big business move. Shrinking market access and overall profit amount (even if the margin stays the same) is the exact opposite of big business. Now if Germany restricted forieng competition within Germany AND allowed unfettered access to the world market THEN you would have a point.

The conquest of Europe also saw some dramatic cases of pro-business imperialism. The nazis harnassed of the conquered resources into the vast Reich cartels and monopolies, and the big business was a pioneer in the use of slave labour.

Actually what was seen was the complete subjugation of German business to the war machine, German firms were all but centrally state directed cogs as the war dragged on. Of course cogs with potential power, so always kept in their place.

 

[holy king]

Machno?

ukrainians getting killed by bolsheviks?

 

[nonconformist]

ukrainians getting killed by bolsheviks?

No, I mean the two groups whichw ere disproportionately represented both in numbers as KZ guards, and by their brutality, were Ukrainians, and Germans from Sachenhausen.

 

[z_step18]

Although they are both radical ideologies that caused the deaths of millions of people, it seems like communism is not treated as harshly as nazism is. For example, its okay to wear a Che Guevera t-shirt, but anything even remotely related to the nazis is condemned.What is the reason for this double standard?

Wearing a Che-Guevera t-shirt doesn't really say anything other than that you have some crazy political leanings. It doesn't necessarily provoke anything. Wearing a t-shirt with a swastika says that you support the idea of racial and ethnic superiority, and that you view every one else as lesser than you.

 

[Patroklos]

not much in just having broke down germany i guess, but they still owned the means of production, know-how and realty they had aquired thanks to the war, plus the capital in swiss bank accounts.

They didn't own the means of production, that was all smoldering rubble. You realize the largest industrial firms of the day like Krump and MAN died in 1945 right?

what are you trying to argue, that losing the war was a bad thing for overall german economy?
well, i ackowledge that....

There were reasons they lost the war though, and one of the main ones was their inability to reconcile their ideology with the reality of big business, with big business losing out.

so you think communism is as inherently anti-Ukranian as Nazism is inherently anti Jewish? funny, i doubt Nazi Germany would have had any Jewish leaders had it survived...

I didn't say they did, did I? But do you think it is any solace to the Ukrainian victims of communism that they were killed because of social class rather than race. Which is false, Ukrainians suffered because of race as well, as did many other races under communism. One of the worst things about communism was how incoherent it was thus their ability to target everyone for anything.

it's not the brutality, it's the burocratic and cold bloded way of determining whose life is unworthy, assembling those people, transporting them through whole europe like cattle and then killing them in industrial complexes.

Jesus, do you think 5 year plans were not bureaucratic and cold blooded? "We know this will cause 5 million to starve, but oh well." Seriously? How do you think all those millions who died in Siberia got there? Sailboat?

You mean the Ukrainians who had a nasty habit of manning concentration camps and gassing jews?

There was a reason for their greeting of the Nazis as liberators. How screwed up does your life have to be for you to welcome Nazis? Your point is anecdotal btw, thus unimportant, but not unexpected.

Also the fact that it took the Nazis about 4 years to achieve what had taken the USSR over twenty

You underestimate the ability of communism to starve and murder from 1917-1945. Stalin would smack you for that gross underestimate of his effectiveness.

But then communism didn't stop in 1945, did it?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Do you honestly believe that Guevara/Cuba would have launched the missiles? They weren't even under their control. Look at the paper this is in, "Daily Worker", nothing but propaganda. Of course he's going to say he was going to use the missiles, otherwise he would seem weak and lose face. As I've already stated, what one says and what one does are seperate issues....

I think what the quote is referring to is that the Soviet commanders in Cuba were authorized to use their missiles in the event of an invasion of Cuba, even during the 1963 Crisis.

Winner, I rarely do this but I'm just not going to bother anymore. you have an incredibly narrow minded view of the world and such a warping bias that there just isnt any point in further discussion. someone else will no doubt keep this going with you, I just cant be arsed. I find it mind-boggling that you are studying political science, than again god only knows how decent the course is, or how good you are at it. you have less of an understanding of the world than almost anyone on the board... as the last few weeks in particular have shown. FWIW, I admit this shows a lack of patience on my part.

I am also rapidly losing my patience with such simplemindeness.

vietnam????????????????????????????????????? Are you serious?????????????

Indeed. It was Vietnam who went to the Soviet Union for help, not the other way around. Of course, this was only after the United States flatly denied them aid.

Stalanism is Communism in reality.

I tire of saying this, but I'll say it once more. There has never been a Communist state. Communism takes a very long time to reach, during that transition time it is Socialist. Further, there cannot be a communist state, since communism is 1) not a form of government, and 2) most theorists agree that no government would exist in a communist society.

However, I'll play along here.

What then, was the Soviet Union from 1918 to 1924, and from 1955 to 1989? Pray, tell. Because it sure as hell wasn't Stalinism.

What, did you think everyone was going to be rich? What has every experiment in communism produced?

We will never know, primarily because the Soviets had 60 years to sanatize Siberia.

What does that even mean?

Of course some Ukranians would probably like to weigh in on your opinion of the level of brutality communsim used.

Yes, and maybe the Nicaraguans would like to hear about the wonders Capitalism has worked on their country. Or maybe South Vietnam? Yes, I've heard it highly spoken of.

I am inclined to agree with you that Nazism was accutely more brutal, communism cronically more brutal.

Well that's what happens when you try to impose an economic system on an agrarian people which can only be implemented in a heavily industrialized one. Square peg, round hole.

Why is Ukranian pain and lives less important than Jewish pain and lives?

Why are American lives more important than Nicaraguan or Vietnamese lives?

 

[Stapel]

This discussion reminds of a discussion I had during my honeymoon with a black American guy. I told him that among some Dutch motorbike riders, the Confederate War Flag is popular as a rebel symbol. To him, it was the symbol of slavery and racism. So I asked him: What does it mean to an Amsterdam motor biker? Just the rebel aspect, not the racist aspect, right?

Maybe a paralel can be drawn with a Che Guevara shirt? Who frickin' cares about about his goals. He was a rebel. And thus a hero.
Nazi symbols are just very very hard to be interpreted as a rebel symbol. They simply are the symbols of death and nothing else.


However, this still leaves open a question for me:
Why are Russians not ashamed of their recent past, whereas Germans are ashamed of their less recent past?

 

[nonconformist]

There was a reason for their greating of the Nazis as liberators. How screwed up does your life have to be for you to welcome Nazis? Your point is anecdotal btw, thus unimportant, but not unexpected.

It's not really anecdotal, the Ukrainians were more than happy to volunteer to man KZ.

But then communsim didn't stop in 1945, did it?

No, true, Russian Stalinism ended in 1953, but carried on until Moscow removed Walter Ulbricht from his post in Europe.

 

[holy king]

Jesus, do you think 5 year plans were not beaurocratic and cold blooded. "We know this will cause 5 million to starve, but oh well." Seriously? How do you think all those millions who died in Siberia got there? Sailboat?

now you equate five year plans with the holocaust?
you sir, are a nazi apologist.
and not even out of conviction, but because you want to equate communism with nazism....

to paraphrase ecofarm: you are a nazi apologist, equatist and holocaust downplayer.

 

[holy king]

However, this still leaves open a question for me:
Why are Russians not ashamed of their recent past, whereas Germans are ashamed of their less recent past?

there were these things called holocaust and world war 2.