Communism/Nazism

[Patroklos]

Err... Nazism might not have been libertarian, but it certainly had and relied on the support of big business. How did the Nazis force big business to do their bidding? They made a deal. It couldn't have been anything else.

By deal you mean completely handing over all autonomy, decison making authority, property, and management selection to the state and party? Sounds a lot like the "deal" buisness made with the Soviets.

Again again, if bit buisness is doing the states bidding and not the other way around, it is not big buisness friendly.

Also, will you people please stop pretending Spain and Portugal wern't fascist, thanks.

 

[aelf]

Oh, and somehow big business just gave up and handed over everything? Has it not occurred to you that the state's bidding might just have sat well with big business?

 

[holy king]

Also, will you people please stop pretending Spain and Portugal wern't fascist, thanks.

i missed the part about spain and portugal?

 

[nonconformist]

So why did industrialists like Fritz Thyssen fund and sponsor the Nazis?

 

[Princeps]

By deal you mean completely handing over all autonomy, decison making authority, property, and management selection to the state and party? Sounds a lot like the "deal" buisness made with the Soviets.

But this isn't what they did. The business and the regime made many back room deals with the "tit for tat" attidute.

 

[Patroklos]

Oh, and somehow big business just gave up and handed over everything?

Perhaps you missed how "coersive" Nazis can be. Also, never underestimate the ability of individuals to sell their buisness down the road for personal gain. What is good for the buisness elite is not alwasy good for buisness, I realize in the world of Che Guevra shirts this distiction is lost and the buisness elite manipulate markets and factories with their minds.

Has it not occurred to you that the state's bidding might just have sat well with big business?

It has, but as reality shows it simply wasn't the case. Hess is proof enough of this.

What exactly do you think the management of Toyota would say if we forced them to only trade in Japan, to not use mass production, fire half of their labor without reducing orders, to hire 100 subsidiares to build parts of each product they make, de facto appointed their board of directors, took every one of their design contracts and gave an identical one to their greatest competitor, etc. Would that be considered big buisness friendly? If I paied the CEO a hefty bonus at the same time would that magically make it business friendly?

i missed the part about spain and portugal?

There are many here pretending Germany is the only example of fascism, but are happy to shop around the world to use the most benign (still utterly disasterous) example of communsim to excuse Russia or China.

but this isn't what they did. The business and the regime made many back room deals with the "tit for tat" attidute.

With the result being disasterous for big buisness, good for a few individuals. They are not the same.

 

[Winner]

Every thread you post in, and where you're essentially on your own (see; all threads baout the European sham treaty), you basically resort to "shut up, you're an idiot, I'm smarter than you"

And in every such thread, I am not the one who starts with it. Actually, the last thread about the Lisbon treaty with the dozens of your posts offending me personally only proves that.

You're an absolute hypocrite now

Let me ask you one question:
How can you be wrong about the ideology you invented?

Are you serious?

Marx predicted that communism, based on his "teachings", will start in developed countries. He was totally wrong about that, because it turned out that the capitalist countries gradually adopted social policies which made the revolution he dreamt about impossible. Instead, the system he envisioned took root in Russia.

Czechoslovakia was Soviet invaded, and a Soviet puppet. Prague Spring shows that.

Can you read? Again for the dumb ones:

1) Czechoslovakia elected the commies (no Soviet invasion)
2) Commies took power in 1948
3) Commies ruled Czechoslovakia and screwed everything they could
4) In 1968, the regime started to liberalize
5) THEN the communist invaded.

You see - Soviets invaded only when Communism in Czechoslovakia was about to collapse. Your argument is wrong.

I defend the post-Stalinist Soviet way of life, which has been demonised beyond existance by the right wing media.
Are millions of Russians brainwashed? Or are they seriously yearning for a better era?

They are brainwashed.

The nostalgia exists in every post-communist country, because despite the cruelty, post-totalitarian communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe offered a simple life. No rush, no worries, a blissful ignorance. Unless you were a dissident, your life was dull, but relatively easy.

Some people, especially those who lived their whole life in this absurdity, simply can't get along with the new dynamic democracy.

In Russia, this sentiment is also aggravated by the fact that Russia went through a period of chaos and oligarchic rule, which in their eyes discredited the liberal democracy.

 

[aelf]

Perhaps you missed how "coersive" Nazis can be. Also, never underestimate the ability of individuals to sell their buisness down the road for personal gain. What is good for the buisness elite is not alwasy good for buisness, I realize in the world of Che Guevra shirts this distiction is lost and the buisness elite manipulate markets and factories with their minds.

I think you missed the best part of capitalism: a business is owned by the capitalist. Guess who owns big business? Like I said, Nazism was not libertarian.

 

[nonconformist]

Marx predicted that communism, based on his "teachings", will start in developed countries. He was totally wrong about that, because it turned out that the capitalist countries gradually adopted social policies which made the revolution he dreamt about impossible. Instead, the system he envisioned took root in Russia.

Russia was still a feudal system when its revolutions (all three of them) took place. None of the basic criteria for a peoples' revolution took place, and no countries went through the Marxist
Capitaslist--->Socialist--->Communist transition, nor was a Dictatorship of the Prolatariat ever set up.

Without these essential Marxist benchmarks, how can you call a country "communist" seeing as Marx effectively defined communism?
You're calling a cow a "dog" because it has four legs and a tail.

Can you read? Again for the dumb ones:

1) Czechoslovakia elected the commies (no Soviet invasion)
2) Commies took power in 1948
3) Commies ruled Czechoslovakia and screwed everything they could
4) In 1968, the regime started to liberalize
5) THEN the communist invaded.

You see - Soviets invaded only when Communism in Czechoslovakia was about to collapse. Your argument is wrong.

So, what's the point? I'm sorry, i really can't see the argument.

They are brainwashed.

The nostalgia exists in every post-communist country, because despite the cruelty, post-totalitarian communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe offered a simple life. No rush, no worries, a blissful ignorance. Unless you were a dissident, your life was dull, but relatively easy.

Some people, especially those who lived their whole life in this absurdity, simply can't get along with the new dynamic democracy.

In Russia, this sentiment is also aggravated by the fact that Russia went through a period of chaos and oligarchic rule, which in their eyes discredited the liberal democracy.

"Ostalgie" is a phenomenon that isn't only limioted to Russia, it's present in the old DDR, and elsewhere.
It's not brainwashing, it's the fact that these people truly had something to believe in, that a better world was possible, that they were part of something.
It was one part nationalism, one part pride, one part being on the same level as the other poor sods around.
Why do you think Putin and his lot are so popular?
They give back to the Russians the right to be proud as a people, to know they are all Russians, that they can once again march in Red Square once a year and sing their national anthem under the hammer and sickle, the pride of knowing they are not a western capitalist lapdog, but a national people who can be a vague mirror image of their old glory.

 

[Patroklos]

I think you missed the best part of capitalism: a business is owned by the capitalist. Guess who owns big business? Like I said, Nazism was not libertarian.

Usually capitalists, actually. And when owned by capitalists, the gross amount of profit is just as important as the profit margin (which is why pretending restricting German buisness to Germany was good is stupid). Even in capitalism, the capitalist is not the business, he is just an investor. He is totally capable of screwing others, and indeed himself, by acting in ways that are not good for the buisness but himself personally (and in the process screw both). Enron ring a bell?

It was one part nationalism, one part pride, one part being on the same level as the other poor sods around.

I am glad you can admit they were all poor sods.

 

[Winner]

I think you missed the best part of capitalism: a business is owned by the capitalist. Guess who owns big business? Like I said, Nazism was not libertarian.

You should listen to what he says:

Very simply said:

Big business helped Hitler and his party in the beginning, because it was more scared of the Communists and believed that Hitler is the better alternative. Once Hitler took power, the Nazis gradually took control of all major companies and subjugated them. The state controlled the business, not the other way round. Nazi economy was not capitalist. In fact, the Nazi regime was more similar to the Soviet system of state-controlled everything.

 

[Winner]

Russia was still a feudal system when its revolutions (all three of them) took place. None of the basic criteria for a peoples' revolution took place, and no countries went through the Marxist
Capitaslist--->Socialist--->Communist transition, nor was a Dictatorship of the Prolatariat ever set up.

Without these essential Marxist benchmarks, how can you call a country "communist" seeing as Marx effectively defined communism?
You're calling a cow a "dog" because it has four legs and a tail.

Again, it does not matter how the regime is created, what matters is how it works. Soviets put the communist theories into practice, with disasterous results.

So, what's the point? I'm sorry, i really can't see the argument.

"Ostalgie" is a phenomenon that isn't only limioted to Russia, it's present in the old DDR, and elsewhere.
It's not brainwashing, it's the fact that these people truly had something to believe in, that a better world was possible, that they were part of something.
It was one part nationalism, one part pride, one part being on the same level as the other poor sods around.

That is sooo not true.

People in the communist regimes did not believe in communism. Those who are nostalgic miss not the ideology, but the easy and uncomplicated life they had back then.

Russian are an exception, since they have a long tradition of strong and despotic rulers. Soviet Union was just another form of the Russian Empire, so yeah, they felt a little pride, but that was not related to the ideology, but to the abstract idea of "motherland".

Why do you think Putin and his lot are so popular?
They give back to the Russians the right to be proud as a people, to know they are all Russians, that they can once again march in Red Square once a year and sing their national anthem under the hammer and sickle, the pride of knowing they are not a western capitalist lapdog, but a national people who can be a vague mirror image of their old glory.

Uh, what does it remind me of... Yeah, I got it, that's like Hitler rose to power in Germany. Pride, nationalism, marching under a totalitarian symbol, lot of bullcrap about being proud of your country, not being exploited by the foreign enemies etc.

Same sh*t, different as*hole, as the saying goes...

 

[Rossiya]

Communism did not kill people due to their race, nazism did.

Um, yes.

 

[bhsup]

You should listen to what he says:

Very simply said:

Big business helped Hitler and his party in the beginning, because it was more scared of the Communists and believed that Hitler is the better alternative. Once Hitler took power, the Nazis gradually took control of all major companies and subjugated them. The state controlled the business, not the other way round. Nazi economy was not capitalist. In fact, the Nazi regime was more similar to the Soviet system of state-controlled everything.

The same could be said of the USA to a degree during the war years. Course, we had that socialist FDR in the White House, so what do you expect.

 

[aelf]

Usually capitalists, actually. And when owned by capitalists, the gross amount of profit is just as important as the profit margin (which is why pretending restricting German buisness to Germany was good is stupid). Even in capitalism, the capitalist is not the business, he is just an investor. He is totally capable of screwing others, and indeed himself, by acting in ways that are not good for the buisness but himself personally (and in the process screw both). Enron ring a bell?

What? I think you just jumped through hoops to come up with such a justification. The capitalist is not the business? Does he not want to be? Which capitalist does not dream of owning as much of his business as possible? And how many people run businesses for the sake of it? Do they not seek profit? If there's profit to be made in doing something, it will be done. Heck, by your reasoning, no one would be willing to sell away his business.

And please don't use examples from a different system that has been built and entrenched in ways that make you what you say true. That is a cop-out. You know very well that the conditions in the USA at the time of Enron is not the same as that of Nazi Germany or even that of the USA in the past. People who kill others for money, to use a simpler example, might be screwing themselves in a society ruled strictly by law, but they are not in a lawless society.

 

[Patroklos]

The same could be said of the USA to a degree during the war years. Course, we had that socialist FDR in the White House, so what do you expect.

The screws were certainly tightened in the US, but not to the degree of FDR personally approving every AV design.

 

[REDY]

double post. Damn.

 

[REDY]

Equality? Liberal capitalist democracy offers equal rights and equal opportunities, which is the most you can achieve in the real world. If equality means a state organized theft then it's certainly not justice.

Thats only partly true. You have equal opportunities but not people who should use them. If post-communist Czechoslovak state organised theft from these judges, policemen and politicians who prospered in previous regime Czechoslovakia its form of justice. Now they have great pensions and their opportunites are much wider than for people who opposed regime. Same should be said about people who prospered in regimes before. I dont disagree with you but you hadnt arguments againist equality as form of justice but mainly you have shown that some methods how reach it are wrong.

National Socialism is one form of fascism. Italian fascism was much milder than the German type, but still fascism is being equated to nazism. When we talk about communism, people always forget that the crushing majority of the communist regimes in history were of the Stalinist/Leninist type - brutal, murderous, totalitarian hellholes.

So, it makes perfect sense to say that the average form of Communism is Stalinism, which is perfectly comparable to the worst form of fascism (nazism).

You have some logics here. But when ideas and practices of state are clearly different from founders it shows that communism should be different from stalinist practices. In nazism you have not choice, take Hitler ideas or make new theory. Fascism is something between it, its derived from Mussolini but how is term used, it shows that it should have quite different forms. So took leninism or stalinism or maoism as aim of critics by history, but communism should be aim of critic only theoretically.

 

[Patroklos]

What? I think you just jumped through hoops to come up with such a justification. The capitalist is not the business? Does he not want to be? Which capitalist does not dream of owning as much of his business as possible? And how many people run businesses for the sake of it? Do they not seek profit? If there's profit to be made in doing something, it will be done. Heck, by your reasoning, no one would be willing to sell away his business.

Please tell me who is the computer industry. Please tell me who is the car industry.

People are not buisness, buisness is an entity created by people to achieve an end. It is totally possible for individuals to exploit that entity for short term gains personally which lead to disasterous results for the firm itself. In case you didn't notice, we rate buisnesses by stock value, not by CEO salary.

And please don't use examples from a different system that has been built and entrenched in ways that make you what you say true. That is a cop-out. You know very well that the conditions in the USA at the time of Enron is not the same as that of Nazi Germany or even that of the USA in the past. People who kill others for money, to use a simpler example, might be screwing themselves in a society ruled strictly by law, but they are not in a lawless society.

Good buisness practices don't change depending what ideology you have, they are good buisness practices regardless. Stop thinking like a Nazi

 

[aelf]

You should listen to what he says:

Very simply said:

Big business helped Hitler and his party in the beginning, because it was more scared of the Communists and believed that Hitler is the better alternative. Once Hitler took power, the Nazis gradually took control of all major companies and subjugated them. The state controlled the business, not the other way round. Nazi economy was not capitalist. In fact, the Nazi regime was more similar to the Soviet system of state-controlled everything.

You think the Nazis didn't need the support of big business? You think it's a simple matter of pointing a gun at it and asking it to do their bidding? Early on, without the support of capitalists, the Nazis could easily have been crushed like bugs. Later on, the two continued to coexist and depend on each other. What the Nazis did was ruin the competition, create cartels consisting of the bigger players where none of them could compete with each other (that's how oligopolies work, yes?) and, thus, entrench big business in the system. In return, big business produced whatever the Nazis needed.

The Nazis might have had the upper hand once they had completely taken over the country and held all the power. But don't think for a second that they could do to big business in Germany what Communism did to its less impressive counterpart in Russia and China. They couldn't afford to risk a crisis when they depended on what big business produced for their war effort, now could they?