Incentives under communism?

[EgonSpengler]

Nazism and any communism based on Marxism are equally evil, and far less different than many people realize.

Both designate certain population as enemies, elevate another, encourage and empower it to commit violence against designated population, establish a top-down, authoritative government structure that takes total control of the media and public discourse and use the "enemies domestic and abroad" excuse to tighten the grip and persecute the selected population, and so on...

They're both fascist ideologies, just with different ideological patina used as excuse.

What you're describing is authoritarianism, of which Fascism and Stalinism are just two variations. Everything you describe there also fits certain elements within the United States in 2023, either in what they've done or what they'd like to do.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, we clearly have communists and fascists lurking behind the outhouse*. Always have had, really. Right?

*wanted to use woodpile, but that has underground railroad connotations that are likely to get butchered

 

[gay_Aleks]

Yes, but the U.S is doing it against the right people, so it's fine. What Hitler (and especially Stalin) did wrong was pointing them at the wrong people. Tragic. Very sad.

Several posters on this forum have gone on to say they would invade Mexico to stop the "cartels" from joining up with the "jihadis". I would say that's basically the product of a deranged fascistic propaganda view but maybe I'm just an equally deranged ideologue. Who's to say, really!

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

People objectively stating that Pol Pot was just as bad as Hitler have nothing to do whatsoever with Nazism and everything to do with objective facts.

Communism failed. That's true. To state that is just to state objective facts, and to downplay this as being part some of "fascist plot" or "Hitlerite sympathy" is typical Commie scare-mongering.

Commie scare-mongering involves seeing "fascists" everywhere, including under your own bed. Objective analysis of history tells us the facts about the size of Commie genocide.

Marxist doctrine in its critical aspects isn't useless or bad, but we gotta wake up to the fact that it has failed to provide the conditions for anything beyond totalitarianism and dictatorship which are almost comparable to nazis in scope and dimension of its atrocities and repression. And even with the attempt, by apologists, to whitewash anything - there's no difference so far in these apologists that provide a blanket pass to people like Pol Pot with those who deny the Holocaust to say that Hitleer "wasn't that bad".

 

[gay_Aleks]

The only thing that scares me is the sheer dishonesty going on here; for an example, I think it's a good thing Stalin pummelled Nazi Germany into the ground and the only mistake in that specific regard was stopping at the Elbe. Unfortunately, the interlocutors here tend to hide under absurd equivocations about Pol Pot and whatnot, when they could say something more reasonable, such as, "I think it was a good thing that Nazi Germany stopped the red tide at the Elbe", which would be more truthful to their views and it would set the stage for a far more honest discussion. Is it not true that it's easier to communicate when you say what's on your mind?

 

[Gorbles]

Allow me to shield my eyes from all this lofty brilliance.

I think the one thing we can agree on is the brilliance faded some time back. Everyone's just seeing how long the ride is.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh no, it is pretty brilliant. Hurts to look at.

 

[Senethro]

I just think its cheating to say that all the genocides that happened under capitalism were not the fault of capitalism.

But if there is a right way to do capitalism, and a wrong way, and the good capitalists are not responsible or equivalent to the bad capitalists, then why is this principle not generalizable?

 

[Sarin]

So, are you saying that the Jewish people are equal to the bourgeoisie? Am I getting that right? Hitler's genocidal campaigns against the Jewish, Slavic and Roma people are the same as dispossessing people who have taken unjustly property away from others, which has been made with someone else's labour? Are we on the same page? I've got my notepad out, and all. Cheers for the first honest person in this thread.

Thank you for showing your true bloody colours.

Funny thing this. One of frequent arguments in this thread is that socialism would allow more people realize their potential if they weren't wage slaves. And here you are. Millions of small landowners or business owners, people who realized their potential and built themselves better life than wage slavery, had their property taken, often sent to labour camps, murdered, denied access to vital services or simply starved to death. Even their descendants were denied access to education, services and employment opportunities. Just like the victims of Holocaust, they did nothing wrong. And suffered the same fate.

 

[Farm Boy]

Senethro, I think Cuba tends to get credit where it's done well? But it's not like a lot of people like to harp on the point that the German troops that shoved British conscripts out of France were significantly better fed and healthy(a product of years of child policy). If they do, they point to it as a failure of the British, not a triumph of Germany during economic turmoil.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

The only thing that scares me is the sheer dishonesty going on here; for an example, I think it's a good thing Stalin pummelled Nazi Germany into the ground and the only mistake in that specific regard was stopping at the Elbe. Unfortunately, the interlocutors here tend to hide under absurd equivocations about Pol Pot and whatnot, when they could say something more reasonable, such as, "I think it was a good thing that Nazi Germany stopped the red tide at the Elbe", which would be more truthful to their views and it would set the stage for a far more honest discussion. Is it not true that it's easier to communicate when you say what's on your mind?

That's just a ridiculous, doctrinnaire, ideologue way of seeing things.

Communism affords people no political or individual freedom whatsoever.

If you're not just yet another Communist under Communism, you're a madman and the secret police reins you in. Expression of other political ideologies is forbidden. If you try having some freedom of movement, the secret police will ask you if you're not attempting to desert. Your telephone calls are monitored all the day.

You have no religious freedom. There is no party but the "Party", and Lenin himself stated this principle and said that toleraring other voices under Communism would be "madness". There is the "Party", under the strict control of it's top oligarchy, and that's all.

Communism is a totalitarian nightmare. There's little difference between these totalitarian aspects, and those of Nazy Germany which imposed similar principles.

 

[Akka]

Thankfully, moral rules and guidelines have nothing to do with ideals or politics. It must be hard to be this mendaciously stupid.

I agree, it must be hard to be that stupid...

And a forum dedicated to a 4X game turning into a hub for moronic sieg-heilers, to bring the metaphor alllllll the way back home.

... but you seem intent to show that "being hard" is certainly not preventing you to keep going at it.

My dude, he literally said "the Nazis aren't as bad". This, by definition, means "Communism is worse".

Let's go for a bit of actual fact check :

Direct question then. Gorbles was good enough to answer the same.

Would you live under Pol Pots regime or Hitlers pick 1?

This is not a ringing endorsement of Nazism more a point of how bad do you have to be to make Hitler look like the sane option.

It's you lot who keep saying Hitlers regime is the worst. I'm not claiming it's good but the worst regime of the 20th century essentially made people work the fields and killed 1/3rd the population doing it.

Not what I said. I have a degree Pol Pots regime liked murdering people with degrees.

Personally I'm safer under Hitlers regime and I'm safer under Brezhnev than Hitler.

Stalin vs Hitlers regimes I woukd gave to think about. Hitlers regime only wins vs Mao and Pol Pot or similar regimes.
Also specifically said I would pick communist regimes over Hitlers. East Germany, USSR 56 onwards, Czechoslovakia etc.

Seems that he's actually saying specifically and repeatedly that only a select few regimes are worse than the nazi ones, and that most communist regimes were better, so actually not what you claim my dude.

Given that this is all you can ever say, forgive me for not taking it seriously.

Maybe that's because that's all you ever do.

---

Nazism and any communism based on Marxism are equally evil, and far less different than many people realize.

Both designate certain population as enemies, elevate another, encourage and empower it to commit violence against designated population, establish a top-down, authoritative government structure that takes total control of the media and public discourse and use the "enemies domestic and abroad" excuse to tighten the grip and persecute the selected population, and so on...

They're both fascist ideologies, just with different ideological patina used as excuse.

I would add some nuance on some points.
Nazism and the versions we saw of Communism both are authoritarian tyrannies that round up and murder people on political ground. Nazism has the extra nastiness of killing people for what they are on top of what they think.
Also, this violence is inherent to the ideology of nazism (with its emphasis on the "might makes right" and hate of others being a central tenet), while the ideals of communism are commendable even if the practical applications go straigth to Hell, and a number of communist regimes, while hardly good, were on the "somewhat tame" scale of authoritarianism (like Tito).

That being said, the worst communist regimes (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...) were horrible enough that they are at least on the "comparable" scale with nazism.

 

[Snowygerry]

Senethro, I think Cuba tends to get credit where it's done well? But it's not like a lot of people like to harp on the point that the German troops that shoved British conscripts out of France were significantly better fed and healthy. If they do, they point to it as a failure of the British, not a triumph of Germany during economic turmoil.

They were stiff on amfetamine, Pervitine iirc. allowed them to march for days on end, and fight without fear,

never heard they were significantly better fed than the Brits in 1940.

 

[Senethro]

That's just a ridiculous, doctrinnaire, ideologue way of seeing things.

Communism affords people no political or individual freedom whatsoever.

If you're not just yet another Communist under Communism, you're a madman and the secret police reins you in. Expression of other political ideologies is forbidden. If you try having some freedom of movement, the secret police will ask you if you're not attempting to desert. Your telephone calls are monitored all the day.

You have no religious freedom. There is no party but the "Party", and Lenin himself stated this principle and said that toleraring other voices under Communism would be "madness". There is the "Party", under the strict control of it's top oligarchy, and that's all.

Communism is a totalitarian nightmare. There's little difference between these totalitarian aspects, and those of Nazy Germany which imposed similar principles.

When you believe things like this, you can believe that Pinochet saved Chile.

Oh, pardon me, I just got an alert that a Low Nuance System is passing overhead....

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

When you believe things like this, you can believe that Pinochet saved Chile.

Oh, pardon me, I just got an alert that a Low Nuance System is passing overhead....

That's objective facts. I've had an entire family that lived under Communism, besides any serious study of Communism knows this. Including Lenin's own writings.

In the worst days of the Iron Curtain, this describes like 99% of commie regimes including Stalinist USSR. Just not being a Communist openly also meant you're quickly left to become a social pariah.

 

[Senethro]

I agree, it must be hard to be that stupid...

... but you seem intent to show that "being hard" is certainly not preventing you to keep going at it.

Let's go for a bit of actual fact check :




Seems that he's actually saying specifically and repeatedly that only a select few regimes are worse than the nazi ones, and that most communist regimes were better, so actually not what you claim.

Maybe that's because that's all you ever do.

---


I would add some nuance on some points.
Nazism and the versions we saw of Communism both are authoritarian tyrannies that round up and murder people on political ground. Nazism has the extra nastiness of killing people for what they are on top of what they think.
Also, this violence is inherent to the ideology of nazism, while the ideals of communism are commendable even if the practical applications go straigth to Hell, and a number of communist regimes, while hardly good, were on the "somewhat tame" scale of authoritarianism (like Tito).

That being said, the worst communist regimes (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...) were horrible enough that they are at least on the "comparable" scale with nazism.

Tyranny is when you do it at home. Colonialism is when you do it abroad.

 

[Sarin]

Nazism has the extra nastiness of killing people for what they are on top of what they think.
Also, this violence is inherent to the ideology of nazism, while the ideals of communism are commendable even if the practical applications go straigth to Hell, and a number of communist regimes, while hardly good, were on the "somewhat tame" scale of authoritarianism (like Tito).

That being said, the worst communist regimes (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...) were horrible enough that they are at least on the "comparable" scale with nazism.

People were killed for what they were under communism too. See my previous post. At times, even being descendant of a small business owner or landowner was a stigma that could get you killed.

Edit: and don't forget that just being gay could get you killed too. Or deemed to be "intellectual".

 

[Senethro]

That's objective facts. I've had an entire family that lived under Communism, besides any serious study of Communism knows this. Including Lenin's own writings.

In the worst days of the Iron Curtain, this describes like 99% of commie regimes including Stalinist USSR. Just not being a Communist openly also meant you're quickly left to become a social pariah.

If it is an objective fact, then surely all otherwise inexcusable actions are good and necessary in the prevention of Communism. Careful what you want to own.

 

[Gorbles]

Seems that he's actually saying specifically and repeatedly that only a select few regimes are worse than the nazi ones, and that most communist regimes were better, so actually not what you claim.

Oh right, so he's just saying Stalinism is worse. I mean, that's kinda what I mean why I say Communism-with-a-capital-C, vs. communism as in the theory / ideal that started this thread. But unfortunately people are so insistent about simultaneously going to the worst regimes associated with (any form of) communism while at the same time going on about how capitalism is a-okay. The mind, it boggles.

Like I repeatedly said at the time, that's a nonsense contest, that (as other posters have mentioned) also opens the door to Holocaust revisionism. Do I think Zardnaar is intentionally being revisionist? No. Do I think it's an asinine gotcha rooted in a complete lack of understanding of the dangers of Nazi Germany? Yes.

I fully believe Zard thinks he'll be safer in Nazi Germany than other, specific named regimes. I don't think he's quite thought through why. Narz attempted to explain this with some reference to the Milgram experiment, but as I quickly found out, its usage r.e. the Holocaust is disputed.

Maybe that's because that's all you ever do.

In your eyes, sure. I get that. What I don't get is why you have to think you need to try and "own" me, mainly because you're so painfully bad at it.

It's not like I seek you out, except in the limited cases where I feel the targeting is a bit too on the nose to ignore. Like when you link a thread about me (and another poster you've heroically positioned yourself against) in this thread, arguing, as "evidence" of some kind of group hypocrisy about autocratic regimes. A swing and a miss, yeah? Not exactly a slam dunk in terms of evidence, which is probably why you've been going around in circles throwing my own words back at me (regardless of how irrelevant they are) ever since.

It couldn't be more obvious that you're targeting posters and not arguments, because lookee here:

Nazism has the extra nastiness of killing people for what they are on top of what they think.

So in your "nuance" Nazism is extra-bad, but you've just spent posts railing at my hypothetical hypocrisy for calling Zard out for calling Stalinism / Communism worse.

But you didn't feel the need to apply nuance to his claims? Figures

 

[Yeekim]

Jewish people are equal to the bourgeoisie? Am I getting that right? Hitler's genocidal campaigns against the Jewish, Slavic and Roma people are the same as dispossessing people who have taken unjustly property away from others, which has been made with someone else's labour?

That's what the Nazis said about the Jews...