Will Hitler be seen in a more positive way in the far future?

[innonimatu]

Yes, it was a move towards adopting capitalist methods and some of its social structures. And many people noticed that the managed punlic corporation of the USA had striking similarities with the state-owned enterprise of the USSR: power was exercised by managers who justified themselves with technocracy. Still, there were also notable differences: politics interfered with and ultimately overthrew the technocracy in the USSR; stockholders first challenged and then co-opted them in the USA. Wealth and ownership did made a difference in the evolution of things. Though a cynic may take a look at the post-USSR oligarchs and say it was all for naught...

 

[Agent327]

Consolidation and rationalisation of production, conversion of peasants into wage-workers, conversion of agriculture from surplus-production to commodity-production. Perhaps Stalinist collectivisation wouldn't be a capitalist project in, say, France, but in the context of early twentieth century Russian, collectivisation was absolutely a form of capitalist modernisation.

I'm sure that explains the famine and need to import grain from the Capitalist Satan USA.

Yes, it was a move towards adopting capitalist methods and some of its social structures. And many people noticed that the managed punlic corporation of the USA had striking similarities with the state-owned enterprise of the USSR: power was exercised by managers who justified themselves with technocracy.

No offense, but Capitalist farming isn't performed by 'managers'. These people are still called farmers, no matter how big the farms may be.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm sure that explains the famine and need to import grain from the Capitalist Satan USA.

"Capitalist" doesn't mean "hyper-efficient". It just means "capitalist".

Yes, it was a move towards adopting capitalist methods and some of its social structures. And many people noticed that the managed punlic corporation of the USA had striking similarities with the state-owned enterprise of the USSR: power was exercised by managers who justified themselves with technocracy. Still, there were also notable differences: politics interfered with and ultimately overthrew the technocracy in the USSR; stockholders first challenged and then co-opted them in the USA. Wealth and ownership did made a difference in the evolution of things. Though a cynic may take a look at the post-USSR oligarchs and say it was all for naught...

That is true, denying that there was no tangible difference between the Soviet and Western capitalist systems is mistaken. What's important is to stress that the differences that existed don't line up very neatly with the popular imagination.

 

[Agent327]

"Capitalist" doesn't mean "hyper-efficient". It just means "capitalist".

Good one. (In the sense of: lol). I thought your argument was about rationalizing agriculture. You may not have noticed that in the Capitalist world farms aren't collectiviized. Yet they produce so efficient we have a huge food surplus, part of which even is being destroyed.

That is true, denying that there was no tangible difference between the Soviet and Western capitalist systems is mistaken. What's important is to stress that the differences that existed don't line up very neatly with the popular imagination.

Quite. In the Capitalist world workers actually have unions and rights that aren't just written on a piece of paper called the constitution. If you want to see Capitalist production methods check China.

 

[Traitorfish]

Good one. (In the sense of: lol). I thought your argument was about rationalizing agriculture. You may not have noticed that in the Capitalist world farms aren't collectiviized. Yet they produce so efficient we have a huge food surplus, part of which even is being destroyed.

"Rational" does not mean "efficient", either. In an ideal world, I suppose it would, but we don't live in an ideal world. "Rational", in capitalism, means the exertion of control by capital over production, of which the transformation of traditional peasant agriculture into centrally-managed collective agriculture evidently is.

Perhaps it turns out that capitalism isn't actually very good at agriculture. You won't hear me disagreeing. But that has no bearing on whether Stalinist agriculture reforms were or weren't capitalist in nature, only whether they were an effective way to increase food production, and I'd say that the persistence of the reforms through the Famine suggests that was never their whole or entire point.

 

[Ajidica]

But that has no bearing on whether Stalinist agriculture reforms were or weren't capitalist in nature, only whether they were an effective way to increase food production, and I'd say that the persistence of the reforms through the Famine suggests that was never their whole or entire point.

It is also worth pointing out that earlier experimentations done with collectivization around Moscow had yielded good results. Agricultural output increased while requiring less investment than individual peasant farms. Based on the information available to Soviet leadership at the time, collectivization was the way forward for agriculture.

 

[Agent327]

And of course no one could have predicted that 'collectively owned farms' simply don't provide an incentive to those darn Capitalist farmers.

"Rational" does not mean "efficient", either. In an ideal world, I suppose it would, but we don't live in an ideal world. "Rational", in capitalism, means the exertion of control by capital over production, of which the transformation of traditional peasant agriculture into centrally-managed collective agriculture evidently is.

Actually, rational has nothing to do with it. It is a given fact that people with money owned capital. I don't know where you get this idea of "centrally-managed collective agriculture" being a thing in Capitalism. It was a thing under Soviet Communism and it failed big time.

Perhaps it turns out that capitalism isn't actually very good at agriculture. You won't hear me disagreeing. But that has no bearing on whether Stalinist agriculture reforms were or weren't capitalist in nature, only whether they were an effective way to increase food production, and I'd say that the persistence of the reforms through the Famine suggests that was never their whole or entire point.

Yes, perhaps in some utopian future Capitalism won't be good at farming. One can always hope. (?) Your argument seems to go around in a circle: first rational production is Capitalist, then - possibly - it is not.

 

[Traitorfish]

Actually, rational has nothing to do with it. It is a given fact that people with money owned capital. I don't know where you get this idea of "centrally-managed collective agriculture" being a thing in Capitalism. It was a thing under Soviet Communism and it failed big time.

You aren't actually contradicting me, here. You're just announcing that you're not convinced. Which is fine, you don't have to be, I'm just offering a perspective. But you aren't actually contradicting me.

 

[Agent327]

Right. Right. (I'm not in the business of contradictng people, by the way. Just pointing out illogicalities.)

 

[Vahnstad]

Without the Holocaust, he would have been seen as a hero.
Not to mention that all other nations commited a lot of (war) crimes (we don't know off), like usa ignoring aids, gay and civil rights, healthcare and supporting pinochet or saoedi-arabia or inventing wars, deliberately creating instability, and creating the taliban, khomeini or even is (by sykes picot, iran repression, afghan war and iraq war)
Current world events favour the image of Hitler.

 

[warpus]

Without the Holocaust, he would have been seen as a hero.

Without the holocaust he would have still lost the war, been responsible for the destruction of half of the continent and a plethora of other crimes against humanity.

The winners write history, and as long as the allies win the war, Hitler is a bad guy.

 

[gay_Aleks]

This implies it's possible to separate Hitler from Nazism; which it is not. The Holocaust would've happened because anti-Semetism is an integral part to it, one without which the ideology cannot possibly be facilitated.

 

[JohannaK]

I'm sorry, without the Holocaust means he lost the war before the whole Final Solution thing. I don't know how a continental bully who lost the first time he was challenged would ever be seen as a hero, and that's accepting the totally bollocks premise that the Holocaust might have not happened with Hitler.

 

[red_elk]

Special kind of people already see him as a hero, not despite of Holocaust, but rather because of it. Holocaust is the most advertised of his crimes, which makes his image notorious and famous.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: This thread should really stay in its grave. Thank you for your understanding.