1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'World History' started by christos200, Jul 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    13,377
    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...
     
  2. Agent327

    Agent327 Observer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,102
    Location:
    In orbit
    I'm sure that explains the famine and need to import grain from the Capitalist Satan USA.

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

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,759
    Location:
    Scotland
    "Capitalist" doesn't mean "hyper-efficient". It just means "capitalist".

    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.
     
  4. Agent327

    Agent327 Observer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,102
    Location:
    In orbit
    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.

    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.
     
  5. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,759
    Location:
    Scotland
    "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.
     
  6. Ajidica

    Ajidica High Quality Person

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    21,064
    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.
     
  7. Agent327

    Agent327 Observer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,102
    Location:
    In orbit
    And of course no one could have predicted that 'collectively owned farms' simply don't provide an incentive to those darn Capitalist farmers.

    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.

    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.
     
  8. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,759
    Location:
    Scotland
    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.
     
  9. Agent327

    Agent327 Observer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,102
    Location:
    In orbit
    Right. Right. (I'm not in the business of contradictng people, by the way. Just pointing out illogicalities.)
     
  10. Vahnstad

    Vahnstad King

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2014
    Messages:
    912
    Location:
    Low countries
    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.
     
  11. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    51,365
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    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.
     
    Imaus, Kyriakos and Traitorfish like this.
  12. gay_Aleks

    gay_Aleks communism will win.

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    10,825
    Location:
    Nightvale, US
    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.
     
  13. JohannaK

    JohannaK Heroically Clueless

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Messages:
    15,632
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Heart of Etheria
    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.
     
  14. red_elk

    red_elk Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    13,930
    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.
     
  15. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    36,461
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Moderator Action: This thread should really stay in its grave. Thank you for your understanding.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page