technoworld
New Member
Tears for fears
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
|
Post by technoworld on Jul 7, 2018 6:59:47 GMT
why is it popular
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 13, 2018 19:46:48 GMT
Because it is seen as a quick-fix to corruption. After all, its better to be unfairly treated as equal, than to unfairly be treated as inferior. Communism is still the best mechanism for dealing with fascism; as ww2 clearly proved. This is a pretty odd take on the history of WW2. Considering that even Marxist intellectuals(Bettelheim, Goldfield, etc.) are unable to agree on what the USSR was as far as Socialist, Post-Capitalist, State Capitalist, etc., I think its reaching to attribute the victory to Communism. There are four primary theories as to what the USSR was - Socialist, transition to Socialist, Post-Capitalist, State-Capitalist. We can take it a step further and look at equipment losses and lend-lease. You can pretend that the Soviets did not win ww2 if you want. You can also pretend they were not commies, too. But you are then just a victim of Capitalist propaganda, because its fairly widely appreciated that the Soviets were commies, and that they reached Berlin before the lazy Capitalists did. I appreciate that the USA won the Pacific war over the Japs, but Western Europe was a holiday camp compared to the Eastern front where all the real fighting took place in Europe.
|
|
blueroad
New Member
Posts: 35
Likes: 18
Politics: National Socialist
Religion: Hindu
Age: 27
|
Post by blueroad on Jul 13, 2018 19:59:43 GMT
This is a pretty odd take on the history of WW2. Considering that even Marxist intellectuals(Bettelheim, Goldfield, etc.) are unable to agree on what the USSR was as far as Socialist, Post-Capitalist, State Capitalist, etc., I think its reaching to attribute the victory to Communism. There are four primary theories as to what the USSR was - Socialist, transition to Socialist, Post-Capitalist, State-Capitalist. We can take it a step further and look at equipment losses and lend-lease. You can pretend that the Soviets did not win ww2 if you want. You can also pretend they were not commies, too. But you are then just a victim of Capitalist propaganda, because its fairly widely appreciated that the Soviets were commies, and that they reached Berlin before the lazy Capitalists did. I appreciate that the USA won the Pacific war over the Japs, but Western Europe was a holiday camp compared to the Eastern front where all the real fighting took place in Europe. You didn't really address anything I said.
|
|
blueroad
New Member
Posts: 35
Likes: 18
Politics: National Socialist
Religion: Hindu
Age: 27
|
Post by blueroad on Jul 14, 2018 0:13:21 GMT
Also, I'd like to add, I cited Goldfield, and Bettleheim(Both of which are Marxist intellectuals). I also studied Melvin Rothenberg(another Marxist who couldn't agree). If you have any contention with their critiques I'd be willing to discuss that with you, but, writing these views off as "capitalist propaganda" is to dismiss your own intellectuals, and if anything, supports my point..
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,693
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jul 14, 2018 1:26:04 GMT
Because it is seen as a quick-fix to corruption. After all, its better to be unfairly treated as equal, than to unfairly be treated as inferior. Communism is still the best mechanism for dealing with fascism; as ww2 clearly proved. Did the Soviets push back the fascists because they were communists or because they had a big freaking army and a Russian winter? Correlation does not mean causation.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 14, 2018 10:06:24 GMT
You can pretend that the Soviets did not win ww2 if you want. You can also pretend they were not commies, too. But you are then just a victim of Capitalist propaganda, because its fairly widely appreciated that the Soviets were commies, and that they reached Berlin before the lazy Capitalists did. I appreciate that the USA won the Pacific war over the Japs, but Western Europe was a holiday camp compared to the Eastern front where all the real fighting took place in Europe. You didn't really address anything I said. Oh I did. You're just in denial about the role that the commies played in destroying fascism. Is that because you are a neo-fascist, I wonder? To hide behind jargon, does not address the initial question itself. Communism is appealing because: it is better to be unfairly treated as equal, than to be unfairly treated as inferior. We also see how the Nationalists (euphemism for fascists, really) in China were destroyed by the commies, as well as in South Africa, where the fear of commie take-over spurred the Afrikaners to make a deal with African Nationalists, thereby at least diluting the fascism to a limited degree. Yes, in China, communism itself eventually evolved into something else, as it did with the soviets too. I never disagreed with that. But the point is just this: communism is the best way of overcoming fascism. So all those Trumpets out there better realize that they are actually laying the foundation for communist take-over. Whether it be variations on the commie theme, or not is irrelevant. Even the French revolution followed a similar dialectic: When corruption becomes endemic, a gross and crude leveling of the playing field is the only real option.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 14, 2018 10:24:16 GMT
Because it is seen as a quick-fix to corruption. After all, its better to be unfairly treated as equal, than to unfairly be treated as inferior. Communism is still the best mechanism for dealing with fascism; as ww2 clearly proved. Did the Soviets push back the fascists because they were communists or because they had a big freaking army and a Russian winter? Correlation does not mean causation. They were better prepared for that winter because they had a policy of attempting to treat everyone with a sense of equality. Whereas the fascist/Nationalist saw their own infantry as inferior people to be used as cannon-fodder. The commies were able to organize a large army on this principle. Like it or not, communism is actually a crude attempt at sharing the resources of a nation equally. So everyone got nice warm coats, not just the elitist overlords with a false sense of superiority based on their own inner inferiority-complex. Instead, the elites all had several ornate coats each, given the same resources, capitalism wastes large amounts on egotistical luxury at the expense of the underclass. We can see this dynamic typically with the Italians of ww2, where internal competition ensured that being sent to the front was a means of ridding oneself of rivals. One egotistical guy surrounded by a flotilla of girlies whilst a mob are sent to Africa to pillage Ethiopia. Those who put the weakest at the front ensure their own demise, whereas those who volunteer for the front because they themselves are strongest will ensure a stronger nation. That is why conscription is normally a symptom of a nation destroying itself from the inside. Centralist power will always be weaker than genuine equality. So whether that centralist power is commie or capitalist is less important than the extent to which the society has freedom of choice. People will always risk their lives for noble reasons more readily than out of fear; where death is actually a way out of the oppressive society. After all transcendence is key. Communism is actually somewhat transcendental as it offers anyone the opportunity, whereas fascism and racism marks lines of conflict based on arbitrary physical features.
|
|
nogals
New Member
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
|
Post by nogals on Jul 14, 2018 10:49:42 GMT
God>People>Government is the natural order of things. Communism does the opposite
|
|
blueroad
New Member
Posts: 35
Likes: 18
Politics: National Socialist
Religion: Hindu
Age: 27
|
Post by blueroad on Jul 14, 2018 19:55:40 GMT
You didn't really address anything I said. Oh I did. You're just in denial about the role that the commies played in destroying fascism. Is that because you are a neo-fascist, I wonder? To hide behind jargon, does not address the initial question itself. Communism is appealing because: it is better to be unfairly treated as equal, than to be unfairly treated as inferior. We also see how the Nationalists (euphemism for fascists, really) in China were destroyed by the commies, as well as in South Africa, where the fear of commie take-over spurred the Afrikaners to make a deal with African Nationalists, thereby at least diluting the fascism to a limited degree. Yes, in China, communism itself eventually evolved into something else, as it did with the soviets too. I never disagreed with that. But the point is just this: communism is the best way of overcoming fascism. So all those Trumpets out there better realize that they are actually laying the foundation for communist take-over. Whether it be variations on the commie theme, or not is irrelevant. Even the French revolution followed a similar dialectic: When corruption becomes endemic, a gross and crude leveling of the playing field is the only real option. Except this Communism needed foreign assistance(Capitalist) to "Defeat Fascism". Again, you haven't addressed what I posted, either tell me why the numbers are wrong, why they dont matter, or stop bloviating.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 14, 2018 23:21:51 GMT
Oh I did. You're just in denial about the role that the commies played in destroying fascism. Is that because you are a neo-fascist, I wonder? To hide behind jargon, does not address the initial question itself. Communism is appealing because: it is better to be unfairly treated as equal, than to be unfairly treated as inferior. We also see how the Nationalists (euphemism for fascists, really) in China were destroyed by the commies, as well as in South Africa, where the fear of commie take-over spurred the Afrikaners to make a deal with African Nationalists, thereby at least diluting the fascism to a limited degree. Yes, in China, communism itself eventually evolved into something else, as it did with the soviets too. I never disagreed with that. But the point is just this: communism is the best way of overcoming fascism. So all those Trumpets out there better realize that they are actually laying the foundation for communist take-over. Whether it be variations on the commie theme, or not is irrelevant. Even the French revolution followed a similar dialectic: When corruption becomes endemic, a gross and crude leveling of the playing field is the only real option. Except this Communism needed foreign assistance(Capitalist) to "Defeat Fascism". Again, you haven't addressed what I posted, either tell me why the numbers are wrong, why they dont matter, or stop bloviating. Yes, they did need such assistance. Everyone trades and borrows. One could also argue that Capitalism required the flesh and guts of the commies without which they would have capitulated like the entirety of 'Capitalist' Europe did. Which numbers are you bloviating about? Perhaps contextualize your question better then I will know what you are asking. You also seem to divide the line between Capitalism and Communism rather neatly ignoring the distinction between free-market individualism and monopolistic corporate capitalism. The word 'capitalism' has two quite different meanings in REALITY if not in semantics. When capitalism becomes a monopoly it is little different from other totalitarian ideologies, as it starts to consume itself without proper free-market competition. Then it starts looking around for other nations to invade: and this is how capitalism evolves into fascism.
|
|
blueroad
New Member
Posts: 35
Likes: 18
Politics: National Socialist
Religion: Hindu
Age: 27
|
Post by blueroad on Jul 15, 2018 0:11:35 GMT
Except this Communism needed foreign assistance(Capitalist) to "Defeat Fascism". Again, you haven't addressed what I posted, either tell me why the numbers are wrong, why they dont matter, or stop bloviating. Yes, they did need such assistance. Everyone trades and borrows. One could also argue that Capitalism required the flesh and guts of the commies without which they would have capitulated like the entirety of 'Capitalist' Europe did. Which numbers are you bloviating about? Perhaps contextualize your question better then I will know what you are asking. You also seem to divide the line between Capitalism and Communism rather neatly ignoring the distinction between free-market individualism and monopolistic corporate capitalism. The word 'capitalism' has two quite different meanings in REALITY if not in semantics. When capitalism becomes a monopoly it is little different from other totalitarian ideologies, as it starts to consume itself without proper free-market competition. Then it starts looking around for other nations to invade: and this is how capitalism evolves into fascism. "Which numbers are you bloviating about? Perhaps contextualize your question better then I will know what you are asking." I know, I know, reading anything longer than Charlotte's Web is tough for a guy like you. Perhaps read the original comment you replied to, if you're lacking clarity on the context. "You also seem to divide the line between Capitalism and Communism rather neatly ignoring(..)". I really don't do anything, maybe if you took some time reading something rather than wasting your time on here making a fool of yourself, you would understand there is a very clear distinction between the two. But hey, I understand, reading is very hard. "and this is how capitalism evolves into fascism." Again showing how much you like reading. Fascism rejects Capitalism and Communism and takes whats called the Third Position. I wouldn't expect you to know something like that, considering how you just spout off empty axioms, and never once considered praxis. Maybe I can compile some sources for you, from your own intellectuals, so a layman such as yourself could possibly get a grasp of the thing he claims.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 16, 2018 19:48:24 GMT
Yes, they did need such assistance. Everyone trades and borrows. One could also argue that Capitalism required the flesh and guts of the commies without which they would have capitulated like the entirety of 'Capitalist' Europe did. Which numbers are you bloviating about? Perhaps contextualize your question better then I will know what you are asking. You also seem to divide the line between Capitalism and Communism rather neatly ignoring the distinction between free-market individualism and monopolistic corporate capitalism. The word 'capitalism' has two quite different meanings in REALITY if not in semantics. When capitalism becomes a monopoly it is little different from other totalitarian ideologies, as it starts to consume itself without proper free-market competition. Then it starts looking around for other nations to invade: and this is how capitalism evolves into fascism. "Which numbers are you bloviating about? Perhaps contextualize your question better then I will know what you are asking." I know, I know, reading anything longer than Charlotte's Web is tough for a guy like you. Perhaps read the original comment you replied to, if you're lacking clarity on the context. "You also seem to divide the line between Capitalism and Communism rather neatly ignoring(..)". I really don't do anything, maybe if you took some time reading something rather than wasting your time on here making a fool of yourself, you would understand there is a very clear distinction between the two. But hey, I understand, reading is very hard. "and this is how capitalism evolves into fascism." Again showing how much you like reading. Fascism rejects Capitalism and Communism and takes whats called the Third Position. I wouldn't expect you to know something like that, considering how you just spout off empty axioms, and never once considered praxis. Maybe I can compile some sources for you, from your own intellectuals, so a layman such as yourself could possibly get a grasp of the thing he claims. My point after that did actually address what was said earlier. I shall politely just repeat myself as you seem to have missed it. The gist of it is this: Essentially, one could likewise argue that what the west needed was an enormous amount of people to do the actual fighting, suffering and dying. Its easy to make bullets, much harder to catch them, eh? You seem to think that I reckon communism is the best ideology, thus you vent instead of making a polite inquiry. It seems I have become a shadow of your subconscious, What exactly do you mean by a 'guy like you'? What stereotype do you think I fit? Do you think me a communist?
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Jul 16, 2018 19:55:58 GMT
suppose communism is popular because the capitalist system has bored to everyone .. even such a critic of leftist ideas as I will find meaning in words -that even in the largest democracy, power belongs to the riches people who are interested in replenishing their capital-
|
|
blueroad
New Member
Posts: 35
Likes: 18
Politics: National Socialist
Religion: Hindu
Age: 27
|
Post by blueroad on Jul 16, 2018 20:06:20 GMT
"Which numbers are you bloviating about? Perhaps contextualize your question better then I will know what you are asking." I know, I know, reading anything longer than Charlotte's Web is tough for a guy like you. Perhaps read the original comment you replied to, if you're lacking clarity on the context. "You also seem to divide the line between Capitalism and Communism rather neatly ignoring(..)". I really don't do anything, maybe if you took some time reading something rather than wasting your time on here making a fool of yourself, you would understand there is a very clear distinction between the two. But hey, I understand, reading is very hard. "and this is how capitalism evolves into fascism." Again showing how much you like reading. Fascism rejects Capitalism and Communism and takes whats called the Third Position. I wouldn't expect you to know something like that, considering how you just spout off empty axioms, and never once considered praxis. Maybe I can compile some sources for you, from your own intellectuals, so a layman such as yourself could possibly get a grasp of the thing he claims. My point after that did actually address what was said earlier. I shall politely just repeat myself as you seem to have missed it. The gist of it is this: Essentially, one could likewise argue that what the west needed was an enormous amount of people to do the actual fighting, suffering and dying. Its easy to make bullets, much harder to catch them, eh? You seem to think that I reckon communism is the best ideology, thus you vent instead of making a polite inquiry. It seems I have become a shadow of your subconscious, What exactly do you mean by a 'guy like you'? What stereotype do you think I fit? Do you think me a communist? I think "you a lack of substance" "Its easy to make bullets, much harder to catch them, eh?" The Wehrmacht was just as willing, just better at giving than receiving early on. So again, I don't see how this achievement necessitates communism.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 19, 2018 20:26:31 GMT
My point after that did actually address what was said earlier. I shall politely just repeat myself as you seem to have missed it. The gist of it is this: Essentially, one could likewise argue that what the west needed was an enormous amount of people to do the actual fighting, suffering and dying. Its easy to make bullets, much harder to catch them, eh? You seem to think that I reckon communism is the best ideology, thus you vent instead of making a polite inquiry. It seems I have become a shadow of your subconscious, What exactly do you mean by a 'guy like you'? What stereotype do you think I fit? Do you think me a communist? I think "you a lack of substance" "Its easy to make bullets, much harder to catch them, eh?" The Wehrmacht was just as willing, just better at giving than receiving early on. So again, I don't see how this achievement necessitates communism. People fight and die, either to preserve their honor, or because they are more fearful of their own leaders than they are of the enemy. Communism is a bit more honorable than fascism, so its a bit more effective on the battlefield. Sure there are other ways, perhaps, of dealing with fascism, other than communism, only the world hasn't really come up with a more effective one yet. But these are all just guises for corporate monopolies, with some offering a bit more honor and freedom than the next. Not too much. So communism was designed to expire once it had served its purpose. After all, the Nazis were just a front for Gelsenkirchen Bergerks AG. Coal and steel monopolists. Hitler was a pawn of Thyssen. He was not some mad genius as his reputation is portrayed in the monopolist media. That itself should be warning - that the facts of the matter are brushed over by the media. If you really have such a good appetite for reading try this free book: archive.org/details/hitlerovereurope009891mbpIt was written half a decade before ww2 in Europe started. It predicts Hitlers plans with uncanny precision. I have an original copy which I found in a village sale by luck, so I know its for real. The most essential reading on ww2 form Germany's perspective, written by a German
|
|
blueroad
New Member
Posts: 35
Likes: 18
Politics: National Socialist
Religion: Hindu
Age: 27
|
Post by blueroad on Jul 26, 2018 18:27:06 GMT
I think "you a lack of substance" "Its easy to make bullets, much harder to catch them, eh?" The Wehrmacht was just as willing, just better at giving than receiving early on. So again, I don't see how this achievement necessitates communism. People fight and die, either to preserve their honor, or because they are more fearful of their own leaders than they are of the enemy. Communism is a bit more honorable than fascism, so its a bit more effective on the battlefield. Sure there are other ways, perhaps, of dealing with fascism, other than communism, only the world hasn't really come up with a more effective one yet. But these are all just guises for corporate monopolies, with some offering a bit more honor and freedom than the next. Not too much. So communism was designed to expire once it had served its purpose. After all, the Nazis were just a front for Gelsenkirchen Bergerks AG. Coal and steel monopolists. Hitler was a pawn of Thyssen. He was not some mad genius as his reputation is portrayed in the monopolist media. That itself should be warning - that the facts of the matter are brushed over by the media. If you really have such a good appetite for reading try this free book: archive.org/details/hitlerovereurope009891mbpIt was written half a decade before ww2 in Europe started. It predicts Hitlers plans with uncanny precision. I have an original copy which I found in a village sale by luck, so I know its for real. The most essential reading on ww2 form Germany's perspective, written by a German So instead of addressing my point, you went straight on to Hitler, and then linked a book instead of actually making an argument from the content of the book. If you're not going to address my points and keep moving the goal posts im not going to continue responding .
|
|