A thread on politics- have some balls and post

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

888.jpg
 
Viceregal said:
Ok I will try that one more time ...

- In your post you compared Nazism to communism - ie a practical outworking of fascism vs a theoretical construct of communism.
- I suggested that rather than actual fascists vs mythological communists it would be better to compare actual fascists (Nazis) to actual Communists (Stalin/Mao)
- You replied that I was wrong and that Nazis were a sub-group of fascists and that you had been referring to theoretical communism (which I knew - the only reason I made that bit of the post was because of those very things being compared)
- I replied that I was confused because it seemed to me that you were telling me that exactly what I said you had said was exactly what you said that you said and that I had in the process gotten it wrong and asked for clarification.
- You clarified by telling me some of the unique features of the Nazi version of fascism.

I agreed all along that all Nazis were fascists but that not all fascists were Nazis - and so do you.
I agree that theoretical communism had a lot of decent points - as do you.

Could you please explain to me why you think that it is more legitimate to compare actual Nazism to theoretical Communism rather than actual Nazis to actual Communists (or even theoretical fascists to theoretical communists but I don't think either of us want to have that discussion).

I am sure we are having a cross purpose conversation here but for the life of me I can't see where the disconnect is coming in.
Click to expand...
Once more, Nazism is an actual ideology, not just a practical outworking. Hence modern Nazis.

I don't believe that you are a bad guy or that you are hateful or anything VR, but I feel that at some point you have been badly misguided on a few key issues and you are digging in now (read up on the Backfire effect for some fun reading) because you are being ganged up on. Totally fine and natural. But youre a smart enough guy to recognise that all of these people must have been 'triggered' (if you like) in this thread somehow.

Again, this is one of those issues where nobody will change their minds in the space of a few posts.
 
TheBrownDog said:
You're missing the point entirely. I suspect wilfully. The point is you can be a believer in the tenents and values of a philosophy or ideology without approving of the disastrous outcomes that can occur when attempts to institute a system based on those values fail. Thus the Pinochet reference. Presumably you can be in favour of a capitalist free market economy without it being assumed that you are also in favour of marching thousands of dissidents into a soccer stadium and executing them.

Honestly mate, I don't know how much clearer this can be made to you. At this point there are only two conclusions that can be drawn. You are either deliberately missing the point, or are simply incapable of grasping it.

I'll try again anyway....

Someone who ideologically believes in communism (which arose from the socialist critique of capitalism) believes that collectives of workers should be in control of the means of production and that separating the owners of capital from labour leads to a system of exploitation and class conflict. Whether that goal is achievable in practice is a separate debate, entirely removed from their values and beliefs.

Someone who ideologically believes in Nazism and/or White Supremacy fundamentally believes in (and proudly espouses) racist ideals of racial supremacy and inferiority, and that the social order should reflect that. Unlike communism, the nasty s**t that we relate to Fascism and Nazism isn't an unfortunate side-effect, it is weaved right into the fabric of the ethos.

Does any moderately sane communist desire to live in a brutal totalitarian dictatorship where the people are brutally suppressed and left to starve? No.

Do white supremacists desire to live in an openly racist state where people of their particular ethnicity and cultural background are given primacy at the expense of everyone else. Yes.

Trying to put these two sets of beliefs on the same moral plane is obscene, and you should be embarrassed to persist with this false equivalence. It's intellectually dishonest, which is par for the course for the alt-right who lie through their teeth while howling about supposed "fake news".
Click to expand...
Should have read your post before I replied. You nailed it.
 
Viceregal said:
it was in fact this false correlation that started this whole thread element off ie Haso comparing actual Nazism with theoretical communism and me objecting and suggesting that
Click to expand...
Holy s**t VR, you have to be joking. You're doing it again. The actual theory behind Nazism, as a distinct ideology, is based on hate and racism. Not just in practice. It's what the ideology is based on. Communism is as we have all described it.

You are either deliberately misrepresenting my argument, or you flat out don't understand.
 
I can't say it any better than TBD or Has.

What you got from Stalin was not what was intended by Marx or communism. It was arguably a likely outcome, but was never the intended outcome and can becseen as a corruption of the ideal.

Nazism worked on the other hand worked exactly as intended

On HTC 2PS6200 using
BigFooty.com mobile app
 
In traditional comparisons ...

Apples vs Apples fine
Oranges vs Oranges fine
Apples vs Oranges not so useful.

All I said was
Fascism vs Communism - fine
Nazism vs Stalinism - fine
Nazism vs Communism not so useful.

I sincerely do not understand how me saying that you need to compare real fascists (Nazis) with real communists (Stalinists) rather than with mythical communists (unless you all think that 'myth' means not-real rather than the story and underpinning of the whole thing so in this case there are real communists that adhere to the theory but they are not the ones who are running countries)

Somehow you guys have translated "that is not logically congruent" or "that is not a legitimate comparison" into me barracking for Baal over Moloch or supporting one serial killer over another.

And the really weird part is I don't remember anyone actually addressing that point in the push backs - unless you are all really invested in communism is good therefore Stalin was not a real communist or Stalin was a good communist and all the bad things you know about him were all lies made up by his enemies triggering the cognitive dissonance.

Was Nazism a really bad outworking of fascism - yes
Was Stalinism a really bad outworking of communism - yes

matwt73 said:
What you got from Stalin was not what was intended by Marx or communism. It was arguably a likely outcome, but was never the intended outcome and can becseen as a corruption of the ideal.

Nazism worked on the other hand worked exactly as intended
Click to expand...

Weirdly that was my point!
You have just said Stalin <> Communism and was a real life corruption.
You made the equivalence that Nazism = naturally bad
You left out whether Hitler <> Fascism and was a real life corruption.

You want to compare fascism to communism or Hitler to Stalin go for it but it is wrong to compare one side's theory with another side's corruption - not because one is better than the other but because they are not logical equivalents!
 
Because you have tried to argue on semantics VR, just a reminder of your first comment on the subject;
Viceregal said:
Once you get to the equivalent of the Nazis and the Communists fighting it out on the streets you have a hard time standing in the middle speaking moderate anything.
Click to expand...
To defend this, you then used a couple of disastrous outcomes to make your point, as if they represent communism as a whole.
Viceregal said:
Stalin's crimes against humanity and his own people stack up pretty well against Hitlers ... not to mention Mao's
Click to expand...
Haso's post did not make a comparison of "working" Nazism with theoretical communism as you claim, but pointed out exactly what you have since been trying to argue, that apples for apples is most accurate ie. ideology v ideology
Haso said:
<Snip> This is a very 50s view of communism and demonstrates a very poor understanding of Nazism and communism and the contexts surrounding them. Nazism as an ideology is based by definition on anti-semitism and racism, and this basis has continued to its modern descendant. This is objectively and unequivocally a bad thing.
Communism is an ideology based on the common ownership of the means of production, and ultimately a lack of social classes. There is nothing inherently bad about that, although it may not be everybody's cup of tea.
Click to expand...
So this whole time, you have been criticising others for what you had done (whilst they actually had not). You did compare Nazism with communism and then went on to give a couple of examples of working communism with the implication they are representative of what communism is, and it was rightly pointed out to you, what the two things are and how they fundamentally differ.

You should just stop now, trying to defend it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Skoob said:
Because you have tried to argue on semantics VR, just a reminder of your first comment on the subject;
Click to expand...

Viceregal said:
Once you get to the equivalent of the Nazis and the Communists fighting it out on the streets you have a hard time standing in the middle speaking moderate anything.
Click to expand...

I was being descriptive with the point being the same if I have used the Hatfields and the McCoys or the Jets and the Sharks etc.
Technically I should have said the fascists and the communists fighting it out on the streets in Germany - the fascists won and went on to run the state as Nazi Germany - the communists lost and I have no idea who their leader would have been or if they would have just followed Uncle Josef but as they never got to run the place we don't know.

Skoob said:
To defend this, you then used a couple of disastrous outcomes to make your point, as if they represent communism as a whole.
Click to expand...

I did ask in one post (to TBD iirc) for someone to give me list of countries where the communists take over and they don't end up with disastrous outcomes because it was my understanding that that was pretty much how it did work out when they got to try putting their theories into practice. I did not get a list from him so maybe you can help me on that one.

Skoob said:
Haso's post did not make a comparison of "working" Nazism with theoretical communism as you claim, but pointed out exactly what you have since been trying to argue, that apples for apples is most accurate ie. ideology v ideology
Click to expand...

Haso said:
<Snip> This is a very 50s view of communism and demonstrates a very poor understanding of Nazism and communism and the contexts surrounding them. Nazism as an ideology is based by definition on anti-semitism and racism, and this basis has continued to its modern descendant. This is objectively and unequivocally a bad thing.
Communism is an ideology based on the common ownership of the means of production, and ultimately a lack of social classes. There is nothing inherently bad about that, although it may not be everybody's cup of tea.
Click to expand...

He used the word ideology ... if I said Valencia as an apple it doesn't make it one.
What was he referring to as ideology ... in the first bit Nazi (the ideology is fascism) and in the second one communism (tick yes an ideology).
He then described how Nazi works (not how fascism works) and compared it to how communism says it should work (as opposed to how it actually works)

So yes that is precisely what Haso did - and all I wanted him to do was to have made the legitimate comparison of Nazism to Stalinism or Fascism to Communism.

Skoob said:
So this whole time, you have been criticising others for what you had done (whilst they actually had not). You did compare Nazism with communism and then went on to give a couple of examples of working communism with the implication they are representative of what communism is, and it was rightly pointed out to you, what the two things are and how they fundamentally differ.

You should just stop now, trying to defend it.
Click to expand...

I did not *compare* Nazism with communism I linked them in a description which I was then challenged on and responded to the logical fallacy in the challenge. As I mentioned above all of the examples of communism at the state level I know of have ended up horribly and would love the alternate input. If you like you can also give a list of states that were based on fascist principles and how they went.

Just to clarify - do you yourself feel that Nazi vs Communist is an apple vs apple or Nazi vs Stalinist is apple vs apple?[/QUOTE]
 
Viceregal said:
I was being descriptive with the point being the same if I have used the Hatfields and the McCoys or the Jets and the Sharks etc.
Technically I should have said the fascists and the communists fighting it out on the streets in Germany - the fascists won and went on to run the state as Nazi Germany - the communists lost and I have no idea who their leader would have been or if they would have just followed Uncle Josef but as they never got to run the place we don't know.



I did ask in one post (to TBD iirc) for someone to give me list of countries where the communists take over and they don't end up with disastrous outcomes because it was my understanding that that was pretty much how it did work out when they got to try putting their theories into practice. I did not get a list from him so maybe you can help me on that one.





He used the word ideology ... if I said Valencia as an apple it doesn't make it one.
What was he referring to as ideology ... in the first bit Nazi (the ideology is fascism) and in the second one communism (tick yes an ideology).
He then described how Nazi works (not how fascism works) and compared it to how communism says it should work (as opposed to how it actually works)

So yes that is precisely what Haso did - and all I wanted him to do was to have made the legitimate comparison of Nazism to Stalinism or Fascism to Communism.



I did not *compare* Nazism with communism I linked them in a description which I was then challenged on and responded to the logical fallacy in the challenge. As I mentioned above all of the examples of communism at the state level I know of have ended up horribly and would love the alternate input. If you like you can also give a list of states that were based on fascist principles and how they went.

Just to clarify - do you yourself feel that Nazi vs Communist is an apple vs apple or Nazi vs Stalinist is apple vs apple?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
Nazism is an ideology, and you did make the comparison/equivalence first.
 
Viceregal said:
I was being descriptive with the point being the same if I have used the Hatfields and the McCoys or the Jets and the Sharks etc.
Technically I should have said the fascists and the communists fighting it out on the streets in Germany - the fascists won and went on to run the state as Nazi Germany - the communists lost and I have no idea who their leader would have been or if they would have just followed Uncle Josef but as they never got to run the place we don't know.



I did ask in one post (to TBD iirc) for someone to give me list of countries where the communists take over and they don't end up with disastrous outcomes because it was my understanding that that was pretty much how it did work out when they got to try putting their theories into practice. I did not get a list from him so maybe you can help me on that one.





He used the word ideology ... if I said Valencia as an apple it doesn't make it one.
What was he referring to as ideology ... in the first bit Nazi (the ideology is fascism) and in the second one communism (tick yes an ideology).
He then described how Nazi works (not how fascism works) and compared it to how communism says it should work (as opposed to how it actually works)

So yes that is precisely what Haso did - and all I wanted him to do was to have made the legitimate comparison of Nazism to Stalinism or Fascism to Communism.



I did not *compare* Nazism with communism I linked them in a description which I was then challenged on and responded to the logical fallacy in the challenge. As I mentioned above all of the examples of communism at the state level I know of have ended up horribly and would love the alternate input. If you like you can also give a list of states that were based on fascist principles and how they went.

Just to clarify - do you yourself feel that Nazi vs Communist is an apple vs apple or Nazi vs Stalinist is apple vs apple?
Click to expand...
Vice, you're either not getting it or you're not reading anybody's posts. I think we've hammered this into the ground enough though.

Have a think about what must have happened to get to the point where we find ourselves in the position to say that you are arguing against multple people what I'm sure you've felt have in the past been clear thinking and sensible on the same point, basically.
 
Haso said:
Vice, you're either not getting it or you're not reading anybody's posts. I think we've hammered this into the ground enough though.

Have a think about what must have happened to get to the point where we find ourselves in the position to say that you are arguing against multple people what I'm sure you've felt have in the past been clear thinking and sensible on the same point, basically.
Click to expand...

Well we certainly agree that we are all circling around with everyone thinking that they are being clear and cogent and unable to figure out why the other just doesn't seem to be getting it.

I know there are areas where people just are speaking different languages despite using the same words and I have tried very hard to work out what has been missing in the conversation and I have been left stumped as to where it is located in this case.

I am thinking it is a good thing that I am not a professor and you guys are putting in papers for me to mark and vice versa.

I don't think you or TBD or Skoob or Caiphas are stupid people - I do know that you come from a different perspective to me when it comes to pretty much anything that is likely to come up in this thread and I learned a long time ago that someone can disagree with me and neither of us actually be wrong.

Despite our varied perspectives and world-views, privileges and prejudices, assumptions and presumptions, mythological underpinnings and expectations of our societal futures ... we can at least agree for tomorrow Go Lions, Die North and for a little while longer Down with Port.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
The ADH... Look a Squirrel
Replies
15
Views
990
Grasshopper17
G

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top