How can people prefer National Socialism over Communism?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually, it might have been more. Ukraine was utterly decimated... there is a reason plenty of Ukrainians (at least those I know in the US) hate Russia.

What do you think the population of SU was equel to China population? 15-25 millions is nonsense amount. It was many victims, but not so much. And once again this happen not only in Ukraine, "colictivizacia" happen everywhere in SU. Not only Ukranians suffered from it.

Hell, like I said, I'd take almost anyone over Stalin.

If I was a Native American, I wonder if I choose to live under American democracy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What do you think the population of SU was equel to China population? 15-25 millions is nonsense amount.

It may sound like nonsence to you, which makes it even more of a tragedy that so many were slaughtered like pigs. Conservative estimates are 8 million in 1921-22, and 1932-33. Add this to Stalin's actions to Ukraine during WW2, and you'll get at least 15 million.

It was many victims, but not so much. And once again this happen not only in Ukraine, "colictivizacia" happen everywhere in SU. Not only Ukranians suffered from it.

Collectivization happened everywhere, but Stalin forceably starved the Ukrainians, and put his effort into destroying them. He didn't like the fact that the Kulaks survived for so long. No other part of the USSR had troops surround the area and prevent anything from coming in or going out. No other place had artifical famines.

If I was a Native American, I wonder if I choose to live under American democracy.

Actually many of them do, and are great patriots. They fought very well for the United States in its wars.

[Zoid]

Pipes, Volkogonov et al

A collecction of articles that critizise "the body count" carried out by the above mentioned "historians".

http://www.internationalen.se/sp/rr.htm

*ducks behind the desk awaiting the inevitable revisionist argument*

[Serb]

Actually many of them do, and are great patriots. They fought very well for the United States in its wars.

Actully many Ukraineans were patriots of Soviet Union, and they fight very well against fascism in WW2.

[Serb]

No other part of the USSR had troops surround the area and prevent anything from coming in or going out.

Really interesting theory. Do you suggest that Soviet army made blockade a part of own territory? Where is logic in this? Why not to come to it's own territory and not take everything what you what or repel all people? What is the reasons for blockade?

[Drekkus]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm not he, but National Socialism is another name for Fascism, first implimented by Mussolini.

Nazism is NOT another name for fascism. Nazism is fascism combined with racism, the predestined Aryan supremacy. The fascism under Mussolini did not target jews or other beliefs. Not until Hitler demanded it from Mussolini. Francos fascism kept Spain in the 19th century until the late 1970's, but it didn't target minorities for destruction. Don't put nazism and fascism on a equal footing!!!

some questions:
Can Cuba be labeled communist? How many people have been systematically destroyed there?

Can the Kibutzim in Israel be labeled communist in their setup? How succesfull are they?


And a few conclusions after reading this thread:

The outset was: communism or nazism. Maybe it's wrong to compare an ideology with a totalitarian regime, but that was the question. People here defending nazism (= national socialism, hitlers own invention) is mindboggling and I'll just think it's lack of knowledge.

Comparing communism and fascism is different, but a bit useless. History has proven that both don't work! That's why social democratic policies in Europe and (liberal) capitalism in the USA, which both are moderate versions of mentioned ideologies, have brought unseen wealth and freedom to western europe and north america.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by axi
This might not be so strange. The western bourgeois were preferring the Nazis to the Communists and they were ready to come to terms with them in an unholy alliance against the "Reds", specially the USA. That's why they were all shocked when the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed in 1939.

You don't know what you are talking about as far as American involvement in an alliance against the reds. The U.S. was way more concerned with Asia than Europe at this time, and was way more concerned with internal politics than foreign affairs. The U.S. Army had 100,00 men in 1939 (and the army had to beg for that). We were in no position to court any alliance unholy or not which might put us in harm's way. Typical communist propoganda inspired paranoia.

I don't doubt that both the British and the Americans preferred Hitler to Stalin in 1939 though. Stalin's victims were already numbered in the 10s of millions by then, and there were communist revolutionaries in both countries ready to destroy two of the freest and most prosperous states on the planet in order to roll the dice and pray for a utopia, much like the communists here are doing. In contrast Hitler's victims only numbered in the 10s of thousands at this point, and his movement had a much more limited appeal overseas.

Regarding the whole concept of the thread as stated by Echilon:

I will now prove that a monarchy is superior to a republic by allowing you to choose between Camelot and Paris during The Terror. What a w@nkfest.

Ultimately there is such a thing as succeeding too well. Stalin was able to stay in power and purge out the best impulses of his people for two generations until they became lazy, passive and morally bankrupt in comparison to their potential. His creation lumbered on for another 40 years after his death, in the process wasting millions more lives and lowering the potential of many millions more.

Hitler's megalomania had the unfortunate and horrific effects noted here as well as others well known to most of us. But he was too wild to build a successful and sustainable state or empire. This was fortunate for humanity, and for no people moreso than those Germans fortunate enough to be in the West before the wall went up. Within twelve years Hitler managed to put together the world's most powerful (and one of it's least likely) coalition against himslef and lost everything in spectacular fashion. The suvivors were delivered from hell and given a second chance, and made the most of it. If you ask me whether I would prefer to be born in Stalinist Russia or Hitler's Germany in 1932 I would take Germany without question.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't put nazism and fascism on a equal footing!!!

I'm not. I never said Nazi ever in my post. I said 'National Socialism'. Don't put Naziism and National Socialism on the same footing (they actually aren't the same).

The fascism under Mussolini did not target jews or other beliefs.

*cough* Communism is a belief *cough*

[steelehc]

I've read this entire thread, and on thing needs to be cleared up.

Nazism, National Socialism, die Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the NSDAP, or the Nazi party is NOT socialist. The word was added to the name to show solidarity with the workers of Germany. It is Fascist, but a very extreme form of fascism, mixed with rascism, and ultra-nationalism.

Therein also lies the fundamental problem with Neo-Nazis, especially in America. I don't think many of them are German, yet they claim to belong to a party with German in its name. Strange.

Fascism is where government controls all or most aspects of daily life, combining a (usually) militaristic society with very strong nationalist tendings. It is not rascist.

Communism is a very admirable goal. Its a bit like walking to the sun. If you make it, thats great, you can do anything. But you wont be able to do it, not as long as you are a human being.

Stalinism is an authoritarianized version of communism, based on "all for me, and me for me," everything for one leader, who has absolute power, over anything in society.

Anyone who favors Nazism over Communism is an absolute fool, and knows nothing of what they are talking about.

Anyone who favors EITHER Nazism or Stalinism over the other may have a valid point, but forced to make a descision, they have done so.

Anyone who favors Stalinism over Fascism is an absolute fool, and knows nothing of what they are talking about.

My personal opinion is as follows.

Fascism over Communism.
Communism over Stalinism.
Communism over Nazism.
Nazism=Stalinism (Satan=the devil, 6=half a dozen)

Steele

PS: EDIT: Imram, Nazism and National Socialism are the same. Fascism is different from both. That may be what you were thinking.

Steele

[Drekkus]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Don't put nazism and fascism on a equal footing!!!

I'm not. I never said Nazi ever in my post. I said 'National Socialism'. Don't put Naziism and National Socialism on the same footing (they actually aren't the same).

http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/09025.html

"National Socialism
National Socialism
or Nazism, doctrines and policies of the National Socialist German Workers' party, which ruled Germany under Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945. In German the party name was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP); members were first called Nazis as a derisive abbreviation."


National Socialism can only be linked with Hitler. How can you claim these are different things? Any national socialist anywhere is a hitler adept.


[q]
*cough* Communism is a belief *cough* [/QUOTE]

ehm, you're right. I was talking religion, not ideology here. Were the communist in Italy all systematically murdered?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sikander
You don't know what you are talking about as far as American involvement in an alliance against the reds. The U.S. was way more concerned with Asia than Europe at this time, and was way more concerned with internal politics than foreign affairs. The U.S. Army had 100,00 men in 1939 (and the army had to beg for that). We were in no position to court any alliance unholy or not which might put us in harm's way. Typical communist propoganda inspired paranoia.

You misunderstood him.
He talkes about Churchill, Churchill was the communist hater, he leads allied intervention on Soviet Russia in times of Russian civil war. And the major goal of foreign policy of GB and France before 1939 was to push Hitler in war with SU.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by steelehc
Fascism is where government controls all or most aspects of daily life, combining a (usually) militaristic society with very strong nationalist tendings. It is not rascist.

If this definition is precise, the USA is at the best way to fascism. The attempts of the government to control more and more of the daily life are increasing, especially with the "Anti-Terrorism" laws of the last months, the American militarism is obvious, although the "society" (majority of citizens) is not yet militaristic, the nationalism is strong, although I would it not yet call "very strong". Plus, America is not racist, at least by law. Seems to fit, not yet 100%, but increasingly.

Europe lacks (yet) the militarism, and because it's not yet a nation, it can't be nationalistic (though many of Europeans are nationalists, for their particular country).

[Serb]

Ralph,
yoa are the best.!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Wrong. If you accept that there is a God, which I do, you also accept that man is endowed with certain inalienable rights to place him apart from and ahead of animals. These rights are, in their most basic form, life and property.

You are hard pressed to come up with a case that properties is a right even if we ignore your question about god at the moment. How does property follow from the existence of God given that Jesus of Nazareth supposed to live communally with his disciplines, and he called on those who wanted to follow him to sell their earthly posessions and give the money to the poor?

Originally posted by David Floyd
Liberty is also a very basic right, but I would argue that it stems off from life and property - if you are secure in your life, and secure in your property, then you will also be secure in your liberty, in my opinion.

Looks like you have a very strange definition of "liberty" in the context of political philosophy.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Especially disturbing is government ownership of the media. What, then, is the point? Why not simply call it the Ministry of Information? Because that's exactly what it would be.

"Government owns the media" is totally different from "government runs the media." You can own a company but not run it. I humbly present to you the example of RTHK (Radio and Television Hong Kong). Even though it entirely operates on the taxpayers' money it is completely indepedent.

Originally posted by David Floyd
As to the government owning the means of production, answer me this. Go back to before the Industrial Revolution. Go back to when the first person was building the first factory. Once that factory is completed, it should be the property of the person who paid for its construction, should it not?

That's assuming that individuals were allowed to pay for the construction of factories and own them.

On second thought this begs the question "where did this person get his money from?" This seems to presume that indoviduals would be allowed to accumulate huge amounts of wealth in your example, which makes it a capitalist society. In a communist society any indivdual will not have the wherewithal for such an undertaking.

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, government control of the means of production makes no logical sense, nor does worker control of the means of production. Both are frankly too stupid to know what to do with it, and it isn't theirs to begin with.

This is a non-argument.

Are you saying that it makes logical sense that capitalists or corporations when corporations could not exist with governmental permit? How are governments or workers more stupid than capitalists?

Originally posted by David Floyd
A planned economy cannot possibly be superior to a free market, because for a planned economy to work you have to assume that people would want to make it work. And why would people want to make a system work if said system is the anti-thesis of personal freedom and property rights?

Why do you say communism is anti-thesis of personal freedom without any arguments whatsoever?

Originally posted by David Floyd
I can't believe you are seriously advocated that the media be a branch of the government. The only thing I can see being achieved is the transformation of the media into the Big Brother-esque Ministry of Information, in which only such news that the government wanted to get out, would get out.

See my reply above.

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'm not sure how this supports your system - if the government or people own everything, how can there be true competition, when you get down to it?

Competition in what?

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's not a surprise, what with the government owning everything. You can't have both a small government and a government that incorporates both industry and the media - it doesn't work that way.

Size is relative. He was saying that the government could be smaller than it was in actuality while retaining the same functions.

Originally posted by David Floyd
If greater freedom of speech were in place, people would ditch the communist system

Let me remind you that there were popularly elected Marxist governments.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boddington's
Luck? There's no such think as luck, only risk-takers and entrepreneurs. If you're willing to take an educated risk, you'll go far in a capitalist system.

Your ignorance is appalling, Stew. 90% of all new businesses will fail within the first two years according to an US statistics.

Explain this to me in the context of your crap I quoted.