How can people prefer National Socialism over Communism?

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Wrong, on the mass murder question. Maybe in a perfect world, or whatever....but you have to look at reality. And in reality, countries claiming to be communist have killed far more than countries claiming to be Nazi or Fascist.

And what is the difference between possessing small things and possessing large things? Morally, none, in my opinion.

That's probably the biggest load of bullcrap I've ever read.

1. What about a perfect world? could you finish that point?

2. I've never claimed communism or socialism were applied in a right way often. Many tried it and failed, look at the USSR, China, Southeast Asia. But then, what about the democratically elected pro-marxist governments in South America? Ah, I forgot, before they could practise the democratic socialism, they got kicked by the CIA, such as Allende. Or were those guys terrorists as well?

3. They have not killed more, at least not in the same short period of time.

4. There might not be a moral difference, but there's a logical difference. In countries/societies where people own big cars and houses, such as the US or Western Europe, those people profit from the suffering of others, in our case it's not the working people anymore, but due to globalization the people who work for the resources we consume, thrid world people. In a system where wealth is distributed equally, there can be no big possessions because the resources are limited. So you own little, but you don't own more than everyone else. Do you really think you own big things because or world is made in a way that everyone can have them? You can only have them because others have so much less.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
A planned system is actually superior to free market . The soviet union was not able to plan correctly , due to the fact that it was not democratic , or to be more precise , pluralistic. Many people had great Ideas , but were not able impliment them because of the bureaucracy . People that believed in the planned economy , and were skilled and able in a manner that would make it work .

That's probably the most important point about the socialist systems we've seen so far... instead of being open for ideas on how to improve socialism, they'r estubborn and bureaucratic. It was a problem in the GDR especially, where in 1989 still the same men were in power as were in 1949, which meant a leadership of old men, totally unable to govern a country.

That is also what is lacking in the PR China... socialist systems would be so overwhelmingly powerful, would they only allow people with great minds to speak up and improve. Engineers, economists, etc, etc...

The other great disadvabntage of socialist governments was the fact already mentioned, namely that they were fought by the US and its allies. The events in South America spring to mind...

[David Floyd]

There are no natural rights. Rights is a concept made by man. You agree with that, right?

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. 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.

in what I would imagine as a perfect society , I would see people having personal belongings , but not ownership of means of production, media or whatever.

So the government would own the means of production, media, etc.

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.
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? The people who physically built it shouldn't own it, simply because they were hired - contracted - to perform a certain labor for a certain amount of money, which they presumably received. Thus their interest is at an end. The government cannot be said to have an interest because it was not an associated party.

Then, by your argument, ownership of said factory, once it was completed, would immediately transfer to the hands of the government, without any mention of compensation for the true owner. Further, what if he didn't WANT to sell his property? And there's also this point: why would the government have any idea of how to properly use said factory? This is the first one, remember, and they weren't the ones who invented or built the damn thing - why should bureaucrats be able to efficiently and correctly use its capabilities?

Oh, I suppose they could force the builder to work for them, to advise them, and such, but that would clearly go against all concepts of personal liberty.

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.

A planned system is actually superior to free market . The soviet union was not able to plan correctly , due to the fact that it was not democratic , or to be more precise , pluralistic. Many people had great Ideas , but were not able impliment them because of the bureaucracy . People that believed in the planned economy , and were skilled and able in a manner that would make it work .

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?

if media was independent ( that means a separate branch of the government ) , many things would be achieved .

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.

People that go up the scale of management ( note : management , not society ) , should recieve higher salaries . competition can be in place , without privilege for parts of the society.

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?

My father was a specialist in systems , and planned management, in the naval trade , and the exploitation of the naval transportation and storage resources . He had many plans to impove the system , but he faced a wall of bureaucracy.

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.

If the soviet union was pluralist , and greater freedom of speech would be in place , we would reach greatness... the military spending would be much smaller , and we could beat you yankees at your own game , which is strong industrial output of consumer goods.

If greater freedom of speech were in place, people would ditch the communist system - or perhaps you don't recall when Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary to prevent democracy from coming in. And perhaps you can explain to me why Eastern Europe was forced into communism in the first place.

[David Floyd]

I feel I've covered most of the other points below the post I responded to with my last post...if you don't think I have lemme know.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If greater freedom of speech were in place, people would ditch the communist system - or perhaps you don't recall when Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary to prevent democracy from coming in. And perhaps you can explain to me why Eastern Europe was forced into communism in the first place.

Now Hungary is very, very interesting. Funny how their revolt had all the hallmarks of a communist revolution; people overthrowing their shackles, the control of the Soviet Union by proxy, and installed worker's committees and was actually taken over by the working people. And perculiarly enough, the Soviet Union decided to crush it...they pleaded with the Soviet's to leave them alone, to allow them to continue their social revolution. Let's face it, by this stage, the Soviet Union was not interested in knowing what true communism was about, it was a bureaucracy there for it's own ends and it's bureaucracies needs.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by faded glory

But Nazi's treated there people better.

If you didn´t happen to be a jew, communist, homosexual, romani, etc, etc. C´mon FG are you really that one-eyed?

Irrelevant... Before the war, the majority German people lived like human beings. The same cannot be said for the Russians.

Not irrelevant, read the history books about Germany between the wars. Even if the people in Germany during this period had slightly better living conditions, there´s a reason to why the Nazis could come to power.

No it isnt. Have you any idea how many were sent to the Gulags? If you thinking a few hundred thousand.....think higher. Try 10 million. Most died of course.

The number of people that were killed is, to say the least, disputed. The numbers that Pipes et al has produced has little or no resemblance to real facts. Note that I don´t deny the facts that many people were killed, just the amount.

[David Floyd]

You're right.

My assertion is that no matter what the intentions, that is likely the direction all big-government type nations will head, because of the basic statement that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[Az]

If you accept that there is a God

ugh , sorry.

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?

because people search for the security provided by the communal labor. They know that if they'll work well, they stay on the job , while if they work Great , they will get a bonus.

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.

we managed somehow to do it with the court system , right ?
if they'll stay administratively independent , they're in the clear.

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.

answered above.

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?

of course . the whole thing is that the government is the one to pay for it.

The people who physically built it shouldn't own it, simply because they were hired - contracted - to perform a certain labor for a certain amount of money, which they presumably received.

of course not . This is not Ramo you're talking to

Then, by your argument, ownership of said factory, once it was completed, would immediately transfer to the hands of the government, without any mention of compensation for the true owner. Further, what if he didn't WANT to sell his property? And there's also this point: why would the government have any idea of how to properly use said factory? This is the first one, remember, and they weren't the ones who invented or built the damn thing - why should bureaucrats be able to efficiently and correctly use its capabilities?

he would have his compensation. As the man running the place with a salary higher , due to his position as a manager . a salary which is much higher than the simple worker , maybe even three times as much . that is , if the factory is working properly.

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.

I say leave the management to managers . everyone will recieve his paycheck from the factory's income. plus the bonus , if he deserves one.

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?

There are two factories , 'Alpha' and 'Beta' . They both produce products with similar uses . if there is a way in which factory 'Beta' earns more money that factory 'Alpha' , the staff of factory 'Beta' will get a bonus in their paycheck.

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.

I am not calling for a small government. I am calling a government that listens.

If greater freedom of speech were in place, people would ditch the communist system - or perhaps you don't recall when Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary to prevent democracy from coming in. And perhaps you can explain to me why Eastern Europe was forced into communism in the first place.

the truth is that the leader that the soviets wanted to depose was a communist at heart and soul , and the only thing wrong is that he didn't comply with moscow , for some reasons . I really don't know the details , but I am pretty certain that my first sentence is the truth.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Ecthelion

Kamrat X - why are they equally bad? Just the fact the rulers of the East European regimes that called themselves communist (but weren't) killed many people doesn't mean that so did the communist party in Germany back in the 30s. I'm sure the question in The Question Thread had a certain goal, namely to stress the situation in Germany in the '30s. And even if not, I think that is a very interesting point to consider.

Stalinism is stalinism, Germany or Sovietunion it´s the same. Even if the KPD didn´t kill any people, they never critizised Stalin for doing it. In fact Stalin and the leadership of the Third International is guilty of helping Hitler to power, because by appointing the social-democrats to their main enemy they left the scene wide open for the nazis.

[Al B. Sure!]

nazi germany: economic stability and improvement (complete end of the great depression in germany by 1939)

russia: bread lines

either way, you might happen to be the person who is targetted for the firing squad but if youre not, at least the nazis would let you own your house, keep your money stable, and assure you a chance to improve yourself through education and hard work.

[David Floyd]

because people search for the security provided by the communal labor. They know that if they'll work well, they stay on the job , while if they work Great , they will get a bonus.

So you are saying that people will decide that job security is more important than personal liberty? I'm not sure I can see that, nor am I sure I can see there being any more job liberty in your system than in mine - less, really, because inefficient governments being at the top rung on the corporate ladder is never good for business.

we managed somehow to do it with the court system , right ?
if they'll stay administratively independent , they're in the clear.

That's a totally different situation - unless you are advocating making a media the fourth branch of government along with judicial, executive, and legislative. The way you are describing it the media would be akin to, say, the EPA.

answered above.

Refuted above

of course . the whole thing is that the government is the one to pay for it.

Ah, so you're for the abolition of private R&D too then? Well, we'll see how backwards-ass your Utopia is, then.

he would have his compensation. As the man running the place with a salary higher , due to his position as a manager . a salary which is much higher than the simple worker , maybe even three times as much . that is , if the factory is working properly.

So your answer is that he is forced into selling to the government, then forced into working for them. Gee, that sounds like a free society

I am not calling for a small government. I am calling a government that listens.

Big government and responsive government are mutually exclusive.

the truth is that the leader that the soviets wanted to depose was a communist at heart and soul , and the only thing wrong is that he didn't comply with moscow , for some reasons . I really don't know the details , but I am pretty certain that my first sentence is the truth.

As I stated earlier, it doesn't really matter - every government which is large and oppressive will gradually regress into utter tyranny.

[mactbone]

Communism also supports people who have no intention of working or working hard. What are the incentives if you're still going to get the same stuff, no matter what you do? Why should I work hard, if some guy over there isn't willing to do the same?

About people owning "large" things meaning they took them or whatever from people, who now have smaller things... That's a load of crap. My Dad worked at a company, and eventually bought it because he saw potential. Now, they're in their third plant in 4 years and have a fairly constant supply of orders. Are you trying to say that he TOOK this from anyone? He BUILT it. Without him, this business would not exist. He employs workers and manufactures a product that people pay for because they want to. You want the workers to own it? They'd run into the ground by trying to get as much money as they could, and not putting it back into the company!

Your lack of logic astounds and amazes.

How would it be beneficial to me to invent something? Or write something? I don't hold any rights over it anyway in a communist society.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
nazi germany: economic stability and improvement (complete end of the great depression in germany by 1939)

russia: bread lines

Much too simple, also the USSR improved the economy (who launched the first satellite?). And Germany was already a highly industrialized country when Hitler came to power, Russia under the Czar (-sp?) was not...

[mactbone]

How much would the government have at stake in any business? Next none, compared to the stake of most business owners.

For a business owner, if the factory is not working right, or manufacturing shoddy products, you can be sure that they will try to correct the problems, ASAP so that they can make money. What incentive is there for the government? They can always force people to buy that product because it's the only game in town.

[Az]

I don't know what EPA stands for. but I think you got my proposition right . The 4th branch of the government. Not private owned.

Researched is done in universities and labs.
Universities are owned by the government, right ?
Labs can belong to the larger state factories that want to develop new products . advertizing is also a , but not the stupid 'supermodel driving a car , eating a sausage' idiocy that goes on , but things that describe the true nature of the product please . anything else is plain lie and deception.

So your answer is that he is forced into selling to the government, then forced into working for them. Gee, that sounds like a free society

he's not forced to work . but don't you think that he'd like that job?

So you are saying that people will decide that job security is more important than personal liberty? I'm not sure I can see that, nor am I sure I can see there being any more job liberty in your system than in mine - less, really, because inefficient governments being at the top rung on the corporate ladder is never good for business.

errm , since the government will run the economy in a similar way that corporations do now , what's the problem ? they will use the same planned economy ( which the corporations use , btw )

Big government and responsive government are mutually exclusive.

they want to be re-elected, right ?

As I stated earlier, it doesn't really matter - every government which is large and oppressive will gradually regress into utter tyranny.

at least that's what you assume.