MAGAThread XV: Because Another

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Not even, big business oligarchs and the Junkers thrived under the NSDAP. While yes they became tied at the hip to the state due to war economics that doesn't negate that their economic policies as a whole leaned heavily to the right/

War economics is a tough thing to measure, as we never observed what a Nazi society would do in peacetime.

Germany was not at war between 1933 and 1939. We know exactly what they did.

Anyway, what the Nazi society did in peacetime was declaring war against its neighbours. You can't just pretend that it wasn't incredibly belligerent and war-like.

[Liriena]

Nah. Automation is antithetical to socialism as it takes power away from the worker.

But what if all the robots are workers?

I for one welcome the first robot wobblies.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

What they created(/stole from Strasser) was "national socialism", which is different from conventional socialism.
And in what ways are they the same? (I'm not denying that there are similarities, I'm just wondering what exactly you're talking about.)

viewtopic.php?p=35706895#p35706895

While fascism does have many similarities with Soviet communism (to the point that any distinction between the two is largely academic), it doesn't have many similarities with other kinds of socialism that are more relevant to modern politics. That's why the distinction matters: in my opinion, at least, "socialism" and "national socialism (i.e. fascism)" are best represented as a Venn diagram that has Stalin in the middle rather than being represented as the same thing.

[Telconi]

War economics is a tough thing to measure, as we never observed what a Nazi society would do in peacetime.

Germany was not at war between 1933 and 1939. We know exactly what they did.

Anyway, what the Nazi society did in peacetime was declaring war against its neighbours. You can't just pretend that it wasn't incredibly belligerent and war-like.

The Nazis very much considered themselves at war in 1933, their own words reflect this. And rather they were belligerent is irrelevant, the point is that it can be hard to separate "wartime measures" from inherent traits of the regime, as we have literally one period of observed behavior, a war.

[Valrifell]

That's only a particular strain of authoritarian communism whereas those are all the known aspects of any fascist ideology. I do appreciate the Trotsky arguments that Stalinism and Fascism are secretly the same ideology tho.

Cool show me a successful, non authoritarian form of communism that has ever existed.

there are the usual examples that don't fit you're definition of "successful". I assume you've had this conversation with others before and should already be able to guess as to what they are.

The point, however, is not whether or not the ideology is viable in practice or not it's that the characteristics you describe aren't essential to most strains of it, whereas many would argue that totalitarianism is the whole point of Fascism.

[Telconi]

Cool show me a successful, non authoritarian form of communism that has ever existed.

there are the usual examples that don't fit you're definition of "successful". I assume you've had this conversation with others before and should already be able to guess as to what they are.

The point, however, is not whether or not the ideology is viable in practice or not it's that the characteristics you describe aren't essential to most strains of it, whereas many would argue that totalitarianism is the whole point of Fascism.

If they fail for lack of totalitarianism, then that would imply that totalitarianism is essential, right?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Germany was not at war between 1933 and 1939. We know exactly what they did.

Anyway, what the Nazi society did in peacetime was declaring war against its neighbours. You can't just pretend that it wasn't incredibly belligerent and war-like.

The Nazis very much considered themselves at war in 1933, their own words reflect this. And rather they were belligerent is irrelevant, the point is that it can be hard to separate "wartime measures" from inherent traits of the regime, as we have literally one period of observed behavior, a war.

Whether or not the Nazis considered themselves to be "at war" is irrelevant, the fact is that they weren't. I mean, North Korea's actually been at war with the United States since the 1950s, but I don't see anyone excusing their atrocities because of it.

[Telconi]

The Nazis very much considered themselves at war in 1933, their own words reflect this. And rather they were belligerent is irrelevant, the point is that it can be hard to separate "wartime measures" from inherent traits of the regime, as we have literally one period of observed behavior, a war.

Whether or not the Nazis considered themselves to be "at war" is irrelevant, the fact is that they weren't. I mean, North Korea's actually been at war with the United States since the 1950s, but I don't see anyone excusing their atrocities because of it.

Only if we use a definition of "at war" that ignores the economic realities.

Nor do you see anyone excusing Nazi atrocities, except your straw man.

[Tarsonis]

Cool show me a successful, non authoritarian form of communism that has ever existed.

there are the usual examples that don't fit you're definition of "successful". I assume you've had this conversation with others before and should already be able to guess as to what they are.

The point, however, is not whether or not the ideology is viable in practice or not it's that the characteristics you describe aren't essential to most strains of it, whereas many would argue that totalitarianism is the whole point of Fascism.

I have had this conversation enough to know what they are and that they failed precisely because they didn't have totalitarian regimes. My definition of successful is that it works, not has a short moment of seeming to work and then utterly collapses.

[Valrifell]

there are the usual examples that don't fit you're definition of "successful". I assume you've had this conversation with others before and should already be able to guess as to what they are.

The point, however, is not whether or not the ideology is viable in practice or not it's that the characteristics you describe aren't essential to most strains of it, whereas many would argue that totalitarianism is the whole point of Fascism.

If they fail for lack of totalitarianism, then that would imply that totalitarianism is essential, right?

I don't think it's a point for "totalitarianism is necessary for the survival of communism" so much as it's a point for "revolutions tend to fall into authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies and are also more stable because people are afraid to leave their homes"

Again, though, the practical effects are secondary to the actual crux of the argument.

But that's enough from me, how about that Trump guy, amirite?

[Valrifell]

there are the usual examples that don't fit you're definition of "successful". I assume you've had this conversation with others before and should already be able to guess as to what they are.

The point, however, is not whether or not the ideology is viable in practice or not it's that the characteristics you describe aren't essential to most strains of it, whereas many would argue that totalitarianism is the whole point of Fascism.

I have had this conversation enough to know what they are and that they failed precisely because they didn't have totalitarian regimes. My definition of successful is that it works, not has a short moment of seeming to work and then utterly collapses.

"Successful" and "state" or "nation" weren't even mentioned in your original point, so I still am failing to see how it's particularly relevant. Libertarian Fascism is self-evidently an oxymoron whereas Libertarian Socialism is a fleshed out ideology with several writings and vanguards, to the extent that Anarchism is a thing that exists. That alone services as a meaningful distinction between the two.

[Tarsonis]

viewtopic.php?p=35706895#p35706895

While fascism does have many similarities with Soviet communism (to the point that any distinction between the two is largely academic), it doesn't have many similarities with other kinds of socialism that are more relevant to modern politics. That's why the distinction matters: in my opinion, at least, "socialism" and "national socialism (i.e. fascism)" are best represented as a Venn diagram that has Stalin in the middle rather than being represented as the same thing.

I will concede that point. Saying hitler was a socialist is a pretty bad faith argument considering the modern political realities. I was more tilting at the dismisivness of the poster who brought it up.

[Telconi]

If they fail for lack of totalitarianism, then that would imply that totalitarianism is essential, right?

I don't think it's a point for "totalitarianism is necessary for the survival of communism" so much as it's a point for "revolutions tend to fall into authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies and are also more stable because people are afraid to leave their homes"

Again, though, the practical effects are secondary to the actual crux of the argument.

But that's enough from me, how about that Trump guy, amirite?

That's exactly what it's a point for. Socialism requires homogeneous compliance, and so you either A) Need a population who are 100% socialists. Or B) force compliance upon people. A is a pipe dream for a nation-state, so we default to B.

Still a douchebag.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Whether or not the Nazis considered themselves to be "at war" is irrelevant, the fact is that they weren't. I mean, North Korea's actually been at war with the United States since the 1950s, but I don't see anyone excusing their atrocities because of it.

Only if we use a definition of "at war" that ignores the economic realities.

Nor do you see anyone excusing Nazi atrocities, except your straw man.

To address the latter first, I was conflating this with a second debate I was in a bit ago. I'm sorry, that's on me.
But for the first point, I agree that the fact that they're technically at war is largely irrelevant (I mostly used it to say that they have a better claim to being at war when they're actually at peace than the Nazis did), but how is the economic reality of spending 25% of your GDP (not your government's budget, total GDP) not indicative of the fact that they're on a war economy every bit as much as the Nazis?

[Telconi]

Only if we use a definition of "at war" that ignores the economic realities.

Nor do you see anyone excusing Nazi atrocities, except your straw man.

To address the latter first, I was conflating this with a second debate I was in a bit ago. I'm sorry, that's on me.
But for the first point, I agree that the fact that they're technically at war is largely irrelevant (I mostly used it to say that they have a better claim to being at war when they're actually at peace than the Nazis did), but how is the economic reality of spending 25% of your GDP (not your government's budget, total GDP) not indicative of the fact that they're on a war economy every bit as much as the Nazis?

Oh no, I would support the idea that North Korea is certainly on a war footing economically. The point I'm making is the Nazi regime immediately engaged in wartime economics after taking power in an attempt to build up arms to a level where they could stand against their foes. We never saw a Nazi government operate economically under the conditions of peace.

[San Lumen]

I fully expect to be in a war with Iran by mid summer and Trump's reelection will be almost certain

[Tarsonis]

I fully expect to be in a war with Iran by mid summer and Trump's reelection will be almost certain

Thank God we won that war with North Korea so quickly.

[Tarsonis]

I have had this conversation enough to know what they are and that they failed precisely because they didn't have totalitarian regimes. My definition of successful is that it works, not has a short moment of seeming to work and then utterly collapses.

"Successful" and "state" or "nation" weren't even mentioned in your original point, so I still am failing to see how it's particularly relevant. Libertarian Fascism is self-evidently an oxymoron whereas Libertarian Socialism is a fleshed out ideology with several writings and vanguards, to the extent that Anarchism is a thing that exists. That alone services as a meaningful distinction between the two.

The point is that trying to remove socialism from authoritarianism is bogus.

[Gormwood]

I fully expect to be in a war with Iran by mid summer and Trump's reelection will be almost certain

Somehow I get the feeling that Donnie is aware that he's a complete moron as a military commander and were he to start a war with Iran, he'd end up setting off an atrocious debacle that would completely negate the War President advantage.

[San Lumen]

I fully expect to be in a war with Iran by mid summer and Trump's reelection will be almost certain

Thank God we won that war with North Korea so quickly.

Yeah all the talk is just bluster. he wants to be reelected and going to war with Iran would ensure that.

[San Lumen]

I fully expect to be in a war with Iran by mid summer and Trump's reelection will be almost certain

Somehow I get the feeling that Donnie is aware that he's a complete moron as a military commander and were he to start a war with Iran, he'd end up setting off an atrocious debacle that would completely negate the War President advantage.

I would not be so sure of that. Wartime leaders almost never lose elections

[Tarsonis]

Thank God we won that war with North Korea so quickly.

Yeah all the talk is just bluster. he wants to be reelected and going to war with Iran would ensure that.

The same can be achieved by just some good ol fashioned saber rattling and watching all the leftists freak out.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Yeah all the talk is just bluster. he wants to be reelected and going to war with Iran would ensure that.

The same can be achieved by just some good ol fashioned saber rattling and watching all the leftists freak out.

"Haha, the libs are triggered by the threat of war that would cost the lives of thousands with no real gain apart from destabilising another Muslim country"

Yay, the leftists freak out.

[Gormwood]

Somehow I get the feeling that Donnie is aware that he's a complete moron as a military commander and were he to start a war with Iran, he'd end up setting off an atrocious debacle that would completely negate the War President advantage.

I would not be so sure of that. Wartime leaders almost never lose elections

Even if one of his eeny-meeny-miiny-moe command decisions ends up with a large amount of U.S. troop casualties or even a routing of the American forces?

[Tarsonis]

I fully expect to be in a war with Iran by mid summer and Trump's reelection will be almost certain

Somehow I get the feeling that Donnie is aware that he's a complete moron as a military commander and were he to start a war with Iran, he'd end up setting off an atrocious debacle that would completely negate the War President advantage.

The reality is that compared to the US the Iran is a paper tiger. Their ships are antiquated, and the entire navy is smaller than just the US. Fifth fleet. Their airforce consists of out date F-14 Tomcats (they're welcome btw) and Mig 29s. In a 1 to 1 conflict We wouldn't even have to invade to really win, just obliterate their war fighting capabilities. In terms of a middle east conflict we'd have the backing of the Saudi Arabian side of the Middle east Cold War, other Sunni factions and probably Israel.

So Donny might feel over anxious.

The real issue for us of course, the long arm of Putin, and the ire of Europe.