NationStates

Torrocca wrote:

Pannerstone wrote:
Communism is the belief in a classess/stateless society, hence, impossible with Humans(barring creating a hive-mind)

No. Communism is a condition wherein a society is egalitarian, stateless, classless, moneyless, and the means of production are communally owned. This has happened before, and it's happening today.

Primitive Communism is the only example of Communism in any form being practiced using your own definition. I fail to see how it's coming about today though, care to elaborate?

Genivaria wrote:

Pannerstone wrote:
Fascism never failed on it's own, it was defeated militarily(which required a large amount of the world uniting to stop it)

That is funny actually Fascism has a higher success rate than communism, seeing as it actually existed.

So Fascism failed by one of it's own standards.
Don't start crap when you can't finish it.

At least it could start it's own crap, unlike communism, which couldn't even get on it's feet before devolving into Socialist totalitarian dictatorships.

and considering the strength it took to stop Fascism, it goes to show that it at least had some success.

GLORIOUS FALGSC wrote:

Pannerstone wrote:
Communism is the belief in a classess/stateless society, hence, impossible with Humans(barring creating a hive-mind)

i personally feel that's the strongest point against Communism. it can't work because we're greedy, powerhungry, violent motherfuckers who only care mostly about ourselves.

EDIT: yes, my name is ironic with me saying this point. i know. shut up.

Karl Marx spent his entire life obsessively studying economics, history and philosophy but never accounted for human nature? Give us a fucking break, and put this tired old argument to bed. I recommend The German Ideology for anyone still under the impression that Marx failed to consider human nature.

Pannerstone wrote:

Genivaria wrote:So Fascism failed by one of it's own standards.
Don't start crap when you can't finish it.

At least it could start it's own crap, unlike communism, which couldn't even get on it's feet before devolving into Socialist totalitarian dictatorships.

and considering the strength it took to stop Fascism, it goes to show that it at least had some success.

'At least it could start it's own crap.'
What the shit?

Genivaria wrote:

Pannerstone wrote:

At least it could start it's own crap, unlike communism, which couldn't even get on it's feet before devolving into Socialist totalitarian dictatorships.

and considering the strength it took to stop Fascism, it goes to show that it at least had some success.

'At least it could start it's own crap.'
What the shit?

At least it had a chance to start something...

Pannerstone wrote:and considering the strength it took to stop Fascism, it goes to show that it at least had some success.

is that your measure of success?

Genivaria wrote:

Pannerstone wrote:
Fascism never failed on it's own, it was defeated militarily(which required a large amount of the world uniting to stop it)

That is funny actually Fascism has a higher success rate than communism, seeing as it actually existed.

So Fascism failed by one of it's own standards.
Don't start crap when you can't finish it.

i wouldn't say that fascism failed because it was militaristic; the fascist state of Italy failed because they chose the wrong enemies. I point to Sorairo's timeline "In the Footprint of Mussolini" on alternatehistory.com.

If Mussolini decided to antagonize Hitler further and keep its pledge of protection to Austria, then a fascist or at least authoritarian Italy may have survived, or at least until Mussolini died and if the youth wouldn't get more fanatic like they would've in a successful Nazi Germany. Fascism in Italy was a stabilizing force, much like Titoism in Yugoslavia; it was popular, and it was effective at stabilizing the fragile systems of Italy (that they left in place, anyway). They were popular with the Catholics to an extent (Fascist Italy oversaw the creation of the Vatican), popular with the youth, popular with the right, somewhat popular with the left (they had a few socialist characteristics, with Mussolini being a former communist), and extremely popular with the military.

Also, this is important: DON'T TAKE THIS AS AN IDEALIZATION OF FASCISM. I hate fascism. It's a terrible idea that would only work in fragile states and would, eventually, come crashing down, like every political system ever. It simply would last longer in Italy because it was so popular.

Alien Overlord wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
No. Communism is a condition wherein a society is egalitarian, stateless, classless, moneyless, and the means of production are communally owned. This has happened before, and it's happening today.

Primitive Communism is the only example of Communism in any form being practiced using your own definition. I fail to see how it's coming about today though, care to elaborate?

The Free Territory of Ukraine and the Zapatistas of Mexico are two groups that practice(d) Communism.

Czechostan wrote:

Pannerstone wrote:and considering the strength it took to stop Fascism, it goes to show that it at least had some success.

is that your measure of success?

No, I measure success based on the ability of the nation to preserve it's culture, care for the majority of it's citizens and provide a reasonable amount of freedom to it's people.

In the context of Communism vs Fascism

Fascism did far more for the average person, FAR FAR more.

Pannerstone wrote:

Genivaria wrote:'At least it could start it's own crap.'
What the shit?

At least it had a chance to start something...

......You mean like the Holocaust?
There I said it.

Pannerstone wrote:

Genivaria wrote:'At least it could start it's own crap.'
What the shit?

At least it had a chance to start something...

You are aware that the SFR Yugoslavia, a successful socialist/communist state, founded the Non-Aligned Movement and was basically a world power until the death of Tito, right? It was even more politically stable than Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy (at least in 22-around 28).

Torrocca wrote:

Alien Overlord wrote:Primitive Communism is the only example of Communism in any form being practiced using your own definition. I fail to see how it's coming about today though, care to elaborate?

The Free Territory of Ukraine and the Zapatistas of Mexico are two groups that practice(d) Communism.

As has been explained many times before the Zapatistas are not a good example of communism working.

Genivaria wrote:

Pannerstone wrote:
At least it had a chance to start something...

......You mean like the Holocaust?
There I said it.

Dosn't mean much when the Communists killed untold millions as well, just because they were indiscriminate dosn't make them better

is that your measure for sucess?

also National Socialism=/=Fascism

Pannerstone wrote:

Czechostan wrote:is that your measure of success?

No, I measure success based on the ability of the nation to preserve it's culture, care for the majority of it's citizens and provide a reasonable amount of freedom to it's people.

In the context of Communism vs Fascism

Fascism did far more for the average person, FAR FAR more.

Lol let's just conveniently forget the fact that anyone who wasn't 'average' (read: white and rich) either died in camps (black ppl, Romani, disabled ppl, LGBTQ ppl, etc. etc.) or had their fucking homes levelled as a result of the war fascism started. I'm sure post-war Germany really agreed with the notion that fascism had uplifted them.

GLORIOUS FALGSC wrote:

Genivaria wrote:So Fascism failed by one of it's own standards.
Don't start crap when you can't finish it.

i wouldn't say that fascism failed because it was militaristic; the fascist state of Italy failed because they chose the wrong enemies. I point to Sorairo's timeline "In the Footprint of Mussolini" on alternatehistory.com.

If Mussolini decided to antagonize Hitler further and keep its pledge of protection to Austria, then a fascist or at least authoritarian Italy may have survived, or at least until Mussolini died and if the youth wouldn't get more fanatic like they would've in a successful Nazi Germany. Fascism in Italy was a stabilizing force, much like Titoism in Yugoslavia; it was popular, and it was effective at stabilizing the fragile systems of Italy (that they left in place, anyway). They were popular with the Catholics to an extent (Fascist Italy oversaw the creation of the Vatican), popular with the youth, popular with the right, somewhat popular with the left (they had a few socialist characteristics, with Mussolini being a former communist), and extremely popular with the military.

Also, this is important: DON'T TAKE THIS AS AN IDEALIZATION OF FASCISM. I hate fascism. It's a terrible idea that would only work in fragile states and would, eventually, come crashing down, like every political system ever. It simply would last longer in Italy because it was so popular.

Never said that fascism failed because it was militaristic.
Fascism fails because it's divisive, de-humanizing, and glorifies violence to an extreme.

Genivaria wrote:

Pannerstone wrote:
At least it had a chance to start something...

......You mean like the Holocaust?
There I said it.

National Socialism is not Fascism, rendering your point moot.

I say that the Spanish Civil War and Italy's worst point in history are better.

Alexiandra wrote:

Pannerstone wrote:
No, I measure success based on the ability of the nation to preserve it's culture, care for the majority of it's citizens and provide a reasonable amount of freedom to it's people.

In the context of Communism vs Fascism

Fascism did far more for the average person, FAR FAR more.

Lol let's just conveniently forget the fact that anyone who wasn't 'average' (read: white and rich) either died in camps (black ppl, Romani, disabled ppl, LGBTQ ppl, etc. etc.) or had their fucking homes levelled as a result of the war fascism started. I'm sure post-war Germany really agreed with the notion that fascism had uplifted them.

War affects everyone, that's not a valid criticism, otherwise communism is responsible for Viet-Cong homes being burned with napalm.

Pannerstone wrote:

Genivaria wrote:......You mean like the Holocaust?
There I said it.

Dosn't mean much when the Communists killed untold millions as well, just because they were indiscriminate dosn't make them better

is that your measure for sucess?

also National Socialism=/=Fascism

It's pretty telling that your only defense is 'BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS!?"

Genivaria wrote:

GLORIOUS FALGSC wrote:i wouldn't say that fascism failed because it was militaristic; the fascist state of Italy failed because they chose the wrong enemies. I point to Sorairo's timeline "In the Footprint of Mussolini" on alternatehistory.com.

If Mussolini decided to antagonize Hitler further and keep its pledge of protection to Austria, then a fascist or at least authoritarian Italy may have survived, or at least until Mussolini died and if the youth wouldn't get more fanatic like they would've in a successful Nazi Germany. Fascism in Italy was a stabilizing force, much like Titoism in Yugoslavia; it was popular, and it was effective at stabilizing the fragile systems of Italy (that they left in place, anyway). They were popular with the Catholics to an extent (Fascist Italy oversaw the creation of the Vatican), popular with the youth, popular with the right, somewhat popular with the left (they had a few socialist characteristics, with Mussolini being a former communist), and extremely popular with the military.

Also, this is important: DON'T TAKE THIS AS AN IDEALIZATION OF FASCISM. I hate fascism. It's a terrible idea that would only work in fragile states and would, eventually, come crashing down, like every political system ever. It simply would last longer in Italy because it was so popular.

Never said that fascism failed because it was militaristic.
Fascism fails because it's divisive, de-humanizing, and glorifies violence to an extreme.

My bad then, I misinterpreted your point.

Genivaria wrote:

Pannerstone wrote:
Dosn't mean much when the Communists killed untold millions as well, just because they were indiscriminate dosn't make them better

is that your measure for sucess?

also National Socialism=/=Fascism

It's pretty telling that your only defense is 'BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS!?"

Your entire arguement was "But what about the holocaust?!?!"


.....

Alexiandra wrote:

Pannerstone wrote:
No, I measure success based on the ability of the nation to preserve it's culture, care for the majority of it's citizens and provide a reasonable amount of freedom to it's people.

In the context of Communism vs Fascism

Fascism did far more for the average person, FAR FAR more.

Lol let's just conveniently forget the fact that anyone who wasn't 'average' (read: white and rich) either died in camps (black ppl, Romani, disabled ppl, LGBTQ ppl, etc. etc.) or had their fucking homes levelled as a result of the war fascism started. I'm sure post-war Germany really agreed with the notion that fascism had uplifted them.

And then all the average people went and died in the millions anyway fighting for excessively genocidal regimes based on an idea that they were better than everyone else.

To paraphrase LBJ, telling the poorest white man that he's higher than the richest black man means he won't see you picking his pockets.

Torrocca wrote:

Alexiandra wrote:Lol let's just conveniently forget the fact that anyone who wasn't 'average' (read: white and rich) either died in camps (black ppl, Romani, disabled ppl, LGBTQ ppl, etc. etc.) or had their fucking homes levelled as a result of the war fascism started. I'm sure post-war Germany really agreed with the notion that fascism had uplifted them.

And then all the average people went and died in the millions anyway fighting for excessively genocidal regimes based on an idea that they were better than everyone else.

To paraphrase LBJ, telling the poorest white man that he's higher than the richest black man means he won't see you picking his pockets.

Assuming the average German was a raging anti-semetic member of the SS or every italian a hardcore blackshirt.

Pannerstone wrote:

Alexiandra wrote:Lol let's just conveniently forget the fact that anyone who wasn't 'average' (read: white and rich) either died in camps (black ppl, Romani, disabled ppl, LGBTQ ppl, etc. etc.) or had their fucking homes levelled as a result of the war fascism started. I'm sure post-war Germany really agreed with the notion that fascism had uplifted them.

War affects everyone, that's not a valid criticism, otherwise communism is responsible for Viet-Cong homes being burned with napalm.

Not a valid criticism? Fascists started WW2 to serve fascism, both materially and ideologically. You ain’t ducking this one buddy

Pannerstone wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
And then all the average people went and died in the millions anyway fighting for excessively genocidal regimes based on an idea that they were better than everyone else.

To paraphrase LBJ, telling the poorest white man that he's higher than the richest black man means he won't see you picking his pockets.

Assuming the average German was a raging anti-semetic member of the SS or every italian a hardcore blackshirt.

Tfw you’ve never heard of conscription

Pannerstone wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
And then all the average people went and died in the millions anyway fighting for excessively genocidal regimes based on an idea that they were better than everyone else.

To paraphrase LBJ, telling the poorest white man that he's higher than the richest black man means he won't see you picking his pockets.

Assuming the average German was a raging anti-semetic member of the SS or every italian a hardcore blackshirt.

Populist movements don't fare well without popular support.

And given the propensity for even the regular armed forces of Italy and Germany to commit outrageous numbers of atrocities, it's pretty safe to say the average person was morally okay with what happened.