Who is worse Fascists, Communists, Islamic Theocracy, Imp...

[Hukhalia]

Uh... Mussolini and Franco engaged in some anti-semitic rhetoric, but generally left their Jewish communities alone. And the communists weren't notably better behaved towards political dissidents.

mussolini actively let the germans seize italian jews and send them to concentration camps what level of historical revisionism is this

[Sordhau]

Uh... Mussolini and Franco engaged in some anti-semitic rhetoric, but generally left their Jewish communities alone. And the communists weren't notably better behaved towards political dissidents.

mussolini actively let the germans seize italian jews and send them to concentration camps what level of historical revisionism is this

To be fair, he wasn't in a position to stop them. Said seizures occurred during the Italian Social Republic in which Mussolini had no actual authority and was merely a puppet of the Nazis. He had refused numerous requests to extradite Italian Jews prior to his removal from power by the Grand Council of Fascism and the King of Italy.

[Hukhalia]

mussolini actively let the germans seize italian jews and send them to concentration camps what level of historical revisionism is this

To be fair, he wasn't in a position to stop them. Said seizures occurred during the Italian Social Republic in which Mussolini had no actual authority and was merely a puppet of the Nazis. He had refused numerous requests to extradite Italian Jews prior to his removal from power by the Grand Council of Fascism and the King of Italy.

I'm sure if you asked any Italian Jew who went through the holocaust they probably wouldn't be very forgiving of Mussolini for throwing his lot in with the Germans to begin with. Not to mention the plethora of anti-Jewish laws that Mussolini had enacted to begin with.

[Sordhau]

To be fair, he wasn't in a position to stop them. Said seizures occurred during the Italian Social Republic in which Mussolini had no actual authority and was merely a puppet of the Nazis. He had refused numerous requests to extradite Italian Jews prior to his removal from power by the Grand Council of Fascism and the King of Italy.

I'm sure if you asked any Italian Jew who went through the holocaust they probably wouldn't be very forgiving of Mussolini for throwing his lot in with the Germans to begin with. Not to mention the plethora of anti-Jewish laws that Mussolini had enacted to begin with.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but Mussolini's relations with Italian Jews were... complex. Many important members of the Fascist Party had Jewish heritage. Mussolini was a bit more pragmatic in his approach to Jews than the Nazis.

That doesn't mean he wasn't an anti-Semite, of course. He totally was. But so were most people at the time tbqh.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Imperialists killed millions tho. Much more than any sides.

The European empires killed a lot of people, true, but on the other hand, communists did too, in a shorter period of time.

And fascists even more so, in an even shorter period of time.

[Berhakonia]

The European empires killed a lot of people, true, but on the other hand, communists did too, in a shorter period of time.

And fascists even more so, in an even shorter period of time.

And the Bubonic Plague even more so, in an even shorter period of time

Guys I think we've found the true enemy of democracy

[Elwher]

Why should a faceless bureaucrat decide what my labor is worth?

A faceless bureaucrat at least isn't necessarily motivated by personal greed, a soulless corporation on the other hand is solely motivated by personal greed.

I'd much rather negotiate directly with my boss and be able to tell him to pound sand if he disagrees with my evaluation.

Lol.

Okay bro, when you join the working world how about you give that a shot and tell me how it works out for you. Because I can tell you if I tried that stunt I'd either end up on welfare or forced to work an even worse job for even worse pay.

As someone who spent over 35 years in the working world, I was in positions where the employer held the cards and determined my pay; I was in situations where we negotiated on fairly equal terms, and I was in situations where the employer was desperate for someone with my skill set. The latter is much preferable, so the answer is to improve one's skills to be in that situation. If you intend a career of flipping burgers, you will not have much leverage. If you are the only programmer on the market who can code in NEAT-3, you become much more valuable.

And as to the other point, a faceless bureaucrat has no idea what my particular skills are worth; the representative of the soulless corporation does.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

A faceless bureaucrat at least isn't necessarily motivated by personal greed, a soulless corporation on the other hand is solely motivated by personal greed.



Lol.

Okay bro, when you join the working world how about you give that a shot and tell me how it works out for you. Because I can tell you if I tried that stunt I'd either end up on welfare or forced to work an even worse job for even worse pay.

As someone who spent over 35 years in the working world, I was in positions where the employer held the cards and determined my pay; I was in situations where we negotiated on fairly equal terms, and I was in situations where the employer was desperate for someone with my skill set. The latter is much preferable, so the answer is to improve one's skills to be in that situation. If you intend a career of flipping burgers, you will not have much leverage. If you are the only programmer on the market who can code in NEAT-3, you become much more valuable.

And as to the other point, a faceless bureaucrat has no idea what my particular skills are worth; the representative of the soulless corporation does.

Level of education is not a result of personal effort. It is mainly the result of whether you were able to pay for it.

Also, why haggle between state control and corporate control when socialism is an option?

[Galiantus III]

Labor built that factory.
Labor extracted those raw materials.
Labor organized the products so they could be ordered

Those are major parts of production... major parts which could be overseen by literally anyone. You don't need to pay some jackass in a suit and tie six figures to do that stuff. Yet he should make more than all his workers combined? I think not.

Labor is the only reason business exists. Without labor, there is no business.

If someone organizes a company that can produce useful products, they deserve what profit they can generate (if any).

Socialists agree. We merely disagree on who should organize the company--that being the people who work in the factories, the mines, the farms, etc.

Not pencil-pushers in office skyscrapers whose only concern is how the stock market is doing.

I'm going to focus in on this part, because I think this is the most crucial part of the discussion. Yes, labor built the factory. Yes, labor extracted those raw materials. Yes, labor handled shipping and receiving. But you are ignoring the fact that the "evil, greedy, fat, capitalist pig" had to pay for those things. With money of his own. That he obtained legitimately. So that factory, those materials, and everything else that he paid for, is all rightfully his.

And before you scoff and go "oh, they couldn't have obtained that money legitimately"... you are wrong. And the reason you are wrong is that you don't understand how these "evil, greedy, fat, capitalist pigs" actually create a company. They didn't all get together in a meeting to smoke cigars and twirl their moustaches and discuss how to rip off the worker - that is a cartoon version of reality you have in your head. It isn't reality. What actually happened is some guy had an idea, so he went and pitched it to some wealthy people and offered them shares of his company in exchange for an investment. That is, they gave him the resources to make it happen, and if the company failed (which is how it goes most of the time) they lost it all. And if it succeeded, then they would get a return.

"But where did these fat cats get their money? Didn't they steal it somehow?" I hear you ask. No, they didn't. These investors got their money from backing companies that turned out successful, or from starting their own companies (using money from other investors), or as a gift. "What do you mean gift?" you ask. Inheritance; scholarships; getting lucky; literal gifts. Whatever the case, all of this money was ultimately earned because the "evil, greedy, fat, capitalist pig" worked for it themselves, or someone who worked for it gave it to them, either as a gift or an investment. The reason that "jackass in a suit" deserves such a high pay is because he's the one putting thousands, or millions, or billions of dollars on the line, that neither he nor his investors were obligated to spend on anything. If they just sat pretty and lived on it, instead of risking it, there would be no factory, no machines, no materials, and no option to labor for money.

Bottom line: If you tell potential entrepreneurs and investors the only way they can have a company is if "the workers must own the means of production", there will be no means of production. No one - and especially not the workers you smile at with a forked tongue - is going to front the resources for a venture that requires ultimately losing money 100% of the time.

---

Level of education is not a result of personal effort. It is mainly the result of whether you were able to pay for it.

"Level of education" is increasingly meaningless. Seriously, unless you are actually legally required to have a degree (as is the case with law, medicine, and engineering) school is a waste of money. Get a job that lets you interact with people who have the skills you want, pay attention, and then start a career with those skills you have developed with real-world experience. Half the skills you need for a job are part of the training anyway, and the other half simply cannot be taught except by experience. And if you can form a good relationship with your employer, they will open doors for you to places no degree possibly can.

Also, why haggle between state control and corporate control when socialism is an option?

Socialism is state control, by definition.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Also, why haggle between state control and corporate control when socialism is an option?

Socialism is state control, by definition.

What? Can you define what you think socialism is? At its core, all it is is when the workers own the means of production.

[Kubra]

Socialism is state control, by definition.

Damn bruh to think ancient minoans were champions of the proletarian cause

[Diopolis]

The European empires killed a lot of people, true, but on the other hand, communists did too, in a shorter period of time.

And fascists even more so, in an even shorter period of time.

If you blame every death from WWII on Hitler, sure.
No one can beat Mao for peacetime deaths.

[Kubra]

And fascists even more so, in an even shorter period of time.

If you blame every death from WWII on Hitler, sure.
No one can beat Mao for peacetime deaths.

In fairness, the only reason the KMT wouldn't have done such a dumb thing is largely because Chiang was a lot more ineffectual as a singular leader. Gotta give Mao credit, no one else, not even Stalin could make a system in which everyone knew the big guy was fucking up royally but kept going anyways.
That's, of course, why singular leaders are a poor thing to bet on, since you're basically flipping a coin. That's suckers gambling.

[Diopolis]

If you blame every death from WWII on Hitler, sure.
No one can beat Mao for peacetime deaths.

In fairness, the only reason the KMT wouldn't have done such a dumb thing is largely because Chiang was a lot more ineffectual as a singular leader. Gotta give Mao credit, no one else, not even Stalin could make a system in which everyone knew the big guy was fucking up royally but kept going anyways.
That's, of course, why singular leaders are a poor thing to bet on, since you're basically flipping a coin. That's suckers gambling.

Stalin caused his own mass deaths...
TBH the KMT may not have been any more benevolent, but they are unlikely to have killed forty millions of people by declaring war on sparrows.

[Kubra]

In fairness, the only reason the KMT wouldn't have done such a dumb thing is largely because Chiang was a lot more ineffectual as a singular leader. Gotta give Mao credit, no one else, not even Stalin could make a system in which everyone knew the big guy was fucking up royally but kept going anyways.
That's, of course, why singular leaders are a poor thing to bet on, since you're basically flipping a coin. That's suckers gambling.

Stalin caused his own mass deaths...
TBH the KMT may not have been any more benevolent, but they are unlikely to have killed forty millions of people by declaring war on sparrows.

Stalin's top brass weren't all that against what he was doing, or at least the ones that mattered.
Mao's inner circle, that's a different story. When it came to the political folks *everyone* knew that Mao was fucking up, but kept silent and even made the guy little potemkin villages to make sure he never caught on to the fact he was fucking up.
Chiang never had control of his subordinates to such a degree, and of course we can argue that very few people ever *should*.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Yellow_River_flood
lol

[Diopolis]

Stalin caused his own mass deaths...
TBH the KMT may not have been any more benevolent, but they are unlikely to have killed forty millions of people by declaring war on sparrows.

Stalin's top brass weren't all that against what he was doing, or at least the ones that mattered.
Mao's inner circle, that's a different story. When it came to the political folks *everyone* knew that Mao was fucking up, but kept silent and even made the guy little potemkin villages to make sure he never caught on to the fact he was fucking up.
Chiang never had control of his subordinates to such a degree, and of course we can argue that very few people ever *should*.

Yeah, but Chiang also wasn't likely to try to roll out massive untested reforms, regardless of whether he had absolute power or not.

[Sordhau]

As someone who spent over 35 years in the working world, I was in positions where the employer held the cards and determined my pay; I was in situations where we negotiated on fairly equal terms, and I was in situations where the employer was desperate for someone with my skill set. The latter is much preferable, so the answer is to improve one's skills to be in that situation. If you intend a career of flipping burgers, you will not have much leverage. If you are the only programmer on the market who can code in NEAT-3, you become much more valuable.

That's real neat bro. Real happy for you. But most people don't have those highly valued skills and never will, so your point is moot.

And as to the other point, a faceless bureaucrat has no idea what my particular skills are worth; the representative of the soulless corporation does.

And what logic are you basing this on, exactly? You are aware that under a Socialist system the unions that run these facilities would be part of the government, yes?

I'm going to focus in on this part, because I think this is the most crucial part of the discussion.

Translation: "I'm going to ignore your other points because I don't have an argument against them."

Yes, labor built the factory. Yes, labor extracted those raw materials. Yes, labor handled shipping and receiving. But you are ignoring the fact that the "evil, greedy, fat, capitalist pig" had to pay for those things. With money of his own. That he obtained legitimately. So that factory, those materials, and everything else that he paid for, is all rightfully his.

And this gives him the right to take home an exorbitantly bigger paycheck than his workers? What about when the capitalist dies/retirees and another takes over, are they inclined to the same treatment despite having had no personal involvement in any of this? What if it was the State that built the factory, who owns it then?

And before you scoff and go "oh, they couldn't have obtained that money legitimately"... you are wrong. And the reason you are wrong is that you don't understand how these "evil, greedy, fat, capitalist pigs" actually create a company. They didn't all get together in a meeting to smoke cigars and twirl their moustaches and discuss how to rip off the worker - that is a cartoon version of reality you have in your head. It isn't reality. What actually happened is some guy had an idea, so he went and pitched it to some wealthy people and offered them shares of his company in exchange for an investment. That is, they gave him the resources to make it happen, and if the company failed (which is how it goes most of the time) they lost it all. And if it succeeded, then they would get a return.

Oh neat. A smug and condescending explanation of a process I already knew about. Thanks bro, really appreciate your insulting insinuations regarding my degree of information regarding the subject of how businesses are created.

"But where did these fat cats get their money? Didn't they steal it somehow?" I hear you ask.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of why Socialists view Capitalists as thieves, as displayed by these strawmen you kept building. You could, you know, argue in good faith maybe? Without making insulting inferences about my intelligence? Just a thought.

No, they didn't. These investors got their money from backing companies that turned out successful, or from starting their own companies (using money from other investors), or as a gift. "What do you mean gift?" you ask. Inheritance; scholarships; getting lucky; literal gifts. Whatever the case, all of this money was ultimately earned because the "evil, greedy, fat, capitalist pig" worked for it themselves, or someone who worked for it gave it to them, either as a gift or an investment.

You have a funny definition of "earn" if you include things like luck, inheritance, investment, or literal charity from friends and family lmao.

The reason that "jackass in a suit" deserves such a high pay is because he's the one putting thousands, or millions, or billions of dollars on the line, that neither he nor his investors were obligated to spend on anything.

You make it sound like these tools are risking poverty rofl. They aren't. Businesspeople don't invest all their money in one company and then pray it works, they do this with multiple companies. If one goes under they can just move on to another. They'll be fine, they won't be the ones feeling the hurt no matter how many zeroes they lose. The workers on the other hand are completely screwed. The fat cats aren't going to help them.

Never mind if the business is "too big to fail", as many businesses are these days.

If they just sat pretty and lived on it, instead of risking it, there would be no factory, no machines, no materials, and no option to labor for money.

I can confirm from personal experience that this isn't even remotely try. Corporate types will spend the bare minimum and no more to ensure things are running. If it isn't absolutely essential to keeping things moving they'll drag their feet on it for as long as possible, and whenever the company hits hard times guess whose getting pay cuts? Hint: it's not the people in the office buildings!

Bottom line: If you tell potential entrepreneurs and investors the only way they can have a company is if "the workers must own the means of production", there will be no means of production. No one - and especially not the workers you smile at with a forked tongue - is going to front the resources for a venture that requires ultimately losing money 100% of the time.

Lol. You really don't understand what Socialism is do you.

There are no "investors" or "entrepreneurs". These are Capitalist concepts; the idea of private individuals/organizations investing personal money into business so they can have a say on how things are done and a cut of the profits is not remotely Socialist in any sense of the word. There would be no millionaires throwing money around to prop up businesses in a Socialist system, partly because there would be no millionaires to do so. The factories, the mines, the farms, et cetera. would run by the will of the workers. They would collectively produce the product, collectively arrange for it's sale, and collectively acquire resources to build more product. Their work hours, wages, breaks, and so on would be collectively decided upon by themselves. The purpose would be the production of goods and the providing of services, not the pursuit of personal gain. All money made would go directly into the business itself and into the pockets of the workers themselves, not a bunch of nameless suits in an ivory tower nobody has ever met. The business therefor thrives precisely because there aren't a handful of jerkoffs in penthouse suites taking 50% of the profits home with them.

Socialism is state control, by definition.

Socialism is worker control, by definition. Not only of the means of production but of the state itself.

[Hidrandia]

every ideology kills people, so give me one that kills the least amount of people

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

every ideology kills people, so give me one that kills the least amount of people

there are none because we've been bashing eachother's heads in ever since Grog did it to Urg 1 million years ago. And the world would be actually much improved if humanity realised this fact and stopped pretending to merely kill eachother for sanctimonious reasons.

[Kubra]

Stalin's top brass weren't all that against what he was doing, or at least the ones that mattered.
Mao's inner circle, that's a different story. When it came to the political folks *everyone* knew that Mao was fucking up, but kept silent and even made the guy little potemkin villages to make sure he never caught on to the fact he was fucking up.
Chiang never had control of his subordinates to such a degree, and of course we can argue that very few people ever *should*.

Yeah, but Chiang also wasn't likely to try to roll out massive untested reforms, regardless of whether he had absolute power or not.

That ain't true, man. The KMT were as invested in the total remaking of China as much as the CPC, and had a stake in doing so because many its remnants were a big part of why republican forces were always such fragmented things.
The thing with Chiang and Mao's disagreements is that they weren't actually that ideologically different, the KMT under Chiang was semi-communist owing to its soviet ties and Mao's communism at the time was a lot more capitalistic than one would think, looking at the later years. And Chiang, well, we can look at Taiwan during his time and say yeah, it's generally a good thing he didn't have that kind of sway in the KMT. Imagine how he'd be with a fancy flat, a harem, an army of balls-having eunuch's, and absolute control over all of China.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Yeah, but Chiang also wasn't likely to try to roll out massive untested reforms, regardless of whether he had absolute power or not.

That ain't true, man. The KMT were as invested in the total remaking of China as much as the CPC, and had a stake in doing so because many its remnants were a big part of why republican forces were always such fragmented things.
The thing with Chiang and Mao's disagreements is that they weren't actually that ideologically different, the KMT under Chiang was semi-communist owing to its soviet ties and Mao's communism at the time was a lot more capitalistic than one would think, looking at the later years. And Chiang, well, we can look at Taiwan during his time and say yeah, it's generally a good thing he didn't have that kind of sway in the KMT. Imagine how he'd be with a fancy flat, a harem, an army of balls-having eunuch's, and absolute control over all of China.

Guy only calmed down somewhat after he got ejected from the mainland after all... and not even that. First thing he did on Taiwan was to organise bloodbaths of anybody he didn't like. <.<

[Kubra]

That ain't true, man. The KMT were as invested in the total remaking of China as much as the CPC, and had a stake in doing so because many its remnants were a big part of why republican forces were always such fragmented things.
The thing with Chiang and Mao's disagreements is that they weren't actually that ideologically different, the KMT under Chiang was semi-communist owing to its soviet ties and Mao's communism at the time was a lot more capitalistic than one would think, looking at the later years. And Chiang, well, we can look at Taiwan during his time and say yeah, it's generally a good thing he didn't have that kind of sway in the KMT. Imagine how he'd be with a fancy flat, a harem, an army of balls-having eunuch's, and absolute control over all of China.

Guy only calmed down somewhat after he got ejected from the mainland after all... and not even that. First thing he did on Taiwan was to organise bloodbaths of anybody he didn't like. <.<

Man, he did *not* calm down. I really doubt the rest of the folks who came with him actually expected, as he *really* did, that they could actually retake the mainland.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Guy only calmed down somewhat after he got ejected from the mainland after all... and not even that. First thing he did on Taiwan was to organise bloodbaths of anybody he didn't like. <.<

Man, he did *not* calm down. I really doubt the rest of the folks who came with him actually expected, as he *really* did, that they could actually retake the mainland.

I mean he sorta simmered down to merely aping Park Chung-hee rather than siccing the mob on his political opponents and other undesirables. Which mind you still isn't great but the alternatives were that or the time he opened up the Yellow River dams for no fucking reason.

[Kubra]

Man, he did *not* calm down. I really doubt the rest of the folks who came with him actually expected, as he *really* did, that they could actually retake the mainland.

I mean he sorta simmered down to merely aping Park Chung-hee rather than siccing the mob on his political opponents and other undesirables. Which mind you still isn't great but the alternatives were that or the time he opened up the Yellow River dams for no fucking reason.

But the point I was making is that probably has less to do with he himself and more to do with the fact that he was not a comparable political figure to Mao. Chiang for instance wasn't personally overseeing land reform in Taiwan, he shunted that job off to a cabinet minister working with the americans. If he were, let's face it: war communism in the countryside in order to take the war back to the communists.