By "democratic means" he means that through the democratic institution's power and luck.
Advertisement
by Verlzonia » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:45 am
by Uxupox » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:46 am
The Transhuman Union wrote:Novowarsawianka wrote:
Fascism we know is a threat to society, many branches of Fascism do not try to hide it, and are generally frowned upon. The lack of education on the ills of Socialism though leads to it being seen as "not so bad". If you want, we can try to evade the USSR as an example, we can use Pot, Chavez, Castro, Kim, and so many others as examples of failure and bringers of ill in the name of Socialism.
"Democratic socialism"? I don't remember a single country where socialism was placed because of a democratic vote. And it is an oxymoron, at least it should be. Who openly votes for their economic rights to be taken away?
Ummmm... no? Except probably Chavez, all of those leaders you mentioned followed the ideas of communism, not socialism (and even Chavez is disputable). Since when Mao and Kim were democratically elected? And they ruthlessly pursued their 'utopia'. And Chavez's rule was pretty successful in the first years. And you think of socialism as authoritarian, not libertarian as Marx intended it to be. You are mixing communism, which is 99% cases authoritarian (because it has to in order to work), with socialism, which doesn't have to be.
Communism is worse than fascism, but socialism definitely isn't.
If socialism didn't exist, half of the countries in the East would be backwards and poor.
'I don't remember a single country where socialism was placed because of a democratic vote.'
Socialism placed? Socialism was never 'placed', unless you're talking about laissez-faire countries. There were no socialism being 'placed' in a France when a socialist presidents were elected. I don't get your point.
by Escocaria » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:47 am
Pro-Union Anglo-ScotSultana Annette II Al Yusuf - Escocarian Political Parties - NS Stats are to be ignored
by Novowarsawianka » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:48 am
The Transhuman Union wrote:Novowarsawianka wrote:
Fascism we know is a threat to society, many branches of Fascism do not try to hide it, and are generally frowned upon. The lack of education on the ills of Socialism though leads to it being seen as "not so bad". If you want, we can try to evade the USSR as an example, we can use Pot, Chavez, Castro, Kim, and so many others as examples of failure and bringers of ill in the name of Socialism.
"Democratic socialism"? I don't remember a single country where socialism was placed because of a democratic vote. And it is an oxymoron, at least it should be. Who openly votes for their economic rights to be taken away?
Ummmm... no? Except probably Chavez, all of those leaders you mentioned followed the ideas of communism, not socialism (and even Chavez is disputable). Since when Mao and Kim were democratically elected? And they ruthlessly pursued their 'utopia'. And Chavez's rule was pretty successful in the first years. And you think of socialism as authoritarian, not libertarian as Marx intended it to be. You are mixing communism, which is 99% cases authoritarian (because it has to in order to work), with socialism, which doesn't have to be.
Communism is worse than fascism, but socialism definitely isn't.
If socialism didn't exist, half of the countries in the East would be backwards and poor.
'I don't remember a single country where socialism was placed because of a democratic vote.'
Socialism placed? Socialism was never 'placed', unless you're talking about laissez-faire countries. There were no socialism being 'placed' in a France when a socialist presidents were elected. I don't get your point.
by Changjo » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:49 am
Escocaria wrote:Changjo wrote:
I think you need to catch up on your history. Most of the land occupied by Nazi Germany was never even close to being a part of the German Empire
Perhaps you missed the part where I said 'and' which typically means there is an addition. The part where I said 'Take over Slavic Europe in order to secure the future of the German people' can be shortened down to 'Lebenschraum' if you want.
by The Transhuman Union » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:49 am
Uxupox wrote:The Transhuman Union wrote:
Ummmm... no? Except probably Chavez, all of those leaders you mentioned followed the ideas of communism, not socialism (and even Chavez is disputable). Since when Mao and Kim were democratically elected? And they ruthlessly pursued their 'utopia'. And Chavez's rule was pretty successful in the first years. And you think of socialism as authoritarian, not libertarian as Marx intended it to be. You are mixing communism, which is 99% cases authoritarian (because it has to in order to work), with socialism, which doesn't have to be.
Communism is worse than fascism, but socialism definitely isn't.
If socialism didn't exist, half of the countries in the East would be backwards and poor.
'I don't remember a single country where socialism was placed because of a democratic vote.'
Socialism placed? Socialism was never 'placed', unless you're talking about laissez-faire countries. There were no socialism being 'placed' in a France when a socialist presidents were elected. I don't get your point.
I need some evidence for that particular comment my friend.
by Anywhere Else But Here » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:51 am
Escocaria wrote:Novowarsawianka wrote:"Democratic socialism"? I don't remember a single country where socialism was placed because of a democratic vote. And it is an oxymoron, at least it should be. Who openly votes for their economic rights to be taken away?
You'd be surprised what stupid things some people will do when you word it correctly.
by Forsher » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:51 am
Ifreann wrote:[What happened to the people who got in the way of the British Empire conquering India?
by Uxupox » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:52 am
The Transhuman Union wrote:Uxupox wrote:
I need some evidence for that particular comment my friend.
Evidence? Do you think that Imperial Russia or China were marvels of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries? Economically and socially, no they absolutely weren't.
I personally think that if the White Army won in Russia and installed capitalism, Russia would have progressed much more slowly.
by Esternial » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:54 am
by The Transhuman Union » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:54 am
Uxupox wrote:The Transhuman Union wrote:
Evidence? Do you think that Imperial Russia or China were marvels of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries? Economically and socially, no they absolutely weren't.
I personally think that if the White Army won in Russia and installed capitalism, Russia would have progressed much more slowly.
So just an opinion and no real data to base off that comment?
by Verlzonia » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:54 am
The Transhuman Union wrote:Uxupox wrote:
I need some evidence for that particular comment my friend.
Evidence? Do you think that Imperial Russia or China were marvels of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries? Economically and socially, no they absolutely weren't.
I personally think that if the White Army won in Russia and installed capitalism, Russia would have progressed much more slowly.
by The Transhuman Union » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:56 am
Verlzonia wrote:The Transhuman Union wrote:
Evidence? Do you think that Imperial Russia or China were marvels of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries? Economically and socially, no they absolutely weren't.
I personally think that if the White Army won in Russia and installed capitalism, Russia would have progressed much more slowly.
Economy is only one side of the coin, friend. Both China & Russia were having a rough time before their socialist revolutions. In China's case the revolution did next to nothing better until Deng Xiaoping started reforming the economy into capitalism. Russia much the same until Yeltsin. Both nations still have a long way still though.
by Uxupox » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:58 am
by The Transhuman Union » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:58 am
Novowarsawianka wrote:The Transhuman Union wrote:
Ummmm... no? Except probably Chavez, all of those leaders you mentioned followed the ideas of communism, not socialism (and even Chavez is disputable). Since when Mao and Kim were democratically elected? And they ruthlessly pursued their 'utopia'. And Chavez's rule was pretty successful in the first years. And you think of socialism as authoritarian, not libertarian as Marx intended it to be. You are mixing communism, which is 99% cases authoritarian (because it has to in order to work), with socialism, which doesn't have to be.
Communism is worse than fascism, but socialism definitely isn't.
If socialism didn't exist, half of the countries in the East would be backwards and poor.
'I don't remember a single country where socialism was placed because of a democratic vote.'
Socialism placed? Socialism was never 'placed', unless you're talking about laissez-faire countries. There were no socialism being 'placed' in a France when a socialist presidents were elected. I don't get your point.
What socialist president was elected in France? What socialism in the East are you talking about, do say?
by Verlzonia » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:58 am
The Transhuman Union wrote:Verlzonia wrote:
Economy is only one side of the coin, friend. Both China & Russia were having a rough time before their socialist revolutions. In China's case the revolution did next to nothing better until Deng Xiaoping started reforming the economy into capitalism. Russia much the same until Yeltsin. Both nations still have a long way still though.
But still, economically they were much better than their predecessors. It was just a first step.
by Novowarsawianka » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:59 am
The Transhuman Union wrote:Uxupox wrote:
I need some evidence for that particular comment my friend.
Evidence? Do you think that Imperial Russia or China were marvels of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries? Economically and socially, no they absolutely weren't.
I personally think that if the White Army won in Russia and installed capitalism, Russia would have progressed much more slowly.
by Antarctic Commonwealth of Equality » Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:00 am
by Forsher » Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:03 am
Ifreann wrote:What part of that sounds like "democratic means" to you?
by Escocaria » Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:03 am
Changjo wrote:Escocaria wrote:Perhaps you missed the part where I said 'and' which typically means there is an addition. The part where I said 'Take over Slavic Europe in order to secure the future of the German people' can be shortened down to 'Lebenschraum' if you want.
Yes that is usually where 'and' is used. But still doesn't change the content of your sentence which is incorrect regardless of whether you use 'and, or' or anything else. The word and in your sentence describes taking over the Slavlic countries in addition to taking over territories of the German Empire not Slavic Countries which were part of the German Empire which still wouldn't be correct.
Norway, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece etc were occupied by Nazi Germany and are not Slavic countries. Parts of France were once part of the German Empire but were annexed by Germany and never theirs to begin with. The majority of the Slavic countries were also never a part of the German Empire or never theirs to begin with. Generally they all were part the Austro-Hungarian Empire,the Polish-Lithuanian Empire or the Ottoman Empire following which they were independent in their own right and again annexed by German Empire.
Pro-Union Anglo-ScotSultana Annette II Al Yusuf - Escocarian Political Parties - NS Stats are to be ignored
by Verlzonia » Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:05 am
Antarctic Commonwealth of Equality wrote:1. The USSR did not mass murder jews.
2. The USSR was a democratic nation. Video by The Finnish Bolshevik
3. The USSR had high human development.
4. The USSR had more equality of oppertunity than western countries.
5. The USSR was anti-imperialist.
The worst thing about the USSR was the revisionism after stalin died. Market socialism was a mistake.
by The Transhuman Union » Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:05 am
Uxupox wrote:The Transhuman Union wrote:
Are you completely missing the point or something?
Look at any Eastern country in the 19th century before they became socialist (or even communist). The evidence is right there.
lol
How exactly do you know that China wouldn't have become an industrial powerhouse under Chiang Kai-shek? How do you know that after the Russian civil war that Russia wouldn't also become a industrial powerhouse under either the republicans or monarchists in control?
by Escocaria » Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:10 am
Antarctic Commonwealth of Equality wrote:1. The USSR did not mass murder jews.
2. The USSR was a democratic nation. Video by The Finnish Bolshevik
3. The USSR had high human development.
4. The USSR had more equality of oppertunity than western countries.
5. The USSR was anti-imperialist.
The worst thing about the USSR was the revisionism after stalin died. Market socialism was a mistake.
Pro-Union Anglo-ScotSultana Annette II Al Yusuf - Escocarian Political Parties - NS Stats are to be ignored
by Antarctic Commonwealth of Equality » Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:12 am
Verlzonia wrote:Ah yes, lets only count racial genocide. Any other genocide is truly not worth the time discussing!
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Australian rePublic, Bovad, The Jamesian Republic, Trump Almighty, World Anarchic Union, Zetaopalatopia
Advertisement