62 replies to this topic

[ChromodynamicGirl]

I could go on about this for days, but I'll take a simple example to make my point with; and if you can look for yourself you will find it more or less replicates itself everywhere in any discussion where Nazis are even tangentially brought up.
It is often decried by leftists that American companies did business with 'the third reich'. When examined closely, when it is actually true, it mostly amounts to nothing more than that some Americans did business with some Germans - many of whom they had been doing business with for decades before there was an NSDAP. On some occasions these companies did business with the German NS government - just as they did with the American and, for that matter, the Soviet governments. In some very rare cases Americans actually gave money to the NSDAP or NSDAP-related organizations. Well, so what? Probably many more Americans gave money or some other support to the German Communist parties (often called Social Democrats). Now, as far as I can tell the only thing worse about the Nazis in Germany as compared to the Commies is that the Nazis won and the Commies didn't. In fact, after the Nazi victory, most of the NSDAP's rank and file were recruited from the Communist, Marxist and Social Democratic parties. And if you give me a choice between living in Bolshevik Russia and Nazi Germany - well, let's say it doesn't require much detailed examination of the actual history to decide I'd take Germany any day.

This Progressive American Hegemonic selective history irritates me in all its forms, but especially the Nazi thing; since to most Americans history began with World War 2. Hitler was insane, or demonaical, or some bizarre reason has to be conjured up for his behavior. How about this: people are ignorant herd animals and socialism sucks. The 'problem' of Nazism solved. Someone give me a Nobel Prize now.

Edited by ChromodynamicGirl, 12 October 2010 - 10:40 PM.

[hotamali]

I always wondered if the Axis won the war, how technological progress would have been affected. I mean, to have a society with zero moral constraints on genetic human testing etc.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

I always wondered if the Axis won the war, how technological progress would have been affected. I mean, to have a society with zero moral constraints on genetic human testing etc.

The political correctness and lack of coherent economic or capital system in Germany would have made it pretty much useless. Germany was bankrupting itself, the idea that they could have conquered the world is militarily and economically retarded.

[chris w]

I always wondered if the Axis won the war, how technological progress would have been affected. I mean, to have a society with zero moral constraints on genetic human testing etc.

The political correctness and lack of coherent economic or capital system in Germany would have made it pretty much useless. Germany was bankrupting itself, the idea that they could have conquered the world is militarily and economically retarded.

This is golden, those NSDAP people - bleeding hearts, right ? Where do you get such fun facts from ?

Actually,

1)If Japanese hadn't made the mistake of Pearl Harbor,

2)Hitler had been smarter/less pain killers addicted/whatever and not stopped the onslaught in Russia just kilometers before Moscow and just before the weather change,

3) Lindbergh types had had more sway in US

The Germans would have had a decent shot at it ( not the actual whole world, because they'd have to share with their allies obviously, plus probably would have left US alone ). As long as Wehrmacht kept going, they didn't need a coherent capital system back home, just like a thief doesn't need to have a bussiness plan as long as he's good at stealing. You make it sound like war time Keynesian politics made the German army use stones and sticks. Caucasus, Iran and Iraq would give them all the oil they needed to fight in Russia plus the slave labor plus occasional anti soviet allies like Cossacs, driving Ruskies all the way out to Siberia.

Not to mention they were close to getting the nuke and their rocketry was getting from shitty to more and more developed but I guess that's physcially impossible if Ludvig von Mises says so.

PS you have some citations to back this - "In fact, after the Nazi victory, most of the NSDAP's rank and file were recruited from the Communist, Marxist and Social Democratic parties"





BTW one mo fo cool SS robot that is in the picture

Edited by chris w, 14 October 2010 - 06:47 PM.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

Yeah, your obvious total ignorance of the economic and military situation make that not worth replying to. I dare say it is because economics in general are a mystery to you.
Here's a hint: socialism fails.

Edited by ChromodynamicGirl, 14 October 2010 - 09:00 PM.

[rwac]

The difference is that everyone can agree that the Nazis are bad. However, A significant portion of the US is capable of deluding themselves into believing that Stalin and Mao weren't as bad, or atleast had 'good intentions'.

And then there's the fact that the US was allied with Stalin's USSR for a bit makes it harder to demonize them. A whole lot of reporters served as useful idiots covering up genocide.

[niner]

The difference is that everyone can agree that the Nazis are bad. However, A significant portion of the US is capable of deluding themselves into believing that Stalin and Mao weren't as bad, or atleast had 'good intentions'.

Really? A significant portion? How big is significant? If you go back to the 1970s, you could find college kids who fancied themselves "Communists" or "Marxists". I knew a few, but was never one myself. However, every last one of them that I knew became died-in-the-wool capitalists. It's my impression that today, Stalin and Mao are in the general vicinity of Hitler in the minds of the vast majority of Americans, though Hitler has a special place on the Pinnacle of Evil. I do think that there's a contingent on the Right who derive political power from creating the impression that the "Communist Menace" is still lurking in America. If it is, I sure don't know where to find it.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

The difference is that everyone can agree that the Nazis are bad. However, A significant portion of the US is capable of deluding themselves into believing that Stalin and Mao weren't as bad, or atleast had 'good intentions'.

And then there's the fact that the US was allied with Stalin's USSR for a bit makes it harder to demonize them. A whole lot of reporters served as useful idiots covering up genocide.

As far as I'm concerned the Allies were all bastards, too. That aside, the stupid thing is how people hate Nazis for all the wrong reasons. Oh, goodness, they didn't like jews or homosexuals. So what? The trouble is that these people had control of a socialist government. Otherwise they'd just be harmless cranks. Frankly, their eugenics policies and such were standard fare in the Fabian Socialist scheme; the explicitly ripped off Wilson's WW1 Total State in terms of politicizing everything, nationalizing the economy, implementing eugenics laws and mobilizing people with an ideological crusade. Too bad Americans don't know fucking anything about history except for their Social-Democrat fantasy Universe.

[rwac]

Really? A significant portion? How big is significant?

Ok, maybe significant is a gross exaggeration, but sometimes you wonder ...

[rwac]

As far as I'm concerned the Allies were all bastards, too. That aside, the stupid thing is how people hate Nazis for all the wrong reasons. Oh, goodness, they didn't like jews or homosexuals. So what? The trouble is that these people had control of a socialist government. Otherwise they'd just be harmless cranks.

Um, no. You're blaming the entire genocide on socialism. There have been plenty of genocides in history unrelated to socialism.
Nationalism, tribalism or religion are entirely sufficient. For example the Armenian genocide ...

Why do you consider the allies to be bastards.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

Um, no. You're blaming the entire genocide on socialism. There have been plenty of genocides in history unrelated to socialism.
Nationalism, tribalism or religion are entirely sufficient. For example the Armenian genocide ...

Still statism, and usually justified as being for 'the people' and 'the good'. Socialism is just a collectivist flavor of statism. So perhaps I should say the shitty thing about Nazis is that they controlled a state, and 20th century socialist states specifically tend to be all-powerful due to their control of private property; which is really the sum total of private life.

Why do you consider the allies to be bastards.

War mongering, thieving, mass-murdering, slave-driving, lying lunatics engaging in ideological crusades. At some points the Allies might be (internally) less bad than, say, Nazis or Sovs. However, given that allied aggression precipitated a central European war into a world war, I'm not sure that argument would get you far on a global scale.
If the Nuremberg war crimes trials were anything other than heretic hunting and ideological show-trials they would have had FDR, Macnamera, Curtis LeMay and Winston Churchill up on a gibbet.

That being said, Hitler needed a good bullet in the face along with all his cronies. But it was socialist ideology and Fabian nationalism (plus the economic collapse engendered by a democratic welfare state - sound familiar?) that put him into power. And most of the Progressives and Social Democrats/Marxists went Nazi with surprising ease.

Edited by ChromodynamicGirl, 15 October 2010 - 04:32 AM.

[rwac]

However, given that allied aggression precipitated a central European war into a world war, I'm not sure that argument would get you far on a global scale.
If the Nuremberg war crimes trials were anything other than heretic hunting and ideological show-trials they would have had FDR, Macnamera, Curtis LeMay and Winston Churchill up on a gibbet.

Wait, the allied aggression made it into a world war Hmmm, what ?
It was Axis which attempted to occupy Africa, march on Moscow and conquer Asia.

War is an ugly thing, but sometimes it's necessary. War is one thing the modern nation-state excels at. Whatever form of (non)governance that replaces it will have to compete on the same level.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

War is an ugly thing, but sometimes it's necessary.

[rwac]

Alas, there's no global cop, and no way to force a peaceful resolution.
It only takes one state to choose to go to war (or provoke everyone else into war), and everyone else is sucked in.

[JLL]

Which brings me to my favourite question: If we need states, how come states live in anarchy in relation to one another? Why don't we have/need that "global cop" to resolve disputes between countries? And since we apparently get along without one, why are governments not on the level of, say, cities instead? Or city areas? Or buildings? Or families?

Or... the individual?

[ChromodynamicGirl]

Which brings me to my favourite question: If we need states, how come states live in anarchy in relation to one another? Why don't we have/need that "global cop" to resolve disputes between countries? And since we apparently get along without one, why are governments not on the level of, say, cities instead? Or city areas? Or buildings? Or families?

Or... the individual?

People can't get outside the Statist box...they don't really know anything about customary law, or get why economics applies to security as well as it does shoelaces.

[rwac]

Which brings me to my favourite question: If we need states, how come states live in anarchy in relation to one another? Why don't we have/need that "global cop" to resolve disputes between countries? And since we apparently get along without one, why are governments not on the level of, say, cities instead? Or city areas? Or buildings? Or families?

Or... the individual?

People can't get outside the Statist box...they don't really know anything about customary law, or get why economics applies to security as well as it does shoelaces.

That's all fine and good, guys and gals, but how do we get there from here ?
You might as well dream of FTL space travel ...

[ChromodynamicGirl]

*shrugs* I hardly care. Retards want to act like cattle, they deserve to be slaughtered.

[maxwatt]

Cartman as Hitler
Cartman leads march
The real thing- Watch as he hypnotizes the audience.

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

[niner]

engaging in ideological crusades.

[medicineman]

Yeah, your obvious total ignorance of the economic and military situation make that not worth replying to. I dare say it is because economics in general are a mystery to you.
Here's a hint: socialism fails.

great rebuttal. like the rest of your rebuttals. your l337.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

How I love ignoring socialist retards. If only such a function existed in the exo-internet world.

[medicineman]

Russia and Eastern Europe were predominantly agrarian societies with almost no major infrastructure and not a hint of industrialization prior to the 1917 Revolution. Not only this, Russia had faced devastating wars, and had to endure a humiliating treaty, and on top of that, the economic state of the Russian empire prior to 1921 would have made the great depression look like disney land. Empty towns, millions of dispossessed, widespread cannibalism, just to name a few. To compare life in the USSR to life in a core European country which was on the forefrunt of the industrial world is nothing more than neoliberal sophistry.

A more logical comparison would be to compare a country with equal resources and similar conditions at the time of the revolution. This would generally equate to Colombian America (great peace and prosperity there, especially for the natives), and even further back to Europe (which would at the time make the USSR look like a massive five star resort), thus give a country like Germany centuries head start in development. Treaty of Versailles or not, Germany is hardly the country of choice for comparison purposes. In the early 1900's, Brazil could be seen as quite similar to Russia in terms of natural resources and economic standards.

And this is where your polemic is exposed for it is, plain fasionable nonsense and vacuous research, obiously derived from the Mises Institute of hacks and lackeys. Up to 10% of the Brazilian population enjoy a high living standard, however the remaining 80% live in conditions comparable with central Africa. The vast majority of Brazilians would have seen the USSR as paradise. Looking at the rate of industrial development within the USSR - it even surpasses that of the developed western world. Living standards shot up from around 1917 - 1950 in terms of average income. Even life expectancy in the USSR overcame the US at one point.

Truthfully, you would not be able to find two countries with identical economic and social conditions given a certain time frame for comparison purposes. The best we can do is compare like with like, and Brazil would hardly be an unfair comparison, arguably at an advantage given the amount of natural resources and stable conditions relative to the USSR, and the USSR out performs it in every aspect. Lula da Silva, with his welfare programs and pragmatic socialist policies is changing the current state of affairs for Brazil as I am typing this. Back to the main topic.

Was there oppression? Yes. Was allocation of goods flawed? Yes. But its clear that living standards shot up, and it is most likely that production of consumer goods and standard of living would have been higher had it not been for US interventionism, tampering, and military aggression in the region.

Once again, stating that you would live in Germany rather then Soviet Russia allows us to see as you said previously:

"Yeah, your obvious total ignorance of the economic and military situation make that not worth replying to. I dare say it is because economics in general are a mystery to you."

[ChromodynamicGirl]

Yes, this thread has vastly improved now that I have used the ignore function.

[medicineman]

How I love ignoring socialist retards. If only such a function existed in the exo-internet world.

Classy, and sophisticated.

I am finished with you. Once you stop resorting to open insults and idiotic comments, maybe than we can have a discussion.

[maxwatt]

How I love ignoring socialist retards. If only such a function existed in the exo-internet world.

Classy, and sophisticated.

I am finished with you. Once you stop resorting to open insults and idiotic comments, maybe than we can have a discussion.

If this weren't "other conversations" I would have deleted most of the preceding exchange. But few people really care.

Play Libertarian Troll Bingo.

Attached Files

•  libertarianbingo.jpg   64.27KB   19 downloads

Edited by maxwatt, 15 October 2010 - 09:38 PM.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

How I love ignoring socialist retards. If only such a function existed in the exo-internet world.

Classy, and sophisticated.

I am finished with you. Once you stop resorting to open insults and idiotic comments, maybe than we can have a discussion.

Play Libertarian Troll Bingo.

If you think I'm a libertarian, you're stupid.

[maxwatt]

How I love ignoring socialist retards. If only such a function existed in the exo-internet world.

Classy, and sophisticated.

I am finished with you. Once you stop resorting to open insults and idiotic comments, maybe than we can have a discussion.

If this weren't "other conversations" I would have deleted most of the preceding exchange. But few people really care.
Play Libertarian Troll Bingo.

If you think I'm a libertarian, you're stupid.

I may be stupid, but I'm not dumb. There are certain traits in common, particularly those that might be considered trollish, and much in posting style in common with our resident libertarians, and an overlap in ideological philosophy WRT the "people are sheep" thing. (You quoted my post before I'd finished it.) If we played the game for you and other posters, how many "BINGO!s" would we get?

Remember, be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

[chris w]

Which brings me to my favourite question: If we need states, how come states live in anarchy in relation to one another? Why don't we have/need that "global cop" to resolve disputes between countries?

What do you mean "we don't have a global cop" ? I can think of one certainly..

As for minor scales - there's the African Union sending pretty unable troops here and there, and looks like China is aiming to be the cop for South East Asia.
So I definitely see that there is a tendency, the "need" part is a different question.

Edited by chris w, 17 October 2010 - 11:56 AM.

[JLL]

Which brings me to my favourite question: If we need states, how come states live in anarchy in relation to one another? Why don't we have/need that "global cop" to resolve disputes between countries?

What do you mean "we don't have a global cop" ? I can think of one certainly..

As for minor scales - there's the African Union sending pretty unable troops here and there, and looks like China is aiming to be the cop for South East Asia.
So I definitely see that there is a tendency, the "need" part is a different question.

Which one can you think of? The UN? The United States? Those are not third-party arbitrators of country-level disputes.