PDA

View Full Version : Nazism And Communism: Evil Twins?



Mister D
08-30-2012, 01:49 PM
This is an interesting essay by Alain De Benoist and touches on a topic I often see debated online. I pasted an excerpt be low but it's fairly short and worth reading.

---

Julliard wonders: “In what sense are criminals appealing to ‘good’ less condemnablethan criminals appealing to ‘evil’?”22 The question is pertinent, butpoorly formulated. Nazism never “appealed to evil” any more than communismdid. It made use of ideas that one can deservedly find false, and therefore evil,which is completely different. But it is not as if the evaluation one has of oneselfcorresponded to that of other. Otherwise, one could claim that communism alsoappealed not to the good, but to evil, in proportion to the horror these ideas cansuggest. The rationale of opposing the Nazi “doctrine of hate” to the communist“ideal of human emancipation” is thus debatable. It would amount to contraposinga definition of communism by its supporters to a definition of Nazism by itsopponents. Under these conditions, it is not difficult to make the first appear asgood as the latter evil. From an artificial asymmetry, one draws a conclusion noless artificial. This is a non sequitur.



Nazism did not pretend to promise people any less “happiness” than communism.It did not promise any less a “radiant” outlook to its supporters. To say theopposite, as David Lindenberg does, when he writes that the Nazis “gained manysupporters because of its penchant for murder,”23 makes its appeal to the massesinexplicable. To say that a political system could generate enthusiasm by presentingitself openly as advocating a “doctrine of hate” is tantamount to saying that itssupporters were sick, mad, criminals, or perverts. Then one would have to explain

how an entire population could go crazy. If it is by nature, what does this say abouthuman nature? If it is by accident, how does it come about — and how can it end?

http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/evil_twins.pdf

MMC
08-30-2012, 02:46 PM
Does it ever end? What about progressivism today?

Mister D
08-30-2012, 03:17 PM
Does it ever end? What about progressivism today?

Not sure what you mean. I don't think it's helpful to out progressvism, at least not as it manifests itself in our society, on par with Nazism or communism.

MMC
08-30-2012, 03:26 PM
Not sure what you mean. I don't think it's helpful to out progressvism, at least not as it manifests itself in our society, on par with Nazism or communism.


The only reason I brought it up was due to the head of the 3rd largest union in this country. Which the head of that Union and President says they are under a flag of progressivism but that they are really communist with their ideaology. That he should know. He was also the one to say that if the Comminists had 50 million people in our Country. They would take over the Country. He was being interviewed by Medved the other Night. Before the Start up of the Convention.

Goldie Locks
08-30-2012, 03:27 PM
Not sure what you mean. I don't think it's helpful to out progressvism, at least not as it manifests itself in our society, on par with Nazism or communism.


Really??? You don't think most of the progressives today aren't commie's?

Mister D
08-30-2012, 03:28 PM
There are certainly bona fide communists in the US. No doubt about that but I don't think we should lump unions in with 20th Century communism.

Mister D
08-30-2012, 03:29 PM
Really??? You don't think most of the progressives today aren't commie's?

I thin some are but not your average do gooder.

MMC
08-30-2012, 03:33 PM
There are certainly bona fide communists in the US. No doubt about that but I don't think we should lump unions in with 20th Century communism.

Yeah but this guy didnt say all unions. He says they are the 3rd largest Union in the Country. Plus he was the President of it. I was trying to find the name but I can't find the broadcast of that show since the convention started. He also said the ideas of todays progressives was really Communism. Medved pointed out some of the socialism.

Mister D
08-30-2012, 03:36 PM
Yeah but this guy didnt say all unions. He says they are the 3rd largest Union in the Country. Plus he was the President of it. I was trying to find the name but I can't find the broadcast of that show since the convention started. He also said the ideas of todays progressives was really Communism. Medved pointed out some of the socialism.

Find the name of the union. I'd be happy to take a look.

MMC
08-30-2012, 03:39 PM
Yeah i am trying.....got medved site up looking for it. Or even the guys name. Oh wait. Brb.

MMC
08-30-2012, 03:43 PM
The United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

The third largest U.S. labor union, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), had 1.3 million members as of 2002. It represents workers in the food industry, namely those who work in supermarkets, food processing plants and packinghouses.

Mister D
08-30-2012, 03:48 PM
The United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

The third largest U.S. labor union, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), had 1.3 million members as of 2002. It represents workers in the food industry, namely those who work in supermarkets, food processing plants and packinghouses.

My buddy is in that union. I was in it at some point when I worked in a supermarket.

MMC
08-30-2012, 03:49 PM
Me too.....I would have never known. People were about money and getting the hell out of work. Not sticking round to get political.

Mister D
08-30-2012, 03:51 PM
Me too.....I would have never known. People were about money and getting the hell out of work. Not sticking round to get political.

That's just it though. Some of their higher ups might be ideological sorts but most members are either kids or apolitical adults.

Goldie Locks
08-30-2012, 03:54 PM
I thin some are but not your average do gooder.

There are no good progressive commies that are do gooder's.

Goldie Locks
08-30-2012, 03:56 PM
The United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

The third largest U.S. labor union, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), had 1.3 million members as of 2002. It represents workers in the food industry, namely those who work in supermarkets, food processing plants and packinghouses.

That's a private union, not public. Nothing wrong with private unions. Totally different. They compete with non union workers in the private sector.

MMC
08-30-2012, 04:07 PM
That's a private union, not public. Nothing wrong with private unions. Totally different. They compete with non union workers in the private sector.


Yeah but if the ideaology is Communism what does it matter if they are private. I didnt find it on Medved sites so I punched up the 3 largest union as thats what they said. though now you have me thinking this might not be the one. Maybe they meant public.

Savitri Devi
09-05-2012, 06:13 AM
I'm trying to get my head around the argument. By this standard, capitalism and democracy would equally fall into these categories.

Hitler, in particular, used democratic institutions to obtain power.
Capitalism also promised people happiness. However it has to be inherently imbalanced, or you would have socialism. Which means it's happiness for some and back-breaking labour for most.

Chris
09-05-2012, 06:21 AM
I'm trying to get my head around the argument. By this standard, capitalism and democracy would equally fall into these categories.

Hitler, in particular, used democratic institutions to obtain power.
Capitalism also promised people happiness. However it has to be inherently imbalanced, or you would have socialism. Which means it's happiness for some and back-breaking labour for most.


Capitalism also promised people happiness.

How's that? What is capitalism to promise something? It's not a theory like socialism. It's a social institution that emerges naturally from the voluntary exchange of goods and services by individuals.

Savitri Devi
09-05-2012, 06:58 AM
How's that? What is capitalism to promise something? It's not a theory like socialism. It's a social institution that emerges naturally from the voluntary exchange of goods and services by individuals.

All economic systems are theories in practice. Simply because we are refusing to try socialism as a theory (at least in the West), doesn't mean it's a less viable economic system. The most common reason it has failed is because of military intervention from places like the US.

And there is a difference between bartering and capitalism. One requires symbolic/theoretical credit/currency. The other requires direct exchange of goods. One is much more natural. The other is more coerced.

Mister D
09-05-2012, 08:03 AM
I'm trying to get my head around the argument. By this standard, capitalism and democracy would equally fall into these categories.

Hitler, in particular, used democratic institutions to obtain power.
Capitalism also promised people happiness. However it has to be inherently imbalanced, or you would have socialism. Which means it's happiness for some and back-breaking labour for most.

Whose argument?

Savitri Devi
09-05-2012, 10:05 AM
Whose argument?

Yours lol. I am trying to figure out your meaning/intention. Are you saying both communism and nazism are both evil because they make false promises?

Mister D
09-05-2012, 10:20 AM
Yours lol. I am trying to figure out your meaning/intention. Are you saying both communism and nazism are both evil because they make false promises?

No. I posted excerpts from an article. If you want to understand the argument De Benoist makes read the article. lol

Chris
09-05-2012, 11:50 AM
All economic systems are theories in practice. Simply because we are refusing to try socialism as a theory (at least in the West), doesn't mean it's a less viable economic system. The most common reason it has failed is because of military intervention from places like the US.

And there is a difference between bartering and capitalism. One requires symbolic/theoretical credit/currency. The other requires direct exchange of goods. One is much more natural. The other is more coerced.

None of that makes much sense, so where to start...


All economic systems are theories in practice.

Simply not so. Socialism is a theory, in the simplest sense of the word, a laying out, by Robert Owen, say, or Karl Marx, prescriptions of what ought ideally to be, a utopian vision. Capitalism is not a theory. Yes, there are theories of capitalism, from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations to even Marx's Das Capital to that of Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, but these theories about capitalism are descriptive of what is, not prescriptions of what ought to be, and not utopian but quite messy, tentative, incomplete, predictive. So, no, not all economies are theories.


(A) Simply because we are refusing to try socialism as a theory (at least in the West), doesn't mean it's a less viable economic system. (B) The most common reason it has failed is because of military intervention from places like the US.

(B) contradicts (A) since if it has failed it has been tried. In practice--be it Communism, Fascism, Nazism, or even Social Democracy--it has always failed--Social Democracy is failing in Europe as we in the US adopt it.

Moreover, because socialism fails not because of some imagined military intervention, but because it is based on central planning--you cannot design economies, nor can you plan or manage them but to their detriment.


And there is a difference between bartering and capitalism. One requires symbolic/theoretical credit/currency. The other requires direct exchange of goods. One is much more natural. The other is more coerced.

Granted, capitalism is not barter, but, please, explain how if you provide some good or service to me in exchange for some money that I received in exchange for some other good or service, explain how that is not voluntary but coercive? Does a plumber come to your door gun in hand to force his services on you? Are you forced by some law to shop at any particular store? Yes, please, explain how money makes the free market coercive.

Chris
09-05-2012, 11:55 AM
No. I posted excerpts from an article. If you want to understand the argument De Benoist makes read the article. lol

Apologies if my argument sidetracks the OP topic. I do believe there is a connection in that any socialist--Nazi, Fascist, Communist--designed, planned and managed economy, regardless of good intentions, paves the road to perdition, serfdom. And that only a free market, freedom itself, allows for men to be virtuous, inasmuch as they can be.

Mister D
09-05-2012, 11:56 AM
Apologies if my argument sidetracks the OP topic. I do believe there is a connection in that any socialist--Nazi, Fascist, Communist--designed, planned and managed economy, regardless of good intentions, paves the road to perdition, serfdom. And that only a free market, freedom itself, allows for men to be virtuous, inasmuch as they can be.

No worries.

Savitri Devi
09-05-2012, 12:43 PM
Apologies if my argument sidetracks the OP topic. I do believe there is a connection in that any socialist--Nazi, Fascist, Communist--designed, planned and managed economy, regardless of good intentions, paves the road to perdition, serfdom. And that only a free market, freedom itself, allows for men to be virtuous, inasmuch as they can be.

Or as much as they can afford.

Savitri Devi
09-05-2012, 12:44 PM
No. I posted excerpts from an article. If you want to understand the argument De Benoist makes read the article. lol

I read the excerpt. I am at work at the moment but will read it if I have time later.

Chris
09-05-2012, 12:47 PM
Apologies if my argument sidetracks the OP topic. I do believe there is a connection in that any socialist--Nazi, Fascist, Communist--designed, planned and managed economy, regardless of good intentions, paves the road to perdition, serfdom. And that only a free market, freedom itself, allows for men to be virtuous, inasmuch as they can be.


Or as much as they can afford.


Now you make even less sense. Are you one who thinks money buys virtue or happiness or some such? Just trying to make sense of what you said in relation to what I said.

prometheus
09-05-2012, 12:52 PM
How is the zionist phenomena, any different than Nazism in anything but scale?

Living space. (settlement)

Apartheid ( refusal to give I'ds to Palestinians)

Genocide ( many many civillians targeted due to race)

Racial elitism (only Jews can rule Israel, goy are not as good as jews)



So how is it any different?

Savitri Devi
09-05-2012, 01:00 PM
Simply not so. Socialism is a theory, in the simplest sense of the word, a laying out, by Robert Owen, say, or Karl Marx, prescriptions of what ought ideally to be, a utopian vision. Capitalism is not a theory. Yes, there are theories of capitalism, from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations to even Marx's Das Capital to that of Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, but these theories about capitalism are descriptive of what is, not prescriptions of what ought to be, and not utopian but quite messy, tentative, incomplete, predictive. So, no, not all economies are theories.

So you can never practice a theory? It's based on trial and error like any other working theory.



(B) contradicts (A) since if it has failed it has been tried. In practice--be it Communism, Fascism, Nazism, or even Social Democracy--it has always failed--Social Democracy is failing in Europe as we in the US adopt it.

I would argue it is failing DUE to capitalism and austerity measures. If you look at communism there IS NO CAPITAL.


Moreover, because socialism fails not because of some imagined military intervention, but because it is based on central planning--you cannot design economies, nor can you plan or manage them but to their detriment.

It's nearly impossible to plan when you're being assaulted by 13 intervening nations (in the case of the Bolshevik revolution).
Or when all your planners are being assassinated by CIA agents...


Granted, capitalism is not barter, but, please, explain how if you provide some good or service to me in exchange for some money that I received in exchange for some other good or service, explain how that is not voluntary but coercive? Does a plumber come to your door gun in hand to force his services on you? Are you forced by some law to shop at any particular store? Yes, please, explain how money makes the free market coercive.


I am born in a society where I need money to live. You want to have some proerty and live off the land. You need money for that.
If you don't have money and try to survive (say steal bread) where do they put you? Jail!
If you don't want to take part in the system you will have at least the threat of a gun pointed at you somewhere along the line.
That is what I am referring to.

Mister D
09-05-2012, 01:10 PM
How is the zionist phenomena, any different than Nazism in anything but scale?

Living space. (settlement)

Apartheid ( refusal to give I'ds to Palestinians)

Genocide ( many many civillians targeted due to race)

Racial elitism (only Jews can rule Israel, goy are not as good as jews)



So how is it any different?

Because if the Israelis were bent on murdering all Palestinians they must be the worst practitoners of genocide ever. Fact: most incompetent genocide ever. :grin:

Let me add that your tangent is bizarre.

Mister D
09-05-2012, 01:11 PM
I read the excerpt. I am at work at the moment but will read it if I have time later.

OK. No rush.

Chris
09-05-2012, 01:19 PM
So you can never practice a theory? It's based on trial and error like any other working theory.




I would argue it is failing DUE to capitalism and austerity measures. If you look at communism there IS NO CAPITAL.



It's nearly impossible to plan when you're being assaulted by 13 intervening nations (in the case of the Bolshevik revolution).
Or when all your planners are being assassinated by CIA agents...




I am born in a society where I need money to live. You want to have some proerty and live off the land. You need money for that.
If you don't have money and try to survive (say steal bread) where do they put you? Jail!
If you don't want to take part in the system you will have at least the threat of a gun pointed at you somewhere along the line.
That is what I am referring to.


So you can never practice a theory? It's based on trial and error like any other working theory.

Where'd I say you couldn't? Let me look...no, I said socialist theory has been put to practice and failed. Straw man.


I would argue it is failing DUE to capitalism and austerity measures. If you look at communism there IS NO CAPITAL.

Again I scratch my head trying to make sense of what you say in relation to what I said.

Socialism fails due to capitalism? Earlier you claimed it fails because of military intervention--so what you says doesn't even make sense in relation to what you've said.

Socialism fails because of capitalism. Please explain. Address how central planning can hope to succeed.


It's nearly impossible to plan when you're being assaulted by 13 intervening nations (in the case of the Bolshevik revolution).
Or when all your planners are being assassinated by CIA agents...

Now you're back to it's failing because of imagined military intervention into socialism.

Do you mean the military intervention of the Communists, Nazis, Fascists...in general Statists. But they are your socialist central planners. Are you saying they are self-destructive? What are you saying?



I am born in a society where I need money to live. You want to have some proerty and live off the land. You need money for that.
If you don't have money and try to survive (say steal bread) where do they put you? Jail!
If you don't want to take part in the system you will have at least the threat of a gun pointed at you somewhere along the line.
That is what I am referring to.

Yes, the state is coercive. But I thought we were discussing free market capitalism.

Savitri Devi
09-05-2012, 01:19 PM
Now you make even less sense. Are you one who thinks money buys virtue or happiness or some such? Just trying to make sense of what you said in relation to what I said.


First of all, saying I don't make sense isn't an argument. It's an opinion. I could equally say everything you say doesn't make sense and therefore discount it simply because I disagree with it.

You were saying capitalism provides freedom. I retorted that it only provides freedom (limited at that) to those who make enough money to benefit from such freedoms.

Savitri Devi
09-05-2012, 01:36 PM
Where'd I say you couldn't? Let me look...no, I said socialist theory has been put to practice and failed. Straw man.

Then there is no valid reason as to why capitalism is not a theory as well.


Socialism fails due to capitalism? Earlier you claimed it fails because of military intervention--so what you says doesn't even make sense in relation to what you've said.

Last I checked this topic was about communism. Socialism is just a path to communism.


Socialism fails because of capitalism. Please explain. Address how central planning can hope to succeed.

The way it is outlined theoretically. With the workers having control over the means of production.


Now you're back to it's failing because of imagined military intervention into socialism.

That's what I said. There are also other factors (like environmental), but we'll stick with this one for now.


Do you mean the military intervention of the Communists, Nazis, Fascists...in general Statists. But they are your socialist central planners. Are you saying they are self-destructive? What are you saying?

I thought it was self-explanatory. Maybe you need some reading lessons. I said emerging socialist states (as a road to communism) have met ENORMOUS military intervention from anti-capitalist nations. Follow?



Yes, the state is coercive. But I thought we were discussing free market capitalism.


So we're discussing theories! Thank you!

Chris
09-05-2012, 01:40 PM
First of all, saying I don't make sense isn't an argument. It's an opinion. I could equally say everything you say doesn't make sense and therefore discount it simply because I disagree with it.

You were saying capitalism provides freedom. I retorted that it only provides freedom (limited at that) to those who make enough money to benefit from such freedoms.

Ah, but I bother to explain why you don't make sense--because your response is unrelated to my post, or you contradict yourself.


You were saying capitalism provides freedom. I retorted that it only provides freedom (limited at that) to those who make enough money to benefit from such freedoms.

No, I did not. That's why your response makes no sense. Straw men rarely do.

Chris
09-05-2012, 01:49 PM
Then there is no valid reason as to why capitalism is not a theory as well.



Last I checked this topic was about communism. Socialism is just a path to communism.



The way it is outlined theoretically. With the workers having control over the means of production.



That's what I said. There are also other factors (like environmental), but we'll stick with this one for now.



I thought it was self-explanatory. Maybe you need some reading lessons. I said emerging socialist states (as a road to communism) have met ENORMOUS military intervention from anti-capitalist nations. Follow?





So we're discussing theories! Thank you!


Then there is no valid reason as to why capitalism is not a theory as well.

Who invented this theory you're imagining? Name the originators.



Another example of you're not making sense:


Socialism fails due to capitalism? Earlier you claimed it fails because of military intervention--so what you says doesn't even make sense in relation to what you've said.

Last I checked this topic was about communism. Socialism is just a path to communism.

What on earth does your response have to do with what I said?

Communism is the result of failed socialism. It's not a branch of socialism, but one of its rotten fruit--just as Nazism, Fascism, and soon Social Democracy are.



Maybe you need some reading lessons.

Do you mean to impress with ad hom?



emerging socialist states (as a road to communism) have met ENORMOUS military intervention from anti-capitalist nations

So anti-capitalist aka socialist states have engaged in military intervention with socialist states. Indeed, just consider Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.



Yes, the state is coercive. But I thought we were discussing free market capitalism.

So we're discussing theories! Thank you!

Non sequitur.

Savitri Devi
09-05-2012, 01:57 PM
Apologies if my argument sidetracks the OP topic. I do believe there is a connection in that any socialist--Nazi, Fascist, Communist--designed, planned and managed economy, regardless of good intentions, paves the road to perdition, serfdom. And that only a free market, freedom itself, allows for men to be virtuous, inasmuch as they can be.

Emphasis added by me. Seems pretty clear you equate a free market to personal freedom...

Savitri Devi
09-05-2012, 02:02 PM
Who invented this theory you're imagining? Name the originators.

Fallacy of authority. Why does one person need to develop a theory and why would their word make it any more meaningful.




Another example of you're not making sense:



Ad hominem



What on earth does your response have to do with what I said?



Pleading ignorance.


Communism is the result of failed socialism. It's not a branch of socialism, but one of its rotten fruit--just as Nazism, Fascism, and soon Social Democracy are.

When did I say it was? Again, reading comprehension. Try it! You don't even know what you are saying yourself!





Do you mean to impress with ad hom?



No one. Pointing out a trend I am seeing in your posts.



So anti-capitalist aka socialist states have engaged in military intervention with socialist states. Indeed, just consider Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.

Yes, Nazis were state capitalists?






Non sequitur.

If you say so. You are saying I am contradicting myself when you are the only person here doing so...

Chris
09-05-2012, 02:03 PM
Emphasis added by me. Seems pretty clear you equate a free market to personal freedom...

Free market capitalism is an emergent social institution the result of free men exchanging goods and services. I defined this earlier.

And that is not even remotely related to what you tried to put in my mouth: "capitalism provides freedom". In fact, I said the opposite.

Captain Obvious
09-05-2012, 06:12 PM
This is getting pretty good.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 06:42 AM
Ok, so I have read most of this article, and have several very serious contentions.

First of all, communism has never existed! Benoist even admits this("Stalin’s crimes were the result of a perversion of communism"), yet continues to paint Communism with the same brush.

If there is a defined state, at best it would take the form of the transitory stage of socialism. But even this is misleading. I prefer to take the more critical look at these systems from a Trotskyist perspective. In Russia, it could be called a degenerated worker's state. Which is simply a form of state capitalism. If you are receiving a wage (i.e. capital) for doing work, you are NOT a communist society. Anyone who has actually read the original theory of communism (and not the bastardized definitions that followed) should realise this.

He also defines the two ideologies rather simplicistically. 'Nazism is a hatred of mankind,' and, 'Communism is liberation of mankind.' I would even argue that Nazism is the obsession (or devout love) of a certain group of mankind. But hatred and fear is a better motivator and all governments know this. Benoist could therefore make this comparison to all states.

Secondly, they over-simplify the death counts. They fail to mention the environmental reasons (drought, famine and land degradation which could/can occur everywhere). The geopolitical reasons: as I mentioned in other posts there was large military interventions. If you kill off all the truly revolutionary workers because other states are intervening, you are left with people who would be considered traitors of the new government. Part of the reason Lenin even had to implement more capitalism than he would have liked (the New Economic Policy) to get people who don't believe in socialism to work again, because the others had died fighting.

Similar to above, if you look at attempts at socialism in countries in Asia (Viet Nam and Cambodia for instance), the US, in particular, heavily bombed these countries. This damaged infrastructure and made food production more difficult. According to the US the deaths due to famine wrought by this is contributed to poor management; however, they fail to take any responsibility that they made the management of even fewer resources nearly impossible!

Thirdly, their similarities are that they both had authoritarian regimes. That is about as far as the similarities go. Benoist even essentially concedes this and often contradicts himself at times. The Nazis opposed Communism (they actually assaulted communists in the streets) and Stalin bastardized socialism/communism to suit his personal agenda. That is not the fault of the ideology but that of the individual. That is an inherent fallacy. That's like saying if a capitalist kills someone, Capitalism itself is evil! Sweeping generalization.

Lastly, he seems to COMPLETELY omit any deaths caused by capitalism. Genocides of indiginous peoples, slave and child labour, poor safety practices leading to workers' deaths, deaths from pollution due to unrestricted production, deaths due to police and military upholding capitalism, wars started because arms dealers lobby governments and want to make profits, etc. Of course if I blamed capitalism itself for these things I would be equally guilty of all the sweeping generalizations Benoist makes...

I couldn't even read the article in its entirety, as the amount of fallacious opinion was infuriating. When he bases his entire argument on false premises, what's the point in wasting my time anyway?

P.S. I am not a socialist or communist. I used to consider myself one. That's probably why I better understand these principles better than the average person.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 06:44 AM
Free market capitalism is an emergent social institution the result of free men exchanging goods and services. I defined this earlier.

And that is not even remotely related to what you tried to put in my mouth: "capitalism provides freedom". In fact, I said the opposite.

You could have done a better job indicating that. As you left the thought as a mutually inclusive statement in the very same sentence!

That being said, if you think capitalism isn't freedom we are on the same page then. I don't believe true freedom exists anywhere.

Mister D
09-06-2012, 07:58 AM
Ok, so I have read most of this article, and have several very serious contentions.

First of all, communism has never existed! Benoist even admits this("Stalin’s crimes were the result of a perversion of communism"), yet continues to paint Communism with the same brush.

If there is a defined state, at best it would take the form of the transitory stage of socialism. But even this is misleading. I prefer to take the more critical look at these systems from a Trotskyist perspective. In Russia, it could be called a degenerated worker's state. Which is simply a form of state capitalism. If you are receiving a wage (i.e. capital) for doing work, you are NOT a communist society. Anyone who has actually read the original theory of communism (and not the bastardized definitions that followed) should realise this.

He also defines the two ideologies rather simplicistically. 'Nazism is a hatred of mankind,' and, 'Communism is liberation of mankind.' I would even argue that Nazism is the obsession (or devout love) of a certain group of mankind. But hatred and fear is a better motivator and all governments know this. Benoist could therefore make this comparison to all states.

Secondly, they over-simplify the death counts. They fail to mention the environmental reasons (drought, famine and land degradation which could/can occur everywhere). The geopolitical reasons: as I mentioned in other posts there was large military interventions. If you kill off all the truly revolutionary workers because other states are intervening, you are left with people who would be considered traitors of the new government. Part of the reason Lenin even had to implement more capitalism than he would have liked (the New Economic Policy) to get people who don't believe in socialism to work again, because the others had died fighting.

Similar to above, if you look at attempts at socialism in countries in Asia (Viet Nam and Cambodia for instance), the US, in particular, heavily bombed these countries. This damaged infrastructure and made food production more difficult. According to the US the deaths due to famine wrought by this is contributed to poor management; however, they fail to take any responsibility that they made the management of even fewer resources nearly impossible!

Thirdly, their similarities are that they both had authoritarian regimes. That is about as far as the similarities go. Benoist even essentially concedes this and often contradicts himself at times. The Nazis opposed Communism (they actually assaulted communists in the streets) and Stalin bastardized socialism/communism to suit his personal agenda. That is not the fault of the ideology but that of the individual. That is an inherent fallacy. That's like saying if a capitalist kills someone, Capitalism itself is evil! Sweeping generalization.

Lastly, he seems to COMPLETELY omit any deaths caused by capitalism. Genocides of indiginous peoples, slave and child labour, poor safety practices leading to workers' deaths, deaths from pollution due to unrestricted production, deaths due to police and military upholding capitalism, wars started because arms dealers lobby governments and want to make profits, etc. Of course if I blamed capitalism itself for these things I would be equally guilty of all the sweeping generalizations Benoist makes...

I couldn't even read the article in its entirety, as the amount of fallacious opinion was infuriating. When he bases his entire argument on false premises, what's the point in wasting my time anyway?

P.S. I am not a socialist or communist. I used to consider myself one. That's probably why I better understand these principles better than the average person.

Of course communism has existed. It has existed in states all over the world. De Benoist is describing the arguments of those who can't seem to accept how similar those two systems (i.e Nazism and communism) truly were. He rejects your No True Scotsman for what it is: a logical fallacy. For example, he says, "Of course, one can argue that the Soviet system has never had anything to do with communism. But if Lenin was not a communist, who was ever one?" Indeed, sir.

Secondly, Marx does not have a theory of communism if by that we mean a blueprint for achieving such a society.

Now you say that he defines these ideologies simplisitically (e.g. 'Nazism is a hatred of mankind,' and, 'Communism is liberation of mankind.') but again he is describing the arguments of those who insist the ideologies are fundamentally different.

Having found serious errors in your interpretation of this essay I will stop there for now. I will only add that De Benoist is anti-capaitalist, anti-Christian, and typically labeled a right wing extremist or neo-fascist by the European press. Alain believes that liberalism encompasses communism, socialism, libertarianism, and neoconservatism. All modern ideologies are liberal ideologies.

Chris
09-06-2012, 08:06 AM
Ok, so I have read most of this article, and have several very serious contentions.

First of all, communism has never existed! Benoist even admits this("Stalin’s crimes were the result of a perversion of communism"), yet continues to paint Communism with the same brush.

If there is a defined state, at best it would take the form of the transitory stage of socialism. But even this is misleading. I prefer to take the more critical look at these systems from a Trotskyist perspective. In Russia, it could be called a degenerated worker's state. Which is simply a form of state capitalism. If you are receiving a wage (i.e. capital) for doing work, you are NOT a communist society. Anyone who has actually read the original theory of communism (and not the bastardized definitions that followed) should realise this.

He also defines the two ideologies rather simplicistically. 'Nazism is a hatred of mankind,' and, 'Communism is liberation of mankind.' I would even argue that Nazism is the obsession (or devout love) of a certain group of mankind. But hatred and fear is a better motivator and all governments know this. Benoist could therefore make this comparison to all states.

Secondly, they over-simplify the death counts. They fail to mention the environmental reasons (drought, famine and land degradation which could/can occur everywhere). The geopolitical reasons: as I mentioned in other posts there was large military interventions. If you kill off all the truly revolutionary workers because other states are intervening, you are left with people who would be considered traitors of the new government. Part of the reason Lenin even had to implement more capitalism than he would have liked (the New Economic Policy) to get people who don't believe in socialism to work again, because the others had died fighting.

Similar to above, if you look at attempts at socialism in countries in Asia (Viet Nam and Cambodia for instance), the US, in particular, heavily bombed these countries. This damaged infrastructure and made food production more difficult. According to the US the deaths due to famine wrought by this is contributed to poor management; however, they fail to take any responsibility that they made the management of even fewer resources nearly impossible!

Thirdly, their similarities are that they both had authoritarian regimes. That is about as far as the similarities go. Benoist even essentially concedes this and often contradicts himself at times. The Nazis opposed Communism (they actually assaulted communists in the streets) and Stalin bastardized socialism/communism to suit his personal agenda. That is not the fault of the ideology but that of the individual. That is an inherent fallacy. That's like saying if a capitalist kills someone, Capitalism itself is evil! Sweeping generalization.

Lastly, he seems to COMPLETELY omit any deaths caused by capitalism. Genocides of indiginous peoples, slave and child labour, poor safety practices leading to workers' deaths, deaths from pollution due to unrestricted production, deaths due to police and military upholding capitalism, wars started because arms dealers lobby governments and want to make profits, etc. Of course if I blamed capitalism itself for these things I would be equally guilty of all the sweeping generalizations Benoist makes...

I couldn't even read the article in its entirety, as the amount of fallacious opinion was infuriating. When he bases his entire argument on false premises, what's the point in wasting my time anyway?

P.S. I am not a socialist or communist. I used to consider myself one. That's probably why I better understand these principles better than the average person.


First of all, communism has never existed! Benoist even admits this("Stalin’s crimes were the result of a perversion of communism"), yet continues to paint Communism with the same brush.

Common socialist argument, socialist/communism never existed in pure form, therefore it's never failed. A corollary is this or that state has a mixed economy, therefore socialism doesn't exist there.



state capitalism

The proper name for this is corporatism, a version of the older, feudal mercantilist system. None of these represent free market capitalism because they are designed, planned and managed by the state.




If you are receiving a wage (i.e. capital) for doing work, you are NOT a communist society.

Huh? A wage could be a sack of potatoes or a pair of shoes that don't fit. By your special pleading then if there is exchange, iow an economy, there is no communism.




He also defines the two ideologies rather simplicistically. 'Nazism is a hatred of mankind,' and, 'Communism is liberation of mankind.'

Right, but aren't you missing Benoist's main point? That it makes no difference the intent of an ideology, good or evil, if the result is evil, the ideology is evil. At least that's what I take from his piece.




Thirdly, their similarities are that they both had authoritarian regimes. That is about as far as the similarities go. Benoist even essentially concedes this and often contradicts himself at times. The Nazis opposed Communism (they actually assaulted communists in the streets) and Stalin bastardized socialism/communism to suit his personal agenda. That is not the fault of the ideology but that of the individual. That is an inherent fallacy. That's like saying if a capitalist kills someone, Capitalism itself is evil! Sweeping generalization.

Assume you're correct. It's not the ideology. Then by your reasoning it must be the authoritarian regimes. And from that it follows that liberty, the opposite, is the only solution. And we can go further: On the one hand, Socialism--and it's various forms, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, etc--adopts and promotes as its main tenant central planning, which is what, not an economic policy so much as a policy of control. On the other hand, Capitalism, free market capitalism (not corporatism) is an social institution that emerges naturally out of the interactions, the exchanges of free people.



Lastly, he seems to COMPLETELY omit any deaths caused by capitalism.

You're anthropomorphising capitalism.

Chris
09-06-2012, 08:12 AM
You could have done a better job indicating that. As you left the thought as a mutually inclusive statement in the very same sentence!

That being said, if you think capitalism isn't freedom we are on the same page then. I don't believe true freedom exists anywhere.

Perhaps I could have, but now, through the process of free exchange, it's been clarified and explained.



if you think capitalism isn't freedom we are on the same page then

No, you still see capitalism as cause rather than effect. Just above you accuse Mr Capitalism of mass murder! Capitalism is not an agent. It is the economic system that results from free trade, free exchange of goods and services.


I don't believe true freedom exists anywhere.

Right, because it's in conflict with socialist central planning.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 08:22 AM
Common socialist argument, socialist/communism never existed in pure form, therefore it's never failed. A corollary is this or that state has a mixed economy, therefore socialism doesn't exist there.

Seeing as it hasn't, this is a viable claim!


The proper name for this is corporatism, a version of the older, feudal mercantilist system. None of these represent free market capitalism because they are designed, planned and managed by the state.

We have never seen free-market capitalism. And never will.


Huh? A wage could be a sack of potatoes or a pair of shoes that don't fit. By your special pleading then if there is exchange, iow an economy, there is no communism.

If there is an exchange of capital, i.e. wage labour, then yes. People would work for the benefit of society as the communist theory goes.


Right, but aren't you missing Benoist's main point? That it makes no difference the intent of an ideology, good or evil, if the result is evil, the ideology is evil. At least that's what I take from his piece.

Well then this would hold true for capitalism as I said. But it seems you like double-standards...


Assume you're correct. It's not the ideology. Then by your reasoning it must be the authoritarian regimes. And from that it follows that liberty, the opposite, is the only solution. And we can go further: On the one hand, Socialism--and it's various forms, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, etc--adopts and promotes as its main tenant central planning, which is what, not an economic policy so much as a policy of control. On the other hand, Capitalism, free market capitalism (not corporatism) is an social institution that emerges naturally out of the interactions, the exchanges of free people.

Here you go again equating freedom to free market. But you will probably deny that again later won't you?


You're anthropomorphising capitalism.

And you and Benoist are anthropomorphising other ideologies. Again, double standard.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 08:27 AM
Perhaps I could have, but now, through the process of free exchange, it's been clarified and explained.

I can only go by what you ACTUALLY say in a forum. So say it properly.


No, you still see capitalism as cause rather than effect. Just above you accuse Mr Capitalism of mass murder! Capitalism is not an agent. It is the economic system that results from free trade, free exchange of goods and services.

Again, I said I was pointing out a double standard you and Benoist are creating. I am not blaming an ideology for actions of people. Good grief!


Right, because it's in conflict with socialist central planning.

No, because even capitalism is inherently hierarchical.

Mister D
09-06-2012, 08:28 AM
Again, De Benoist is probably more anti-capitalist than you are.

Chris
09-06-2012, 08:46 AM
Seeing as it hasn't, this is a viable claim!



We have never seen free-market capitalism. And never will.



If there is an exchange of capital, i.e. wage labour, then yes. People would work for the benefit of society as the communist theory goes.



Well then this would hold true for capitalism as I said. But it seems you like double-standards...



Here you go again equating freedom to free market. But you will probably deny that again later won't you?



And you and Benoist are anthropomorphising other ideologies. Again, double standard.


Seeing as it hasn't, this is a viable claim!

We have never seen free-market capitalism. And never will.

You're still arguing the purist, absolutist argument I pointed out typical of socialists, that if it--socialism, capitalism--doesn't exist in pure, absolute form, it doesn't exist. We have a mixed economy, the entire world has a mix of the two--the two do indeed exist. Problem is socialism always fails, it cannot, even in theory, succeed. Capitalism works, not perfectly, purely, absolutely, but it works.



People would work for the benefit of society as the communist theory goes.

Please, argue this. Plato did, and Popper shot him down.



Well then this would hold true for capitalism as I said. But it seems you like double-standards...

Is the ad hom supposed to impress?

Capitalism isn't an ideology, it is an emergent social institution.



Here you go again equating freedom to free market. But you will probably deny that again later won't you?

Deny your straw man, yes. There is no equating the two in saying the free market emerges naturally from the exchange of goods and service among free people. Free people are cause, free market result.



And you and Benoist are anthropomorphising other ideologies.

Please point out where.

Chris
09-06-2012, 08:49 AM
I can only go by what you ACTUALLY say in a forum. So say it properly.



Again, I said I was pointing out a double standard you and Benoist are creating. I am not blaming an ideology for actions of people. Good grief!



No, because even capitalism is inherently hierarchical.

Ignoring most of your nonsense for...


No, because even capitalism is inherently hierarchical.

Please explain how this is so politically. Don't just make empty claims.

Chris
09-06-2012, 08:50 AM
Again, De Benoist is probably more anti-capitalist than you are.

Please explain. How does he define capitalism?

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 08:54 AM
Of course communism has existed. It has existed in states all over the world. De Benoist is describing the arguments of those who can't seem to accept how similar those two systems (i.e Nazism and communism) truly were. He rejects your No True Scotsman for what it is: a logical fallacy. For example, he says, "Of course, one can argue that the Soviet system has never had anything to do with communism. But if Lenin was not a communist, who was ever one?" Indeed, sir.

He may have been a communist ideally, but again, a capitalist shooting someone doesn't mean the ideology is evil!


Secondly, Marx does not have a theory of communism if by that we mean a blueprint for achieving such a society.

But he has an idea as to what it would look like. And any wage labour is explicitly prohibited...


Now you say that he defines these ideologies simplisitically (e.g. 'Nazism is a hatred of mankind,' and, 'Communism is liberation of mankind.') but again he is describing the arguments of those who insist the ideologies are fundamentally different.

By strawman then? Another fallacious premise!


Having found serious errors in your interpretation of this essay I will stop there for now. I will only add that De Benoist is anti-capaitalist, anti-Christian, and typically labeled a right wing extremist or neo-fascist by the European press. Alain believes that liberalism encompasses communism, socialism, libertarianism, and neoconservatism. All modern ideologies are liberal ideologies.

You are just committing the same errors as Benoist. So of course your confirmation bias would side yourself with him...

As I have said, I am not even communist myself. I think have a communist society (at least at this point) is as impossible as having a truly lassez-faire capitalist society. Both are idyllic fantasies.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 08:56 AM
Ignoring most of your nonsense for...


So I can ignore most of your arguments because they are ACTUALLY nonsensical?



Please explain how this is so politically. Don't just make empty claims.

Boss pays employers. Tells them what to do for how much money. Corporations make products telling people how much they cost. As I said previously if you don't work and make money you will almost invariably land yourself in jail. Yeah it's the epitome of freedom!

Mister D
09-06-2012, 09:00 AM
Please explain. How does he define capitalism?

It would perhaps be better if I said he rejects liberalism (in the broad European sense of the term) and the accent liberals place on the market and economic relations. I posted this in the religion and philosophy room but only one person appeared to be able to get passed the title. :rollseyes: They thought it was another "liberal" bashing thread.




Not being the work of a single man, liberalism was never presented in the form of a unified doctrine. Various liberal authors have, at times, interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways. Still, they share enough common points to classify them all as liberals. These common points also make it possible to define liberalism as a specific school of thought. On the one hand, liberalism is an economic doctrine that tends to make the model of the self- regulating market the paradigm of all social reality: what is called political liberalism is simply one way of applying the principles deduced from these economic doctrines to political life. This tends to limit the role of politics as much as possible. (In this sense, one can say that “liberal politics” is a contradiction in terms.) On the other hand, liberalism is a doctrine based on an individualistic anthropology, i.e., it rests on a conception of man as a being who is not fundamentally social.

http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/critique_of_liberal_ideology.pdf

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 09:07 AM
You're still arguing the purist, absolutist argument I pointed out typical of socialists, that if it--socialism, capitalism--doesn't exist in pure, absolute form, it doesn't exist. We have a mixed economy, the entire world has a mix of the two--the two do indeed exist. Problem is socialism always fails, it cannot, even in theory, succeed. Capitalism works, not perfectly, purely, absolutely, but it works.

Capitalism - in it's pure sense - hasn't worked. Otherwise why the need to blend it?


Please, argue this. Plato did, and Popper shot him down.



To put it simply if you aren't earning a wage, what else would you be working for?


Is the ad hom supposed to impress?

Capitalism isn't an ideology, it is an emergent social institution.

Stop referring to observation as ad hominem. Clearly you don't know the difference.

You keep referring to PURE capitalism (i.e. laissez-faire), which you admit never has existed. Then refer to state or corporate capitalism (which is probably what laissez-faire capitalism would end up as anyway). Both are theories. Some in practice.


Deny your straw man, yes. There is no equating the two in saying the free market emerges naturally from the exchange of goods and service among free people. Free people are cause, free market result.



That's not even what I was saying. What the hell are you talking about?



Please point out where.

You are defining communism as the actions of it's claimed adherents.

Mister D
09-06-2012, 09:08 AM
He may have been a communist ideally, but again, a capitalist shooting someone doesn't mean the ideology is evil!

Of course he was a communist and communism has existed all over the world. Hopefully, this "communism has never exsited" canard has been settled. In any case, if you insist on believing that totalitarian systems that murder millions are not evil than what I can possibly say to change your mind?


But he has an idea as to what it would look like. And any wage labour is explicitly prohibited...



Yes, he an idea of what it would like but not a clue as to how a society is supposed to reach this ideal.


By strawman then? Another fallacious premise!



And yet here you are insisting the system was not evil. :grin:


You are just committing the same errors as Benoist. So of course your confirmation bias would side yourself with him...




You haven't found a sinmgle error in De Benoit's essay.


As I have said, I am not even communist myself. I think have a communist society (at least at this point) is as impossible as having a truly lassez-faire capitalist society. Both are idyllic fantasies.

There is nothing idyllic about communism. The elimination of part of humanity is part and parcel of this fantasy...or rather nightmare for those who actually experienced its inhuman brutality.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 09:26 AM
Of course he was a communist and communism has existed all over the world. Hopefully, this "communism has never exsited" canard has been settled. In any case, if you insist on believing that totalitarian systems that murder millions are not evil than what I can possibly say to change your mind?

It has NOT been settled and simply saying it has (your opinion) doesn't make it so. Now you're just arguing the fallacy of equivocation stating that a bastardized definition that suits your agenda is correct.

And when have are argued anything of the sort? Strawman.



Yes, he an idea of what it would like but not a clue as to how a society is supposed to reach this ideal.


Clearly you haven't read, or understood, Marx's works then.


And yet here you are insisting the system was not evil. :grin:



I said that where?



You haven't found a sinmgle error in De Benoit's essay.

I have found several which you just keep reiterating.


There is nothing idyllic about communism. The elimination of part of humanity is part and parcel of this fantasy...or rather nightmare for those who actually experienced its inhuman brutality.

I'm pretty sure Marx and Engels wrote that as part of their manifesto...:rollseyes:

Chris
09-06-2012, 09:32 AM
Please explain how this is so politically. Don't just make empty claims.

Boss pays employers. Tells them what to do for how much money. Corporations make products telling people how much they cost. As I said previously if you don't work and make money you will almost invariably land yourself in jail. Yeah it's the epitome of freedom!

Asked for how it was so politically. Could you answer that?





Boss pays employers. Tells them what to do for how much money.

Employees agree by contract to work in exchange for pay and benefits. No coercion.


Corporations make products telling people how much they cost.

Based on what consumer are willing to pay. No coercion.


As I said previously if you don't work and make money you will almost invariably land yourself in jail.

No you won't.


Yeah it's the epitome of freedom!

How do you define freedom, as a responsibility or a lack thereof?

Chris
09-06-2012, 09:36 AM
Yes, he an idea of what it would like but not a clue as to how a society is supposed to reach this ideal.

Clearly you haven't read, or understood, Marx's works then.
Marx had no plan. He believed capitalism would collapse on its own based on historicist predictions that have failed to materialize.




fallacy of equivocation

Learn what this fallacy means, will ya.

Mister D
09-06-2012, 09:38 AM
It has NOT been settled and simply saying it has (your opinion) doesn't make it so. Now you're just arguing the fallacy of equivocation stating that a bastardized definition that suits your agenda is correct.

What definition? I'm going by the real world consequences of putting these ideas into practice.


And when have are argued anything of the sort? Strawman.



So in fact communism was evil? Is that correct? :smiley:


Clearly you haven't read, or understood, Marx's works then.



You can correct me where I'm wrong...or not. I stand by what said. De Benoist does as well. There is no blueprint for constructing a classless society. You conceded as much when you said Marx had a "vision".


I said that where?



So communism was evil, right?



I have found several which you just keep reiterating.



I keep reiterating your mistaken conceptions regarding both De Benoist and Marx.


I'm pretty sure Marx and Engels wrote that as part of their manifesto...:rollseyes:

De Benoist also discusses this retreat into good intentions. It's your last refuge from reality.

Mister D
09-06-2012, 09:39 AM
Marx had no plan. He believed capitalism would collapse on its own based on historicist predictions that have failed to materialize.





Learn what this fallacy means, will ya.

Exactly. There is no blueprint for a communist society. The end result is assumed.

Chris
09-06-2012, 09:44 AM
Capitalism - in it's pure sense - hasn't worked. Otherwise why the need to blend it?




To put it simply if you aren't earning a wage, what else would you be working for?



Stop referring to observation as ad hominem. Clearly you don't know the difference.

You keep referring to PURE capitalism (i.e. laissez-faire), which you admit never has existed. Then refer to state or corporate capitalism (which is probably what laissez-faire capitalism would end up as anyway). Both are theories. Some in practice.



That's not even what I was saying. What the hell are you talking about?




You are defining communism as the actions of it's claimed adherents.


You're still arguing the purist, absolutist argument I pointed out typical of socialists, that if it--socialism, capitalism--doesn't exist in pure, absolute form, it doesn't exist.

Capitalism - in it's pure sense - hasn't worked.
LOL, you're still arguing the purist, absolutist argument....

The logical fallacy in that argument is called the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Nothing exists in pure form.



Stop referring to observation as ad hominem. Clearly you don't know the difference.

When you attack me instead of what I say, you're engaging in ad hom. It's unimpressive. It's like you're raising a white flag.



You keep referring to PURE capitalism...

Please cite where I refer to pure capitalism. I doubt you can since I said the opposite just above: "Capitalism works, not perfectly, purely, absolutely, but it works." (emphasis mine)

It's you who does that: "Capitalism - in it's pure sense".



That's not even what I was saying.

It is. You claimed I'd equated freedom and free market. I didn't. I explained: "There is no equating the two in saying the free market emerges naturally from the exchange of goods and service among free people. Free people are cause, free market result."




You are defining communism as the actions of it's claimed adherents.

Please point out where, cite my words. In fact Ive said the opposite , I've said it's an ideology.

Chris
09-06-2012, 09:47 AM
It would perhaps be better if I said he rejects liberalism (in the broad European sense of the term) and the accent liberals place on the market and economic relations. I posted this in the religion and philosophy room but only one person appeared to be able to get passed the title. :rollseyes: They thought it was another "liberal" bashing thread.




Not being the work of a single man, liberalism was never presented in the form of a unified doctrine. Various liberal authors have, at times, interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways. Still, they share enough common points to classify them all as liberals. These common points also make it possible to define liberalism as a specific school of thought. On the one hand, liberalism is an economic doctrine that tends to make the model of the self- regulating market the paradigm of all social reality: what is called political liberalism is simply one way of applying the principles deduced from these economic doctrines to political life. This tends to limit the role of politics as much as possible. (In this sense, one can say that “liberal politics” is a contradiction in terms.) On the other hand, liberalism is a doctrine based on an individualistic anthropology, i.e., it rests on a conception of man as a being who is not fundamentally social.

http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/critique_of_liberal_ideology.pdf


So he rejects classical liberalism?

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 09:52 AM
Asked for how it was so politically. Could you answer that?

I just did. There would be no politics if there is a FREE market! It would almost invariably lead to corporate rule as we have today.


Employees agree by contract to work in exchange for pay and benefits. No coercion.


Other than the need to own a property or place to live, food to eat, etc.


Based on what consumer are willing to pay. No coercion.

Pretty sure people need food to eat, places to live, etc.


No you won't.

So you wouldn't mind if I came and lived on your property for free?


How do you define freedom, as a responsibility or a lack thereof?

As the ability to act without forced or coercive influence upon you. Be they bills, a boss, a tyrant, whatever.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 09:54 AM
Marx had no plan. He believed capitalism would collapse on its own based on historicist predictions that have failed to materialize.

Seeing as all the countries that underwent "communist" revolutions were still under relatively feudal or only emerging capitalist states, this is why they were doomed to fail. Marx could have - and did - predict this.


Learn what this fallacy means, will ya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

I know what it means. Unlike you my reading comprehension skills are fine. Thanks for your unnecessary concern.

Mister D
09-06-2012, 09:56 AM
So he rejects classical liberalism?

Entirely. And he sees Marxism as but a development of classical liberal ideology. For him, they share the same premises. I pasted a comment on Marx below. You do have something in common with De Benoist and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouvelle_Droite (New Right) though in so far as they are localists (favor local control of government). Sorry about the formatting, Can't get this to work properly.




Besides supporting the “mechanism” characteristic of liberal ideology, which is givena fundamental epistemological value, Marx himself adheres to a metaphysics of theindividual, which led Michel Henry to see him as “one of the leading Christian thinkers ofthe Occident” (Michel Henry,

Marx [Paris: Gallimard, 1991], vol. 2, 445). The reality ofMarxist individualism, beyond its collectivist façade, was established by many authors,beginning with Louis Dumont. “Marx’s entire philosophy,” Pierre Rosanvallon writes,“can . . . be understood as an effort to enhance modern individualism. . . . The concept ofclass struggle itself has no meaning outside the framework of an individualisticrepresentation of society. In a traditional society, by contrast, it has no significance”Lelibéralisme éc onomique . Histoire de l'idé e de march é , [Paris: Seuil, 1989 } , 188- 89). Marxcertainly challenged the fiction ofHomo economi cus that developed beginning in theeighteenth century, but only because the bourgeoisie used it to alienate the realindividual and bind him to an existence narrowed to the sphere of self- interest alone.However, for Marx, self-interest is merely an expression of a separation between theindividual and his life. (It is the basis of the best part of his work, namely his criticism of“reified” social relations.) But he by no means intends to substitute the common good for
private interests. There is not even a place for class interests.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 09:57 AM
What definition? I'm going by the real world consequences of putting these ideas into practice.

So then you have to admit capitalism is evil correct? Or do you concede double standard?


So in fact communism was evil? Is that correct? :smiley:



Unless the ideology suggested killing millions of people, which it does not, it cannot be evil.


You can correct me where I'm wrong...or not. I stand by what said. De Benoist does as well. There is no blueprint for constructing a classless society. You conceded as much when you said Marx had a "vision".



Again, read the Communist Manifesto yourself. I won't do your homework for you.


So communism was evil, right?




Sigh...


I keep reiterating your mistaken conceptions regarding both De Benoist and Marx.



Reiterating them doesn't make them more correct.


De Benoist also discusses this retreat into good intentions. It's your last refuge from reality.

Much like capitalists I suppose?

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 10:01 AM
LOL, you're still arguing the purist, absolutist argument....

The logical fallacy in that argument is called the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Nothing exists in pure form.

Then we have to judge capitalism by what it is too. And it is by far responsible for more deaths than socialism ever has been...but again I am sure you will plead ignorance or double standard or all the other nonsense you have been stating.


When you attack me instead of what I say, you're engaging in ad hom. It's unimpressive. It's like you're raising a white flag.


Again, unlike you, I am well-versed in reading comprehension. When your lack of reading comprehension because an obsticle to the debate, it is worth nothing. Not an ad hominem attack.


Please cite where I refer to pure capitalism. I doubt you can since I said the opposite just above: "Capitalism works, not perfectly, purely, absolutely, but it works." (emphasis mine)

You: "The proper name for this is corporatism, a version of the older, feudal mercantilist system. None of these represent free market capitalism because they are designed, planned and managed by the state."
You used this in defence of Capitalism and resorting to saying because it wasn't pure it doesn't count...


It's you who does that: "Capitalism - in it's pure sense".



I made that argument to point out a double-standard. Taking something out of context now eh?



It is. You claimed I'd equated freedom and free market. I didn't. I explained: "There is no equating the two in saying the free market emerges naturally from the exchange of goods and service among free people. Free people are cause, free market result."

If you are saying the two are not mutually exclusive (in fact you are stating they're mutually inclusive) you are saying that! Again reading comprehension!



Please point out where, cite my words. In fact Ive said the opposite , I've said it's an ideology.

You are arguing (as the premise of this entire argument) that communism is evil because of the actions of its claimed proponents. If this is not true let me know, because there is no point in debating any further.

Mister D
09-06-2012, 10:03 AM
So then you have to admit capitalism is evil correct? Or do you concede double standard?

De Benoist is not a champion of capitalism and while De Benoist finds many faults with liberal western democracies they do not murder their own citizens. Why does a cpndemnation of communism bother you so?


Unless the ideology suggested killing millions of people, which it does not, it cannot be evil.



So now communism is not evil? You just insisted you did not say this but you are saying precisely that. Please pick one and stick with it.


Again, read the Communist Manifesto yourself. I won't do your homework for you.


Correct me where I'm wrong...or not.


Sigh...



I have to keep asking only because you can't seem to decide.


Reiterating them doesn't make them more correct.


You can correct me where I'm wrong...or not.


Much like capitalists I suppose?

No, actually. De Benoist does not live in mortal fear of his own government. Nor do I. Nor do you.

Chris
09-06-2012, 10:04 AM
I just did. There would be no politics if there is a FREE market! It would almost invariably lead to corporate rule as we have today.



Other than the need to own a property or place to live, food to eat, etc.



Pretty sure people need food to eat, places to live, etc.



So you wouldn't mind if I came and lived on your property for free?



As the ability to act without forced or coercive influence upon you. Be they bills, a boss, a tyrant, whatever.


Asked for how it was so politically. Could you answer that?

I just did.
Your response addressed employers and employees, corporations. That's not politics, it's economics.




Other than the need to own a property or place to live, food to eat, etc. ...Pretty sure people need food to eat, places to live, etc.
Non-coercive, unless you're now anthropomorphising mother nature, lol.




So you wouldn't mind if I came and lived on your property for free?
Non sequitar.




As the ability to act without forced or coercive influence upon you. Be they bills, a boss, a tyrant, whatever.
IOW, freedom from responsibility.

Mister D
09-06-2012, 10:11 AM
Unless the ideology suggested killing millions of people, which it does not, it cannot be evil.



“One has the right to wonder,” writes Courtois,” why killing in the hope of ‘a better life thereafter’ is more excusable than slaughter linked to a racist doctrine,and why does the illusion (or the hypocrisy) constitute attenuating circumstancesto mass murder. It is unclear why it is less important or less condamnable tokill those who have been promised happiness instead of killing those who havebeen promised nothing. To commit evil in the name of good is no better than tocommit evil in the name of evil. To destroy freedom in the name of freedom is nobetter than to destroy it in the name of the need to suppress it. The first may beeven worse. A vice is less excusable when practiced by those who profess virtue,because they are supposed to abide by their principles. Thus, there is a kind oflogic in judging more severely a system with good intentions, but which, “in reality,has been imposed everywhere with violence and has destroyed a huge numberof victims, than one where the perpetrators’ intentions were bad from thevery beginning.” In other words, mitigating circumstances are not on the side one may expect at first sight.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 10:30 AM
De Benoist is not a champion of capitalism and while De Benoist finds many faults with liberal western democracies they do not murder their own citizens. Why does a cpndemnation of communism bother you so?

What does he promote? I'm just curious.

This being said, I was saying YOU (and I include this generally) have to admit capitalism is evil. Or admit a double standard.


So now communism is not evil? You just insisted you did not say this but you are saying precisely that. Please pick one and stick with it.

I don't believe in good or evil, so why would I say that? Again, straw man.


Correct me where I'm wrong...or not.

You cannot prove something that did not happen! Go through the forum and tell me where I said what YOU are claiming I said.


I have to keep asking only because you can't seem to decide.

no you keep asking because you are grasping at strawmen.



You can correct me where I'm wrong...or not.



There's not need to refute ungrounded claims of opinion.


No, actually. De Benoist does not live in mortal fear of his own government. Nor do I. Nor do you.

Now you're telling me what I feel?

Chris
09-06-2012, 10:35 AM
I don't believe in good or evil, so why would I say that?

That's a good question, why did you thus say:


This being said, I was saying YOU (and I include this generally) have to admit capitalism is evil.

You cannot argue the truth of something from self-contradiction.

Mister D
09-06-2012, 10:39 AM
What does he promote? I'm just curious.

I would say traditionalism.


This being said, I was saying YOU (and I include this generally) have to admit capitalism is evil. Or admit a double standard.



I HAVE to do no such thing. It's a red herring. Again, capitalist states have not murdered their citizens as a matter of course. Totalitarian states have. That's the topic. Why are you so uncomfortable with it.


I don't believe in good or evil, so why would I say that? Again, straw man.



Lame cop out. :laugh:


You cannot prove something that did not happen! Go through the forum and tell me where I said what YOU are claiming I said.



Right! I'm not obligated to! The ball is in your court. Again, correct me where I am wrong...or not. Shrug.


no you keep asking because you are grasping at strawmen.



It was a question and one you are very uncomfortable answering.




refute ungrounded claims of opinion.



If such a blueprint exists you should be able to cite it and easily.


Now you're telling me what I feel?

So you live in mortal fear of your government?

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 10:51 AM
Your response addressed employers and employees, corporations. That's not politics, it's economics.


You're talking about freedom. You even mentioned freedom in an economic sense yourself. Now - AGAIN - you are walking away from what you have said previously!


Non-coercive, unless you're now anthropomorphising mother nature, lol.



First of all, look up the term anthropomorphizing. However, since you bring up nature, yes it would be a factor contributing to lack of freedom.



Non sequitar.



No, it's quite relevant to my point. If you have a bunch of people who CHOOSE not to work (since they are free), what do they do for food, shelter, etc? Are there laws preventing this? Because this would imply a government/state.



IOW, freedom from responsibility.

Responsibility is a societal form of coercion...

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 10:59 AM
That's a good question, why did you thus say:



You cannot argue the truth of something from self-contradiction.

I was pointing out the double standard again. If you have read all my arguments that the only thing I have been arguing about!

You also conveniently took part of the paragraph away where I mentioned the double standard. I know the only 'evidence' you have provided thus far in pure, ungrounded opinion. (Oh my a truthful purity statement!)

Chris
09-06-2012, 11:06 AM
You're talking about freedom. You even mentioned freedom in an economic sense yourself.

And you're talking politics, thus my question about what you said regarding politics. You said--if you remember after all your obfuscation--"capitalism is inherently hierarchical." That's a political statement. Please explain your claim politically--I doubt you can since capitalism is not political.



First of all, look up the term anthropomorphizing.

You're the one giving agency, human attributes to ideologies, and now nature:


...since you bring up nature, yes it would be a factor contributing to lack of freedom.

Uh, you brought up nature, SD, you spoke of making a living, sheltering, eating. That's our nature as human beings.

Nature is not coercive as you claim. Nature is, period.




Non sequitar.

No, it's quite relevant to my point.
But wholly irrelevant to the point you were responding to.




If you have a bunch of people who CHOOSE not to work (since they are free), what do they do for food, shelter, etc? Are there laws preventing this? Because this would imply a government/state.

Your argument is political. Capitalism is economics. The state is coercive, capitalism is not, it is cooperative.

That your argument is political is why I asked you to explain politically your claim "capitalism is inherently hierarchical."




Responsibility is a societal form of coercion...

To teenagers, perhaps. And liberals, and socialists.

Chris
09-06-2012, 11:07 AM
I was pointing out the double standard again. If you have read all my arguments that the only thing I have been arguing about!

You also conveniently took part of the paragraph away where I mentioned the double standard. I know the only 'evidence' you have provided thus far in pure, ungrounded opinion. (Oh my a truthful purity statement!)


I agree, your self-contradiction is a double standard.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 11:08 AM
I would say traditionalism.


What the heck is that?


I HAVE to do no such thing. It's a red herring. Again, capitalist states have not murdered their citizens as a matter of course. Totalitarian states have. That's the topic. Why are you so uncomfortable with it.

Yes, that's why the most militaristic country in the world is the US. An avowedly CAPITALIST country!




Lame cop out. :laugh:



Sorry if being amoral is lame to you.


Right! I'm not obligated to! The ball is in your court. Again, correct me where I am wrong...or not. Shrug.



You clearly don't understand debate protocol or are just a complete idiot!



It was a question and one you are very uncomfortable answering.



The only thing I'm unconfortable about is why I am bothering to waste so much time debating with such uneducated people...



If such a blueprint exists you should be able to cite it and easily.



Your aforementioned "arguments" are but a few examples.


So you live in mortal fear of your government?

Pretty much.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 11:08 AM
I agree, your self-contradiction is a double standard.


Where did I contradict myself?

Mister D
09-06-2012, 11:23 AM
What the heck is that?

His views can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_de_Benoist


Yes, that's why the most militaristic country in the world is the US. An avowedly CAPITALIST country!



Sorry, but my government isn't lining up its own citizens for slaughter. It never has. Neither has yours. Totalitarian communist governments did as a matter of course.


Sorry if being amoral is lame to you.



Avoiding questions is lame.


You clearly don't understand debate protocol or are just a complete idiot!



And the personal attacks begin! :laugh: No, sweetie, you do not understand the rules of debate. One is not obligated to prove a negative. If you believe a blueprint for the establishment of a communist exists and that communists, such as Lenin, did not follow this blueprint then make your case. Or not...


The only thing I'm unconfortable about is why I am bothering to waste so much time debating with such uneducated people...



Let us know when you find that blueprint.

:wink:



Your aforementioned "arguments" are but a few examples.


What? lol



Pretty much.

Why?

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 11:55 AM
And you're talking politics, thus my question about what you said regarding politics. You said--if you remember after all your obfuscation--"capitalism is inherently hierarchical." That's a political statement. Please explain your claim politically--I doubt you can since capitalism is not political.

Communism is an economic system too!

[QUOTE]You're the one giving agency, human attributes to ideologies, and now nature:



So describing something in a way you can understand (which I am starting to doubt your comrehension abilities entirely) is automatically anthropomorphizing? Good to know what I'm dealing with. Although by your standard we can't define anything non-human.


Uh, you brought up nature, SD, you spoke of making a living, sheltering, eating. That's our nature as human beings.

No shit Shirlock!




Nature is not coercive as you claim. Nature is, period.



Where did I claim it was?



But wholly irrelevant to the point you were responding to.



To someone who has the reading comprehension of a fruit fly (Oh no! Am I anthropormorphizing?)




Your argument is political. Capitalism is economics. The state is coercive, capitalism is not, it is cooperative.



So is communism.


That your argument is political is why I asked you to explain politically your claim "capitalism is inherently hierarchical."



Because it is an heirarchical economic theory. One in which some people own the means of production and some that do not!




To teenagers, perhaps. And liberals, and socialists.

Ad hominem.

Chris
09-06-2012, 12:28 PM
Where did I contradict myself?

You do like to obfuscate, don't you. This was made clear in post #75. I pointed out that you had said:

"I don't believe in good or evil, so why would I say that?"

right after you had said:

"This being said, I was saying YOU (and I include this generally) have to admit capitalism is evil."

Or you're just being disingenuous making claims about capitalism being evil when you don't believe it.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 12:36 PM
His views can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_de_Benoist

Just reading through that and he seems like a very inconsistent person. Like his writings suggest.


Sorry, but my government isn't lining up its own citizens for slaughter. It never has. Neither has yours. Totalitarian communist governments did as a matter of course.

You aren't from the US? Simply because they do their dirty work covertly, and often in other countries, doesn't mean they aren't guilty of it.


Avoiding questions is lame.



Answering is avoiding? Are you a moron?


And the personal attacks begin! :laugh: No, sweetie, you do not understand the rules of debate. One is not obligated to prove a negative. If you believe a blueprint for the establishment of a communist exists and that communists, such as Lenin, did not follow this blueprint then make your case. Or not...

As I said Marx did not say killing 100,000,000 people would achieve communism. THAT has nothing to do with communism. Even if it did achieve communism, the ends justifying the means is another argument altogher.


And you were taking my quote referring you asking ME to provide evidence of something I never said. Good grief, your reading comprehension is poor as well!



Let us know when you find that blueprint.



What blueprint are you referring to?




What? lol



You were saying I have yet to fail to discredit your arguments. Yet your arguments are not even coherent. You are quoting me out of context and saying I said things I never had. So you can understand my frustration (or maybe you can't, I don't want to assume anything about your intelligence or lack thereof).



Why?


Because I am not free.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 12:41 PM
You do like to obfuscate, don't you. This was made clear in post #75. I pointed out that you had said:

"I don't believe in good or evil, so why would I say that?"

right after you had said:

"This being said, I was saying YOU (and I include this generally) have to admit capitalism is evil."

YOU like to take things out of context. I was using that to prove the double standard of the argument you and Mister D seem to be upholding.


Or you're just being disingenuous making claims about capitalism being evil when you don't believe it.

No I'm pointing out a double standard which I have said all along if you could read properly and in context.

Chris
09-06-2012, 12:43 PM
Communism is an economic system too!

I agree. Problem is, as I pointed out earlier, like any other socialist system it adopts and promotes as its main tenant central planning, and central planning is by its very nature about control.





I am starting to doubt your comrehension abilities entirely


More obfuscation. Remember, you first claimed
Ad hom is like waving a white flag you have no further argument to make.




So describing something in a way you can understand ... is automatically anthropomorphizing?

No, not what I said at all. I said describing nature and ideologies as agents or with human attributes is anthropomorphizing. You're creating metaphors for and then believing your own metaphors. That's dangerous.





Uh, you brought up nature, SD, you spoke of making a living, sheltering, eating. That's our nature as human beings.

No shit Shirlock!

Now that's some argument! Remember, you first claimed capitalism coerced us to do those things. Now you agree it's just nature, human nature. Thanks you.





To someone who has the reading comprehension of a fruit fly

All this ad hom is just you http://www.financeglobe.com/FN/images/smilies/smiley-white-flag.gif





Your argument is political. Capitalism is economics. The state is coercive, capitalism is not, it is cooperative.

So is communism.

Communism depends on central planning which is coercive.




Because it is an heirarchical economic theory. One in which some people own the means of production and some that do not!

That's not hierarchical. Besides, you're now describing feudalism, not capitalism. Free market capitalism is the social institution that emerges from the voluntary exchange of goods and services among individuals.




Responsibility is a societal form of coercion...

To teenagers, perhaps. And liberals, and socialists.

Ad hominem.

Ad hom is attacking the messenger, not the message. My comment was about your message, your message consisted of an idea typical of a teenager's view of things, freedom from responsibility. Freedom is a responsibility.

Chris
09-06-2012, 12:47 PM
You do like to obfuscate, don't you. This was made clear in post #75. I pointed out that you had said:

"I don't believe in good or evil, so why would I say that?"

right after you had said:

"This being said, I was saying YOU (and I include this generally) have to admit capitalism is evil."



YOU like to take things out of context. I was using that to prove the double standard of the argument you and Mister D seem to be upholding.



No I'm pointing out a double standard which I have said all along if you could read properly and in context.



Nothing was taken out of context. Anyone can go back to your two juxtaposed statements that contradict themselves.

To say something is X when you don't believe X is disingenuous, a double standard.

Mister D
09-06-2012, 12:50 PM
Just reading through that and he seems like a very inconsistent person. Like his writings suggest.

In what way? Do you know? lol


You aren't from the US? Simply because they do their dirty work covertly, and often in other countries, doesn't mean they aren't guilty of it.

Again, the US and other liberal democracies do not line up their citizens for slaughter. In fact, only communist regimes have had that dubious distinction.


Answering is avoiding? Are you a moron?



First you tossed a red herring about capitalism into the fray to avoid an answer. When that was dismissed you claimed you don't believe in right and wrong. Spoken like a true sociopath. No wonder you find totalitariansim so appealing.


As I said Marx did not say killing 100,000,000 people would achieve communism. THAT has nothing to do with communism. Even if it did achieve communism, the ends justifying the means is another argument altogher.

And you were taking my quote referring you asking ME to provide evidence of something I never said. Good grief, your reading comprehension is poor as well!



What Marx envisioned is irrelevant. The slaughters occured and were a direct consequence of Marx's ideas put into action. In any case, we're off topic. The end result (i.e. communist society) is assumed in Marx's work. There is no practical guide on how it is to be achieved. Historically, we know tens of millions of human beings were murdered to make it happen. Yeah, I'd want to disown that too but thankfully I'm not a communist. So we agree that Marx left no blueprint for achievignm his classless Utopia. Good.


What blueprint are you referring to?



None exists.


You were saying I have yet to fail to discredit your arguments. Yet your arguments are not even coherent. You are quoting me out of context and saying I said things I never had. So you can understand my frustration (or maybe you can't, I don't want to assume anything about your intelligence or lack thereof).




Apparently, we now agree. Marx left no guide on how his Utopia was to be achieved.


Because I am not free.

Do you know what "mortal fear" is? It means you are afraid of being killed. You may very well feel that you are not free but your government does not seek your elimination.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 12:50 PM
.

Mister D
09-06-2012, 01:03 PM
Savitri, the kind of sophistry you displayed here only makes the OP more poignant.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 01:11 PM
I agree. Problem is, as I pointed out earlier, like any other socialist system it adopts and promotes as its main tenant central planning, and central planning is by its very nature about control.

And control of the means of production by the bourgeoisie isn't organization? Or the fact we have to develop a currency (centrally)? But I'm sure in your infinite wisdom you didn't overlook such things!


More obfuscation. Remember, you first claimed
Ad hom is like waving a white flag you have no further argument to make.



As I have said, point out that your reading comprehension skills, when they are causing this debate to come to a stand-still is an observation. If you want to call your lack of reading ability ad hominem, whatever helps you sleep at night...




No, not what I said at all. I said describing nature and ideologies as agents or with human attributes is anthropomorphizing. You're creating metaphors for and then believing your own metaphors. That's dangerous.



So how else would you describe external factors that FORCE you do do things?


Now that's some argument! Remember, you first claimed capitalism coerced us to do those things. Now you agree it's just nature, human nature. Thanks you.



Capitalists force us to do things. Nature forces us to do things. Dictators force us to do things. Remember when I said I didn't believe in freedom? (Probably not)...





All this ad hom is just you http://www.financeglobe.com/FN/images/smilies/smiley-white-flag.gif



Reading comprehensions skills are still lacking on your part, are they not?






Communism depends on central planning which is coercive.



Capitalism depends on control of capital by the bourgeoisie which is coercive. See what I did there?




That's not hierarchical. Besides, you're now describing feudalism, not capitalism. Free market capitalism is the social institution that emerges from the voluntary exchange of goods and services among individuals.



No that's Marx's definition of capitalism. But I'll go by your definition. What is your definition of capitalism, this way there can be no more equivocation.


Ad hom is attacking the messenger, not the message. My comment was about your message, your message consisted of an idea typical of a teenager's view of things, freedom from responsibility. Freedom is a responsibility.

Freedom doesn't exist. And you have yet to prove it does.

Savitri Devi
09-06-2012, 01:54 PM
In what way? Do you know? lol

He opposes everything. He doesn't seem to stand for anything concrete. But I feel that way of all middle-ground beliefs. They are hypocritical and arbitrary.


Again, the US and other liberal democracies do not line up their citizens for slaughter. In fact, only communist regimes have had that dubious distinction.



Last I checked the US is almost constantly engaging in warfare. I cannot recall the last time they were not engaged in a war. At least one every decade...


First you tossed a red herring about capitalism into the fray to avoid an answer. When that was dismissed you claimed you don't believe in right and wrong. Spoken like a true sociopath. No wonder you find totalitariansim so appealing.



No, I have answered. You refuse to listen/read. I never said I didn't believe in right and wrong. I said good and evil I don't believe in. But again, more strawmen from the master!


What Marx envisioned is irrelevant. The slaughters occured and were a direct consequence of Marx's ideas put into action. In any case, we're off topic. The end result (i.e. communist society) is assumed in Marx's work. There is no practical guide on how it is to be achieved. Historically, we know tens of millions of human beings were murdered to make it happen. Yeah, I'd want to disown that too but thankfully I'm not a communist. So we agree that Marx left no blueprint for achievignm his classless Utopia. Good.



What Adam Smith envisioned is irrelevant. Corporations rule the government through lobbyists dictating where we live, what we eat, how we eat, what taxes we are forced to pay, etc. The wars caused by arms dealers because there's profit in warfare. This are ALL a direct result of the evils of capitalism! (At least by your double standard you refuse to acknowledge).


Apparently, we now agree. Marx left no guide on how his Utopia was to be achieved.



No, it was through the transitory state of socialism. I thought I said that earlier. reading comprehension skills lacking again?


Do you know what "mortal fear" is? It means you are afraid of being killed. You may very well feel that you are not free but your government does not seek your elimination.

I am more afraid of forceful imprisonment. I think keeping someone confined their entire life is a greater fear than that of death.

Mister D
09-06-2012, 02:04 PM
He opposes everything. He doesn't seem to stand for anything concrete. But I feel that way of all middle-ground beliefs. They are hypocritical and arbitrary.

That's funny. Neither do you. :laugh: But, no, he does not oppose eberything, That's silly. He opposes liberalism.




Last I checked the US is almost constantly engaging in warfare. I cannot recall the last time they were not engaged in a war. At least one every decade...



You like red herrings, huh? :grin:


No, I have answered. You refuse to listen/read. I never said I didn't believe in right and wrong. I said good and evil I don't believe in. But again, more strawmen from the master!



Yeah, I know. You don't believe in right and wrong but you think it's wrong to mistreat animals. Cognitive dissonance?


What Adam Smith envisioned is irrelevant. Corporations rule the government through lobbyists dictating where we live, what we eat, how we eat, what taxes we are forced to pay, etc. The wars caused by arms dealers because there's profit in warfare. This are ALL a direct result of the evils of capitalism! (At least by your double standard you refuse to acknowledge).




Yes, what Adam Smith envisioned is irrelevant since we aren't talking about Adam Smith or capitalism.



No, it was through the transitory state of socialism. I thought I said that earlier. reading comprehension skills lacking again?



:laugh: That's not a practical guide, sweetie. Well...uh...first you have socialism and then you have communism. OK...everyone understand now? Let's get to work. :smiley_ROFLMAO:


I am more afraid of forceful imprisonment. I think keeping someone confined their entire life is a greater fear than that of death.

Let us know when the government goons show up. :rollseyes:

Chris
09-06-2012, 02:12 PM
And control of the means of production by the bourgeoisie isn't organization? Or the fact we have to develop a currency (centrally)? But I'm sure in your infinite wisdom you didn't overlook such things!



As I have said, point out that your reading comprehension skills, when they are causing this debate to come to a stand-still is an observation. If you want to call your lack of reading ability ad hominem, whatever helps you sleep at night...





So how else would you describe external factors that FORCE you do do things?



Capitalists force us to do things. Nature forces us to do things. Dictators force us to do things. Remember when I said I didn't believe in freedom? (Probably not)...






Reading comprehensions skills are still lacking on your part, are they not?







Capitalism depends on control of capital by the bourgeoisie which is coercive. See what I did there?





No that's Marx's definition of capitalism. But I'll go by your definition. What is your definition of capitalism, this way there can be no more equivocation.



Freedom doesn't exist. And you have yet to prove it does.

Why do you continue to wave the white flag of ad hom?

bourgeoisie? No such thing. We all own our bodies. Are we all bourgeoisie?

I've defined capitalism numerous times. It is the social institution that emerges from the voluntary exchange of goods and services among individuals.

Ivan88
09-07-2012, 02:35 PM
Nazi-ism and Communism are essentially the same and come from the same source, the Talmud.

At any rate, they are both rackets run by the super-rich to control the peasants.

Chris
09-07-2012, 02:57 PM
Nazi-ism and Communism are essentially the same and come from the same source, the Talmud.

Explain, please.


At any rate, they are both rackets run by the super-rich to control the peasants.

They're both the failed products of socialism.

Mister D
09-07-2012, 03:07 PM
He might mean that all of these modern ideologies have their origins in modernity's residual Christianity but he didn't put it well.

Ivan88
09-07-2012, 07:06 PM
Explain, please.


Nazi-ism and Communism are essentially the same and come from the same source, the Talmud.

At any rate, they are both rackets run by the super-rich to control the peasants.

They're both the failed products of socialism.

Socialism, Communism, Nazi-ism, Democracy are all different fingers of the same hand.

From the stand point of the super-rich, these isms are a great success. Look at all the wars fought over this garbage, and all the fantastic profits accurring to the people who manipulate the nations to war.

You don't seen the Talmud in all those isms?

They are all based on some elite controlling the goyim and ripping them off under one pretext or another.

They were all created to end the various kingdoms of Christendom and put everyone under more perfect control.

Here in America we have a very unique form of Communism, we call it Capitalism.

Chris
09-08-2012, 07:29 AM
Socialism, Communism, Nazi-ism, Democracy are all different fingers of the same hand.

From the stand point of the super-rich, these isms are a great success. Look at all the wars fought over this garbage, and all the fantastic profits accurring to the people who manipulate the nations to war.

You don't seen the Talmud in all those isms?

They are all based on some elite controlling the goyim and ripping them off under one pretext or another.

They were all created to end the various kingdoms of Christendom and put everyone under more perfect control.

Here in America we have a very unique form of Communism, we call it Capitalism.


You don't seen the Talmud in all those isms?

Uh, no, that's why I asked you to explain. Would you?


Here in America we have a very unique form of Communism, we call it Capitalism.

Oh. ok, I guess I don't expect a rational answer then.

Peter1469
09-08-2012, 08:31 AM
He could be referring the Marx's historical / political cycle where capitalism morphs into communism over time as the workers unite against the man.

But I doubt it.

Chris
09-08-2012, 09:52 AM
Ah, the Hegaelian dialectic! Yeah, doubt it.

Ivan88
09-08-2012, 09:40 PM
OK, First, the Talmud is a written collection of the traditions of the elders of Judah & Esau/Amalaek.

Christ characterized it as the doctrines that make the Word of God of none effect.

It is about a certain class of people who seek to control all of mankind as was happening in Judea in the time of Christ.

It is based on the jealousy of Judah against Joseph, and Esau against Jacob over the Birthright. The Talmud is based on this jealousy and the way to secure it against what they call the Goyim.

Communism, Fascism, Socialism, & Democracy are in essence based on a small elite controlling everything while giving the peasants the image of having some power & some benefits.

These isms, are based on the same doctrines that the Pharisees held at the time of Christ.

If you watch the video The Prophet Joseph, produced in Iran for Iranian TV, you will see how vicious the jealousy was, and how the same treachery was in the priests of Amon. You will see the nature of the doctrines of the elders. Joseph overcame it all.


http://www.shiatv.net/view_video.php?viewkey=5770e1dc3ef156762cec

In Pharsi with English subtitles.
http://royalamericaninstituteforworldpeace.org/mediac/450_0/media/DIR_104/306ea89b4d6feabffff84baffffe41e.jpg

Peter1469
09-08-2012, 10:17 PM
Communism, Fascism, Socialism, & Democracy are in essence based on a small elite controlling everything while giving the peasants the image of having some power & some benefits.

Wow.

What is your alternative?

Ivan88
09-09-2012, 11:41 AM
Communism, Fascism, Socialism, & Democracy are in essence based on a small elite controlling everything while giving the peasants the image of having some power & some benefits.


Wow.

What is your alternative?

Elites will always exert considerable control. And, as long as Americans are in love with our version of Communism, the Elites will remain in control.

But, if enough Americans will confess our national sins, repent, and accept the punishments of our iniquities, we can gradually remove all 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto from America, remove democracy, and return America to what it attempted to do in 1774.

In 1774, Some Americans declared that they had never consented to be governed.

This means that they were attempting to return to the way things were before Israel consented to having a king rule over them. Previous to that, the Men chose the judges, and had control of their families and tribes. And, of course, it is all in vain if those "Men" are not following "nature and nature's God" as specified in the Declaration of Independence.

And we have not been doing that since we tolerated the assassination of the Shay Regulators of Massachusetts. We weren't following it when we did the revolution thing, either.

When we violate our national Mandate to pursue Peace and accomplish it in Truth, Mercy and Faith, then the Curses of the Law come upon us, and as Moses said, "Those who hate you shall rule over you." Lev. 26:17

Chris
09-09-2012, 11:56 AM
OK, First, the Talmud is a written collection of the traditions of the elders of Judah & Esau/Amalaek.

Christ characterized it as the doctrines that make the Word of God of none effect.

It is about a certain class of people who seek to control all of mankind as was happening in Judea in the time of Christ.

It is based on the jealousy of Judah against Joseph, and Esau against Jacob over the Birthright. The Talmud is based on this jealousy and the way to secure it against what they call the Goyim.

Communism, Fascism, Socialism, & Democracy are in essence based on a small elite controlling everything while giving the peasants the image of having some power & some benefits.

These isms, are based on the same doctrines that the Pharisees held at the time of Christ.

If you watch the video The Prophet Joseph, produced in Iran for Iranian TV, you will see how vicious the jealousy was, and how the same treachery was in the priests of Amon. You will see the nature of the doctrines of the elders. Joseph overcame it all.

....

Two problems with this.

One, what you say is true of most every early civilization I'm aware of. It is, interestingly, as an aside to your aside on the OP, what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_de_Benoist indicates Benoist wants to return to:
... he argues that Europe must return to its pre-Christian roots and uses the Indo-European model, such as Nordic, Celtic, Greek and Roman civilisations,[11] as an alternative to communism and capitalism.[1] "We want to substitute faith for law, mythos for logos... will for pure reason, the image for the concept, and home for exile," he once wrote.[12]...

[1] A big splash from France's new wave from the right The Economist 14 July 1979
[11] France's new right in search of old European roots The Economist 1 September 1979
[12] Russia's bad dream;Zhirinovsky's fascism is not an isolated phenomenon The Boston Globe 19 December 1993


But to return to your claim, problem two, the Jews were the first to subject their kings to the same laws as its people. This directly contradicts your claim of "a small elite controlling everything".

Ivan88
09-09-2012, 12:15 PM
Two problems with this.

One, what you say is true of most every early civilization I'm aware of. It is, interestingly, as an aside to your aside on the OP, what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_de_Benoist indicates Benoist wants to return to:


But to return to your claim, problem two, the Jews were the first to subject their kings to the same laws as its people. This directly contradicts your claim of "a small elite controlling everything".

We are not talking about all civilizations, we are talking about the American civilizaiton, which is not very civilized.

If you recognize that elites control America, why buy into their various schemes, democracy, socialism etc.? Especially since they never deliver the following:

That a Man is king of his castle, and free from taxation, threats and interferrences.


The Talmud or doctrines of the Pharisees make the Word of God of none effect. That means murder, covetousness and theft are all legal for someone.

Don't know what "Jews" you are talking about.

Chris
09-09-2012, 12:22 PM
We are not talking about all civilizations, we are talking about the American civilizaiton, which is not very civilized.

If you recognize that elites control America, why buy into their various schemes, democracy, socialism etc.? Especially since they never deliver the following:

That a Man is king of his castle, and free from taxation, threats and interferrences.


The Talmud or doctrines of the Pharisees make the Word of God of none effect. That means murder, covetousness and theft are all legal for someone.

Don't know what "Jews" you are talking about.


We are not talking about all civilizations, we are talking about the American civilizaiton, which is not very civilized.

I'd asked you about the Talamud. Are you saying you were deflecting from supporting your claim about that again?

What you said was true of all early civilizations I've heard of.

Your post didn't even mention the US.

Strike one.




If you recognize that elites control America, why buy into their various schemes, democracy, socialism etc.?

Uh, I don't. I'm an anarchocapitalist, minarchist in practice.

Strike two.




Don't know what "Jews" you are talking about.

The Jews you're making things up about.

Strike three.

Chris
09-09-2012, 03:53 PM
Ivan, since I asked you to support your claim that
Nazi-ism and Communism are essentially the same and come from the same source, the Talmud.

I should support mine that
the Jews were the first to subject their kings to the same laws as its people.

Here:

Deuteronomy 17:16-20

16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

Ivan88
09-10-2012, 03:15 AM
The Jews were the first to subject their kings to the same laws as its people.Chris

In Deuteronomy, The Prophet Moses is speaking to all the tribes of Israel. And regarding a king, Moses tells them what the king should do, if Israel should ever appoint one to rule over them.

Later the Prophet Samuel told Israel what the king would do: that the king would be a big burden to the people, which he did.

The first king, Saul, did not follow Moses or the Prophet of Saul's time. What stopped King Saul was the Philistines and Saul committing suicide.

King Rehoboam refused the request of most the tribes to have less taxes and impositions. So most of Israel left, leaving behind a remnant of Judah, Benjamin and Levi.

And today, the only Jews that count are those who follow Jesus Christ. See Romans 2:28-29

People who follow the Talmud, and claim to be of Judah, are really of the synogog of God's adversary.

Judah did not subject the king to the same laws as the people.

Chris
09-10-2012, 05:42 AM
Chris

In Deuteronomy, The Prophet Moses is speaking to all the tribes of Israel. And regarding a king, Moses tells them what the king should do, if Israel should ever appoint one to rule over them.

Later the Prophet Samuel told Israel what the king would do: that the king would be a big burden to the people, which he did.

The first king, Saul, did not follow Moses or the Prophet of Saul's time. What stopped King Saul was the Philistines and Saul committing suicide.

King Rehoboam refused the request of most the tribes to have less taxes and impositions. So most of Israel left, leaving behind a remnant of Judah, Benjamin and Levi.

And today, the only Jews that count are those who follow Jesus Christ. See Romans 2:28-29

People who follow the Talmud, and claim to be of Judah, are really of the synogog of God's adversary.

Judah did not subject the king to the same laws as the people.

Deuteronomy clearly shows what I claimed.


Now when you going to back up what you claimed:


Nazi-ism and Communism are essentially the same and come from the same source, the Talmud.

Ivan88
09-10-2012, 10:27 AM
"Nature's God" and Husband, Jesus Christ, told us that the Pharisees, et al. that follow the doctrines of the Talmud, don't believe in Moses. (John 5:45-47) Hence they don't believe in Deuteronomy.

The Apostle Paul defined a "Jew" (Judahite) as being those who follow Jesus Christ. (Romans 2:28-29)

So, real Jews cannot follow Talmudic doctrines. But fake Jews can, as can fake Christians.

The essence of Communism, Socialism, etc. is covetousness and jealousy and so is the Talmud.

They all strive to put the "goyim", most of humanity, into a condition of serfdom, to the superior people who own every thing and every one. Some are "more equal than others."

"Nature's God" told Abraham that his "seed" would become a vast and mighty goy of many nations.

And, it is those goy, the "inferior" people, who are to be manipulated and controlled by the superior Talmud folks.

If we ignore all the evidence on the subject, except this one point about the Goy, it is perfectly clear that those who hate the Goy are not following God, Abraham, Moses or any of the Prophets.

It is the religion of: 453 http://mysite.verizon.net/ress8ouv/religion_of_no_mercy/

Ivan88
10-01-2012, 02:25 AM
Too bad Yahtzee wasn't popular in Hitler's time

http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/NAHTZEE_9cadbb_279362.gif

Captain Obvious
10-01-2012, 06:42 PM
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5hXYdHntp7YJUGrkiSRK5Dw_w-lpK_jB7pJQWGpJfqhCwwH7-9Q

Peter1469
10-01-2012, 06:54 PM
wow where did you find that?

Chris
10-01-2012, 06:58 PM
Wow where you been it''s the game Hitler played--

http://i.snag.gy/ar6Kp.jpg

Ivan88
11-03-2012, 04:30 PM
AshkeNAZI-im and Communism both do the same thing:

1. The individual is at the mercy of the bullycrats;
2. An elite control everything;
3. The same people that sell Nazi-ism to Germany sold Communism to Russia.

4. America solved the conflict. We have adopted all 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto as local, national and international policy,
and we have adopted the ways of the Nazis. We even put the emblems of Fascism on the wall of Congress on either side of the speaker's podium.
http://www.martinvoltersen.de/fasces_US_congress.jpghttp://www.martinvoltersen.de/130105fasces3.jpg

Ivan88
11-03-2012, 04:55 PM
http://germanwarhelmet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/file1364a.jpgWe copied Germany
http://dmn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/PASGT-Helmet-300x198.jpghttp://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9641/cosplay400.jpg

Mister D
11-03-2012, 07:15 PM
Wow this thread collapsed into lunacy...

KC
11-05-2012, 02:54 AM
Why were Europeans more likely than Americans to take refuge in the possibility of a strong state that is able to produce some sort of of utopia? In my mind, Communism and Fascism both represented Europeans widespread beliefs that their governments could repair the damage which in many cases was caused by their governments, especially after World War I.

Many states gave liberalism a shot, but especially in Eastern Europe liberalism never really took hold. Czechoslovakia may have come the closest to a liberal democratic government during the interwar period in Eastern Europe, which is the reason for their first President being honored in my avatar, but even there persisted strong tendencies toward ethno-nationalism and socialism. The belief in a strong state in Europe prevails to this day, although today it looks less utopian, more practical.

Mister D
11-05-2012, 09:30 AM
I think that as the influence of the churches declined on the surface the influenece of a Christian frame of mind remained as powerful as ever. "Progress" is but a secularized Christianity. Perhaps even idolatry. It had the expected consequences. This is one reason why I find Paul relevant for the modern world. Man is incapable of creating a just society from his own resources.

The US did not experience a decline in church influence.

KC
11-05-2012, 04:34 PM
I think that as the influence of the churches declined on the surface the influenece of a Christian frame of mind remained as powerful as ever. "Progress" is but a secularized Christianity. Perhaps even idolatry. It had the expected consequences. This is one reason why I find Paul relevant for the modern world. Man is incapable of creating a just society from his own resources.

The US did not experience a decline in church influence.


Ok, so if that explanation is correct, what exactly caused Europe to secularize more and sooner than the United States?

Mister D
11-05-2012, 04:44 PM
Ok, so if that explanation is correct, what exactly caused Europe to secularize more and sooner than the United States?

I would say it was ultimately a consequence of the Reformation and personalities like Martin Luther. The separation of church and state is actually a Medieval (Catholic) concept. There were no national churches prior to the 16th century. Europe's religious turmoil stemmed largely from this disaster and hence the gradual transition from a holistic society into a society in which religion was relegated to the private sphere.

Mister D
11-05-2012, 04:46 PM
Mind you, I'm painting with broad strokes here. Obviously, there is much more to this view than I can relate now. I've read some Christopher Dawson and I'm drawing on his thoughts for the most part right now .

Ivan88
11-18-2012, 11:59 AM
Wow this thread collapsed into lunacy... Obviously Mister D is part of the collective insanity that is driving America to commit suicide.
http://attackthesystem.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/478320suicide_soldier1.png

Mister D
11-18-2012, 12:02 PM
Obviously Mister D is part of the collective insanity that is driving America to commit suicide.
http://attackthesystem.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/478320suicide_soldier1.png

Mister D does not support Third World immigration.

Peter1469
11-18-2012, 12:34 PM
Ivan's mind is a terrible thing....