• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What WW2 actually was: a war between banking powers

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Fascists (in a literal sense: supporters of Mussolini) are not "lefties," but I'm pretty sure you already knew that before posting the above.
If we use your own definition, & ignore
standard dictionary primary definitions,
I suppose you could be right.
Nah.

Fans of communism & socialism love their broad
definitions of "socialism" & "communism" that
even include capitalism. Yet they allow only a narrow
arcane definition of "fascism". Tis a double standard
to avoid this loathed label being applied to their
systems, eh.

W
 
Last edited:

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
If we use your personal definition, & ignore
standard dictionary primary definitions, I
suppose you could be right.
Nah.

What personal definition? There's at least one person here (without dropping names) who has admitted that they admire Mussolini. That's as classic and literal of a fascist position as one could get. You can go ask any leftist what they think of Mussolini and tell me what kinds of answers you get.

Fans of communism & socialism love their broad
definitions of "socialism" & "communism" that
even include capitalism. Yet they demand a narrow
arcane definition of "fascism". A double standard
to avoid this loathed label being applied to their
systems, eh. So out trots the no-true-fascist fallacy.

Supporting Mussolini is neither an "arcane" nor a "narrow" example of fascism. It's markedly clear.

Either way, the ideologies that are typically termed "red fascism" within leftist circles tend to be Marxism-Leninism and its offshoots—Maoism, Stalinism, etc. I agree with classifying those as forms of fascism, but none of them include the fascist ideology of Mussolini and his admirers, which is the variety I'm talking about here.

 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
What personal definition? There's at least one person here (without dropping names) who has admitted that they admire Mussolini.
That's as classic and literal of a fascist position as one could get. You can go ask any leftist what they think of Mussolini and tell me what kinds of answers you get.
That someone admires Mussolini has no bearing on the definitions of "fascism".
Supporting Mussolini is neither an "arcane" nor a "narrow" example of fascism. It's markedly clear.
Again, no bearing.
Either way, the ideologies that are typically termed "red fascism" within leftist circles tend to be Marxism-Leninism and its offshoots—Maoism, Stalinism, etc.
this is not a leftist circle forum.
I did not address "red fascism"....whatever that is.
I agree with classifying those as forms of fascism, but none of them include the fascism of Mussolini and his admirers, which is the variety I'm talking about here

Perhaps you should use the term "Mussoliniesque
fascism" if you mean only fascism during his regime.
BTW, I responded to post #197 with #202, neither of
which even mentioned "fascism". You posted #208
in response to my #202, introducing the issue of
defining "fascism". Why?
 
Last edited:

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
That someone admires Mussolini has no bearing on the definitions of "fascism".

Again, no bearing.

Endorsing his ideology certainly does, though.

this is not a leftist circle forum.
I did not address "red fascism"....whatever that is.

"Red fascism" is a collection of authoritarian leftist ideologies. Since you were arguing that a leftist can be a fascist in the sense of supporting dictatorship, I responded by saying that leftist fascists don't tend to admire or support Mussolini, unlike the specific types of fascists I'm talking about.

Perhaps you should use the term "Mussoliniesque fascism"
if you mean only fascism during his regime.

Not just during his regime but also the extension of the same ideology that supports white supremacism and racial segregation, among other things. There are some people today who still endorse such policies.

 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Endorsing his ideology certainly does, though.



"Red fascism" is a collection of authoritarian leftist ideologies. Since you were arguing that a leftist can be a fascist in the sense of supporting dictatorship, I responded by saying that leftist fascists don't tend to admire or support Mussolini, unlike the specific types of fascists I'm talking about.



Not just during his regime but also the extension of the same ideology that supports white supremacism and racial segregation, among other things. There are some people today who still endorse such policies.

I didn't see that this thread was solely about
"Italian fascism"....or even fascism. It was about
bankers being the boogeyman behind WW2.
During that time we also had Nazi fascism.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I didn't see that this thread was solely about
"Italian fascism"....or even fascism. It was about
bankers being the boogeyman behind WW2.
During that time we also had Nazi fascism.

This was where I first responded to you:

This is an interesting turn...
Usually, the lefties blame capitalism for all war.
They're getting really specific now, ie, bankers.
What next....bankers who sit in the 1st floor
SW office?

Italian fascists who endorse Mussolini and his racial supremacism are rarely ever "lefties." They tend to be far-right proponents of an ethnostate.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
This was where I first responded to you:



Italian fascists who endorse Mussolini and his racial supremacism are rarely ever "lefties." They tend to be far-right proponents of an ethnostate.
"Left" & "right" are ambiguous terms because of multiple
meanings. But one of the common definitions of "left" is
economically authoritarian, ie, socialist / communist.
Mussolini was a socialist.
I see authoritarian socialist regimes as "left".
A capitalist fascist would be "right".

Once again, it's a dubious double standard to
either broad or narrow definitions ad hoc.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Peaceful non cooperation could have got it done at any point in the past 200+ years.

The British control was always entirely dependent on sufficient support from Indians from the days of the EIC takeover that was funded and fought for primarily by Indians.

Half of the British Empire was dependent on Indians choosing to fight for Britain rather than some other paymaster, let alone India itself.
As we see in America being uncooperative with an empire doesn't get things done. They'll find someone else who will cooperate. Or, as we've seen many times under many circumstances and scenarios, they'll beat, rape, torture, kill and use power amd fear to coerce cooperation. Ams those without power aren't known for giving it up when asked please or when someone is uncooperative.
Violence usually only happens after peace has failed and voices go unheard.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
"Left" & "right" are ambiguous terms because of multiple
meanings. But one of the common definitions of "left" is
economically authoritarian, ie, socialist / communist.
Mussolini was a socialist.
I see authoritarian socialist regimes as "left".
A capitalist fascist would be "right".

Once again, it's a dubious double standard to
either broad or narrow definitions ad hoc.
And Hitler and Pol Pot where Far Right amd very violent, genocidal pukes, with Hitler himself hating socialists and killing them off as well, as well as going to war against whoa was equally north and up againat thAnd we've seen and still see slavery and pointless wars in Capitalist societies, so it's a bad point.
 
Last edited:

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
That is not the point of this thread.
The point of this thread is to demonstrate that there were powerful banking dynasties behind the scenes who really willed the breakout of WW2 and funded the Nazi regime, so they could seize territories and resources (the oilfields in Baku)
You seem unable to separate concepts of initiation, collusion and opportunism. IG Farben, from it's founding via merger in the 20's and through to the very early 30's were approximately 25% Jewish managed and was more than once accused of being an 'international capitalist Jewish company' by the vocal German right. As the Nazis gained power, and more specifically as Hitler was named Chancellor, the company shifted to take advantage of the situation, securing government assurances and protections for it's contracts and key markets domestically. This alignment increased in scope rapidly, much as the Nazi consolidation of power did, and there was strong collusion. Unsurprisingly, this resulted in the removal of most Jewish influence from the company through the mid 30's.

Incidentally, whilst the company was a major Nazi contributor in the 30's, it was not before this time. It's contributions were vital for a financially struggling Nazi party, but they were only provided once the Nazis had political capital to trade.

I've also seen you acting as if Rockerfeller owned IG Farban. That's not true (there was at best collusion in the late 30s), but it was also a notable company in that it was one of the first large conglomerates worldwide where decision making was heavily controlled by management rather than ownership. However, that notwithstanding, IG Farban acted in concert with the German government, and in a manner that increased their value five-fold in ten years.

To be clear, that's not to excuse any of their actions. It's merely to say that the motivations are obvious and open. Divorce yourself from ethical considerations, and they become clear, even.

I didn't make up these things. This is what a Polish professor, a honorary member of the Nuremberg trials, stated.

That appears to be a straight appeal to authority, but wouldn't you then just defer to the overall findings of the Nuremberg Trials?

If you disagree, tell me why you disagree.
Tell me why the Nazis wanted to conquer the Soviet Union and were heading to the Caspian Sea (where Baku is).

The Nazis were strongly anti-communist, and thought ultimately that they would need to deal with the communist problem. Asking why a major industrial power wanted to seize major oil reserves as part of an attack is...once again...pretty obvious. Apart from the need to resecure lands lost via the Treaty of Versailles, most of Hitler's interest lay in the East. The war against France and England were caused by his adventurism in the East, not through a desire to conquer the West.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I think random citizens have no idea of what the Federal Reserve Act (1913) entailed, and why there was the Crash in 1929. Or why in 1971 the US unilaterally abandoned the gold exchange standard and the Bretton Woods system, forcing Europe to do the same.

Unbridled capitalism is private profits maximization. Private profits the bankers will spend on gambling and hookers.

At least in socialistic States, the Government spends public money on building schools and hospitals.

Well, yes, capitalists are gamesters. They'll cheat, lie, cook the books, and do whatever they can to stack the deck in their favor. As my grandfather always said, "They're in business to make money." I consider it to be self-evident that businesspeople seek to make a profit, and it's based on this principle that they're capable of doing anything towards that goal.

But I don't think they plan all that well, at least not for the long term. That's why their greed-driven and impetuous recklessness leads to world wars and other forms of man's inhumanity to man. They're like children playing with fire. Can you imagine Kim Kardashian in charge of a nuclear power plant? That's what capitalism is nowadays.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
It's obvious, being on the side of good, we all condemn whoever started WW2 and whoever committed that terrible genocide,
Both things were irrational and meaningless.
It's not really that simple, though, is it?
It's more about how you attribute blame.

Perhaps Chamberlain is complicit via his lack of action early in Hitler's reign?
Perhaps IG Farben is complicit via donations to the party?
Perhaps the French government is complicit? After all, it was they who spread the war from a Polish - German dispute to a broad European war via their support of Polish border sovereignty.

A lot of people were complicit. Of those, many (or even most) didn't realise the full extent of what they were being complicit in. Hitler himself didn't realise, and whatever else we do, reducing responsibility from him in favour of other shadowy actors is pretty dubious.

I'm just unsure what point you're driving to here. There is lot of credible information on WW2, and it can be interpreted in different ways. People who think there is AN answer, and it's clear, and co-ordinated, and worthy of an 'Ah-ha!' moment are kidding themselves.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This is an interesting turn...
Usually, the lefties blame capitalism for all war.

It's possible that most capitalists don't really intend to start wars, but they cause them just the same. Usually by reckless greed and short-sightedness.

If they'd learn how to compromise and be agreeable, then there would be fewer problems in this world. Every work disruption, labor dispute, insurrection, riot, revolution, and war in this world can be traced to some stubborn capitalist refusing to agree to reasonable demands. (Putin is a recent example.)
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
"Left" & "right" are ambiguous terms because of multiple
meanings. But one of the common definitions of "left" is
economically authoritarian, ie, socialist / communist.

Stalin persecuted a lot of socialists because they disagreed with his authoritarianism, and George Orwell was a well-known self-identified democratic socialist who loathed the USSR's system of government. Lenin also wrote an entire book to criticize communists who vehemently opposed him due to his authoritarianism, among other things:


Almost every time we discuss socialism and communism, I find that the discussion doesn't progress past oversimplifications, overgeneralizations, and semantics that simply don't even scratch the surface of much of leftist ideologies. You're describing socialism as necessarily authoritarian despite the above facts and despite the fact that, for just one example, George Orwell—one of the most popular critics of authoritarianism in modern history—was a socialist and supported a Marxist faction in the Spanish Civil War. He even wrote about the latter in Homage to Catalonia.

Instead of being able to have a discussion about this vast variation in socialist ideologies or the numerous ideological splits within socialist and communist thought throughout the last century, what happens instead is that we end up with either an oversimplification based on semantics and American-centric, Cold War-era mantras or some paraphrased version of "socialism is bad and equal to the USSR, and capitalism is good and equal to all developed countries."

Mussolini was a socialist.
I see authoritarian socialist regimes as "left".
A capitalist fascist would be "right".

Mussolini was a socialist but was then expelled from the Socialist Party for his support for World War I and later became a fascist. Fascism, as pomulgated by Mussolini, is heavily hierarchical, racially supremacist, and inherently at odds with socialism from an ideological standpoint because of its strong emphasis on social stratification.

Once again, it's a dubious double standard to
either broad or narrow definitions ad hoc.

No one is doing that; the only thing I'm seeing here is more semantic arguing instead of substantial, in-depth discussion. I don't see much point to it.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It's not really that simple, though, is it?
It's more about how you attribute blame.

Perhaps Chamberlain is complicit via his lack of action early in Hitler's reign?

After doing some re-reading (from a book entitled Dirty Little Secrets of World War 2), I'm considering that Chamberlain might have gotten a bit of a raw deal. This is an excerpt:


"PEACE IN OUR TIME"
In Munich on September 29, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain, French Premier Edouard Daladier, and Italian Duce
Benito Mussolini, concocted a deal with German Fuhrer Adolf Hitler
that gave the German-inhabited Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia
to Germany. The statement from Chamberlain about the pact, made
back at home after the conference, ". . . I believe it is peace for our time
. . ." is the ultimate definition of appeasement in the face of aggression,
of cowardice and "peace at any price" delusions. In retrospect, some
historians, such as A.J.P. Taylor, have argued that had Great Britain and
France stood up to Hitler, he would have backed down, or even been
replaced by his own generals. Indeed, they continue, even if it had come
to a fight, the democracies would have been strong enough to take on
Germany in 1938. How accurate is this assessment?

In fact, quite the reverse is true. As unprepared as Great Britain and
France were for war in late 1939, they were even more so a year earlier.
Relatively speaking, however, Germany was readier in 1938. Also, the
Allied military position in late 1938 was seriously flawed. The overall
balance of ground forces, 65 to 70 German divisions to 80 to 85 British
(7) and French (75) divisions, was on paper favorable to the Allies. But
where Germany had five panzer divisions and six motorized divisions,
the Allies between them had three light-armored divisions and as many
motorized divisions. The situation in the air was even more imbalanced,
for the Germans had about 2,850 first-line combat aircraft, while the
Allies had only about 2,350 (the British had committed about 900, the
French some 1,450). Moreover, virtually the entire French Air Force
consisted of obsolete airplanes, and the Royal Air Force had only a few
hundred modern aircraft, while the Germans had mostly first-line
equipment.

By September 1939 the Allied situation had greatly improved.
Although the ratio of German to Allied divisions was still roughly the
same (80 German to 90 Allied), the situation in the air was consider ably
more favorable to the Allies, who had about 3,700 aircraft (the British
1,900, having introduced hundreds of Hurricanes and Spitfires, and the
French, 1,800, having begun to bring their DeWoitine 520 into service),
whereas the Germans had increased their strength to about 3,600. So the
ratio of Allied to German forces on the ground went from about 1.12:1 to
about 1.16:1, while that in the air went from about
0.82:1 to 1.03:1, a significant increase.

Of course, in 1938 the Allies would have been supported by
Czechoslovakia. The Czechs had a considerable military force, some 16
divisions and 600 aircraft, and, moreover, had promises of support from
the seemingly immensely powerful Soviet Union. This certainly sounds
like the Allies missed the boat in 1938. But appearances can be
deceiving. About a fifth of the Czech reservists were actually Germans,
those very Sudetenlanders around whom the crisis revolved. Moreover,
Czechoslovakia was surrounded by enemies, not only Germany, but
Poland, Hungary, and Romania as well, all of whom would claim
portions of Czechoslovakia as part of the spoils of the Munich summit.
Arguably, had Chamberlain and Daladier stood up to Hitler at Munich,
they might well have found Poland, with whom he had a nonaggression
pact, allied with the Germans. Nor could the Soviet Union do very much.
Russia nowhere bordered Czechoslovakia, so that its offers of assistance
were predicated upon Poland or pro-German Romania to allow Soviet
forces to cross its territory, hardly a viable proposition. As well, the
Soviet armed forces were not nearly as capable as they appeared to the
outside world. Stalin had no desire to take on the Germans. Yet.

Despite appearances, Chamberlain was no fool. He was quite aware that
Hitler's "No More Territorial Demands" speech at the time of Munich
was a fraud. He was also quite aware of the parlous state of British
defenses. He had consulted his commanders and they had given him a
precise assessment of the probabilities. When he asked what the chances
were of defending Great Britain from an air assault in 1938, he was
rightly told that they were not good. It would be at least a year before the
Hurricanes and Spitfires would be available in great numbers, and the
new mystery weapon, radio direction finding (later given the American
name radar), on hand. Weighing the odds, Chamberlain backed down.
Hitler was no fool either. When Mussolini, who had worked particularly
hard to bring about the Munich Pact, boasted of his accomplishment, the
fiihrer roasted him. Hitler wanted it to come to a fight in 1938.

A year later, when Hitler made his demands for a piece of Poland, Chamberlain again went to his military leaders to ask if there was a reasonable chance of defending Britain. By then there were hundreds of Hurricanes and Spitfires available, and the "Chain Home" radar net was in place. Chamberlain promptly issued an ultimatum, and Great Britain was shortly at war. Perhaps the most interesting commentary upon Chamberlain's role is that his replacement as prime minister, Winston Churchill, chose to keep him informed of every development in the war and sought his advice on matters of diplomacy. As a result, at the time of his death, during the Battle of Britain, Chamberlain had the satisfaction of knowing that Great Britain was besting the Nazi onslaught from the air.


So, it was more of a case that Britain simply wasn't prepared to take on the Nazis in 1938. No one was, as the Germans had surpassed them somewhat in the arms race, particularly in terms of air power. Of course, the British can still be blamed for not keeping up and letting the Germans get ahead of them, but that wouldn't be entirely Chamberlain's fault.

Perhaps IG Farben is complicit via donations to the party?
Perhaps the French government is complicit? After all, it was they who spread the war from a Polish - German dispute to a broad European war via their support of Polish border sovereignty.

A lot of people were complicit. Of those, many (or even most) didn't realise the full extent of what they were being complicit in. Hitler himself didn't realise, and whatever else we do, reducing responsibility from him in favour of other shadowy actors is pretty dubious.

I'm just unsure what point you're driving to here. There is lot of credible information on WW2, and it can be interpreted in different ways. People who think there is AN answer, and it's clear, and co-ordinated, and worthy of an 'Ah-ha!' moment are kidding themselves.

I think it may have started at the Versailles Conference of 1919, or perhaps before then. When Wilson offered his Fourteen Points for peace, that's what the Allies should have stayed with, instead of turning it into a feeding frenzy of looting and willy-nilly redrawing of boundaries without any thought to the consequences. Placing all the blame on the German nation and people, while letting the Kaiser get away scot-free in his exile in the Netherlands, was also a serious mistake. The Kaiser and his extended family throughout Europe (including Britain) should have paid the reparations for that war, not the common people. Meanwhile, the Soviets saw the imperialist, racist, colonialist Western powers for what they were - which planted some toxic seeds in the relationship between east and west. The Western monarchists were probably pissed off that the Bolsheviks killed their Romanov cousins. They seemed to take that stuff pretty seriously.

Some might point to the Locarno Pact of 1925 (Locarno Treaties - Wikipedia) (Chamberlain's half-brother was involved in that one) as an early step towards "appeasement," and that was even before the rise of Hitler. The key takeaway from that treaty was that finalized Germany's western border with France (Alsace-Lorraine), but left their eastern border with Poland left open-ended, subject to revision at a later date. It was that loose end which was never really resolved.

I think from the standpoint of a Western imperialist capitalist of that time, their bigger fear might have been the spread of the communist ideology, particularly in the colonial world which was starting to kick up some resistance - but also in Europe and America. I think some among that ilk might have looked at Hitler's Nazis as a staunch bulwark against communism and perhaps had thoughts of using them as a buffer state to protect against the possibility of the communists expanding into other countries. Considering how the U.S. has propped up numerous far-right dictatorships around the world in the name of anti-communism, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch that they might have considered Hitler for a similar purpose. Or if nothing else, they could have played off Hitler and Stalin against each other and let them fight it out (which did happen, to some extent, but with complications).
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Almost every time we discuss socialism and communism, I find that the discussion doesn't progress past oversimplifications, overgeneralizations, and semantics that simply don't even scratch the surface of much of leftist ideologies. You're describing socialism as necessarily authoritarian despite the above facts and despite the fact that, for just one example, George Orwell—one of the most popular critics of authoritarianism in modern history—was a socialist and supported a Marxist faction in the Spanish Civil War. He even wrote about the latter in Homage to Catalonia.

Instead of being able to have a discussion about this vast variation in socialist ideologies or the numerous ideological splits within socialist and communist thought throughout the last century, what happens instead is that we end up with either an oversimplification based on semantics and American-centric, Cold War-era mantras or some paraphrased version of "socialism is bad and equal to the USSR, and capitalism is good and equal to all developed countries."

I've had this same discussion many times, not just with certain individuals on RF, but pretty much my entire life. I'm a child of the Cold War, and many (though not all) of my early perspectives came from my father, who had a keen interest in geopolitics and was kind of a Nixon fan. Although back in those days, I recall that a distinction was made between "socialism" and "communism." Both may have had similar goals, but the difference was that socialism was considered more evolutionary, peaceful, and (conceivably) democratic, whereas communism was revolutionary and violent, tending to rely on "strong man" authoritarian governments. The Socialist Party made a point of dissociating themselves from the Communist Party, if for no other reason that the Communist Party was associated with a foreign power in the xenophobic U.S.

Generally speaking, any kind of debate or comparison between "socialism" and "capitalism" is, for all intents and purposes, a dead end. For the most part, when discussing the abstract systems just by themselves, it's all basically hypothetical. When discussing the history of certain countries which have had political upheavals which led to nominally "socialist" governments, then it's real world politics which is quite messy - but not quite so abstract or hypothetical.

I consider the discussion of abstract systems to be separate from the real world events, histories, and political actions of nations, yet some people insist on turning it all into some disjointed mish-mash of incoherency, veiled accusations, and insufferable sanctimony. When people simply want better living conditions, better working conditions, fair pay, social equality, justice - they get accused of being socialists and associated with some of the worst atrocities in history - which happened before most of them were born and far away on the other side of the world. That's an outrageously disingenuous method of argumentation, yet I've seen it in use most of my life. The people who protested against the Vietnam War were accused of even worse, when all they wanted was peace.

1685065135729.png
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
And Hitler and Pol Pot where Far Right amd very violent, genocidal pukes, with Hitler himself hating socialists and killing them off as well, as well as going to war against whoa was equally north and up againat th....
You'd have an easier argument with Hitler.
But he still identified as a socialist, evolved
in that direction, & established....
So Nazi Germany became one of those
mixed economies.
Pol Pot was a communist, ie, on the left.
And we've seen and still see slavery and pointless wars in Capitalist societies, so it's a bad point.
Of course.
Slavery can happen in any economic system,
including your vaunted socialism. The recent
useless wars were due to vengeance against
terrorists....not due to capitalism.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It's possible that most capitalists don't really intend to start wars, but they cause them just the same. Usually by reckless greed and short-sightedness.
Strong your faith is.
I wonder how they started wars before capitalism existed.
Time travel?
If they'd learn how to compromise and be agreeable, then there would be fewer problems in this world. Every work disruption, labor dispute, insurrection, riot, revolution, and war in this world can be traced to some stubborn capitalist refusing to agree to reasonable demands. (Putin is a recent example.)
Putin...the former socialist who wants to resurrect the Soviet empire?
He isn't practicing capitalism with his wars...it's conquest.
I suppose that you'll be defending Kim Jong Il as just defending
the workers' paradise in N Korea against evil capitalism.

I suppose that if you were successful, & eliminated
capitalism on the planet, then no capitalist countries
would be the ones starting all the subsequent wars.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Stalin persecuted a lot of socialists because they disagreed with his authoritarianism, and George Orwell was a well-known self-identified democratic socialist who loathed the USSR's system of government. Lenin also wrote an entire book to criticize communists who vehemently opposed him due to his authoritarianism, among other things:
That doesn't address what you quoted.
Almost every time we discuss socialism and communism, I find that the discussion doesn't progress past oversimplifications, overgeneralizations, and semantics that simply don't even scratch the surface of much of leftist ideologies.
Perhaps because you have no real definitions
for the terms, & your usage is so broad as to be
meaningless, eg, socialism includes capitalism.
You're describing socialism as necessarily authoritarian......
Only the history of every socialist
country that ditched capitalism.
Without exception, they've all been
authoritarian.
...despite the above facts and despite the fact that, for just one example, George Orwell—one of the most popular critics of authoritarianism in modern history—was a socialist and supported a Marxist faction in the Spanish Civil War. He even wrote about the latter in Homage to Catalonia.
Orwell's beliefs seem an irrelevant response.
Instead of being able to have a discussion about this vast variation in socialist ideologies or the numerous ideological splits within socialist and communist thought throughout the last century, what happens instead is that we end up with either an oversimplification based on semantics and American-centric, Cold War-era mantras or some paraphrased version of "socialism is bad and equal to the USSR, and capitalism is good and equal to all developed countries."
You've over-simplified what I post to create straw men.
There's no use in addressing your mis-representations
& complaints about cold war "mantras".
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well, yes, capitalists are gamesters. They'll cheat, lie, cook the books, and do whatever they can to stack the deck in their favor.
Still better than socialists, who enslave,
oppress, starve, & murder the populace,
eg, N Korea, USSR, PRC, Khmer Rouge.

If capitalism is so bad, why haven't you
escaped to one of those worker paradises?
 
Top