I'd wager it's the first point where people assume Facism = Hitler.
I'd wager it's the first point where people assume Facism = Hitler.
It just goes to show that the Conservatives are not really Conservative by most definitions. Another endorsement of Peter Hitchens, I feel.Originally Posted by Lewis
Well yeah, given the choice between it and communism. Until it went ape shit during the war the vast majority of Germans were much 'safer' (as in less prone to being killed for no reason) than their Soviet equivalents.
I said 'conservative'. Not 'Conservative'.
That doesn't alter my point at all. The Conservatives used to cater to 'conservatives'. Hence the name.
Presumably most people don't make the automatic equation between communism and Stalinism which you do then.
In which case your point has nothing to do with mine.
There wasn't another established communist state running alongside Nazi Germany, so it's the only fair comparison (especially since it compares 1939 poll results). Then again even the non-Stalinist regimes managed to do millions in, so they were hardly an improvement.
Obviously people don't agree with what you think is a fair comparison. They're free to make up their own minds.
And no, the ones who killed millions were more or less all Stalinist.
The likes of China (biggest killer) and Cambodia (worst killer) were not Stalinists beyond also having paranoid shithouses in charge. Let's not get into how far they did and didn't adhere to wot Karl Marx said. In terms of what actually existed (which was presumably the basis for asking the question in 1939 given the context) the non-specific communist regimes were all worse.
No, those were both Stalinist.
The Sino-Soviet split happened when the Russians started denouncing Stalin and moved to the "peaceful coexistence" stuff, while the Chinese called themselves "anti-revisionists" and kept all the Stalin iconography, like so:
The Cambodians and others were just further developments from that.
I'm not big on Marx either, but not everyone identifies the base idea with the perversions of it, and that's reflected in the poll, whether you like it or not.
You've always been weak on fascism too.
It had nothing to do with communism because I like communism!
I don't like communism, and it did have something to do with communism, so wrong on both points.
Stalin's crimes probably weren't as bad as those of the British Empire anyway.
That was cynical national interest stuff. Maoism and Stalinism differed on the peasantry/industrial workers crap, if only because China didn't have any of the latter, and Chinese policies were more ideologically-driven than what transpired in the Soviet Union (I would say Chinese policies were more concerned with creating a certain culture as well). It's a pretty meaningless difference really, but then if you're claiming that 'communism' in 1939 didn't mean what actually existed (Stalinism) then you have to accept those differences. Cambodia though was nothing like Stalinism. They completely rejected industrialisation (and therefore urbanisation) and thought they could jump to communism without any transitional phases.No, those were both Stalinist.
The Sino-Soviet split happened when the Russians started denouncing Stalin and moved to the "peaceful coexistence" stuff, while the Chinese called themselves "anti-revisionists" and kept all the Stalin iconography, like so:
The Cambodians and others were just further developments from that.
I'm not big on Marx either, but not everyone identifies the base idea with the perversions of it, and that's reflected in the poll, whether you like it or not.
You've always been weak on fascism too.
I don't see how I'm 'weak on fascism'. It's a bag of shit. I just recognise that communism (or whatever you want to call what went on behind the Iron Curtain) was equally as bad, and actually far more murderous in 'peacetime' conditions.
I think it could be said for a lot of people that fascism is theoretically bad, whereas communism has just proven to be practically bad. And, given the question, I think a lot of people will choose the one they see as having any potential (communism) over the one they find irredeemable no matter what.
What I often wonder is what would've happened if the Czechoslovaks' "Communism with a human face" hadn't been crushed by the Russians. That always struck me as by far the most appealing version of communism as practiced in the world, but would it have just gone the way of 1989 within a few years anyway?
No form of socialism or communism will ever succeed anywhere. It's against the laws of physics.
Scandanavia disagrees.
It wasn't "the same", but it was a development that came directly from Stalinism. The Khmer Rouge was another step along the line. All of this stuff ultimately is a development of Leninism, where a small group is entitled to appoint itself as a vangaurd on behalf of "the revolution", regardless of the feelings of the rest of the people. That was a radical departure from most Marxist/communist ideas of the early 20th century, and was harshly criticised as such. The only reason we're discussing it here is that it won in Russia and then spread elsewhere.
Clearly people are still aware to some extent aware that it was a perversion.
You've said in the past that those who were part of the anti-Nazi resistance were stupid and deserved what they got, among other things.
Scandinavia doesn't have socialism, it has social democracy. The difference is that the individual is acknowledged by the latter but dismissed by the former.
Debating what is shitter, communism or fascism, is rubbish. Heres a picture of a giant David Cameron and Friend at the Lewes Bonfire night.
Social democracy is a "form" of socialism, be it mixed with capitalism. Your attempt to elevate right-wing doctrine to the same level of "the laws of physics" is absurd.
Intentionally so, one would imagine.
If you look at the social structures of animals in the wild, most are naturally right wing, or at least small-c conservative. You don't get leopards clubbing together and saying actually, let's redistribute that impala for the good of leopards as a whole.
I'm pretty sure I saw a dog in a purple coat this morning too, which suggests they are naturally Ukip-leaning. It's arrogant to think we've got very far beyond basic survival mechanics.
It's a stupid comparison, but the idea that animals aren't social or don't share is bullshit. One of our closest relatives is the bonobo. We could do with learning a thing or two from them.
Henry....
FFS, Henry.
It's a bit of a cop out from Floyd, as he's said that sort of thing before and clearly believes it to a greater extent than he's now making out.
I do believe it (the 'facts of life are conservative' at least), I just like drawing Henners into deadpan posts on absurd topics.
Henry's best po-faced posts tend to come unsolicited.
That, from a Lofty thread on Halloween, is my favourite. So, so creepy.Tonight I shall go to the public house for some refreshments. I intend to become very refreshed indeed, and then hope to express myself sexually.
Ah, what use would a Friday morning be if I wasn't getting baited on TTH...
It's not really baiting, I think you were snared a while ago.
Any response from these two?
That's a proper jemble post.
They were pretty important (to them at least) developments and differences, and a vanguard was clearly necessary to getting any form of communism to get off the ground instead of waiting for the workers' rapture, so its 'perversion' made it possible. But whatever you want to call it, it was crap and gets an easier ride than fascism, which is surely reflected in the poll unless people are more clued-up on Marxist history than I give them credit for.
I think it was more that leafleting in the middle of wartime Hamburg was a bit stupid, not that opposing Nazism was.You've said in the past that those who were part of the anti-Nazi resistance were stupid and deserved what they got, among other things.
Workers control was already a reality in much of Russia in 1917 - before the Bolsheviks took over and subordinated everything to themselves instead.
They don't have to be "clued up" to recognise that the ideal was the antithesis of the perversion of Stalinism. Whereas someone who is "clued up" such as yourself, shouldn't insist that they conflate the two.
You said that they deserved it what they got, and that it'd been better for them to keep shtum. And you're now claiming that there was clear blue water between fascism and "communism" that made the latter worse. I disagree.
That thing you were trying to pull looked fairly close. Scoobs, wasn't it?
Bonobos do nothing but fuck so I'm with Henry.
They steal jobs, too.
That reality was an ineffectual circle-jerk, hence the soviets supporting the Bolsheviks as the best way of actually getting something done, and the need for a civil war to make it stick.
People clearly conflate the two (just as they conflate fascism and Nazism). You see Soviet iconography at pinko parades all the time for that very reason.They don't have to be "clued up" to recognise that the ideal was the antithesis of the perversion of Stalinism. Whereas someone who is "clued up" such as yourself, shouldn't insist that they conflate the two.
Well it would have been wouldn't it? You can't oppose much when you're dead, as 'communist' regimes realised all too well when they were racking up unprecedented death tolls.You said that they deserved it what they got, and that it'd been better for them to keep shtum. And you're now claiming that there was clear blue water between fascism and "communism" that made the latter worse. I disagree.
The Soviets (the ones that did, anyway) supported the Bolsheviks because they adopted the slogan "all power to the Soviets" - that is, they promised to deepen the system that had been created following the February Revolution, not to destroy it to "get something done" and start a civil war as they ended up doing. The vanguard party had not been necessary in setting up the workers control, only in destroying it.
Some people do, but this is a poll of the general public, not of people on pinko parades. I know it hinders your ability to knock lefties because Maoism but it is what it is.
It would not. Actions that put ones-self in danger but which assist in a small way in turning people against Nazism are admirable.
Some aspects of Nazism are laudible.
The workers control was going nowhere and the soviets were sick of the provisional government, so you're making their support sound quite naive. Plus the soviet system was wrecked pretty incrementally, with the accumulation of war powers and what have you, so it's not like they rolled up and binned it all (other than the Constituent Assembly, which most people seem to accept was bent) like Oliver Cromwell.
You had a hammer and sickle avatar when I joined TD, and you aren't stupid or a Stalinist, so obviously you were using that as a general left-wing statement. I think it's unlikely that the people polled know more about the nuances of communism than you.Some people do, but this is a poll of the general public, not of people on pinko parades. I know it hinders your ability to knock lefties because Maoism but it is what it is.
Next time it's going off in Northern Ireland, go down the Shankill and tell them they're all twats. Or is that - whilst possibly admirable - not a great idea?It would not. Actions that put ones-self in danger but which assist in a small way in turning people against Nazism are admirable.
Go on....
I have a feeling that you're three and out rule might turn into a one and out rule, Yev.
I suspect so too.
I'm not speaking of their destruction of races or anything, don't worry. But some of their social and welfare prgrams were superb. Sending people on vacations, helath programs etc. Strong family values - not the fatherless, feckless ones we tend to get these days. Low crime rates, animals welfare. The list goes on, really. They were also the foirst to ban smoking in public places.
Did Harold just suggest the government should pay for us to go on vacations? What are fatherless family values? So many questions, so little time.
Most sane people agree that a child is better growing up with a mother and a father.
'National socialism' has such a nice ring to it as well. That probably sounds like I'm taking the piss but I'm actually not.
What sort of stuff did they do on animal welfare, Harold? Again, I'm being serious. I don't know and I'm not trying to have a go or lay any traps.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
