Navigation
User login
Topics
Archive
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
A Fun Argument
by Martin Regnen
Baiting people into arguing about whether Stalin or Hitler was more evil is always fun, and here is an interesting way to argue that I haven't thought about before:
Fascism and Nazism were, of course, extreme forms of nationalism and the mass murders Nazi and fascist regimes committed were justified on the grounds that they were necessary to advance the interests of racially or ethnically defined peoples. Obviously, most nationalist governments do not commit mass murder on that scale. This is one reason why nationalism is not quite as pernicious as socialism. Nearly all full-blown socialist regimes that have lasted for any length of time have engaged in mass murder; "only" a substantial minority of nationalist regimes have done the same.
Now... assuming that leaders are responsible for the deaths under their regimes, and that the whole mass murder thing qualifies as evil, that leads to one conclusion. Hitler was eviler than Stalin because Hitler was unusually murderous by nationalist standards; Stalin wasn't particularly evil (at least not by the low standards of politicians) he was just implementing socialism, which doesn't require unusually evil leaders to kill millions of people.
The best thing about that arugment is that it'll piss off pretty much anyone on either side. It works almost as well as "So... do people in your country hate Gypsies?" if you want to get intellectualists to start a drunken brawl.
HT: Bryan Caplan
Arguing over if Che was evil
Arguing over if Che was evil or not is quite funny too.
Since Hitler was a socialist,
Since Hitler was a socialist, you may want to pick another nationalist leader, like Franco or Mussolini.
Since when was Hitler a socialist??
"Since Hitler was a socialist,"
Right that means centuries of scholars and academics are incorrect because you think so?
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
Yes, he pretty much was
You point to a source that defines socialism as "true" Communism. Of course Communism has never reached its utopian state anywhere. Doesn't mean socialism doesn't exist or that Hitler in many ways didn't implement socialist policies.
No he was not
No he pretty much was not, it's amazing the amount of ignorance of history here.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/10/31/hitler-socialism.htm
Yes he was
From your source:
"The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite."
"An organization called the “Labor Front” replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers."
Call it Statism or whatever you want, but it's closer to socialism than any Right-ism.
Hitler was an autocratic capitalist
"Call it Statism or whatever you want, but it's closer to socialism than any Right-ism."
Nonsense, the idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. that was from the article and it was correct and indisputable.
And it was... Aristocracy is autocratic oligarchy for the rich and that's exactly what hitler and his state was, it was nowhere near socialism, the rich ideologues were calling the shots, labor and unions were attacked viciously. This is the furthest thing you can get from socialism with the rich people calling the shots.
Your problem is that you would blame modern day christians for the inquisition, you have the same problem with socialism, this is your logical fallacy, as if history was somehow just stopped, it hasn't, these periods are a flash in the pan in human history and you do not have a long view of human history, every nation and every ideology on earth thought it was going to last forver, history has not born this out what-so-ever.
Yet the most capitalist nations on earth are constantly at war (the US) and these capitalist states do this because capitalism has to be kept propped up by war. What your missing is because a peoples attempt to go their own way failed, this somehow invalidates the concept of socialism, as if it was monolithic entity, it isn't, reality is not that black and white and any historian worth his salt will tell you that.
Plz
History is not black and white, but you act an authority on the subject of whether Hitler was a socialist or not. Let's avoid hypocrisy, shall we?
You simply repeat the same argument all over again. Socialist ideals haven't been fully realized in any country, socialist or Communist. But we have had nations with socialist intentions and ideas. Regardless if they've achieved those goals, they've nonetheless been socialist. Otherwise there are no capitalist nations, because no nation has ever had a totally free capitalist market ever in history.
A leader who wanted to break down classes, who glorified the working class, who built one of the first modern welfare States, who was against both Communism and capitalism, can rightly be called a socialist. It's as far from Right-leaning ideology you can come. If that offends your socialist/anti-capitalist leanings or not is irrelevant.
You are historically illiterate
You are a historically illiterate... The German Social Democratic party fought the Nazis in the streets, in the press go find articles on the socialist anti-Hitler newspapers they printed, those reporters risked their lives to warn the world about the evil brewing in Germany. Evil fomented by Nazi lies and violence. The German Social Democratic Party was, by the way, hated not just by the Nazis but by the Communists as well. Both totalitarian groups couldn't abide a genuinely pro-democratic party.
Yeah, that's another one
"Why don't socialists count national socialism as socialism?" is another fun argument.
And you do, of course, realize that you got baited into arguing under a post that starts with the words "Baiting people into arguing"? Geez.