What's new

Is fascism really THAT bad?

Baron Steakpuncher

Proletarian Puncher of Steaks
#26
Stalin was Autocratic ruler of the Soviet Union his stamp of approval was needed for everything and it's well known he had prejudice views of the ethnic Ukrainians.

Also why are we trusting the famously well doctored Soviet Records anyway?
The Soviet records were for the most part designed for internal consumption, they are roughly as accurate as interal US records. The Holodomor, strictly speaking, not an intentional event in that Stalin deliberately planned for it in advance. Instead it was caused, to my understanding, by a combination of poor crops in a year of famine, with the soviet functionaries recording all time crop highs in their reports, which led to too much grain being taken from Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and the Don-Kuban region of the Russian grain belt and not enough being left for the people themselves. So if it was deliberately planned then Stalin also intentionally sacrificed 3-5 million of the loyalist Kazakhs and Russians as well as ukranians.

But lets not pretend it wasn't something that Stalin bears responsibility for. His policies directly led to the event and his actions were insufficient in quelling it, which did lead to the deaths of between 3 and 7 million people, with a high esitimate of 10 million. Much like how Churchill caused the Bengal famine, Mao the Chinese famine and Hitler widespread starvation in Eastern europe through food confiscation, Stalin bears responsibility for the deaths in that he could have done more to prevent them.
 
#31
Of course complex subjects like this which have been debated for decades requires us to view the issue from various perspectives. There are moral, social, political, and even economical factors that needs to be weighed in. But we're in a science fiction forum on the internet, and how do we solve complex discussions in a science fiction forum on the internet? That's right, numbers!

So by going with the 60 million figure for fascism, which includes the big three fascist nations of the second World War. Going with the rise of Mussolini in 1922, and the fall of the Axis in 1945, that gives us a 23 years of rule. Dividing the death toll by that, it gives about 2.6 million people killed per year under fascism. Of course the actual killing doesn't work on a yearly basis like that, but that still shows us the "death density" of fascism. Basically a way in which we can gauge how bloodthirsty a regime is.

Meanwhile, we have the 100 million figure for communism, a number coming from all the communist regimes that have existed. The formation of the Soviet Union at 1922 gives us the starting year of the communist regimes. However finding the end date of communism is a bit tricky as the regimes included in the figure, China and Cuba, still exist into this very day. So either we use 1991, the end date of the Soviet Union, or 2019, the most latest date where China and Cuba still exist. The former gives us 69 years, while the latter gives us 97. The "death density" we get from former gives us 1.4 million a year, while the latter gives us 1 million a year.

So there you have it. The conclusion is that both are piece of shit garbage and I want nothing to do with either of them.

PS: I failed maths in every level of education.
 

Morphile

Well-known member
#33
Fun fact: Communism's atrocities were almost entirely towards the governed, while Capitalism's blamed deaths are external things that could technically be avoided, but were either caused by behaviors outside the umbrella of Capitalism (basically everything involving Imperialism, for a start, which violates Capitalist principals by having no real exchange going on. The exchange is the entire reason we consider Capitalism and Mercantilism separate things, and Imperialism was firmly founded on the latter), or matters of international resource distribution. Good fucking luck distributing that medicine globally to deal with disease.

Also, most of that list actually has pretty much nothing to do with Capitalism itself. Actually, I think only three of those come down to directly economic actions (the poverty stuff), rather than political processes. Some intentionally impeding economic exchanges, in the case of the embargos. Like, most of that is more able to be blamed on Democracy being obsessive about moralizing and destroying all "tyranny" than anything genuinely economic.

Furthermore, the record of Capitalism is improving those poverty metrics everywhere there's functional rule of law every single year for the last two centuries, save for periods of massive economic collapse. A huge chunk of those poverty deaths happen in what are called "failed states" for damn good reasons. And the reason those states failed was heavily from shortsighted moralizing fools and exhausted narrow minded nationalists deciding to just abruptly stop all the Imperialist colonial control, with no effort taken in getting the new countries on their feet. Much like the case with blacks in the US.

In addition, Capitalism has been the economy for at least an order of magnitude more people, and, again, constantly improves when you have a government telling the psychotic oligarchic megacorporations where they have to stop. Capitalism has overseen near-endless horrors. The fact you complain about the horrors of centuries long past is, in part, proving my point about Capitalism improving things. You live under such luxury that you can complain about what happened before you were born to people hundreds to thousand of miles away and things happening in the poorest regions of other continents. Capitalism brought you this luxery, attempting Socialism has only ever lost it in the long run. Outside tiny communes well within ingroup bias self-support.
 

Realmfighter

Well-known member
#34
basically everything involving Imperialism, for a start, which violates Capitalist principals by having no real exchange going on.
Imperialism is the highest form of Capitalism.

It's like you don't even read Marxist theory Morphy.

Also, most of that list actually has pretty much nothing to do with Capitalism itself. Actually, I think only three of those come down to directly economic actions (the poverty stuff), rather than political processes. Some intentionally impeding economic exchanges, in the case of the embargos. Like, most of that is more able to be blamed on Democracy being obsessive about moralizing and destroying all "tyranny" than anything genuinely economic.
Don't see you making that critique to the numbers for Fascism or Communism.

The fact you complain about the horrors of centuries long past is, in part, proving my point about Capitalism improving things.
An extremely large amount of those numbers were after the bulk of Communism numbers. Try again Morphy~
 
#38
The cycle of Sarco making duck jokes and memes, getting banned and then returning has to continue or else FiC’s servers and infrastructure will blow up with the force of one thousand tsar Bomba Uber’s
I told that fucking duck he keep ducking I was gonna fucking duck him with a ducking knife that ducking duck
His politics make me want to throttle the bastard and strip him dry to burn in the sun
On the other hand I do know he can be very nice to work with and I am pretty sure he is not evil, just a troll consumed by his own memes to the point he causes chaos and mayhem without thought or care for the effects of what he says, means or how it changes his mindset.
Its kinda depressing really
 

Morphile

Well-known member
#41
Imperialism is the highest form of Capitalism.

It's like you don't even read Marxist theory Morphy.
How is Imperialism a Capitalist endeavor? How is an act of primarily one-way resource exchange, largely unabstracted by currency and concentrated more into persons and nations than corporations, Capitalistic? As I mentioned, this was Mercantilism, a form of economy where political concerns of a largely hereditary ruling class were directing economic actions, rather than the flow of capital. The Age of Empire proper is almost definitionally before Capitalism, because of the nature of the power structures driving the majority of the economy during the period of expansion.

Learn the history of European colonization and cross-reference the development of economic systems. FFS, Marx himself was writing about industrialized economies, the Industrial Revolution only got started in the 1700s. The Age of Empire was already a thing for over two centuries before industrialization, and the resultant enabling of Capitalism replacing Mercantilism.

Also, Marxist theory, from what I recall (I'm not entirely ignorant of it, I just have limited exposure because I don't actively seek out the philosophy of contrary views. Because I have limited time, and expect people to be able and willing to point me at the relevant information so I don't burn time hunting it down), prescribes that Communism begins in well-devolved countries, propagating outward into a worldwide revolution of workers. So far, it has largely come from places that have barely gotten working industry and are still getting food security finished up, never a proper industrial power, and usually begins with the educated upper classes rather than laborers. Marx himself believed all of history was class struggle. To call this reductive and overly broad is an understatement, it completely ignores the impact of individualism. Which is why his work never gained ground in industrial powers of his time. They were all quite heavily individualist, leading to his class struggle idea being largely alien to them.

That's why Marxist theory doesn't come to power without violent revolution and/or authoritarianism. Because it's a collectivist way of thinking constantly trying to be applied to individualist societies. Inherently, Communism is a collectivist system attempting to replace an individualist one, and it never really tries to bridge this gap before turning to revolution.

Don't see you making that critique to the numbers for Fascism or Communism.
The difference is that Fascism is the political system, the driving force dictating the reasoning for the action. Most of the shit you're blaming Capitalism for are entirely state-based actions. The entire point of Capitalism is low state involvement in the economy, so blaming the actions of states on Capitalism is like blaming Communism for individuals being assholes. The system doesn't actually concern itself with those things.

For Communism, the atrocities are of incompetence and corruption. While the "It wasn't real Communism!" argument applies to this, the problem arises that no revision occurs to cover what has gone wrong previously. The same things are tried, with the same results. Revolution every time, never a guarantee to no dictator in written law that gets enforced, always pushing for single-party status. The same thing, each time, expecting it to work for some reason when prior attempts failed. Never has anyone supportive of it revised how to define the path to Communism to fix these flaws, to avert the problems they call out for "not being real Communism". They never really confront the failures of their propositions. The ideology prescribes the path to Communism be this highly vulnerable "dictatorship of the proletariat", done regardless of actual popular support (again, the Soviet Union was born when the Communists decided to violently overthrow the freshly-made republic upon losing the election)

An extremely large amount of those numbers were after the bulk of Communism numbers. Try again Morphy~
The statement you quote here actually has nothing to do with whether horrors are modern or not, and you've offered no refutation of my point about you only being able to hold this position because Capitalism has given you immense luxury, relative to pre-Capitalist economies and attempted alternatives (how are things going in Venezuela, again?). You're communicating with someone from hundreds of miles away with a transit time of minuscule fractions of a second.

What pressure do you imagine would make a Communist group invest the resources for the continent-spanning wires carrying these messages when they operate perfectly fine with physical letters? What reason does a Communist system have to take risks on massive infrastructure projects when the populace is perfectly content with the current state of affairs? What in the world makes you think a system designed to meet the needs of all would ever risk compromising its goal for unnecessary luxuries the public can barely conceive of?

What drive for improvement does Communism have? Why would it ever exit the Malthusian Trap, if the people are content with that state of affairs? If the people accept horrid conditions and don't push for improvement, then what obligation is there to make those improvements? The fundamental problem with Communism in handling this is that it's a stateless system. Without a state, you can't set in place laws to force progress. Even with a state, state-managed progress is inherently limited by the willingness to take risks, which is vastly lower with a content population and a state that works solely to keep its people satisfied.

Yes, Marxist theory advocates for revolution within developed nations, but how do you maintain that development during and after the revolution? What's your answer for replacing Capitalism for resource distribution that'll keep the industries working? You need these answers figured out and proven ahead of time, implemented before damage occurs and the lack of widespread push for improvement causes the society to stagnate at that lower level.
 

Wakko

Well-known member
#42
Yes comrade Kragan, Stalin's explicit orders to massacre the kulaks, to commit the Holodomor, and execute order 00447 were all just bugs in the system needing to be patched like a Bethesda game.
A moderator shouldn't mock people by calling them "comrade." And Kragan is right, Stalin and his merciless drive towards colectivism and industrialization weren't the general features of communism, they were the features of Stalinism. Stalin didn't care about people, they were just numbers in his plans to modernize the USSR. If Soviet people died in the process, it was worth it to him.
He wasn't that different from the former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright in that sense:
She too had a plan and didn't care how many people have died in order to implement it...
Also, I really dislike the word Holodomor. It is an appropriation of the great Soviet famine of 1932-1933 by Ukrainian propaganda. It killed many, many more Soviet people than just Ukrainians.
 

Lord Inquisitor Adornable

The Community Outreach Mod
Moderator
#43
A moderator shouldn't mock people by calling them "comrade."
Well if he had called the Holocaust a bug of facist governments I wouldn't of called him Hans, I would of banned him for three months.


And Kragan is right, Stalin and his merciless drive towards colectivism and industrialization weren't the general features of communism, they were the features of Stalinism.
Do you really want me to list all the other genocidal communist leaders or will you just admit this wasn't an isolated incident like you make it out to be.


He wasn't that different from the former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright in that sense:
Well I suppose in that sense, but Albright didn't have unilateral power to kill as she pleased and was only SoS for 4 years.


Also, I really dislike the word Holodomor. It is an appropriation of the great Soviet famine of 1932-1933 by Ukrainian propaganda. It killed many, many more Soviet people than just Ukrainians.
You can take that up with the Ukrainians then.
 

Wakko

Well-known member
#44
Do you really want me to list all the other genocidal communist leaders or will you just admit this wasn't an isolated incident like you make it out to be.
OK, you're right there. I was thinking in the context of the USSR where things calmed down considerably after Stalin's death. Not to "freedom and happiness" of course, but very far away from famine and deportations.
You can take that up with the Ukrainians then.
Not right now, those poor guys have enough problems as it is.
 
#45
How is Imperialism a Capitalist endeavor?
Read a book morphy

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

The difference is that Fascism is the political system, the driving force dictating the reasoning for the action. Most of the shit you're blaming Capitalism for are entirely state-based actions. The entire point of Capitalism is low state involvement in the economy, so blaming the actions of states on Capitalism is like blaming Communism for individuals being assholes. The system doesn't actually concern itself with those things.
What a fucking mealy mouthed cowardly response.

"We never promised we would do better"

Fuck off, if a state implementing communism has bad things happen as a function of the state doing bad things, and a state implementing capitalism has more bad things happen from the functioning of capitalism, saying "It wasn't our job to do better" doesn't change the fact you did worse.

What pressure do you imagine would make a Communist group invest the resources for the continent-spanning wires carrying these messages when they operate perfectly fine with physical letters? What reason does a Communist system have to take risks on massive infrastructure projects when the populace is perfectly content with the current state of affairs? What in the world makes you think a system designed to meet the needs of all would ever risk compromising its goal for unnecessary luxuries the public can barely conceive of?
God damn do you talk a lot for someone with such a weak grasp of what you talk about. Just post the uninformed "Communism doesn't innovate like Capitalism does" meme and save yourself the time.

Yes, Marxist theory advocates for revolution within developed nations, but how do you maintain that development during and after the revolution? What's your answer for replacing Capitalism for resource distribution that'll keep the industries working? You need these answers figured out and proven ahead of time, implemented before damage occurs and the lack of widespread push for improvement causes the society to stagnate at that lower level.
We've been tryin' to test it out, but rape dogs, go figure.
 

Morphile

Well-known member
#46
How about you actually cite them where relevant instead of demanding me to spend several days digging through masses of literature I don't actually have interest in knowing the content of?

Just from the title of the sections, I can tell that your citation has fundamental flaws of equating Capitalism with economic anarchism. Every single one of the problems given in the titles is something I have opposition to, myself. The difference is that I want them resolved by reformation, not revolution. I want the problems actually solved and not burn the whole world down looking for a system that never has them in the first place. Fixing the flaws by regulating the existing system. Fundamentally, the issue I have with Communist ideals is that they reject the idea that Capitalism can be restrained to fix the issues, instead of destroying it outright to replace it with something that's "flawless".

What a fucking mealy mouthed cowardly response.

"We never promised we would do better"

Fuck off, if a state implementing communism has bad things happen as a function of the state doing bad things, and a state implementing capitalism has more bad things happen from the functioning of capitalism, saying "It wasn't our job to do better" doesn't change the fact you did worse.
My point is that what you're complaining about wasn't from the functioning of Capitalism, outside of the poverty statistics. Which Capitalism has a better track record of than the Socialist countries that got off the ground. Because the casualties along the way, within the Capitalist society, are mostly the result of progress being gradual. The casualties among external groups have to do with political and social forces that Capitalism, as a system, doesn't concern itself with. Even where you have legitimate criticism, I have propositions of reform and regulation to fix the flaw without replacing the system entirely.

It's not "We never promised we would do better". It's "We never said we would get involved in these things". Again, the horrors of Socialism are primarily by the governing against the ruled, and the horrors of Capitalism are primarily by the separate state against outsiders. Those poverty figures are virtually nonexistent inside the developed Capitalist economies, they quite simply arise from Capitalism requiring goods in return for other goods. Something has to come out of the poverty-ridden areas for things to go in, under Capitalism, and there's a very good track record of Capitalism leading to the countries that have functioning civil rights bringing themselves up to the point of being significant for global trade.

Yes, Capitalism has problems. Governments with Capitalist economies in the private sector have a long track record of committing atrocities. Corporations have a long track record of ruthlessly abusing the people in every way they can. But unlike you, I don't see these as sufficiently insurmountable as to require a replacement of the system. I look at Sweden and see a country that's gotten Capitalism well under control, offering the things Socialism promises without breaking the private sector to fund it. You don't have to be Socialist to want social projects, nor do you need to be Communist to want freedom from government oppression. I want a mixed economy, using the government to smooth over the problems of Capitalism and having Capitalism handle the endlessly complex affairs of resources, covering the flaws of each with the other.

God damn do you talk a lot for someone with such a weak grasp of what you talk about. Just post the uninformed "Communism doesn't innovate like Capitalism does" meme and save yourself the time.
So how about those Soviet acadamies? Or the Chinese Cultural Revolution? How many major innovations have Socialist countries made? If you have robust counterclaims, offer me precise citations to disprove me with contradictions.

We've been tryin' to test it out, but rape dogs, go figure.
What about all the cases where the revolution went through? What ended up happening to China, again? Oh, right, it completely gave up on any pretense of actually working for Communism and instead turned into a major organ of global Capitalist trade because it turns out there's vastly more wealth to get from that. The thing is that you demand revolution that'll destroy economies if it fails, never stopping to think that maybe you should do it piece by piece and compromise on your ideal where it doesn't work in reality when encountered. You demand total overhaul, all at once, leading to collapses you can't get useful data out of because you can't identify where things went wrong.

Venezuela should be seen as a great milestone because we can go over the records and actually figure out where it went wrong, because it went at it piece by piece instead of abruptly overhauling everything. But it's disavowed entirely. You don't accept your failures as "real socialism", you sweep them under the rug and say that the revolution will work this time without ever explaining how you'll avert what screwed over previous cases. There's no actual experimentation going on, no attempts at working out precisely where the early industrial theory doesn't work under the digital age facts, no recognition of imperfection in your views, just constantly demanding Communism come into existence.
 

Baron Steakpuncher

Proletarian Puncher of Steaks
#47
How about you actually cite them where relevant instead of demanding me to spend several days digging through masses of literature I don't actually have interest in knowing the content of?

Just from the title of the sections, I can tell that your citation has fundamental flaws of equating Capitalism with economic anarchism. Every single one of the problems given in the titles is something I have opposition to, myself. The difference is that I want them resolved by reformation, not revolution. I want the problems actually solved and not burn the whole world down looking for a system that never has them in the first place. Fixing the flaws by regulating the existing system. Fundamentally, the issue I have with Communist ideals is that they reject the idea that Capitalism can be restrained to fix the issues, instead of destroying it outright to replace it with something that's "flawless".


My point is that what you're complaining about wasn't from the functioning of Capitalism, outside of the poverty statistics. Which Capitalism has a better track record of than the Socialist countries that got off the ground. Because the casualties along the way, within the Capitalist society, are mostly the result of progress being gradual. The casualties among external groups have to do with political and social forces that Capitalism, as a system, doesn't concern itself with. Even where you have legitimate criticism, I have propositions of reform and regulation to fix the flaw without replacing the system entirely.

It's not "We never promised we would do better". It's "We never said we would get involved in these things". Again, the horrors of Socialism are primarily by the governing against the ruled, and the horrors of Capitalism are primarily by the separate state against outsiders. Those poverty figures are virtually nonexistent inside the developed Capitalist economies, they quite simply arise from Capitalism requiring goods in return for other goods. Something has to come out of the poverty-ridden areas for things to go in, under Capitalism, and there's a very good track record of Capitalism leading to the countries that have functioning civil rights bringing themselves up to the point of being significant for global trade.

Yes, Capitalism has problems. Governments with Capitalist economies in the private sector have a long track record of committing atrocities. Corporations have a long track record of ruthlessly abusing the people in every way they can. But unlike you, I don't see these as sufficiently insurmountable as to require a replacement of the system. I look at Sweden and see a country that's gotten Capitalism well under control, offering the things Socialism promises without breaking the private sector to fund it. You don't have to be Socialist to want social projects, nor do you need to be Communist to want freedom from government oppression. I want a mixed economy, using the government to smooth over the problems of Capitalism and having Capitalism handle the endlessly complex affairs of resources, covering the flaws of each with the other.


So how about those Soviet acadamies? Or the Chinese Cultural Revolution? How many major innovations have Socialist countries made? If you have robust counterclaims, offer me precise citations to disprove me with contradictions.


What about all the cases where the revolution went through? What ended up happening to China, again? Oh, right, it completely gave up on any pretense of actually working for Communism and instead turned into a major organ of global Capitalist trade because it turns out there's vastly more wealth to get from that. The thing is that you demand revolution that'll destroy economies if it fails, never stopping to think that maybe you should do it piece by piece and compromise on your ideal where it doesn't work in reality when encountered. You demand total overhaul, all at once, leading to collapses you can't get useful data out of because you can't identify where things went wrong.

Venezuela should be seen as a great milestone because we can go over the records and actually figure out where it went wrong, because it went at it piece by piece instead of abruptly overhauling everything. But it's disavowed entirely. You don't accept your failures as "real socialism", you sweep them under the rug and say that the revolution will work this time without ever explaining how you'll avert what screwed over previous cases. There's no actual experimentation going on, no attempts at working out precisely where the early industrial theory doesn't work under the digital age facts, no recognition of imperfection in your views, just constantly demanding Communism come into existence.
Have you heard the word of our deliverer from capitalism Karl Marx?
 

Morphile

Well-known member
#48
Have you heard the word of our deliverer from capitalism Karl Marx?
I haven't studied it in detail, because it doesn't particularly interest me. I expect people who are deep into the bibliography to be able to source the relevant passages, which is a point of contention I have with t-dugong's refusal to accept the Qur'an includes quite clear support for violence. As stated, I understand Capitalism has problems, but my desire is to see Capitalism fixed, instead of essentially burning the entire economy down and putting together a new, radically different, economy from the parts left over.
 

Baron Steakpuncher

Proletarian Puncher of Steaks
#49
I haven't studied it in detail, because it doesn't particularly interest me. I expect people who are deep into the bibliography to be able to source the relevant passages, which is a point of contention I have with t-dugong's refusal to accept the Qur'an includes quite clear support for violence. As stated, I understand Capitalism has problems, but my desire is to see Capitalism fixed, instead of essentially burning the entire economy down and putting together a new, radically different, economy from the parts left over.
*Shoves Das Kapital in face*

I SAID ACCEPT THE WORD.
 
#50
Just from the title of the sections, I can tell that your citation has fundamental flaws of equating Capitalism with economic anarchism. Every single one of the problems given in the titles is something I have opposition to, myself. The difference is that I want them resolved by reformation, not revolution. I want the problems actually solved and not burn the whole world down looking for a system that never has them in the first place. Fixing the flaws by regulating the existing system. Fundamentally, the issue I have with Communist ideals is that they reject the idea that Capitalism can be restrained to fix the issues, instead of destroying it outright to replace it with something that's "flawless".
Damn dude, teach me the skill of disproving a text by just reading the chapter names, seems like it saves you the time you need to write a giant essay over stupid shit on the internet, a much more glorious course of action.

It's not "We never promised we would do better". It's "We never said we would get involved in these things". Again, the horrors of Socialism are primarily by the governing against the ruled, and the horrors of Capitalism are primarily by the separate state against outsiders. Those poverty figures are virtually nonexistent inside the developed Capitalist economies, they quite simply arise from Capitalism requiring goods in return for other goods. Something has to come out of the poverty-ridden areas for things to go in, under Capitalism, and there's a very good track record of Capitalism leading to the countries that have functioning civil rights bringing themselves up to the point of being significant for global trade.
Damn dude, you got me, it's not like capitalism encourages unequal development to encourage cheap sources of raw materials and labour to power super profits in more developed countries, enlisting the state in order to enforce this general goal.

So how about those Soviet acadamies? Or the Chinese Cultural Revolution? How many major innovations have Socialist countries made? If you have robust counterclaims, offer me precise citations to disprove me with contradictions.
We beat you to space, fucker

"Precise citations".

Come on now, I can't even get you to read a short 100 page pamphlet, you'd probably skim it and then write 4000 words tearing into a single sentence

Venezuela should be seen as a great milestone because we can go over the records and actually figure out where it went wrong, because it went at it piece by piece instead of abruptly overhauling everything. But it's disavowed entirely. You don't accept your failures as "real socialism", you sweep them under the rug and say that the revolution will work this time without ever explaining how you'll avert what screwed over previous cases. There's no actual experimentation going on, no attempts at working out precisely where the early industrial theory doesn't work under the digital age facts, no recognition of imperfection in your views, just constantly demanding Communism come into existence.


Here's an article. It's shorter than your average posts.

Read fucker
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 4, Guests: 0)

Top