The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Oswy
The Nazis were no more 'socialist' than Stalinist Russia was 'communist'. Just because someone takes on a label for its political usefulness doesn't mean they live up to its meaning.


Which is why you brought up the nazis when i mentioned NATIONAL SOCIALISM? I'm sorry but it was i who seperated these terms, not you

lol....
Original post by MTR_10
It makes perfect economic sense.


It does not.
Reply 122
Original post by the realist
Of course we shouldn't abandon private property. It's the foundation of civilization. Please inform me why we should destroy that important legal concept.....?

Unless the Rich obtained that money through theft, deception or government corruption(both opposed directly by libertarianism), then someone made a choice to give them that money in trade. We have freedom to choose where and with whom to do bussiness, who we work for etc. Libertarianism is actually just a simple foundation of laws and there are plenty of allowances that can be made within it's guidelines. Slavery has been both both suported and opposed to the death and eventually abolished under relatively libertarian governance(America) for instance.


The monopolisation of portions of the earth (land, resources, lakes, whatever) by 'owners' and which is defended through force, amounts to a theft from all 'non-owners', excluding them from equitable access or benefit from its productive potentials and consequentially generating the exploitation of 'non-owners' by 'owners'. So, no, we don't have 'freeedom to choose' at all, we have a system in which some have freedom and many don't.
Reply 123
Original post by Oswy
The Nazis were no more 'socialist' than Stalinist Russia was 'communist'. Just because someone takes on a label for its political usefulness doesn't mean they live up to its meaning.


Have you heard of Nazi Germany's Reichswirtschaftsministerium? No? That's why you don't know what you're talking about. It abolished the capital market and centrally planned much of the Nazi economy through its subordinate offices and branches. It told shop owners what prices to charge, it set interest rates, it produced edicts on how to produce goods, it instructed owners at what prices to buy goods, it dictated the wages to be paid and, the big one, it and it alone controlled to whom capitalists could entrust funds.

Outside of the War Communism era of the late 1910s in Soviet Russia, there hasn't been a place on earth more socialist than Nazi Germany [that I know of, haven't read much on Pol Pot's Cambodia]. Just because it doesn't live up to your idealised notions of what socialism is does not make it not-socialism.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 124
Original post by Hy~
Have you heard of Nazi Germany's Reichswirtschaftsministerium? No? That's why you don't know what you're talking about. It abolished the capital market and centrally planned much of the Nazi economy through its subordinate offices and branches. It told shop owners what prices to charge, it set interest rates, it produced edicts on how to produce goods, it instructed owners at what prices to buy goods, it dictated the wages to be paid and, the big one, it and it alone controlled to whom capitalists could entrust funds.

Outside of the War Communism era of the late 1910s in Soviet Russia, there hasn't been a place on earth more socialist than Nazi Germany. Just because it doesn't live up to your idealised notions of what socialism is does not make it not-socialism.


Socialism is not the co-opting of capitalism by the state, just because, you know, Hitler might have thought, or said, it was.
Original post by the realist
The faceless name of government owes you nothing except justice, Human charity and love used to be the foundation of caring. The only reason libertarianism would hit people hard in this age is because the system has already kept alive the dependants. Libertarianism prevents problems a lot easier than it can solve the ones already in existence.
Social Darwinism is tosh. We're reaching an age where we're increasinly able to contribute to society regardless of most physical problems we may have. And, just as importantly, we increasingly have the means to look after those who aren't able to contribute. To that you might argue that the ostracism of certain folk decreases the chance of such characteristics being passed on to the next generation, which was certainly the case, and is why our biases against certain types of people evolved. At the beginning of time, it was much more humane to leave a disabled child to die on a mountainside than to rear it (when the society may not have enough resources for everyone as it was). However, today the rise of genetic science often allows even those with genetic problems to have children in the certain knowledge that they won't be passed on. So such ostracism is outdated and an unnecessary cruelty. And, of course, there's the issue of legitimate genetic diversity: with a small genepool, innovation becomes less likely, and the species as a whole is more likely to die off. Science -- properly utilised -- may hopefully allow us to create a more humane future.

Remember what Darwin himself said (in close paraphrase): it is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but those who are best adapted to their environment. Increasingly we are able to adapt our environments to our needs.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Oswy
Libertarianism is an ideology designed to maximise the advantages of those who have wealth, whether we're talking about money or land or whatever. That's it. It's a bare-faced lie to suggest that libertarians care about everyone's freedoms or liberties, they really, really don't. If freedom and liberty for all mattered to them libertarians would call for the abolition of private property, and which is in fact the forced monopolisation of portions of the earth by 'owners' to the exclusion, alienation and exploitation of all others. To be fair, left-libertarians do often call for the abolition of private property, but you're not one of those I'm confident enough.


A libertarian may not even directly oppose to the theory of welfare but simply insist that government be broken down to a much more local scale. A community wide basis such that within those communities people have more say as to how that welfare is disbuted. Libertarianism is actually anti corruption and exploitation in it's most basic form not left or right.

Libertarianism it seems was for a time when the world when:

A: Less populated/less DENSELY populated
B: Less technilogically developed
C:People had different cultural beliefs and behaviours

Realistically how easy and efficiently were taxes collected, where did people live?, how did people communite and commute?

The demands of the modern world do perhaps require something else. The point i was trying to make with libertarianism is actually it's principles are of much more direct relevance to many of todays problems and would require far less upheaval to begin to change things. If you're thinking communist, you are not only wrong, you're not even being realistic, you're being ironic, you're a joke. Not much would make that happen TODAY. And don't think thats because i don't agree with you, don't think thats because i'm greedy. Thats because theres a scarily high concentration of wealth right now. Theres billions upon billions unnaccounted for. Theres missiles circling the world underwater 24/7 with capable of decimating 16 cities each. It's never been easier to turn your money into raw firepower if you have the right connections. If you think Anyone up there is thinking REAL communism you are crazy. When the **** hits the fan you better have your own back and your **** together, be able to survive individually or as a community unit because governments are going to be bad boy number 1 when it comes to spanking asses. You see how hard people have to fight for democracy(?) world wide? what you are saying=100 millions dead. The mechanics of real life are a bitch.

If what you're proposing is a communist revolution i'm not sure what to say, here in the real world I have to think in totally different terms. If you are a REAL communist all i can really say is this. Even the other communists aren't as nice as you. There is no happy ending.
Reply 127
Original post by Oswy
Socialism is not the co-opting of capitalism by the state, just because, you know, Hitler might have thought, or said, it was.


If you think because there were prices that there had to be capitalism then, just to let you know, prices that are dictated by the state aren't actually prices. I'm not talking about the general distorting of prices that occurs due to the state, the "prices" in Nazi Germany were laid down by state edict. They were, from the perspective of market actors, completely random. If you think that this was anything even approaching capitalism then you're quite clearly deluded.

The state took over production in Nazi Germany. That's what socialism is. Get over it. And covertly comparing me to Hitler, well done. I suppose you think that he and I are both fascists, right?
Original post by jismith1989
Social Darwinism is tosh. We're reaching an age where we're increasinly able to contribute to society regardless of most physical problems we may have. And, just as importantly, we increasingly have the means to look after those who aren't able to contribute. To that you might argue that the ostracism of certain folk decreases the chance of such characteristics being passed on to the next generation, which was certainly the case, and is why our biases against certain types of people evolved. At the beginning of time, it was much more humane to leave a disabled child to die on a mountainside than to rear it (when the society may not have enough resources for everyone as it was). However, today the rise of genetic science often allows even those with genetic problems to have children in the certain knowledge that they won't be passed on. So such ostracism is outdated and an unnecessary cruelty. And, of course, there's the issue of legitimate genetic diversity: with a small genepool, innovation becomes less likely, and the species as a whole is more likely to die off. Science -- properly utilised -- may hopefully allow us to create a more humane future.

Remember what Darwin himself said (in close paraphrase): it is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but those who are best adapted to their environment. Increasingly we are able to adapt our environments to our needs.


Thats ok if you do it through technology, hard work or whatever you want aside from a little problem Libertarians call theft. But i believe that people are a sum of their choices, and by extention so is our world to an extent is a sum of these choices.

Libertarianism is about making the right choices and emphasizes personal responsibility above all else.
Communism is a great idea, but in practise some people are much "equal" than others and get more.
Original post by Hy~
Have you heard of Nazi Germany's Reichswirtschaftsministerium? No? That's why you don't know what you're talking about. It abolished the capital market and centrally planned much of the Nazi economy through its subordinate offices and branches. It told shop owners what prices to charge, it set interest rates, it produced edicts on how to produce goods, it instructed owners at what prices to buy goods, it dictated the wages to be paid and, the big one, it and it alone controlled to whom capitalists could entrust funds.
But, to be fair, the Nazi economy wasn't run especially badly, despite their evil in other areas. Unemployment was reduced to almost nil after the Great Depression (largely through the famous autobahn projects) and Hitler oversaw significant economic growth year on year. However, huge debts were racked up through remarmament (and, of course, production was affected, as in all involved countries, by the hazard of bombs periodically falling on factories). In truth Hitler had no strong ideology, he was more of an economic opportunist, taking different approaches (both rhetorical and political) at different times. He was certainly no Marxist, and disagreed with standard Marxist theory in significant ways, e.g. he saw economics as subservient to political objectives (whereas the traditional Marxist view is vice versa) and banned the formation of unions. Income taxes were also low throughout the war, unlike in Britain, as he agreed with the libertarians that the most productive should be allowed to thrive.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by MTR_10
By nature we all have the ability to feel love, compassion and empathy. These emotions came way before aggression and greed dominated.


Humans feel greed, hate, spite, envy well quicker before we feel love, compassion or mercy. We are not a nice people we are spiteful, cruel race who spend more money on how to kill than how to heal.

But then im a cynic with a very low opinion on the spieces i have to call my own.
Reply 132
This thread is a bit long in the tooth but I nearly choked on my coffee reading the posts of so many people who actually think communism is a good thing. Elements of socialism are all well and good - e.g. the NHS and state education - but abolishing the ability to own private property is ludicrous. The free markets were a marvellous invention. If a man is clever and innovative enough to create a product or service to enhance the quality of the lives of others, he is richly rewarded. At the same time as improving life quality, new goods and services create jobs and wealth.

In the words of Mark on Peep Show, "It's only the miracle of consumer capitalism that means you're not lying in your own ****, dying at 43 with rotten teeth."

Communism would make people much poorer and stall human innovation and progress. It's only benefit is making everyone as equally poor as everyone else.
Original post by JW92
In the words of Mark on Peep Show, "It's only the miracle of consumer capitalism that means you're not lying in your own ****, dying at 43 with rotten teeth."
Unless you live in certain areas of Glasgow. :ninja:
Reply 134
Original post by MTR_10
It makes perfect economic sense.


Not in the slightest. Discouraging people from setting up businesses, offering new goods and services and creating jobs and prosperity is the antithesis of economic sense. Communism is deeply immoral IMO.
Reply 135
Original post by MTR_10
(or China in the future) resorts to communism. If Britain joins them (and the Commonwealth countries do as well) and the EU then pretty much over half of the world will live in communism. As this spreads, poverty in Africa will be abolished, extreme wealth will be dissolved into the system and the world will potentially stop fighting over wealth and individual gain.


This sounds quite similar to the Domino theory
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 136
Original post by jismith1989
But, to be fair, the Nazi economy wasn't run especially badly, despite their evil in other areas.


I disagree but I don't really care. My point was that the economy was socialist and nothing you said seems to argue against this. It was "run", yeh, by the bureaucrats in their ministries. That's what I was saying.
nothing! Americans dont like it, so we have follow what the Americans do. :rolleyes:
Reply 138
Original post by MTR_10
But what about what they would gain? Also, would they lose a lot? Considering the materials we have today - £2 t-shirts for the poor, yachts for the wealthy. They would all be accessible to everyone. No status attached to them. Everyone shares what the world currently has.

The fact that you (and many others) 'don't believe' is exactly what is stopping it from happening.

Money would lose its value in a communist society.

HIV has been caused by oppression in the first place so that is not a valid argument. Also with the current technology/ healthcare we have in the first world we would most likely be able to treat it. Also, great plagues are nothing new. Why should HIV virus (in theory) be concentrated to one geographical area when it is a problem partly created (or not helped in any way) by the West?


1. That's what I mean. If say, you have 10 pounds, at the moment, someone is receiving 5 while 5 others are receiving 1 each. In a Communist society, the 6 people would receive 1.7 or whatever. Surely the one who received 5 before would be like "hang on..." People are greedy.

2. How has HIV been caused by oppression? Examples, please.

3. If you tell the West, "you caused HIV to happen, so you have some of it", I doubt it would respond with "Sure, our conscience tells us to humbly receive this deadly and incurable disease"

And lastly, authorities. "Some are more equal than others". Ring a bell? Inevitably, you may eliminate the concept of money, but would you eliminate the human greed for power? I would think that any authorities put in place would grow to exploit everyone else. It's just how humans work.

Communism is a great idea, but just impossible to carry out, mostly due to human nature.
Reply 139
Original post by JW92
Not in the slightest. Discouraging people from setting up businesses, offering new goods and services and creating jobs and prosperity is the antithesis of economic sense. Communism is deeply immoral IMO.


Communism would not discourage from developing new ideas. The difference being that the new ideas would be offered (and supported by) the system. Rather than being used for individual gain.

Prosperity can be shared amongst everyone. Capitalism relies on the oppression of some for the prosperity of others.

Latest