Split - Politics of space exploration

[2jaded2care]

On a related note, I have to admit that whenever people call conservatives "Nazis", I do tend to write those people off a bit. "Nazi" was short for "National Socialist Party". They were socialists, but they were also fascists.

Some conservatives might deserve to be called "fascists" (speaking as a conservative myself, but hopefully not a fascist one), but to call them socialists is a bit nonsensical. (Unless the aim is just to smear with a broad brush, even if the brush doesn't fit.)

My 2 cents...

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Would it make any difference to call someone a "Marxist" instead of "communist"?

But what is the difference? It is just semantics.

Marx·ist (märksst)
n.
•One that believes in or follows the ideas of Marx and Engels.
•A Marxian.

Com·mu·nist (kmy-nst)
n.
•A member of a Marxist-Leninist party.
•A supporter of such a party or movement.
•A Communard.
•A radical viewed as a subversive or revolutionary.

courtesy of Dictionary.com

 

[2jaded2care]

In a sense it is just semantics, but I always was under the impression that the term "Marxist" refers to the "ideals" proposed by Karl Marx; whereas "communist" has gained the subtext of supporting oppressive gov'ts such as Cuba, China, N. Korea, the former Soviet Union, etc. -- none of which (even speaking as a conservative) came very close to achieving the society which Marx envisioned (if indeed it is achievable).

It's kind of like the term "liberal". It didn't always used to imply what it seems to now, when applied to a person or party. The context, or something, has changed.
Admittedly I don't remember much about the Communist Manifesto, don't even remember if I finished it. I should go back and slog though it, just to refresh my memory. (Can't say it's a particularly enjoyable read...)

 

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
So, people do not want to be called 'communists', yet wealth redistribution is one of the tenets of the communists.

So people don't want to be called 'Nazis' yet the primacy of the corporation is one of the tenets of the Nazi's.

Belief in religion is one of the tenets of the Klan. Are you suggesting that all church goers are racist?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
It's kind of like the term "liberal". It didn't always used to imply what it seems to now, when applied to a person or party. The context, or something, has changed.

It's exactly like that. To control the language is to control the debate, or more accurately, to debase the debate. Marxism is a very specific set of political theories advanced by Karl Marx. Communism is likewise a specific set of political theories. If you're going to call someone either thing, you'd better know that the person actually adheres to these theories, otherwise you're doing what's called "red baiting." Also, you'd better know what those theories mean, and reciting a banal catch-phrase like "redistribution of wealth" just doesn't cut it.

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by idkew
i won't post anymore since i think your castro-esque beliefs will not allow you to see that rich people do, in fact, give.

The difference is, this time, psudobrit said, in effect, that the government needs to force the rich to give to the poor. I pointed out this is exactly what Castro did. I don't see what is wrong about connecting A with B, when it is blatantly obvious.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that your sarcasm was closer to the truth than you knew.

Who's putting words in people's mouths?

this is what liberals do. they put words in other people's mouths.

You just **** all over yourself with your hate speech and came out a hypocrite. Nice job.

 

[pseudobrit]

BTW, I do have a Soviet flag hanging in my room (next to my Irish tricolour).

It goes with the decor of the CCCP hockey jerseys I have.

Soviet hockey was awesome.

I guess that makes me a commie, Mr. McCarthy.

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
On a related note, I have to admit that whenever people call conservatives "Nazis", I do tend to write those people off a bit. "Nazi" was short for "National Socialist Party". They were socialists, but they were also fascists.

I hate to pick nits, but this is a big one. Historians among others are in agreement that Hitler's Nazi party was socialist in name only. There was a flavor of it, especially at the outset, but otherwise it was pure fascism.

 

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
So people don't want to be called 'Nazis' yet the primacy of the corporation is one of the tenets of the Nazi's.

Belief in religion is one of the tenets of the Klan. Are you suggesting that all church goers are racist?

Nazis were socialists.
Nazi - A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler

socialism - Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Since when have the Nazis tenet been the primacy of the corporation if it espouses socialism? I think you do not know your history.

 

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
BTW, I do have a Soviet flag hanging in my room (next to my Irish tricolour).

It goes with the decor of the CCCP hockey jerseys I have.

Soviet hockey was awesome.

I guess that makes me a commie, Mr. McCarthy.

Nah.

If that Soviet flag is authentic, and has the sweat off the brow of Mr. "Rorschach" Gorbachev, you have a veritable goldmine of an eBay bid item there.

You have to hand it to the Soviets. They had the gumption to fight and lose lots of men/women during WW2. Thats gotta count for something.

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Since when have the Nazis tenet been the primacy of the corporation if it espouses socialism? I think you do not know your history.

Hitler killed off those inside the party who were pushing for genuine socialism during the Night of the Long Knives.

He subverted the power of the socialist-centred Sturmabteilung in favor of his Schutzstaffeln.

Be careful when you accuse people of not knowing their history.

BTW, the flag is authentic and unissued. It even has the "made in CCCP" tag in Cyrillic.

 

[idkew]

See, you still are in the 50's. You think that the words communist implies that McCarthy is coming after you. Once again, it is 2004. Not 1950. The world has changed. There is no more salem witch trial. You can be a single woman and own cats.

As for having CCCP flags and such, who cares? You can appreciate something/someone without having to believe in their political ideals. I am sure if we got into the political beliefs of my favorite artists, i would dislike most as a person, but it doesn't change the fact they were great artists.

In saying that a sarcastic comment about wealth redistribution is "close to the truth", it says you believe in wealth redistribution. so did castro. i did not put these words in you mouth, you wrote them yourself. i did not attach someone making a comment about wealth redistribution with anti-americanism. there is a difference here. its apple and apple vs apples and oranges. if i meant that marxist (better?) ideals are anti-American, i would say that. I don't, as this country is about living with people of different views.

hate speech? are you on drugs? seriously, i am kinda worried. where did i ever say that i hate anyone? i think your reality might be distorted.

you are taking a purely political debate and attempting to make it emotional. you also are attempting to illicit a response by baiting me with an "insult" about mccarthyism. you do realize, that by making such statements, you are eroding any credibility you may still have? right?

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by idkew
See, you still are in the 50's. You think that the words communist implies that McCarthy is coming after you. Once again, it is 2004. Not 1950. The world has changed.

So I guess if I called you a Nazi you wouldn't take offence? It's been almost 60 years since they've killed a Jew. The world has changed, right? Bull****. This deflection is not valid.

In saying that a sarcastic comment about wealth redistribution is "close to the truth", it says you believe in wealth redistribution.

Does it? I was more specifically thinking of the part of your comment where you said the rich never gave money voluntarily. I never specified, so I guess I can forgive you for jumping to conclusions.

But what a jump!

so did castro. i did not put these words in you mouth, you wrote them yourself.

No, as I've pointed out above, I wrote very little and you gathered the rest from your own imagination.

you do realize, that by making such statements, you are eroding any credibility you may still have? right?

And do you realise that you're a red-bating hypocrite?

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
So I guess if I called you a Nazi you wouldn't take offence?

And do you realise that you're a red-bating hypocrite?

Ok, if i said that I hated all people unlike myself, and that i had a blind faith in a leader, you might be able to infer nazism... but, since i said nothing of the sort, nor do i believe in anything such as that, you can't infer such a word on me. once again, you are trying to bring emotions into a political debate.


second, lets keep those emotions out of this. this is exactly what i mean about your credibility eroding, you are still trying to attack me personally. this is not what these forums are for. in fact, personal attacks such as these are grounds for banishment. i am not going to "tell on you", but lets keep this on the issues, keep your hat on. please stop before you get banned and while you still may have some credibility left.

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by idkew
Ok, if i said that I hated all people unlike myself, and that i had a blind faith in a leader, you might be able to infer nazism... but, since i said nothing of the sort, nor do i believe in anything such as that, you can't infer such a word on me. once again, you are trying to bring emotions into a political debate.

And if I said anything about forced wealth disribution or collectivism, you might place a word like communist on me. I didn't and you did. Nothing emotional about it.

You put words in my mouth.

you are still trying to attack me personally. this is not what these forums are for.

You called me "castro-esque." I prefer not being compared to communist dictators with bad human rights records.

in fact, personal attacks such as these are grounds for banishment. i am not going to "tell on you", but lets keep this on the issues, keep your hat on. please stop before you get banned and while you still may have some credibility left.

Report me; I encourage you to if you think I've attacked you personally.

You're a hypocrite if you don't recant your assessment of me as communist (and a Castro-themed one at that). You've accused the "liberals" of putting words in your mouth when they jumped on you for doing it to me. That's hypocrisy.

 

[idkew]

you're still attempting to get me into this emotionally. try again. your must be using a plastic bait, as i won't bite.

if you don't believe in wealth redistribution, why do you say that it is close to the truth that the only way to get the rich to give is to force them? sure sounds like you do to me, but please, explain your comment.

you are more than welcome to call me franklin-esque, or jefferson-esque, as i believe that it is not the government's duty to care for the heart attacks and the cancer of its citizens. i have no problem with this.

 

[idkew]

This is a good read:

The General Welfare

 

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by idkew
This is a good read:

The General Welfare

Um... edits are your friend, especially if you are just adding a small line to an earlier but recent post.

Okay, so people here do not like to be called communists or nazis because they have ended up being dictators and tyrants. But they are not averse to wealth redistribution. But wealth redistribution becomes forced wealth redistribution and to do that you need to become a dictator or tyrant.

Voluntary wealth redistribution is called be another name... lemme see... what is that name...chartreuse... charcoal... chastity...ah... charity.

 

[idkew]

thanks Frohickey, but i did not want that link being so directly associated with the preceeding post, as it has nothing to do with psudobrit. plus, since post counts really mean nothing anymore, who cares? both take relatively the same amount of bandwidth.

please do read it though, i think that you, personally, will like it. some others on this board will find it less appealing, but enlightening nonetheless.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Okay, so people here do not like to be called communists or nazis because they have ended up being dictators and tyrants. But they are not averse to wealth redistribution. But wealth redistribution becomes forced wealth redistribution and to do that you need to become a dictator or tyrant.

So, all taxation is... let me get this straight, the act of a dictator or tyrant?

 

[idkew]

i hope you can see a difference between taxation of everyone and the taking from the few to give to the many.

 

[Frohickey]

Here is a good primer on taxes in the United States.

Last ending quote is a keeper.

If I have worked harder and built myself a good house while you have been contented to live in a hovel, the taxgatherer now comes annually to make me pay a penalty for my energy and industry by taxing me more than you. If I have saved while you wasted, I am [milked] while you are exempt.
If a man built a ship, we make him pay for his temerity as though he had done an injury to the state; if a railroad be opened, down comes the tax collector upon it as though it were a public nuisance.... We punish with a tax the man who covers barren fields with ripening grain; we fine him who puts up machinery and him who drains a swamp.
To abolish these taxes would be to lift the whole enormous weight of taxation from productive industry.... The state would say to the producer, "Be as industrious, as thrifty, as enterprising as you choose. You shall have your full reward!"

I could see getting rid of taxes, and only generate revenue via tariffs/duties/excises. You'd spur so much economic activity that it would be either a wash or a net gain.

 

[Sayhey]

Whoa! has this thread gone off topic! I checked in here to see what effect the problems on Mars had on the discussion, but I can see we are mired in radical politics. Just to show I can go off topic with the best of them here is my two cents on some of the recent comments.

Nazism and Fascism both used the jargon of socialism in some of its propaganda, but neither had anything to do with Socialism. mactastic is right with his comment about corporatism. Just check out what happened to German and Italian corporations during their rule and you will find what Hitler's and Mussolini's agenda was all about. It is worth remembering the "official" name of the Axis powers was the "Anti-Comintern Alliance." Both parties (and others of like mind such as the Franco's Phalangists) were brutal responses to Socialism and attempts to stop the growth of the Socialist and Communist Parties influences.

The main difference in the terms "Communists" and "Marxists" is that Communists has come to mean (since the split in the socialist movements after the Russian Revolution) those who embrace not only the ideas of Marx and Engels, but also Lenin. Many in the Labour Party of Britain, German Social-Democrats, French Socialists, Israeli Laborites, etc. would call themselves both socialists and Marxists, but never Communists or Marxist-Leninists.

As to the idea that the redistribution of the wealth through taxes is some kind of version of Socialism or Communism - well, it is just silly. The ideas of Socialism start with the redistribution of economic power, not a few dollars here or there. It is about who controls the enterprise that people work in, not just how much taxes people pay or what social programs those taxes support. This is Socialism 101 stuff. If you're interested, read Marx and Engels, not Ayn Rand and the Libertarian Party distortions.

edit: you're for your -- hate that mistake!

 

[idkew]

Ok, so you say socialist or communist... are the wrong nouns/adjectives for such beliefs. Fine, like I said before, it is all semantics.

But, then what does one the call the belief in wealth redistribution?

 

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by idkew
Ok, so you say socialist or communist... are the wrong nouns/adjectives for such beliefs. Fine, like I said before, it is all semantics.

But, then what does one the call the belief in wealth redistribution?

Ah ... realists? Seriously, only extreme libertarians believe the idea of taxes represents some kind of injustice. People have been paying taxes of some sort since the dawn of civilization. If you want to argue that the use of tax money on social programs is wrong then you will get few supporters among most modern industrialized countries. Most folks have moved on from the days of laissez faire capitalism. Some folks actually read history or look at underdeveloped nations and know what widespread starvation, ignorance, and disease mean for a society. So in answer to your question there is no one word to describe such people because they run the gamut from the Republican Party through Socialists.