Was Communism *Ever* a Viable Alternative Economic System?

Q: Is racially purging a goal for the ANP, or has the organization moved to a more peaceful path; and even be willing to ignore, so to say, other races if they could live away from them?

Answer: Very aptly put - IF there could be ONE ALL-WHITE nation on planet earth, where we Racialists could happily live - AWAY - from "others", whom we would prefer not to co-exist beside..., we would move there. There are MANY all-Asian nations, there are MANY all-Negroid nations, there are MANY all-"brown" nations - hell, there is EVEN an ALL-JEW nation - but, there is no longer ONE ALL-WHITE nation, even Iceland is being forced to accept third-world "refugee's" into its culture and gene-pool.
Click to expand...

Linky.

Yes, sure sounds like the American Nazi Party is trying to distance itself from Hitler's actions...

Download Adolf Hitler's masterpiece Mein Kampf HERE.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MG1962 said:
Which was the point I made later in the same post. It is a conundrum that we cant judge communism because there has never been a true communist state.
Click to expand...

That's not a conundrum, that's a choice to withhold judgment. And it's not a choice I'm going to make. I can and do judge communism, on the basis of what communists do. And if a whole bunch of people keep calling themselves communists and doing the same sort of things, then they're communists, and what they do is communism, and Marx is pretty irrelevant at that point.

So possibly rather than question - is communism a failed system, why when the opportunity arose, it was never implemented in a way Marx might recognize
Click to expand...

That's calling failure by another name.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Yup, looks good to me :p .

The problem is that the Nazi Party based a lot of policies on opportunism. Hitler would talk about left-wing economic reforms to the farmers and then tell the industrialists that he was lying and that he would get rid of the trade-unions. Also, the Nazi Party leaders are the ones who actually came to power, and they pretty much did what they promised: centralise power for Hitler, persecute the undesirables, invade. There were some nice ideas in the mix, like outlawing child labour. But the national education commitment outrightly included indoctrination of State obedience even in 1920.
Click to expand...

"What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general."

- Marx. On the Jewish Question.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
That's not a conundrum, that's a choice to withhold judgment. And it's not a choice I'm going to make. I can and do judge communism, on the basis of what communists do. And if a whole bunch of people keep calling themselves communists and doing the same sort of things, then they're communists, and what they do is communism, and Marx is pretty irrelevant at that point.
Click to expand...

Then you would agree that capitalism is equally a failure. There has not been a pure capitalist economy on this planet for 150 years. Countries claim to have capitalist economies....doesn't mean they do
 
MG1962 said:
Then you would agree that capitalism is equally a failure. There has not been a pure capitalist economy on this planet for 150 years. Countries claim to have capitalist economies....doesn't mean they do
Click to expand...

No. You have badly misinterpreted my posts. Communism is not a failure because it doesn't achieve its ideal state. Communism is a failure because it produces hellholes. The fact that capitalism doesn't produce pure capitalist societies doesn't make it a failure, but the fact that it produces the greatest wealth and best living conditions in human history does make it a success.
 
psionl0 said:
What is communism?
Click to expand...

What people who call themselves communists practice when they have power. That is perhaps not the most rigorous definition, but it has the merit of avoiding all this "not true communism" apologetic nonsense.
 
Virus said:
"What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general."

- Marx. On the Jewish Question.
Click to expand...

Good one, but unfortunately racial purity is not the focus of Communism, or even a tenet. Other than this, Marx kept his anti-semitism private. And actually, this work was in response to Bruno Bauer's The Jewish Question (hence the title) and was defending Jewish political emancipation. There are varying debates about Judentum or about how this was how everyone thought of Judaism, but I don't agree with those and they aren't particularly relevant here.
 
Earthborn said:
Most corporations (some of them as large as some countries) disagree; they do plenty of central planning.
Click to expand...
Yes. It doesn't work.

Well, that's a bit glib, but there's a core truth to it: Central planning works, but it doesn't scale. That's why large corporations give degrees of autonomy to their various divisions, and why communist countries invariably go bellly-up.
 
I just reckon that "on paper" absolute state control by a "dictatorship of the proletariat" looks like suck.

Maybe if that's your bag it might look good to you.
 
Virus said:
I just reckon that "on paper" absolute state control by a "dictatorship of the proletariat" looks like suck.

Maybe if that's your bag it might look good to you.
Click to expand...

Again, the state withers away on paper. And you are using modern terminology to interpret his words. He often called Britain a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", even though we would not recognise it as such.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Again, the state withers away on paper. And you are using modern terminology to interpret his words. He often called Britain a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", even though we would not recognise it as such.
Click to expand...

But prior to 1918 it was a pretty fair description of the class system in the United Kingdom
 
Ziggurat said:
No. You have badly misinterpreted my posts. Communism is not a failure because it doesn't achieve its ideal state. Communism is a failure because it produces hellholes. The fact that capitalism doesn't produce pure capitalist societies doesn't make it a failure, but the fact that it produces the greatest wealth and best living conditions in human history does make it a success.
Click to expand...

Really - so then there is no poverty or disadvantaged people in a capitalist system?
 
MG1962 said:
But prior to 1918 it was a pretty fair description of the class system in the United Kingdom
Click to expand...

The largest failure of Marx was his failure to envision a capitalist society changing into something better. He thought the only way forward was a radical revolution. He was wrong.

He wasn't all bad, some of the changes came earlier as a result of his work, but this was more of a random stroke of fortune than design.

McHrozni
 
MG1962 said:
Really - so then there is no poverty or disadvantaged people in a capitalist system?
Click to expand...

Impossible perfection is your standard, not mine. I'm concerned with the real world, not fantasy.
 
Virus said:
No doubt today's Nazi sympathizers prefer to judge National Socialism by how it looks on paper than by its track record.
Click to expand...

Nah actual nazis just hate jews.

Fascism on the other hand has its supporters who would argue for it on paper (although they generaly wouldn't use the term). After all from a purely capitalist perspective fascism isn't that bad a form of government as it has no particular problem with people trying to make large amounts of money.

If you are not greatly concerned about more left wing political freedoms or the rights of minorities then Fascism isn't on paper that bad a way to run capitalism. Depending on how exactly you define fascism there are certainly those that would argue that it is not that bad an approach in practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom