Is Capitalism better than socialism?

[benny]

You got to wonder though...what if Austria had public post secondary art college...and some nameless drone of a publicly paid art prof said to Herr Schiklegruber.."Hey Kid, your pedestrian water colours have some merit, stick to it and one day you could make a few marks working for a real estate advertising firm..."

No doubt instead of becoming a microencephalic megalomaniacal dictator he would have settled down with a nice Jewish girl and raised a family of loving, if not particularly talented children...

Out of Vienna, Freud used to say: surrounded by so much outstanding fools, I see myself as just a student.

Edited April 15, 2009 by benny

[Oleg Bach]

You got to wonder though...what if Austria had public post secondary art college...and some nameless drone of a publicly paid art prof said to Herr Schiklegruber.."Hey Kid, your pedestrian water colours have some merit, stick to it and one day you could make a few marks working for a real estate advertising firm..."

No doubt instead of becoming a microencephalic megalomaniacal dictator he would have settled down with a nice Jewish girl and raised a family of loving, if not particularly talented children...

Don't know why people think that Hilters art was talentless...why do we propogate this idea - I saw the early work and it was good for a young man of that era - and he would have in time developed into a fine artist ---- everyone likes to play on the unsubstantiated idea that Hitler was bitter because he had no talent..and that bitterness lead to a dreadful conclution........who are you to say that his children would have no talent - are you and expert in genetics?

[lictor616]

Out of Vienna, Freud used to say: surrounded by so much outstanding fools, I see myself as just a student.

Freud no doubt had contempt for the people he fleeced with his idiotic mumbo jumbo. And rightly so. The contempt of lefty social "scientists" for the ordinary upright man or woman is almost infinite and certainly justified.

Edited April 15, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

Don't know why people think that Hilters art was talentless...why do we propogate this idea - I saw the early work and it was good for a young man of that era - and he would have in time developed into a fine artist ---- everyone likes to play on the unsubstantiated idea that Hitler was bitter because he had no talent..and that bitterness lead to a dreadful conclution........who are you to say that his children would have no talent - are you and expert in genetics?

because there is a body of howling dervishes that want to demonize the man without actually paying attention to his career... hence the "hitler had one testicle", used to chew the corners of the carpet, was a terrible painter etc ...

alas there is scarcely a single political man that could match Hitler's portraits (they weren't horrible- lacked proper scale sometimes but it would be petty to say that he was talentless.

Like that HORRIBLE spit job piece of propaganda by the "History" channel (Hitler: the Rise of Evil) where apparently Hitler is portrayed as a charmless troglodyte that weirds people out (yet was still somehow able to capture a nation with his speeches- which unlike obama's: he actually composed HIMSELF).

unfortunately on matters of history there are many people who prefer to emote rather then think.

[lictor616]

Acting out is a very awful type of action.

acting out? have you read his speeches - have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler built a superpopular political party along with a handful of men- at what point do we recognize the monumental achievement that that was?

[tango]

National Socialism (or third way capitalism) in Germany was a raving success, zero unemployment, stupendous scientific and mathematical literacy, outstanding social cohesion and sense of community (well except perhaps with Jews). The population was healthy beyond modern day canada- cancers, obesity, STD's were nearly at zero... what else? oh yes taxes were a great deal lower then current rates (its true Nazi Germany did not have millions of regular welfare dependents, the mentally and physically infirm (or "Erbkrank") ... there was also a minimum of inter-class hostility.

National Socialism (the type adopted by the nazis) produced only small government checks on industry while greatly improving technology and supplying Germany with a roaring economy...

But of course in our "free" country no one can say what I have just outlined under pains of "hate speech" prosecution. IN our intellectually undemanding and crumbling culture: one merely has to say "that's what Hitler did" to make fastidious minds boil with the insane and sullen hatred of reason.

So ... how'd that work out for him?

[kactus]

Considering the current global recession (the worst since WWII) I would have thought we are already witnessing the collapse of capitalism! The question is how long will it last and can the governments and financial institutions instill the confidence back in pensioners, genuine mortgage holders and the rest of the indigenous population?

Edited April 15, 2009 by kactus

[M.Dancer]

acting out? have you read his speeches - have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler built a superpopular political party along with a handful of men- at what point do we recognize the monumental achievement that that was?

On the bodies of 60 million dead, bonehead.

Only a moron, I repeat and add, only an immature nutbar moron with severe social inadequacies reveres Hitler.

[benny]

Hitler was not violent enough, his violence was not "essential" enough. Nazism was not radical enough, it did not dare to disturb the basic structure of the modern capitalist social space (which is why it had to invent and focus on destroying an external enemy, Jews). This is why one should oppose the fascination with Hitler according to which Hitler was, of course, a bad guy, responsible for the death of millions -- but he definitely had balls, he pursued with iron will what he wanted... This point is not only ethically repulsive, but simply wrong: no, Hitler did not "have the balls" to really change things; he did not really act, all his actions were fundamentally reactions, i.e., he acted so that nothing would really change; he stages a big spectacle of Revolution so that the capitalist order could survive. If one really wants to name an act which was truly daring, for which one truly had to "have the balls" to try the impossible, but which was simultaneously a horrible act, an act causing suffering beyond comprehension, it was Stalin's forced collectivization at the end of 1920s in the Soviet Union -- but even here, the same reproach holds: the paradox of the 1928 "Stalinist revolution" was rather that, in all its brutal radicalism, it was not radical enough in effectively transforming the social substance. Its brutal destructiveness has to be read as an impotent acting out, i.e. a violent outburst that bears witness to Hitler's and Stalin's inabilities to resolve the deadlock they found themselves in.

Heidegger was there and Heidegger's work after the war did go some way towards overcoming the political naivete that led to his disastrous involvement with National Socialism. He did this by, first, getting much clearer than he had been about the dangers of the modern world -- the dangers which led him to think we need a new world disclosure. Once he was able to articulate the danger of modernity in terms of technology, it became clear that National Socialism was just another modern technological movement (even if it employed technology for reactionary goals). "Just another modern technological movement ": not even the best of political projects, the most radical attempt to oppose nihilism, remained just another nihilistic movement caught in technology. There is no horror of Nazism here, Nazism is "just another" in the series, the difference is ontologically insignificant (which is why, for Heidegger, the Allied victory in the World War II really decided nothing).

http://www.zizekstudies.org/index.php/ijzs...cle/view/64/129

Edited April 15, 2009 by benny

[lictor616]

So ... how'd that work out for him?

worked out great Until the US controlled by Jacob Schiff, the Warburgs, The Chase Bank, in cooperation with the Rotschild bank decided that it was in their best interest to fill the american and british and canadian people with a christian ardor to kill germans. Canada and the US allied themselves with communist butchers (who would then sacrifice 13 million soldiers) to destroy and pillage germany.

The whole world needed to be mobilized against Germany... might have turned out differently.

[lictor616]

On the bodies of 60 million dead, bonehead.

Only a moron, I repeat and add, only an immature nutbar moron with severe social inadequacies reveres Hitler.

60 million? no that was our "gallant soviet ally".

The third reich killed a maximum of 11 million out of the 26 million dead in WW2.

[M.Dancer]

60 million? no that was our "gallant soviet ally".

The third reich killed a maximum of 11 million out of the 26 million dead in WW2.

The Nazis killed well over 11 million civilians alone in their genocidal quest for racial purity.

The war they started killed over 60 million.

Back to your swastika festooned cave, troll....

[lictor616]

The Nazis killed well over 11 million civilians alone in their genocidal quest for racial purity.

The war they started killed over 60 million.

Back to your swastika festooned cave, troll....

no no, RJ Rummel, LEni Yahil, Hildeberg et al. put the number squarely at 11- max 12: 6 million jews 5 million dissidents, infirm, homosexuals, roma, 3 million communists, etc.

[M.Dancer]

no no, RJ Rummel, LEni Yahil, Hildeberg et al. put the number squarely at 11- max 12: 6 million jews 5 million dissidents, infirm, homosexuals, roma, 3 million communists, etc.

Aw shucks you know I'm jest a poor back woods grade school drop out...I jest assumed that 12 million is well over 11 million...

[benny]

If capitalism seems to be better than socialism it is because capitalism revolutionizes itself more systematically than socialism.

[lictor616]

Aw shucks you know I'm jest a poor back woods grade school drop out...I jest assumed that 12 million is well over 11 million...

the point is its still way way under the democides and genocides of our "gallant soviet ally"..

[M.Dancer]

the point is its still way way under the democides and genocides of our "gallant soviet ally"..

Comparing the Nazis and The soviets is like asking which would you rather swim in....a cess pool or a sceptic tank....

Anyway, it was the Nazis who made the Soviets our allies....couldn't have won the war without Nazi incompetance.

[M.Dancer]

worked out great Until the US controlled by Jacob Schiff, the Warburgs, The Chase Bank, in cooperation with the Rotschild bank decided that it was in their best interest to fill the american and british and canadian people with a christian ardor to kill germans. Canada and the US allied themselves with communist butchers (who would then sacrifice 13 million soldiers) to destroy and pillage germany.

The whole world needed to be mobilized against Germany... might have turned out differently.

So what you are saying is these cats convinced herr schiklegruber to declare war on the USA and to attack the Soviets bringing them into the war on the side of the allies?

Wow....talk about your historical revisionists...

[benny]

There has been a previous Nazi–Soviet Pact, Hitler–Stalin Pact.

[M.Dancer]

There has been a previous Nazi–Soviet Pact, Hitler–Stalin Pact.

Yes Benny, the Ribbontrop agreement with the secret protocols dividing up poland and giving the Baltic to their soviet allies.

[benny]

What about contributing to an answer to this thread's question now!?

[M.Dancer]

What about contributing to an answer to this thread's question now!?

\

It's a silly question...just ask the average cuban where they would rather live...Miami or Havana...or better yet...go back in time and ask the average east german....Pole....Hungarian, estonian...etc etc

The question was answered years ago.

[benny]

\

It's a silly question...just ask the average cuban where they would rather live...Miami or Havana...or better yet...go back in time and ask the average east german....Pole....Hungarian, estonian...etc etc

The question was answered years ago.

How about Chili and Sweden now?

[M.Dancer]

How about Chili and Sweden now?

Neither are purely socialist or even 75% socialist.

Chile has a market-oriented economy characterized by a high level of foreign trade and a reputation for strong financial institutions and sound policy that have given it the strongest sovereign bond rating in South America

Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole of the 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...book/index.html

[benny]

Neither are purely socialist or even 75% socialist.

If you want to compare pure economic systems, you will have to stop comparing countries.