Message from @HonorVirtutisPraemium

Discord ID: 276127950959542272


2017-01-31 23:11:59 UTC  

National Socialism/Fascism, I'm saying.

2017-01-31 23:12:00 UTC  

Read why Lenin thought he was democratic

2017-01-31 23:12:04 UTC  

I am not discussing Socialism.

2017-01-31 23:12:07 UTC  

Leninist democracy

2017-01-31 23:12:13 UTC  

Facsism is not Socialism 😐

2017-01-31 23:12:14 UTC  

Is Bolshevism

2017-01-31 23:12:23 UTC  

It is communism by another name.

2017-01-31 23:12:27 UTC  

In practice.

2017-01-31 23:12:29 UTC  

Mate.

2017-01-31 23:12:31 UTC  

It's really not.

2017-01-31 23:12:31 UTC  

Whee it has lasted.

2017-01-31 23:12:33 UTC  

There are huge differences.

2017-01-31 23:12:45 UTC  

You're under the fallacy they viewed Liberals under: all things are economic.

2017-01-31 23:12:48 UTC  

There are very few differenxxea.

2017-01-31 23:12:56 UTC  

Very few? Are you serious?

2017-01-31 23:12:59 UTC  

Yea

2017-01-31 23:13:07 UTC  

Define that or at least justify it.

2017-01-31 23:13:36 UTC  

Communist and Fascist economies tend not to last very long.

2017-01-31 23:13:49 UTC  

This does not justify your statement and it again falls into the economics-only trap.

2017-01-31 23:13:49 UTC  

They mostly resort to the same shit.

2017-01-31 23:13:53 UTC  

What same shit?

2017-01-31 23:13:54 UTC  

After they collapse

2017-01-31 23:13:56 UTC  

What collapse?

2017-01-31 23:14:06 UTC  

They all have collapsed

2017-01-31 23:14:09 UTC  

Did *any* Fascist economy collapse, or did the state itself?

2017-01-31 23:14:11 UTC  

None has lasted.

2017-01-31 23:14:17 UTC  

Mate, you are not justifying your points.

2017-01-31 23:14:34 UTC  

You said Communism and Fascism have very few differences. How?

2017-01-31 23:14:47 UTC  

And, I oblige you to not act a Liberal in defining your reasoning.

2017-01-31 23:14:51 UTC  

@HonorVirtutisPraemium Also in the sense of wealth redistribution, distritbutionist values (which aren't really that confaltable and were quite ancient in European common law) and culturally liberal ideas that relaxed certain values for the sake of making more Germans. Further, the word socialism was also used to differentiate Germany from Russia and its communism. They liked the general idea of larger government to replace the Kaizer AND Weimar and they liked the idea of a safety net due to a weak economy.

2017-01-31 23:15:16 UTC  

You two were arguing faster than I could type...maybe I shouldn't get involved?

2017-01-31 23:15:38 UTC  

@-A The end goal was the creation of the Organic, not the Totalitarian. National Socialism was a scheme to remodel the nation, not a goal in and of itself.

2017-01-31 23:15:47 UTC  

Again, I oblige reading more.

2017-01-31 23:16:01 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/267086373285134338/276128485435768832/Rudolf_Jung_-_Der_Nazionale_Sozialismus.pdf

2017-01-31 23:16:20 UTC  

The same with communicsm.

2017-01-31 23:16:23 UTC  

....

2017-01-31 23:16:36 UTC  

Oh, really? The goal of Communism was to create an Organic state a la idealised-Rome?

2017-01-31 23:16:44 UTC  

Well! I wonder why Marx never wrote that.

2017-01-31 23:16:53 UTC  

That does not change the fact that they used the word socialism and used socialist mechanisms for their restoration of Germany.

2017-01-31 23:16:55 UTC  

I wonder why Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and numerous others never wrote as much either.

2017-01-31 23:17:10 UTC  

@-A They did not use Socialist mechanisms unless you are using the Austrian definition of Socialism (cf. Hayek; Mises; Friedman; Rothbard)