The British East India Company had control of India from 1757 to 1857, so could the East India Company be considered the first real example of Anarcho-Capitalism?

just an interesting thought that came to my mind

It's interesting how no one really talks about the Soviets invading Poland. If i recall correctly, it happened 16 days after Germany did, (i may be incorrect).

The first reports of Russians entering polish territory were documented to be roughly 2 weeks after the initial invasion by Germany

So by sheer nature the soviets are overshadowed by the Nazis because they was there first

who like roman empire

Don’t fool yourself. Calling Hitler Pure evil is absolutely wrong. I’m not defending the man, but when you call a man a monster, you must keep in mind that he is in fact man. Know that saying ,”Perhaps the greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing everyone that he didn’t exist”? That principle applies here

People - human beings are capable of tremendous good and terrible evil.

I would also point who on first place allow him to take "power" in Germany

Weimar Republic

Yes it happen on 17/09/1939 My grandfather twas taken as a prisoner of war by soviets

i am sorry to hear that

he run away than German caught him and he spent 4 years in Dachau, but he survive

Fascism is the result after the inevitable faillure of Communism. See modern China for details.

Fascism is evil, and it's awful in virtually every way. But at least it's workable.

That's not a defense of Fascism, merely an indictment of Communism.

well, not necessarily. Hitler and Mussolini were Fascists and they were an authoritarian force to fight the authoritarian Communists

That's a non sequiter.

How does that mean that Fascism does not follow in the wake of Communism?

its more of the other way around

for example, Pol Pot's regime came after the Facsist Dictatorship of Prince Sianouk

I never said that Communism can't follow fascism.

I said that Fascism comes after communism.

You're putting words in my mouth.

you said "Fascism is the result of failed communism"

So I said that isn't the only way

Neither did I. I said that it inevitably follows communism.

Not that it cannot arise in other circumstances.

Do you understand?

right but that's how I read it

Oh I understand, I was simply making sure you understood.

Huh

Communism sets up an unworkable economic structure and a very clear political structure. And because people need some sort of economic structure to fulfill their material needs, Communism will fail. But the Authoritarian political structure will still exist even if the country opens itself to markets. Therefor, it will become Fascist.

Which is then followed by capitalism

Then by monarchy

And the cycle repeats back to capitalism again

History repeats

Are Fascism and Monarchy all that different, if the Monarchy is not heriditary, though?

They are

that's what monarchism is

A monarchy does not control the means of production but they do control the currency