He didn't believe that markets could simply grow together, or remain unchanged if one of them grows.

On one hand, wow that’s FUCKING STUPID. On the other, yeah it kinda makes sense.

Yep lol

I mean it makes sense, there is a limited amount of resources and materials, so having one market grow would shrink the others as there is less material going there

The idea that you could make it just one market though is kinda dumb, idk see how that’s possible

how many markets are there on the pitcairn islands, snake?

now, if the rest of the world died instantly, how many markets would exist in the world

Yeah in the most technical sense it makes sense, although when you realize that most resources in the world have yet to be touched, and that scientific/technological discoveries impact the efficiency of the use of existing resources, then Hitler's idea falls on its face.

🧐 you guys make good points. I can’t respond to Cass, but with Brood my only point is that I think we’re running out of resources (on planet earth*)

It'll take easily hundreds of thousands, if not perhaps millions of years before we run out of resources, and that's assuming we don't conquer space.

Which we will, almost certainly.

Also cass, their markets would shrink if the rest of the world blew up, as there isn’t any trade and specialization from the outside @Cassiopeia

I think it's much more likely that humankind will have evolved multiple times before it even needs to start worrying about Earth's resources.

Resource management like forestation and clean seas is our only real concern.

Oil, coal, natural gas, rare earth elements, fertile land, clean water, clean air, sheer space. Just to name a few

Yeah that's what really matters, that we don't ruin what we already have,.

Also we are destroying the environment

Yeah we are, that's the main concern.

Anyway, it's bedtime for me. Nice to see the direction of this channel is looking up. There's no emote that properly expresses how I feel about that, so here's a <:angrypepe:497157904743268363> for a subversion of my true feelings.

No Stalin actually set quotas for the systematic killing in Ukraine. You could say he was more *organized* than Hitler but they had the same plan. And as ET points out you can switch the word 'proletariat' and 'aryan' and get the same result.

Beyond that they both had a socialist concept of what production is and it showed in their approach. Ideas like "What could we trade to Ukraine" and "How can we increase Ukrainian yields and efficiency" never entered their thinking. Outside of a faith based idea that collectivization or Aryan farmers would somehow produce this result.

You can say, "Outside of socialism doesn't count!" all you like. But when two sweets taste similar it is hard to explain why without mentioning they are both made of chocolate and sugar.....

<:cuckertarlson:462285973724856320>

Again, to your last comment, I’ve explained why they’re different in pretty good detail. But I guess nationalism is the same as globalism to you. As you don’t seem to think it’s a important difference

You can’t switch out Aryan and Proletariat 100%. The Aryans were put in a victim revenge narrative sure, but they’re still a ethnic group with a common culture, language and history

And again, yeah with production, so economics...

>mrw reading this crap of ultimate reductionist straw grasping to equate Hitler and Stalin

1. Communists advocate for worker control of the means of production, eradication of all hierarchy, including identity, ethnicity, race, gender, sex, class, heritage and history, abolition of Nation states in favor of internationalism and legalization of all kinds of degeneracy. Fascism is culturally Far Right and Economically Centrist, with a Corporatist (different from Corporatocracy) style economy, with military endeavors limited to Irredentism and self defense (Nazis reclaiming greater Germany, for instance).

2. Communists view the Nation state as illegitimate. They want a global world order of a rootless shopping mall, inhabited by hedonist, deracinated, atomized individuals. Fascists are Palingenetic Ultranationalists who see the Nation state as a people tied by culture, history, tradition and blood and an extended family where the people feel they are in the same boat to pursue a greater destiny.

3. Communists are Materialists devoid of any guiding spiritual principles. Fascists see Nations as a Civilization having a grand destiny beyond the Individual and have a vision for the spiritual rebirth of the Nation to achieve this ideal.
You could say that both in some ways are Collectivists, which I'll agree with. But to equate them in any meaningful way beyond that is absurd.

You see that? That’s the difference between the two without economics

Maybe you can read

All the crap you see today with Pink Capitalism is directly linked to the ultimate agenda of Anarchists to destroy gender, sex and race

Methods of wealth distribution are but a means to an end to an eventual society devoid of hierarchy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_capitalism

Well except that they are all wrong. For instance Stalin (who's treaties on politics was *Socialism in One Nation* immediately proportioned his conquests into nation states. Ethnic ones at that because he moved people to E Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia etc. etc. based on ethnicity.

And you're also wrong about degeneracy and hedonism. The Soviets outlawed pornography and were highly restrictive of any expression outside the narrow construct of the state. As to these differing heroic visions as you see it again if you swap the word 'proletariat' and 'aryan' once again you get remarkably similar glorified idealistic vissions.

I mean it's not like the heroic soviet man was any less common in the propaganda than the ubermensch. If you are saying they differed in the propaganda they used to express their socialist ideas we agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society
> In Marxist thought, communist society or the communist system is the type of society and economic system postulated to emerge from technological advances in the productive forces, representing the ultimate goal of the political ideology of communism. **A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless, implying the end of the exploitation of labour.**

> Marx also wrote that between capitalist and communist society, there would be a transitory period known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. During this preceding phase of societal development, capitalist economic relationships would gradually be abolished and replaced with socialism. Natural resources would become public property, while all manufacturing centers and workplaces would become socially owned and democratically managed. Production would be organized by scientific assessment and planning, thus eliminating what Marx called the "anarchy in production". The development of the productive forces would lead to the marginalization of human labor to the highest possible extent, to be gradually replaced by automated labor.

Any "Nationalism" (a misattribution since Marxists hold the view of tabula rasa and multiracial and multiethnic states, so the correct term would be statism) of Marxists is a transitional state to create the "New Communist Man" for an eventual global Communism devoid of state.

Well sure but Marx's description doesn't describe either the Soviet Union **or** Nazi Germany. Turns out almost all of Marx's ideas were wrong...

Once again, read my thorough paragraph on the differences in the theoretical underpinnings of Fascism and Communism. They are diametrically opposite.

Do you think Nazi Germany, and the USSR were the same by the same belief systems? The same visions of the future?

They were formed from the same root idea. Ford your argument would also mean that the USSR wasn't communist because it did not fit Marx's vision.

No, they were.

I mean, it wasn’t, communism is impossible

Nothing, in the real world, fits Marx's idea because Marx had no understanding of the world.

Sure, so the only reason the USSR ended up looking like Nazi Germany is because Nazi Germany was more based in reality?