Nosy people pry into your private affairs, busybodies actively interfere rather than just looking.
Well, I was really making a joke there, not a serious debate point, but while technically capitalists, royalists or industrialists COULD have joined the communist party, in practice this rarely happened.
To me, there isn’t much of a distinction between communists and Nazi fascists wrt a willingness for mass murder. One group was more a focused sort of mass murderers, while the other was more equal opportunity mass murderers, but from a perspective of body count you had the Germans being short duration burst mass murderers while the various communist governments were more in it for the long term, to really drive up that body count and supersede all others. 6 one way, half a dozen the other I suppose.
Both systems were (and are) IMHO repugnant and evil, so it’s really hard to take your pick between them. That said, I think the OP is basically a load of crap so I was just responding to you tongue in cheek. 
ab
I figured it was at least a semi-joke. But I also wanted to give a serious response to what the OP was saying. Were the Soviets bad? Yes. But that still leaves room for the Nazis to be worse. There are graduations of bad and if you let them slide, pretty soon you see people claiming that Bush or Obama are the moral equivalent of Hitler.
Basically Communism, as the word suggest, is all about the community.
Meaning, that the group is more important than the individual.
That a person can not be free, happy, prosperous, etc, on his, or her, own,
but only within a community that is free, happy, prosperous, etc.
You can see it as the opposite to individualism, and the “everyone save his own ass”.
Nazism and Fascism, on the other hand can be defined as “The Worship of Power, and the Contempt of Weakness”.
By that, and your own experiences in life, you can easily understand that Capitalism is the closest ideology to Fascism.
Whereas “power” in Fascism is expressed as authority, weapons, etc, or, simply, muscles,
in Capitalism, power comes from “money”.
And “money” (that is… another word for “power”) is all that matters in Capitalism.
Historically Capitalism has tuned itself into Nazism, whenever it felt that it could serve its interest better this way.
Capitalism has been the best ally of Fascism, and various dictatorships around the globe.
But, most commonly, Capitalism has used Fascism as its personal thug, bully, or better “pit bull”…
releasing or pulling its leash…
Now, having said that, all three ideologies, like others before, have used Dictatorship
(another form of Authoritarianism, or simply… oppression).
Communist used it as a necessary evil, a transition stage after the revolution.
Fascism… as the “natural way of things”. A permanent situation.
Capitalism… as “good for business”.
This comparing of Communism to Fascism is the latest Goebbelist trend springing out of the Capitalist centers of propaganda.
But it’s easy to prove that Communism was not the man eater they describe…
by the thousands that did not die during the fall of the Soviet Union.
You see, when an unpopular establishment starts falling apart, the first thing it does is killing people.
But Communism did care about the people. It truly was about the people (although far from perfect).
It couldn’t turn itself against the people.
Historically, I can not think of any other social transition more peaceful than the fall of the Soviet Union.
Yes. I mean the problem wasn’t that if you were Jewish, they’d come and peep through your curtains.
The Nazis were in power for a shorter time. They did a lot of damage during that time, no doubt about it. But the Soviets? Over the long term, I’d have to go with them as ‘worse’, for certain definitions of that word (and if we expand that the communists vs Nazi/fascists then IMHO there is no contest). Certainly if we are talking about sheer body count, the Soviets take the prize. Stalin and Hitler were certainly kindred spirits. Which was ‘worse’? Well, take your pick…Stalin killed more and was able to subject other countries (and add to the Soviet Unions territory) for longer than Hitler did (if we count what he built during his lifetime and expand that to after his death), but Hitler was able to his damage in a lot less time. So, fast acting or long duration?
You are right though, Bush and Obama aren’t even in the same universe, and folks that trot that sort of silly shit out don’t know what they are taking about and have allowed politics to blind them.
On the other hand, Nazi Germany was a horrible place to live for its entire history. The Soviet Union compressed its mass murders (and there were a lot of them) into the first half of its history. The late-stage Soviet Union wasn’t that bad a place to live, whereas I can’t imagine a Nazi Germany that was anything other than terrible.
What do you call a nosy Nazi?
A Nai.
I’d suggest that maybe this is the flipside of being exclusive. Fascist regimes make enemies and are unable to make friends due to their inherent exclusivity. A successful fascist regime inevitably creates its own enemies and is defeated by them. Fascist regimes burn out.
Ironically, the only fascist regimes that last are those like Franco’s or Peron’s which are never powerful enough to begin the expansion that would have destroyed them. Weak fascist regimes can survive because they’re mostly just talk.
Nice one.
Speaking of redefining words to render them meaningless.:rolleyes:
Capitalism has little, if anything to do with Nazism or fascism. Those ideologies are defined by strong centralized state control.
Capitalism is defined by free markets and private ownership. In it’s purist theoretical form, completely free from government or other external interference in the free trade of goods and services.
But some left-wing types like to equate capitalism with Nazism of fascism because some corporations are able to accumulate a lot of power and do bad things with it.
I have to disagree with this. Sure capitalism is defined by private ownership of property. But a free market? No, there are too many examples of capitalism working quite well without a free market. In fact, get a few drinks in any capitalist and he’ll admit that he’d prefer to have a monopoly.
So anyone who thinks capitalists would maintain a free market on their own initiative is misguided. That’s why you need government regulation - to keep the free market in place even when some capitalists would prefer to get rid of it.
Let us think how many of the big capitalist are actually… government contractors.
Of those left, how many of them make a significant portion of their profits by working for the government?
Of the rest, how many of them have been given special privileges, or have been assisted by the government?
The majority of the capitalist organizations fall in one of the above categories.
I can create one million different paradises, with my imagination.