Does National Socialism have any truth or relevance to it?
- Thread starter ~Derek~
- Start date
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
I watch some anime. Not as much as I did once. But I will admit to watching and enjoying Ghost In The Shell, Cowboy Beebop, Trigun, and Rurouni Kenshin. But this thing I was actually forced to watch. My friend has been known to pull hair and bite when people don't do what she wants.
Christ, I got woke up at fucking 1 AM last night by hearing screaming Anime bitches yelling out No and Dominick, it was annoying, of course on my roommate's TV.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
^He stays up later than I so most times I sleep right through it and have no clue he's doing it, but with high pitched screaming, it's not the case.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I don't like anime. Don't understand its draw, other than the occasionally interesting and complex storylines (i.e. Evangelion); and then I only look up stuff about it, I don't watch it.
Now, in reply to the topic: National Socialism has been used by so many different parties that stand for different things that it truly has no specific meaning. They're just two catchy and abstract words that have been thrown together in an effort to garner support and interest.
That said, I can't fault the national socialist party politics of the Nazis. I'm no Hitler fanatic, but he believed he was working for a better society. He saw a state in trouble, and pursued a solution to the problem. I do NOT agree with the atrocities committed in the concentration camps; however, we must (as conscientious historians) observe their goals and ideals without bias. The Nazi party was (and still is) a party of progress and of change. It wanted a better society, and believed that purification of the human race was the only way to accomplish that. I personally don't believe in the inferiority of other races; but I find it hard to condemn someone because of that belief.
Fascism has its place in history, and it definitely is more appealing to me than communism or other socialist societies.
Now, in reply to the topic: National Socialism has been used by so many different parties that stand for different things that it truly has no specific meaning. They're just two catchy and abstract words that have been thrown together in an effort to garner support and interest.
That said, I can't fault the national socialist party politics of the Nazis. I'm no Hitler fanatic, but he believed he was working for a better society. He saw a state in trouble, and pursued a solution to the problem. I do NOT agree with the atrocities committed in the concentration camps; however, we must (as conscientious historians) observe their goals and ideals without bias. The Nazi party was (and still is) a party of progress and of change. It wanted a better society, and believed that purification of the human race was the only way to accomplish that. I personally don't believe in the inferiority of other races; but I find it hard to condemn someone because of that belief.
Fascism has its place in history, and it definitely is more appealing to me than communism or other socialist societies.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Einherjar86
Active Member
Yes. It's someone's personal beliefs. I can't call them immoral or anything for that. I can disagree with them, but I refuse to say that they're "bad" people. Now, as soon as physical/emotional harm becomes a problem, then I believe that something must be done.
And at WeAreInFlames:
Fascism at least allows for some competition and capitalistic progress. Socialism is a dead-end society that actually prohibits individual liberties and progress, not enhances them. This is why I'm so confused as to why so many liberals lean towards socialistic forms of government. It is actually more restrictive of people's personal freedoms. Imagine a society where there is no need for personal progress or interest because everyone is given the same amount, no matter how much they achieve. There's no motivation to excel. There's no reward for going beyond. It is human nature to go beyond. Socialism is inferior to capitalism because it rejects competition in favor of complete equality. The fact is that people aren't equal (I'm not speaking in racial terms here, purely in terms of the human race). Some people have the capability to excel and explore new boundaries, and there should be recognition and reward for such behavior.
But this is all purely my opinion as well.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Many liberals lean towards socialist thinking because there are many good ideas to be had there, such as, you know, helping people who need it. History has made it abundantly clear that total economic freedom only leads to suffering of the majority
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
Every mentally-abled person has the same potential to excel. Their capacity to excel is dependent on the resources he or she is provided economically and academically. Poor people aren't poor because they lack the potential to excel, it's because they are economically disadvantage by capitalism, and lack the resources to ascend up the social ladder.
One striking example of this is the state of education. School funding depends primarily on property tax. So schools in areas of low property value will lack the funding for resources that allow its students to excel.
The problem with capitalism is that it is dependent on a socioeconomic hierarchy.
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
I think the issue with culture devolving into the nothing but McDonalds and Wal-Mart eating and shopping rituals is a concern, but it is blown way out of proportion from what I know about NS. In fact, I'd say this process of an omniscient gray culture emerging has little to do with mixing of races and more to do with the inevitable and formidable path of capitalism.
So yeah, I don't find any merit whatsoever in NS beliefs, although I do own a Burzum shirt
.
So yeah, I don't find any merit whatsoever in NS beliefs, although I do own a Burzum shirt
.
Einherjar86
Active Member
History has also made it VERY clear that socialist societies are just as inadequate. They don't work. And you're wrong when you say "suffering of the majority." In the case of America, you're simply separating all those who earn millions and millions of dollars from those who don't, and calling those who don't the majority. The truth is, not everyone NEEDS that much money. I don't have that much money. Nowhere near it; I'm a college student who is in debt. But I'm not pissed about it, or angry at those who make 100,000 times more money than I do.
Competition is the only true method of progress. In every society people will be left behind. There is nothing we can do about it. All we can do is help as many as we can. I don't mean to sound insensitive or cruel, but that's just reality. Now, I'm not too fond of giving away what I've earned to others. Small business is the backbone of American society, and socialist policies only harm the competition and progress of small business. The sad truth is that people aren't equal. We're all born with equal opportunity, yes; but by the tides of economics, war, famine, and whatever else certain people are left out to dry. I feel terrible about it; but that's life.
If and when I'm one of those people left behind, I'll fight with every last breath to gain equality and the right to free health care, or whatever it is these people want. Because I believe that, even though they're left behind, they should still fight to survive. Competition baby; ain't it a bitch?
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
I'd revise this to say that capitalism creates socioeconomic hierarchy (i.e. the classic Marxist base and superstructure argument).
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
I fail to see the logic here. Capitalism favors big business. Socialism levels the playing field.
Similar threads
