Sudan Massacre

[Emily Lake]

Then you lack both historical education and reading comprehension. Hitler was the head of an explicitly theocratic state, that both created and endorsed a Christian denomination.

Nazism was an explicitly Christian movement.

Hitler was the head of an explicitly socialist state, that both created and endorsed a socialist denomination. Nazism was an explicitly socialist movement.

So do you agree that socialists were responsible for the Holocaust?

Not this old Nazis were socialists bullshit again. The Nazis were corporatists, similar to current USA under Trump (though of course it existed for decades before Trump, but has expanded greatly under him). If the Nazis were socialists then North Korea is the most democratic nation in the world, because its in their name.
The US army is a socialist organization, but I bet you don't complain about them being socialist.

Did YOU read the link Poli posted to the Nazi platform objectives? Saying that the nazis were "corporatists", sheesh.

 

[Emily Lake]

The US army is a socialist organization,

Why do you believe that? Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. Which means of production does the US Army collectively own? The US Army isn't in the production business. Quite the reverse. Collective ownership of the means of destruction is not socialism.

It's also not collectively owned - soldiers don't own any part of the armed services, they're employees by contract.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's not a question with a simple answer, if you're asking me. The Nazi party knew there was a widespread popular demand for socialist ideals and wanted to capitalize on them, but feared and hated the direction of most nationalist worker's movements. The brief rise and fall of the Frankfurt School and its association with the November Revolution and the unpopular governmemt that followed in its wake gave them the justification for many of their proposed reforms, and they used both elite scholarly work on socialist theory, and on the other end, more overt communist movements on the street, as "evidence" of Jewish conspiracy that needed to be expunged from a more correct, in their view, "national socialism". Did the Nazis identify as socialists? Yes. More so, in fact, than they identified as "Nazis". Were they "good socialists"? Not by the definition of most socialists today, that's certain. Should modern socialists study the rise of National Socialism and seriously consider where and when things went badly, badly wrong? Absolutely. Denying the complexity of history does not make its impact go away.

It's really weird and contradictory that you want immense nuance and contextualism when it comes to whether nazis were socialist, even while you recognize that they explicitly identified themselves as socialist... but you simultaneously demand that we're all supposed to accept them as being a christian theocracy because they made a passing mention of "positive christianity" in their platform objectives, despite not actually embedding any religiosity into their government structure whatsoever, and additionally persecuting various christians who disagreed with their much more blatant socialist endeavors.

See, even though they thought of themselves as socialists, and they explicitly engaged in socialist rhetoric and policies, they weren't really actually socialists. But they were totally a theocracy because they included the word 'christian' in there.

 

[Emily Lake]

That is one definition of socialism. Actually I was being partly facetious in calling the US army socialist. The military are not a democracy, so by American standards they must be communist.

My employer isn't a democracy either; it's absurd to say that my employer is communist. The US military is an employer.

 

[Politesse]

It's not a question with a simple answer, if you're asking me. The Nazi party knew there was a widespread popular demand for socialist ideals and wanted to capitalize on them, but feared and hated the direction of most nationalist worker's movements. The brief rise and fall of the Frankfurt School and its association with the November Revolution and the unpopular governmemt that followed in its wake gave them the justification for many of their proposed reforms, and they used both elite scholarly work on socialist theory, and on the other end, more overt communist movements on the street, as "evidence" of Jewish conspiracy that needed to be expunged from a more correct, in their view, "national socialism". Did the Nazis identify as socialists? Yes. More so, in fact, than they identified as "Nazis". Were they "good socialists"? Not by the definition of most socialists today, that's certain. Should modern socialists study the rise of National Socialism and seriously consider where and when things went badly, badly wrong? Absolutely. Denying the complexity of history does not make its impact go away.

It's really weird and contradictory that you want immense nuance and contextualism when it comes to whether nazis were socialist, even while you recognize that they explicitly identified themselves as socialist... but you simultaneously demand that we're all supposed to accept them as being a christian theocracy because they made a passing mention of "positive christianity" in their platform objectives, despite not actually embedding any religiosity into their government structure whatsoever, and additionally persecuting various christians who disagreed with their much more blatant socialist endeavors.

See, even though they thought of themselves as socialists, and they explicitly engaged in socialist rhetoric and policies, they weren't really actually socialists. But they were totally a theocracy because they included the word 'christian' in there.

I never said the situation wasn't nuanced. You're the one who keeps insisting, like a toddler, that only one party must be at blame for all the evils of history. But there is a huge difference here between socialists, who never institutionally endorsed Nazism, and the church, which absolutely did. Well, churches. But the Vatican and the German churches all a accepted the Nazi mantle freely, barring a handful of moral dissidents like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and some brave minorities like the Adventists, all of whom were expelled or slaughtered by their fellow Christians.

And your italicized portion, though seeming to represent what you think my view is, misrepresents it utterly. I do not agree with your summation.

 

[Politesse]

The US army is a socialist organization,

Why do you believe that? Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. Which means of production does the US Army collectively own? The US Army isn't in the production business. Quite the reverse. Collective ownership of the means of destruction is not socialism.

It's also not collectively owned - soldiers don't own any part of the armed services, they're employees by contract.

Were soldiers stripped of their citizenship and I haven't heard about it?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Then you lack both historical education and reading comprehension. Hitler was the head of an explicitly theocratic state, that both created and endorsed a Christian denomination.

Nazism was an explicitly Christian movement.

Hitler was the head of an explicitly socialist state, that both created and endorsed a socialist denomination. Nazism was an explicitly socialist movement.

So do you agree that socialists were responsible for the Holocaust?

Not this old Nazis were socialists bullshit again. The Nazis were corporatists, similar to current USA under Trump (though of course it existed for decades before Trump, but has expanded greatly under him). If the Nazis were socialists then North Korea is the most democratic nation in the world, because its in their name.
The US army is a socialist organization, but I bet you don't complain about them being socialist.

Did YOU read the link Poli posted to the Nazi platform objectives? Saying that the nazis were "corporatists", sheesh.

Anyone who has studied the rise of the Nazis knows about their strong links to the German (and American) corporations, as well as German military and aristocracy. World War II historians talk of this often. Krupp is just one example, there are many more.
It may not have been an "objective", but it was actual practice, just as their other practices were anti-socialist, not socialist.

 

[bilby]

it's absurd to say that my employer is communist.

Is it? Most corporations are run as centrally planned command economies by a politburo who expect obedience from those beneath them. We call the politburo a "board of directors", but really, what are the differences? The biggest corporations have "populations" larger than some countries. Those who disobey or dissent in any way are "exiled", as is anyone unproductive.

The fact is that despite being a terrible way to run a country, Stalinist Communism is the preferred way to run a company. We just don't call it that.

And there's no good reason why different ideologies and control systems shouldn't be appropriate for different kinds of endeavour. Communism works for corporations. A mixed economy works better for nation states. Libertarian free market economics doesn't appear to work very well for anything.

 

[Bomb#20]

it's absurd to say that my employer is communist.

Is it?

Yes. You surely know this. What game are you playing?

Most corporations are run as centrally planned command

No. "If you do as I request I'll make it worth your while" is not a command.

economies

No. They're tiny subsets of economies.

by a politburo who expect obedience from those beneath them. We call the politburo a "board of directors", but really, what are the differences?

Um, those obeying a "board of directors" are volunteers; a "board of directors" can't have its employees jailed or shot; a "board of directors" can't stop its employees from taking a job with their competitors or going into business for themselves; a "board of directors" can't abolish its employees' free speech or freedom of religion or voting rights, or break into their homes; a "board of directors" can be fired; a "board of directors" has to obey the law; a "board of directors" can't print money; a "board of directors" can't make war on its competitors; yada yada...

The biggest corporations have "populations" larger than some countries. Those who disobey or dissent in any way are "exiled", as is anyone unproductive.

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and, I take it, locking somebody up in a gulag in Siberia is "exile".

The fact is that despite being a terrible way to run a country, Stalinist Communism is the preferred way to run a company. We just don't call it that.

You say that as though "preferred" were an objective property. It's subjective, a question of what any given subject prefers. If you prefer to work for a Stalinist company, you do you, but most of us prefer non-Stalinist employers, so we work for them.

Communism works for corporations.

Poppycock.

 

[Arctish]

Over 1,000 Were Killed in Attack on Famine-Stricken Camp in Sudan, U.N. Says

Paramilitaries in Sudan killed over 1,000 people, one-third of them in summary executions, in an attack in April against a famine-stricken camp for displaced people, the United Nations human rights body said on Thursday.

The revised toll was over three times as great as earlier estimates from one of the most notorious episodes of Sudan’s atrocity-filled civil war.

The killings by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, or R.S.F., which has been fighting Sudan’s military for nearly three years, “may constitute the war crime of murder,” Volker Türk, the head of the U.N. body, said in a statement.

The slaughter occurred over three days in April in the western region of Darfur as R.S.F. fighters seized control of the sprawling Zamzam camp, the largest in Sudan. At the time, about 500,000 people were estimated to live in the camp.

Most residents fled. In the report published on Thursday, the United Nations said its investigators had since documented the killing of 1,013 people, 319 of whom were summarily executed. In one incident, fighters killed the entire staff of the largest medical clinic in the camp. They also set homes on fire and carried out widespread sexual violence.

The United Nations said in its report that it had documented 104 cases of sexual assault — against 75 women, 26 girls and three boys, mostly from the Zaghawa ethnic group.

The R.S.F. was accused of even greater atrocities in October when it seized El Fasher, a city about six miles north of Zamzam, after a brutal 18-month siege.

 

[bilby]

it's absurd to say that my employer is communist.

Is it?

Yes. You surely know this. What game are you playing?

Most corporations are run as centrally planned command

No. "If you do as I request I'll make it worth your while" is not a command.

But "Don't do as I request and I will fire you" absolutely is.

economies

No. They're tiny subsets of economies.

All economies are subsets of larger economies (apart from the global economy, obviously).

by a politburo who expect obedience from those beneath them. We call the politburo a "board of directors", but really, what are the differences?

Um, those obeying a "board of directors" are volunteers;

Sure. So are those living in a given nation state. I wasn't forced to come to Australia, nor prohibited from leaving the UK.

a "board of directors" can't have its employees jailed or shot;

But can have them sacked or demoted. Even if firing someone means they will starve.

And of course, there are instances of companies having employees jailed on trumped up charges; And even of having employees killed. It's rare, because most companies work under national laws with more teeth than the international laws that apply to nation states; But it does happen.

a "board of directors" can't stop its employees from taking a job with their competitors or going into business for themselves;

Sure they can; Non-compete clauses in employment contracts are commonplace.

a "board of directors" can't abolish its employees' free speech

But can sack (or threaten to sack) anyone who speaks about the company to the media without authorisation.

or freedom of religion or voting rights, or break into their homes;

Many national governments can't (according to their constitutions) do that either. And not all companies refrain from such things. Certainly there is no physical barrier to such behaviour from companies and corporations; As with nation states, it's a matter of law, and the law is mutable.

a "board of directors" can be fired;

So can a national government. How easy that is varies, of course, in both cases.

a "board of directors" has to obey the law;

So do nation states.

a "board of directors" can't print money;

Sure it can. It was extremely common about a century ago. It's mostly been prohibited for wage payments to be in company scrip, but nothing stops a company from making and selling goft cards, which are money that can (usually) only be spent on that company's goods or services.

a "board of directors" can't make war on its competitors;

Sure it can. It's rare, but not impossible.

yada yada...

The biggest corporations have "populations" larger than some countries. Those who disobey or dissent in any way are "exiled", as is anyone unproductive.

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and, I take it, locking somebody up in a gulag in Siberia is "exile".

The fact is that despite being a terrible way to run a country, Stalinist Communism is the preferred way to run a company. We just don't call it that.

You say that as though "preferred" were an objective property.

It is; I mean it in the sense of "we observe that most chose that option". Coke is preferred over Pepsi, an objective fact descernable from the volume of each that is sold.

My use of 'preferred' here is synonymous with 'most common'.

It's subjective, a question of what any given subject prefers.

No, it's the objective result of summing historical expression of preference over all subjects.

If you prefer to work for a Stalinist company, you do you, but most of us prefer non-Stalinist employers, so we work for them.

Observably not.

Communism works for corporations.

Poppycock.

Not at all. That you dislike an observation does not invalidate it.

 

[Emily Lake]

it's absurd to say that my employer is communist.

Is it? Most corporations are run as centrally planned command economies by a politburo who expect obedience from those beneath them. We call the politburo a "board of directors", but really, what are the differences? The biggest corporations have "populations" larger than some countries. Those who disobey or dissent in any way are "exiled", as is anyone unproductive.

The fact is that despite being a terrible way to run a country, Stalinist Communism is the preferred way to run a company. We just don't call it that.

And there's no good reason why different ideologies and control systems shouldn't be appropriate for different kinds of endeavour. Communism works for corporations. A mixed economy works better for nation states. Libertarian free market economics doesn't appear to work very well for anything.

I find it endlessly fascinating that when the discussion is about marxist-inspired policy actions, communism is limited to being collective ownership of the means of production and never, ever anything else. But when people feel like it will benefit their position (not their argument), suddenly communism is an authoritarian regime ruling over plebeians who don't get a say in the matter.

 

[Toni]

It is so fascinating how people online, when confronted with disagreement, fall back on “you are uneducated” or “you lack reading comprehension.” This is the smarmy little dodge of posters who cannot actually defend their BS. Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows neither charge is true of me.

Then read. If you won't read the posts in this thread, consider a book:

Narrative Theology After Auschwitz: From Alienation to Ethics...

Find the best prices on Narrative Theology After Auschwitz: From Alienation to Ethics by Fasching, Darrell J at Biblio | Paperback | 1992 | Augsburg Fortress Publishing | 9780800625313

www.biblio.com

I apologize for being rude, but Holocaust denialism, even the selective variety, is a pretty sore point with me. And with many other people. You're denying history that is:

1. Common knowledge
2. Very important for everyone in the Christian world to understand.

Very important for everyone in the world to understand.

 

[bilby]

I find it endlessly fascinating that when the discussion is about marxist-inspired policy actions, communism is limited to being collective ownership of the means of production and never, ever anything else. But when people feel like it will benefit their position (not their argument), suddenly communism is an authoritarian regime ruling over plebeians who don't get a say in the matter.

I find that usually it's the word 'socialism' rather than 'communism' that gets abused in that way.

Regardless, I am equating corporate governance specifically with soviet communism, which is definitely a clearly defined thing, even to those who don't agree that it was 'communism'.

 

[Elixir]

MAIDUGURI, Nigeria, Nov 22 (Reuters) - More than 300 children and staff are thought to have been abducted from a Catholic school in Nigeria this week, one of the worst mass kidnappings ever recorded there. The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) said on Saturday it had raised its estimate of those taken from St Mary's School in Niger state on Friday to 315 from an earlier estimate of 227 following a "verification exercise". The kidnapping comes amid a surge of attacks by armed groups and Islamist insurgents in Nigeria, which has been under heightened scrutiny since U.S. President Donald Trump threatened military action this month over the treatment of Christians. If confirmed, the revised number of people taken at the school would exceed the 276 schoolgirls abducted by Boko Haram militants in Chibok in 2014.

News

Won't someone send out a tweet at least? Michelle? Anybody?

I’m sure your boy Trump would be happy to buy all the girls, but it has to happen fast before they start losing market value.

 

[Bomb#20]

it's absurd to say that my employer is communist.

Is it?

Yes. You surely know this. What game are you playing?

Most corporations are run as centrally planned command

No. "If you do as I request I'll make it worth your while" is not a command.

But "Don't do as I request and I will fire you" absolutely is.

Why? Do you think "Give me my money back or I'll never shop here again." is a command? If so, you're speaking Humpty Dumpty. If not, what makes the one a command and the other not?

economies

No. They're tiny subsets of economies.

All economies are subsets of larger economies (apart from the global economy, obviously).

Oh, come off it. Emily's employer doesn't employ all her relatives and doesn't own her home or her car or the roads she drives to work on or the store she buys her food at or the school she went to.

by a politburo who expect obedience from those beneath them. We call the politburo a "board of directors", but really, what are the differences?

Um, those obeying a "board of directors" are volunteers;

Sure. So are those living in a given nation state. I wasn't forced to come to Australia, nor prohibited from leaving the UK.

I wasn't aware that Australia and the UK are communist countries. Do you even listen to yourself, Mr. "Regardless, I am equating corporate governance specifically with soviet communism"? Those living in the given nation state -- the USSR -- were not volunteers.

a "board of directors" can't have its employees jailed or shot;

But can have them sacked or demoted. Even if firing someone means they will starve.

The melodrama, it burns. Who starves because he's fired in this day and age? He gets anther job or goes on welfare. People starve because of wars or crop failures or feeble or corrupt governments, not because someone takes his business elsewhere.

And of course, there are instances of companies having employees jailed on trumped up charges; And even of having employees killed. It's rare, because most companies work under national laws with more teeth than the international laws that apply to nation states; But it does happen.

In other news, heterosexuality is murder because a jealous criminal killed his girlfriend.

a "board of directors" can't stop its employees from taking a job with their competitors or going into business for themselves;

Sure they can; Non-compete clauses in employment contracts are commonplace.

Those are illegal where I live; and in any event they're agreements not to compete in a particular trade in a particular region, not agreements not to make a living at all. A worker who signed one can move away or take up a different trade. That's nothing at all like the USSR firing someone, refusing to hire him into a different job, banning everyone else from being an employer at all, and prohibiting emigration.

a "board of directors" can't abolish its employees' free speech

But can sack (or threaten to sack) anyone who speaks about the company to the media without authorisation.

Sacking isn't a form of prosecution. You might as well claim your girlfriend is a communist because she dumped you when she found out you called her a fat cow on Twitter.

or freedom of religion or voting rights, or break into their homes;

Many national governments can't (according to their constitutions) do that either. ...

Duh. Many national governments aren't communist. Why do you keep bringing up rule-of-law governments as though they bear on your claim?

a "board of directors" can be fired;

So can a national government. How easy that is varies, of course, in both cases.

A politburo can't be fired at all. When one is replaced it's by violence. All it takes to fire a board of directors is a third party offering the shareholders a premium for their stock.

a "board of directors" has to obey the law;

So do nation states.

Oh please. The USSR did not have to obey any laws. Its "Constitution" was creative fiction.

a "board of directors" can't print money;

Sure it can. It was extremely common about a century ago. It's mostly been prohibited for wage payments to be in company scrip, but nothing stops a company from making and selling goft cards, which are money that can (usually) only be spent on that company's goods or services.

Sorry, forgot you're one of those guys. My bad. I meant a board of directors can't print the stuff normal people recognize as money.

a "board of directors" can't make war on its competitors;

Sure it can. It's rare, but not impossible.

I'm pretty sure Emily doesn't work for the East India Company.

The biggest corporations have "populations" larger than some countries. Those who disobey or dissent in any way are "exiled", as is anyone unproductive.

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and, I take it, locking somebody up in a gulag in Siberia is "exile".

The fact is that despite being a terrible way to run a country, Stalinist Communism is the preferred way to run a company. We just don't call it that.

You say that as though "preferred" were an objective property.

It is; I mean it in the sense of "we observe that most chose that option". Coke is preferred over Pepsi, an objective fact descernable from the volume of each that is sold.

My use of 'preferred' here is synonymous with 'most common'.

Your belief that most chose Stalinist Communism is based on fantasy, not on what you have observed.

If you prefer to work for a Stalinist company, you do you, but most of us prefer non-Stalinist employers, so we work for them.

Observably not.

Communism works for corporations.

Poppycock.

Not at all. That you dislike an observation does not invalidate it.

Calling your fiction "an observation" doesn't make it one. I've worked in American corporations alongside coworkers who grew up in the USSR. They didn't share your "observation".

 

[Bomb#20]

Your capacity for missing the point never fails to impress. I didn't say you shouldn't comment; I merely pointed out a fact you'd evidently failed to take into account. If you'd paid attention not to my words only but also to the words of the poster whom I directed my question to and whom I had quoted in my reply, then you'd have seen the parallel between my words and his, and then you'd probably have recognized that I was pointing out implications of his inference procedure rather than making the claim on my own account, thereby forestalling your stupid comment on my non-stupid question.

Telling posters that the question “wasn’t for you” is telling them not to comment. Duh.

You're pattern-matching, not reasoning.

If you followed your own advice and paid attention to the words of other participants, you’d might have realized your “reductio ad absurdum” ignored the entire context, thereby reducing it to a flailing attempt at a “gotcha” and realized how stupid it would look.

But given the delicious irony of your response, I doubt it.

Looks like you're just playing "I'm rubber you're glue" again. But if you seriously believe "The Nazis said they were!!!!!!" is a bad reason to think they were socialists but a good reason to think they were Christians, and you seriously believe something I missed in the "entire context" explains why, by all means point it out.

 

[Bomb#20]

The military would (and do) claim that they produce highly educated individuals, such as electronics technicians, experts on various systems, computer programmers, and so on. This is one reason many people join the military - for further education.

True, but that's a side effect, not what we keep them around for. Their mission is to deter wars, or, if that fails, to win them by destroying an enemy's capacity to fight.

Are you saying that the military owns the means of destruction? I thought that was the people and their representative government, and the military has use of those things, not ownership?

That seems rather like saying Disney doesn't own Disneyland, its shareholders do. They both own it -- ownership is transitive. Likewise the military. The people own the Army and the Army owns White Sands Missile Range. The people own the Navy and the Navy owns the USS Gerald R. Ford.

Just as a sidenote, the military of many nations, including the USA, is often involved in assisting disaster victims and in similar activities, such as some emergency building activity.

Sure, that counts as production. Tiny bit of socialism. But it's a side project.

 

[laughing dog]

Your capacity for missing the point never fails to impress. I didn't say you shouldn't comment; I merely pointed out a fact you'd evidently failed to take into account. If you'd paid attention not to my words only but also to the words of the poster whom I directed my question to and whom I had quoted in my reply, then you'd have seen the parallel between my words and his, and then you'd probably have recognized that I was pointing out implications of his inference procedure rather than making the claim on my own account, thereby forestalling your stupid comment on my non-stupid question.

Telling posters that the question “wasn’t for you” is telling them not to comment. Duh.

You're pattern-matching, not reasoning.

Nope.

If you followed your own advice and paid attention to the words of other participants, you’d might have realized your “reductio ad absurdum” ignored the entire context, thereby reducing it to a flailing attempt at a “gotcha” and realized how stupid it would look.

But given the delicious irony of your response, I doubt it.

Looks like you're just playing "I'm rubber you're glue" again. But if you seriously believe "The Nazis said they were!!!!!!" is a bad reason to think they were socialists but a good reason to think they were Christians, and you seriously believe something I missed in the "entire context" explains why, by all means point it out.

First, you are misapplying that childish retort. Since I didn’t deny anything, there is no “rubber”.
Second, I don’t believe your straw man about my beliefs. Try reading responses more carefully.

 

[bilby]

it's absurd to say that my employer is communist.

Is it?

Yes. You surely know this. What game are you playing?

Most corporations are run as centrally planned command

No. "If you do as I request I'll make it worth your while" is not a command.

But "Don't do as I request and I will fire you" absolutely is.

Why? Do you think "Give me my money back or I'll never shop here again." is a command? If so, you're speaking Humpty Dumpty. If not, what makes the one a command and the other not?

The fact that for most employees, their job is their life.

Bring fired is not just an economic transaction to most workers. Even quitting is not without psychologically devastating consequences.

That you don't grasp that fact speaks poorly of your empathy. Or at the very least clearly identifies your nationality.