Movies Starship Troopers: The bugs did nothing wrong

I am just objectively right here. But you are the one who is shouting with fingers in your ears because you are a socialist and you don't like the idea of your favorite ideology being outed as a genocidal crackpot theory that it really is.

But the fact remains that Nazis were socialist in their name, beliefs, program, political system, everything.

Look at the Communist Manifesto and try to find one thing Nazis didn't do. I dare you.

Nazis did all of the above.

They confiscated private property, established central state control of the economy, hell, they even had the Five Year Plans!
1. The Nazis were very keen on the private ownership of land. And the first recorded land tax dates to 3000BC!
2. The Nazis were almost pathologically Middle Class. And the Roman Republic used progressive taxation. (The citizens considered it a point of pride to be able to pay as it was a mark of status)
3. Simply didn't happen. Hitler personally made sure that Krupp's stayed in the family.
4. In the early days the Nazis were more set on kicking undesirables out of the country. And usually sold off confiscated assets. They believed in Private ownership, with state ownership only where necessary.
5. Not having a central bank is very American. Almost every other nation does have one. The Bank of England was founded in 1694. There is an even older private bank still operating in Germany.
6. The Nazis were very keen on public transport ownership. They sponsored the right of every German to own a car.
7. Did you miss all the massive private arms manufacturers? IG Farben had its own sub camp at Auschwitz. The Nazis Privatised oppression.
8. There is nothing Socialist, or new, in conscripted labour. Ancient Egypt had conscripted labour. Anglo-Saxon England had conscripted labour.
9. The Nazis had a weird purity in agriculture thing going on. They really didn't like cities. (Regardless of Hitler's fantasy re-building projects)
10. Every remotely civilised modern nation has free education for children in public schools. There is nothing intrinsically communist or Nazi in the concept. And the abolition of child factory labour is an absolute good.

A lot of the public works were inherited by them, from Weimar. Government Bonds and Fiat Currency paid for the ACW.
And Nazi Germany worked on 4-Year Plans, NOT 5.
 
1. The Nazis were very keen on the private ownership of land. And the first recorded land tax dates to 3000BC!
2. The Nazis were almost pathologically Middle Class. And the Roman Republic used progressive taxation. (The citizens considered it a point of pride to be able to pay as it was a mark of status)
3. Simply didn't happen. Hitler personally made sure that Krupp's stayed in the family.
4. In the early days the Nazis were more set on kicking undesirables out of the country. And usually sold off confiscated assets. They believed in Private ownership, with state ownership only where necessary.
5. Not having a central bank is very American. Almost every other nation does have one. The Bank of England was founded in 1694. There is an even older private bank still operating in Germany.
6. The Nazis were very keen on public transport ownership. They sponsored the right of every German to own a car.
7. Did you miss all the massive private arms manufacturers? IG Farben had its own sub camp at Auschwitz. The Nazis Privatised oppression.
8. There is nothing Socialist, or new, in conscripted labour. Ancient Egypt had conscripted labour. Anglo-Saxon England had conscripted labour.
9. The Nazis had a weird purity in agriculture thing going on. They really didn't like cities. (Regardless of Hitler's fantasy re-building projects)
10. Every remotely civilised modern nation has free education for children in public schools. There is nothing intrinsically communist or Nazi in the concept. And the abolition of child factory labour is an absolute good.

A lot of the public works were inherited by them, from Weimar. Government Bonds and Fiat Currency paid for the ACW.
And Nazi Germany worked on 4-Year Plans, NOT 5.
And all of these private companies had Nazi functionaries installed inside to make sure the party line was towed.

Also, Hitler had pretty close ries with labor unions.

And a bunch of industrialists and bankers were active supporters of the Nazis.

Some were bona fide nationalists who believed in Hitler's ideas, while others just wanted to curry favoe with any future regime.

Also, the fact that someone is a successful capitalist or comes from a line of successful capitalist doesn't mean that they do not support idiotic ideologies, we have seen enough modern day billionaires supporting leftoid woke bullshit and during and before the Russian civil war and the French revolution there were a fair number of nobles and rich merchants and upper middle class professionals giving money to radicals, leftists and other suck riff-raff.

Furthermore, Germany is a lot less plutocratic than the USA, companies there, especially high value added family run businesses have other objectives than the bottom line alone and try to take the long view and have a long term, motivated and well compensated workforce, and the unions reciprocate, with both the unions and the industrialists being fine with stuff like kurzarbeit.

Krauts are actually very, very bad at capitalism.


Also,I thought this thread was about the leftoids speeging out against glorious human heroes murderizing a bunch of nasty, evil space bugs that were expansionist commie expies to begin with, damned it!
 
Last edited:
1. The Nazis were very keen on the private ownership of land. And the first recorded land tax dates to 3000BC!
Wrong. As late as 1942 Hitler stated that land was "national property, and in the end only given to the individual as a loan.". In practice, this meant that individual owned the land on paper, but state decided what said individual can do with said land.
2. The Nazis were almost pathologically Middle Class. And the Roman Republic used progressive taxation. (The citizens considered it a point of pride to be able to pay as it was a mark of status)
Wrong. Nazis sought middle class support, but their policies were pathologically opposed to small and middle businesses.
3. Simply didn't happen. Hitler personally made sure that Krupp's stayed in the family.
Yes, because Krupp was a major Nazi supporter. They still had a Nazi official installed to make sure factory followed the government's four year plans.
4. In the early days the Nazis were more set on kicking undesirables out of the country. And usually sold off confiscated assets. They believed in Private ownership, with state ownership only where necessary.
Private ownership with state control. Which is basically nicer way of saying "state ownership".

Just a thought exercise: If you buy a house with your own money, but I tell you what you can have in the house, when you can come to it and when you can leave, what you can buy and who you can invite... who really owns the house? You, or I?
5. Not having a central bank is very American. Almost every other nation does have one. The Bank of England was founded in 1694. There is an even older private bank still operating in Germany.
Having central bank is also very socialist.
6. The Nazis were very keen on public transport ownership. They sponsored the right of every German to own a car.
Which is why they expanded the Reich Ministry of Transport to the point that it achieved status of a malignant social tumor.</sarcasm>
Under Nazi control, the Transport Ministry expanded exponentially. The Reichsbahn, which had become Germany's largest public asset and also the largest such enterprise in the capitalist world at the time,[2] was taken over by the RVM in 1937. Railroads in the German states, transportation associations, and even private transport companies also came under the Nazi government's direct control through the Ministry.
7. Did you miss all the massive private arms manufacturers? IG Farben had its own sub camp at Auschwitz. The Nazis Privatised oppression.
Privately owned but state controlled. In other words, socialism. IG Farben dealt directly with the government, and government officials were IG Farben managers.
8. There is nothing Socialist, or new, in conscripted labour. Ancient Egypt had conscripted labour. Anglo-Saxon England had conscripted labour.
There is nothing new, but it is still quite socialist. Also, economy of Ancient Egypt was palace economy, which is basically ancient version of socialist command economy. Or more precisely, socialism is modern-day version of ancient palace economy.

Never heard of conscripted labour in Anglo-Saxon England, but I don't know that much about it anyway.
9. The Nazis had a weird purity in agriculture thing going on. They really didn't like cities. (Regardless of Hitler's fantasy re-building projects)
Nazis didn't really like countryside either. Rather, they aimed to merge cities and countryside into one continuous, monotonous blob.
10. Every remotely civilised modern nation has free education for children in public schools. There is nothing intrinsically communist or Nazi in the concept. And the abolition of child factory labour is an absolute good.
It becomes intrinsically communist when you force it onto people. Issue isn't public education. Issue is when public education becomes the only thing that is available. Nazis outlawed homeschooling and private schools both.
A lot of the public works were inherited by them, from Weimar. Government Bonds and Fiat Currency paid for the ACW.
And Nazi Germany worked on 4-Year Plans, NOT 5.
I used "five year plan" specifically to draw a parallel with Soviet five-year plans. Year up or down, doesn't change the fact that they were essentially the same thing.

And Weimar Republic itself was quite socialist (and also quite evil), so saying that Nazis inherited a lot from Weimar actually supports my point.
 
Wrong. As late as 1942 Hitler stated that land was "national property, and in the end only given to the individual as a loan.". In practice, this meant that individual owned the land on paper, but state decided what said individual can do with said land.

Wrong. Nazis sought middle class support, but their policies were pathologically opposed to small and middle businesses.

Yes, because Krupp was a major Nazi supporter. They still had a Nazi official installed to make sure factory followed the government's four year plans.

Private ownership with state control. Which is basically nicer way of saying "state ownership".

Just a thought exercise: If you buy a house with your own money, but I tell you what you can have in the house, when you can come to it and when you can leave, what you can buy and who you can invite... who really owns the house? You, or I?

Having central bank is also very socialist.

Which is why they expanded the Reich Ministry of Transport to the point that it achieved status of a malignant social tumor.</sarcasm>


Privately owned but state controlled. In other words, socialism. IG Farben dealt directly with the government, and government officials were IG Farben managers.

There is nothing new, but it is still quite socialist. Also, economy of Ancient Egypt was palace economy, which is basically ancient version of socialist command economy. Or more precisely, socialism is modern-day version of ancient palace economy.

Never heard of conscripted labour in Anglo-Saxon England, but I don't know that much about it anyway.

Nazis didn't really like countryside either. Rather, they aimed to merge cities and countryside into one continuous, monotonous blob.

It becomes intrinsically communist when you force it onto people. Issue isn't public education. Issue is when public education becomes the only thing that is available. Nazis outlawed homeschooling and private schools both.

I used "five year plan" specifically to draw a parallel with Soviet five-year plans. Year up or down, doesn't change the fact that they were essentially the same thing.

And Weimar Republic itself was quite socialist (and also quite evil), so saying that Nazis inherited a lot from Weimar actually supports my point.
I’m sorry man a lot of these responses are laughable. If palace economics and conscription is socialism the. Socialism is the natural state of society and going against it is unnatural.

No you’ve expanded socialism to a stupid degree.
 
I’m sorry man a lot of these responses are laughable. If palace economics and conscription is socialism the. Socialism is the natural state of society and going against it is unnatural.

No you’ve expanded socialism to a stupid degree.
Socialism is a mentally retarded experiment that has nothing to do with nature or society, let alone natural state of society. And yes, palace economics are exactly the same as socialism.
 
Socialism is a mentally retarded experiment that has nothing to do with nature or society, let alone natural state of society. And yes, palace economics are exactly the same as socialism.
If the literal birthplaces of civilization like Egypt, Minoan Greece, the Mesopotamian city states have it. Then yes there is a good argument for it being the natural state of society.

Thankfully I don't subscribe to the idiotic laziez faire model where any government control is le socialisms. Thus the ancient palace economies weren't commies. And I can say that communism is unnatural. You can't say that, without using double think because your statements lead to that conclusion.
 
If the literal birthplaces of civilization like Egypt, Minoan Greece, the Mesopotamian city states have it. Then yes there is a good argument for it being the natural state of society.

Thankfully I don't subscribe to the idiotic laziez faire model where any government control is le socialisms. Thus the ancient palace economies weren't commies. And I can say that communism is unnatural. You can't say that, without using double think because your statements lead to that conclusion.
Natural state are tribes with free people,not Palace economy.That is why we have tribes everywhere,and palace economy in few places and times.
 
Natural state are tribes with free people,not Palace economy.That is why we have tribes everywhere,and palace economy in few places and times.
I said natural state of civilization. Egypt is a civilization, Greeks are a civ, Romans, Babylon, China, Japan, France, Italy, Russia, etc.

Tribes like in Africa are not a civilization.
 
If the literal birthplaces of civilization like Egypt, Minoan Greece, the Mesopotamian city states have it. Then yes there is a good argument for it being the natural state of society.

Thankfully I don't subscribe to the idiotic laziez faire model where any government control is le socialisms. Thus the ancient palace economies weren't commies. And I can say that communism is unnatural. You can't say that, without using double think because your statements lead to that conclusion.
No, it is not natural. Palace economy is literally bureocratic tyranny: an attempt to turn entire population into ruler's slaves through control of resources. Which is literally what Communist regimes did.

And all of those places either destroyed themselves, were destroyed, or found a better economic system. Not to mention that the palace economy still wasn't planned economy of Communist stripe... which is why it could survive for so long. That, and the fact that Karl Marx literally based Communism on a Stone Age society... if you want to go back to ancient Egyptian level of development, go ahead. I'd prefer Medieval Europe for my part.
 
No, it is not natural. Palace economy is literally bureocratic tyranny: an attempt to turn entire population into ruler's slaves through control of resources. Which is literally what Communist regimes did.

And all of those places either destroyed themselves, were destroyed, or found a better economic system. Not to mention that the palace economy still wasn't planned economy of Communist stripe... which is why it could survive for so long. That, and the fact that Karl Marx literally based Communism on a Stone Age society... if you want to go back to ancient Egyptian level of development, go ahead. I'd prefer Medieval Europe for my part.
So if Marx modeled his ideas of what he thought the Stone Age was then the palace economies were not socialist. Also the medieval European economy was not that different instead of one big tyrant for the entire country, you’d have many smaller tyrants for their region.
 
I was told that Socialism was wealth re-desribution, without choice or real recompense.

Under that description, welfare is Socialism but most of the stuff you guys are talking about isn't.



Oh, and Stone age tribes are mostly slaves of the chief and the shaman. Freedom? The freedom to starve.
 
So if Marx modeled his ideas of what he thought the Stone Age was then the palace economies were not socialist. Also the medieval European economy was not that different instead of one big tyrant for the entire country, you’d have many smaller tyrants for their region.
They were socialists. Communism was supposed to be modelled on Marx's (bullshit) ideas of stone age. Socialism was supposed to be transitional stage of "state control" which would "enable" transition into the Stone Age inspired communism. Technically, "Communist" states were really socialist, not communist, but because there were so many different types of socialism, communism is what we use to describe socialism as implemented in USSR, China and generally beyond the Iron Curtain.

So yeah, when Communists tell you "But it wasn't real Communism", they are actually telling the truth. Issue is, "real communism" is impossible. Even the stone age societies that Marx based his socioeconomic diarrhea on weren't actually communist. And by that measure we also never saw "real fascism" and "real nazism", because both of these were also stopped before they managed to create their utopias.

And yes, medieval European economy was different. Firstly, there is a huge difference between "one big tyrant for the entire country" and "smaller tyrants for their region". Secondly, there was in fact some free market, movement of stuff, as well as a significant class of free peasantry within feudal society. Palace economy had none of that. Thirdly, feudal lords had counterweights in form of Church, free cities and rural communes, all of which offered prospect of freedom for serfs (according to laws, a serf that managed to escape to within the city walls became a free person). This created rather significant incentive for feudal lords to not abuse their serfs the way state administration in palace economy did.

All of this meant that a feudal lord couldn't exactly afford to be tyrants, rather unlike both the palace and slave economies before and the absolute monarchy after feudalism.
 
Last edited:
I said natural state of civilization. Egypt is a civilization, Greeks are a civ, Romans, Babylon, China, Japan, France, Italy, Russia, etc.

Tribes like in Africa are not a civilization.
Of course they are.Civilization is way of life and customs,not big buildings.
And,Marx was wrong about Stone age - all hunter-gatherer stone age tribes had property.There was not such thing like common property there.Bow belong to hunter X,not entire tribe.
 
I was told that Socialism was wealth re-desribution, without choice or real recompense.

Under that description, welfare is Socialism but most of the stuff you guys are talking about isn't.



Oh, and Stone age tribes are mostly slaves of the chief and the shaman. Freedom? The freedom to starve.
Try telling people that modern social welfare systems are essentially bribery by the ruling class to keep the workers in line?
(Akin to the Roman Imperial system of Bread & Circuses)

The State Socialism of the modern era was begun by Otto von Bismarck* to undercut the Socialists, they hated it. (There is actually a line in The Internationale about that) He introduced State Healthcare, Germany has had this since 1883, it has survived two world wars, Fascism and Communism; its unlikely to just fail any time soon. Plus, Old age & Disability Pensions, Workers Compensation, and Industrial Tribunals.
He was also trying to reduce emigration to improve Germany's demographic advantage over France, and it worked.

(*If anyone wants to tell me that Germany's Iron Chancellor was in any way "Socialist" then I have a very nice bridge I'd like to sell them.)
 
(*If anyone wants to tell me that Germany's Iron Chancellor was in any way "Socialist" then I have a very nice bridge I'd like to sell them.)

First, I could use a good bridge. I'll put tolls on it. Anybody know where I can hire a troll?


Second, what's your definition of Socialism?
 
Verhoeven is an ungrateful idiot who hates America and thinks they're equal to the Nazis because his neighbourhood got hit by US bombers in WW2.
To be fair, that actually is an OK reason to hate somebody. Doesn't change the fact that it resulted in political illiteracy though.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top