did you somehow read my comment as condoning the national part? if so, please explain how you came to that conclusion or simply do everyone a favour and re-read what it says
heinlein was opposed to communism and flirted with fascist ideas, coming to the conclusion that when he was talking about communism it was most likely some form of nationalized subtype isnt that far off. hence the ending
National socialism is not just left wing nationalism, which probably covers most nationalized subtypes of communism though, it’s Nazism, which is fascist and far right, not at all left.
my point is: if he disliked communism, but flirted with fascism, perhaps he was never really talking about international communism at all but only ever conceived of the notion of a nationally limited socialism. or nazism if you like, but needless contractions of words wont get you anywhere closer to understanding what i am talking about if all you can think about is “gotcha”
I don’t know what you know without you communicating it to me.
my point is: if he disliked communism, but flirted with fascism, perhaps he was never really talking about international communism at all but only ever conceived of the notion of a nationally limited socialism.
That’s a perfectly clear statement that I would have had no trouble following the first time.
or nazism if you like,
No, those aren’t the same, so now I’m lost again
but needless contractions of words wont get you anywhere closer to understanding what i am talking about if all you can think about is “gotcha”
It’s not a needless contraction if you’re trying to talk about two different ideologies under one name- it helps to distinguish two very different ideologies. It’s not a gotcha to ask for clarification. You’re taking an attempt to understand as an attack.
to you, a nationally limited socialism is not equal to nazism, to me the distinction is negligible.
if you think we (as in all humans) are not the same, then we truly are not.
read the thread with a sober mind and point to one person other than wpb that didnt call me names or made an effort to project their opinions on my comments but rather asked what i was talking about. all in all i am left with the impression that this community seems to prefer calling names over having civilized discussions
i kept giving you the benefit of the doubt, but watching you cheer with your peers over how “this person seemingly doesnt know the difference between such distinctive ideologies” … yeah no, i dont think i want to talk to you (plural) anymore. you (singular), kept it relatively civil, so i wish you (+wpb) a nice day.
and a whole day of 100% packet loss for the rest :3
Drop the national part. Socialism has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the 20th and 21st centuries.
did you somehow read my comment as condoning the national part? if so, please explain how you came to that conclusion or simply do everyone a favour and re-read what it says
Your comment is talking about national socialism in response to a different comment talking about individual American communists, right?
I gotta say, I don’t really see the connection you made, either.
heinlein was opposed to communism and flirted with fascist ideas, coming to the conclusion that when he was talking about communism it was most likely some form of nationalized subtype isnt that far off. hence the ending
National socialism is not just left wing nationalism, which probably covers most nationalized subtypes of communism though, it’s Nazism, which is fascist and far right, not at all left.
Holy shit, I didn’t even think of the possibility that this person didn’t realize National Socialist = Nazi.
In a fucking politics board, no less.
I don’t think it’s likely, but there’s always a chance.
Fair enough, I wait with bated breath for their reply, lol.
and what makes you think i dont know that?
my point is: if he disliked communism, but flirted with fascism, perhaps he was never really talking about international communism at all but only ever conceived of the notion of a nationally limited socialism. or nazism if you like, but needless contractions of words wont get you anywhere closer to understanding what i am talking about if all you can think about is “gotcha”
I don’t know what you know without you communicating it to me.
That’s a perfectly clear statement that I would have had no trouble following the first time.
No, those aren’t the same, so now I’m lost again
It’s not a needless contraction if you’re trying to talk about two different ideologies under one name- it helps to distinguish two very different ideologies. It’s not a gotcha to ask for clarification. You’re taking an attempt to understand as an attack.
to you, a nationally limited socialism is not equal to nazism, to me the distinction is negligible. if you think we (as in all humans) are not the same, then we truly are not.
read the thread with a sober mind and point to one person other than wpb that didnt call me names or made an effort to project their opinions on my comments but rather asked what i was talking about. all in all i am left with the impression that this community seems to prefer calling names over having civilized discussions
i kept giving you the benefit of the doubt, but watching you cheer with your peers over how “this person seemingly doesnt know the difference between such distinctive ideologies” … yeah no, i dont think i want to talk to you (plural) anymore. you (singular), kept it relatively civil, so i wish you (+wpb) a nice day.
and a whole day of 100% packet loss for the rest :3
You sound fucking insufferable, do you know that?
Both of our comments were pretty straight forward. You seem confused.
confusion is one thing, replying “drop the national part” to “national socialism is not the way” is another.
have a nice day :3
Yeah, they are definitely two different things.
You as well ✌️