[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


File: 1572296737718.jpg (14.7 KB, 392x440, 49:55, big-red-button.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

If you could push a button to instantly eradicate all forms of socialism, including National Socialism, would you press it?


How does that work mechanically? The idea disappears from human thought? It's an odd throught experiment.

Answer is, probably not.


Socialism has such a broad definition that it practically just includes all forms of government.

So yes.  Yes, I'd press it.


>How does that work mechanically?
Hmm, That is a good question.  I guess I should have thought this through more.  Let's say that a large majority of all politicians in power and voters become convinced that socialism is bad.


File: 1572301305280.png (77.21 KB, 224x404, 56:101, Bar2.png) ImgOps Google



You're asking me to decide what is morally appropriate for humans in cases where they have control themselves.  Probably not, I try not to do that.  Maybe if it made cancer go away or something, although you'd have to think through all the potential negative side effects of a seemingly good thing, too.


>implying national socialism is actually socialist and not just duplicity


Why is socialism "bad", exactly? What reasons do I have to push the button?

Also this. Seems strange to mention it at all.



It's mentioned because that makes it sort of an actual choice.  Would you get rid of socialism if it also got rid of nazis?  Otherwise the question isn't very interesting.


File: 1572320827598.png (38.81 KB, 170x189, 170:189, Thinking Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google

how does one define national socialism? as in, all forms of government in the top right corner of a political compass, i.e., ur-fascist ideologies?

then ... maybe. it would be a question of if the evil potentially to be abolished in however we define "national socialism" would be worth sacrificing whatever good we can take out of "socialism."

that said, the prompt is really weirdly worded. Nazism has little, if anything, to do with socialism, save the name.

does the button work, by name association? If so, maybe we ought to be careful.

ultimately, i think i would say no.


Well, the Nazis weren't actually socialist, despite the name.



its fascism, one of the characteristics of fascism is a duplicitous use of language. Facism is often ill defined (by design) and precise ideologies are often flexible when convenient. Kind of characteristic of movements that embrace anti-intellectualism as a core tenent.


File: 1572345765932.jpg (141.71 KB, 1077x546, 359:182, EEwzK7WW4AIJeTU (1).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Depends how you define Socialism.

>pic related

Fascism is more of a broad catch all term for the authoritarian right, National Socialism is specifically the philosophy of Adolf Hitler, other major National Socialist leaders at the time, and of course what the party actually did.

You could see Fascism as being a treem and National Socialism as being a branch on that tree.


You could have at least said strasserism instead which was a strand of nazism that was at the least intended to be closer to socialism due to the complete lack of socialism in nazism. Strasserism is still bad though and still should be condemned. Socialism however in my opinion is fine outside of more authoritarian and oppression versions of state socialism and other questionable manifestations of it some of which are also questionable if they're socialism at all.

At any rate to answer OP's question no especially since fascism would still exist anyway as would ultranationalism of a similar nature to nazism.

Don't forget lack of government as stateless socialism is a thing.

Idk I think there are enough bad manifestations of more authoritarian versions of state socialism to make the choice interesting without bringing something into it that isn't socialism save for arguably strasserism.

It really doesn't as there are already fairly well established definitions of socialism. Taking hitler's idea of socialism as socialism especially if you take it as the ONLY form of socialism as he advocates is like saying the political right is actually the political left. It's just pointless and counterproductive.


I wouldn't, but only because pure Capitalism would be just as deadly as pure Socialism and pure Communism.

A mixed system is the way to go. Some Socialist policies are good. Some things are better off in the hands of Capitalism.

If you could get me a button to erase all forms of Communism however, I would press it thrice for good measure.


Yea, I'm of this opinion as well. You want to find a system that has the productivity of capitalism with the resource allocation of socialism. Such a system is likely impossible, but some kind of compromise that has a bit of both. The extreme of either is mass famine and poverty, either because there was no incentive for anyone to be productive (socialism problem) or because 3 people control everything and don't feel like sharing (oligarchy, aka the only logical endpoint to free-market capitalism). We want a system where people are working and putting in real effort, but not one where working 60 hour weeks isn't enough for basic necessities (looking at you, California)

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]