A syllogism

Post Reply New Topic

Were it not for Communism there would not be Nazism either. Any who hate the latter, might as well also hate the former.

I can even refine my basic argument down to a simple, easily remembered syllogism: the Communists, the Soviet Communists in particular, carried out many of the very same types of military atrocities and crimes against Humanity usually associated with the Nazis. The Nazis, and by extension the Fascist movement generally, were a reaction to Soviet Communism. Ergo, it would logically follow that any who hate Nazis should, and would, also hate Communists!

At least the Stalinist brand of Communism.

Hmmm, how many brands of Communism are there?

Quite a few, actually.

Leninism

Marxism

Stalinism

Maoism

To name a few which are outrightly socialistic.

And all of them (with the possible exception of Marxism) were responsible for more deaths than the Nazis.

It doesn't really matter---does it?

15 million dead versus 30 million dead.....

It doesn't make the Nazis any more decent than the various Commies, because fewer millions died at their behest.

Hey....the Turks only killed 1.5 million Armenians...they weren't so bad....

Maybe I should have worded my last post differently. My point is that the assorted Communists are fully as murderous as the Nazis, but their crimes are scarcely mentioned.

I would say that is talked about----but perhaps not as vociferously as the Nazis are talked about.

You're right.

The Sino-Soviet split might have led to the US Military pulling out of Vietnam. Once that occurred, Americans realized that the Communist world was not, as had been previously thought, one vast and monolithic Empire. Not all the other Communist countries were satellites of the USSR.

South Vietnam, I think, was like a vast Scientific Laboratory, wherein the US Military experimented with using the Communists' very own tactics against them. Though the US never intended to win, the US never intended to lose either. Was meant to go on and on, forever, like some cheap television Soap Opera!

This is not a syllogism. At least, not a proper syllogism. The proper form is:

a) Commies carried out the same atrocities as Nazis.
b) Fascists carried out the same atrocities.
: : If you hate Nazis, you should hate Commies.

First, data error: Where were the Commie gas chambers? How many Commies made lampshades out of the hides of their Jewish victims? When did the Commies used incendiary bombs on London schools and hospitals?

Second: The minor premise is not a subset of the major premise, nor does it necessarily follow from the major premise. Besides, Fascism and Naziism are not the same thing...

Fascism is nothing more than an ideology - a monocultural political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation, race, and/or religion above the individual, and that also stands for: a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, anti-Semitism (i.e., Arabs, Jews, et cetera), homophobia, misogyny, racism, xenophobia (anti-immigration), and the forcible suppression of opposition.

Fascism is the single most common ideology that binds together the Alt-Right, the Ku Klux Klan, the Neo-Nazis, and the White Nationalists; each of which promotes the hatred of Jews and the denigration of women and minorities (particularly black people), and encourages their followers to troll and harass their alleged "enemies" - including journalists and private citizens.

I might add that such a "philosophy, movement, or regime" is, more often than not, patriarchal; that is, it is a government that is composed of men who rule the state for their own benefit. Women in a fascist state tend to be subjugated as wives, housekeepers, caregivers, and breeding stock for the males of the "Master Race". For example, ISIS, if allowed to exist, would be a patriarchal fascist state.

Naziism, on the other hand, a form of fascism and showed that ideology's disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system, but also incorporated fervent anti-Semitism, scientific racism, and eugenics into its creed. Its extreme nationalism came from Pan-Germanism and the Völkisch movement prominent in the German nationalism of the time, and it was strongly influenced by the anti-Communist Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged after Germany's defeat in World War I, from which came the party's "cult of violence" which was "at the heart of the movement."

Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism, identifying the Germans as a part of what the Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race.[3] It aimed to overcome social divisions and create a German homogeneous society based on racial purity which represented a people's community (Volksgemeinschaft). The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in historically German territory, as well as gain additional lands for German expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum and exclude those who they deemed either community aliens or "inferior" races.

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class conflict, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organization

Thus, while it is impossible to be a Nazi without being a Fascist, it is possible to be a Fascist without being a Nazi.

Third: False Conclusion. Since both your data and logic are flawed, your conclusion is also flawed (and irrelevant, as well), especially your use of the word "should" -- there is no imperative to adhere to your opinion, or to even consider it valid.

QED

Bottom line: they were both equally bad—but for different reasons.

Oh, no doubt of that. It's just the idea of "If you hate one then you MUST hate the other" that I object to.

I hate all forms of extremism; each on its own merits, and regardless of whether or not I hate any other form of extremism.

The way the Communists went on and on about the Bourgeois, though, is a lot like how Conservatives go on and on about Liberals. Indeed, just like Conservatives call those who oppose their wars Liberals; the Communists referred to those who disagreed with them as Bourgeois. I find that very interesting to think about.

Besides, Hitler did not know anything about Race! If he did, he would have realized that the Poles and Russians, whom he referred to as Slavs, were the same type of hybrid between Nordics and Alpines, as the Germans themselves. Very silly to refer to Linguistic groups as Racial groups, or to assume they completely overlapped. And, I suppose to be fair the Jewish people, they were not the only ones to call themselves the Chosen People; but, then again, the Germans were not the only ones who refer to themselves as the Aryan Race. The Higher Castes of the Hindus also refer to themselves as Aryans, or "Arya" to implement the original Sanskrit.

Having said that, I may as well pose this question: who was to Adolf Hitler what Karl Marx was to Vladimir Lenin? Mind you, I personally doubt it was Nietzsche, Fitch, Wagner, or even Martin Luther. You will never guess who I think it is. Indeed, Karl Marx was to Adolf Hitler what Karl Marx was to Vladimir Lenin. Hitler tweaked it, speaking of Race and Race War rather than Class and Class War. And, though Hitler referred to him as the Jew Karl Marx, I think he actually admired the latter. Notice how much Karl Marx, Marxism, and Communism are mentioned in Mein Kamph. Notice, he did many of the same things the Soviets did--send victims to Prison Camps, via cattle cars, to be tortured, butchered, and worked to death in the most horrid and savage ways conceivable; notice he referred to his movement as the National Socialists rather than either the National Fascists or the National Eugenicists.

And, of course, needless to say, the original Indo-European culture of the European Continent was irretrievably obliterated in the name of Christianity and Universal Brotherhood. To endeavor to rediscover it, as well as the Europeans' original Religion is in all likelihood a lost cause!

^ "Fact Salad", lacking only a summary conclusion.

We won't "discover" the "original Indo-European culture" because of the passage of time.

They spread out. They migrated. They didn't stay in one place. They weren't into their "cultural purity."

We can speculate as to where THEY originated----but that's a pretty tall order, too.

Still, the Christians did much to destroy the original Pagan culture and beliefs of the Ancient Europeans. In this respect, they operated much like the later Communists of Russia, who, in their turn, abolished much of Orthodox Christianity.