Polish president's plane crashes in Russia + head of the Central Bank

Cleaver

Asheron wrote: »

Poland’s Leaders Move to Weaken Currency, Then Die in Plane Crash

There’s no telling if the two events are connected, but their timing is mighty interesting.
The Polish government and the National Bank of Poland, in a “rare moment of unity,” agree to weaken Poland’s currency, the zloty, in an act that would benefit Poland’s exporters at the expense of Poland’s trading partners—that is, the European Union, among others. Then, the next day, Poland’s president and the president of its national bank die in a plane crash.

Asheron, it's very uncharacteristic of you to see something and then make a leap to assume that there must be a conspiracy of some sort. You're normally very level headed and sensible about things.

Maybe it were those lizard people who did done this?

Asheron

Just keep reading your morning Newspaper.

Hey Cleaver did you take your swine flu jab ? The government loves you!

nickmason

tomterm8 wrote: »

Firstly, communism and socialism are very different beasts. They are not the same thing; despite fascists who say otherwise:D

I'm not sure anyone is saying communism and socialism are the same thing. Obviously extreme socialism starts to look like communism, there is something of a continuum there.

It's rather like equating the conservative party, and mussolini, and national socialism... they are different things.

Indeed they are! National socialism was left-wing...oh hang on, I'll drop that.

The reason people think there is a difference between Communism, and what stalin did, is that - to put it simply - if you go back to Marx's writings, the USSR was not a Communist state. Despite all the propaganda, the USSR was actually an plutarchy where the ruling elite took over from the previous ruling elite by force. The reason Nazism and communism look the same to you is that, to all intents and purposes, they were the same. They just had different propaganda, and different ruling elites.

Agreed - as per my previous post they both became totalitarian. Marx's clever trick was to write of a future world that doesn't exist. So his dream can't be discredited in its application (as we never get there) but the utopia can be used as an excuse. Both Mussolini and Hitler (incidentally they both DID start as socialists, hence the collectivist tendency) developed their versions of fascism and then implemented it, so the distinction is blurred. It's a bit like Blair talking about human rights and then throwing them away.

Or to put it another way, do people believe national socialism was actually socialist, or was it just a propaganda device used to gain power?

I don't think that's quite right. I think fascism was seen as a third way, for a glorious end-goal (one of the attractions of fascism, as with communism, is that it has always spoken "for the people" - to that extent I think it was an end in itself, rather than a mechanism to seize power for itself).

I don't think a true communist state can exist... I tend to take a more primitive view of the situation, I don't think any new forms of government have been created since machiavelli... we have tyranny, democracy, oligarchy, anarchy, and aristocracy, and of these democracy tends to suck least.

Agreed. Although I notice that you did introduce a plutarchy earlier.

Cleaver

Asheron wrote: »

Just keep reading you morning Newspaper.

I don't get a morning newspaper. But I assume this is you doing your normal thing, where rather than debating the issue you come back to me with a vague, meaningless comment which calls me igonorant. Something along the lines of:

"You just keep that head burried in the sand."

"Just keep believing what 'the man' tells you."

"Enjoy the 'truth' that you see through your television."

I do watch the news on BBC1. Maybe you could re-do the line to encompass this in some way, as I don't really read a newspaper? Maybe something along the lines of:

"You keep believing what our state-controlled media want you to believe Cleaver."


As a serious point, it must be quite depressing to lose family members in a plane crash and within a few hours there are nutters on the internet claiming that they were killed by a New World Order.

Cleaver

Asheron wrote: »

Hey Cleaver did you take your swine flu jab ? The government loves you!

Hey, how about this Ash. Part of my job last year was to help coordinate and set up some of the infrastructure to deliver the swine flu vaccine. I was part of the conspiracy.

And at night I turn in to a 9 foot lizard that makes love to David Ike.

tomterm8

nickmason wrote: »

I'm not sure anyone is saying communism and socialism are the same thing. Obviously extreme socialism starts to look like communism, there is something of a continuum there.

Generali did seem to suggest Communism was acting in the name of 'socialism'.

Possibly the difficulty is that no one really knows what socialism is? It seems to mean different things to different people; it's rather like liberalism in that regard.

nickmason wrote: »

Agreed - as per my previous post they both became totalitarian.

I tend to think both Fascism and 'communism' started off as totalitarian... they were that from the start.

nickmason wrote: »

Both Mussolini and Hitler (incidentally they both DID start as socialists, hence the collectivist tendency) ... It's a bit like Blair talking about human rights and then throwing them away.

I disagree; I don't think they were ever 'Socialist' in the form the majority of people in the UK mean it. Unless 'Socialist' is taken as meaning the ruling oligarchy can steal anything that isn't nailed down.

nickmason wrote: »

I don't think that's quite right. I think fascism was seen as a third way, for a glorious end-goal (one of the attractions of fascism, as with communism, is that it has always spoken "for the people" - to that extent I think it was an end in itself, rather than a mechanism to seize power for itself).

I think that was certainly the propaganda, but when you read Mein Kampf, you realise they would say the moon is green if it got them power.:D

nickmason wrote: »

Agreed. Although I notice that you did introduce a plutarchy earlier.

Which is an oligarchy where the ruling elite can steal anything not nailed down:D

vivatifosi

Asheron wrote: »

Poland’s Leaders Move to Weaken Currency, Then Die in Plane Crash

There’s no telling if the two events are connected, but their timing is mighty interesting.
The Polish government and the National Bank of Poland, in a “rare moment of unity,” agree to weaken Poland’s currency, the zloty, in an act that would benefit Poland’s exporters at the expense of Poland’s trading partners—that is, the European Union, among others. Then, the next day, Poland’s president and the president of its national bank die in a plane crash.

If the crash had happened at a time that there wasn't thick fog around the airport, and where the pilot didn't try to land against advice, that may be, just may be an outside chance of an explanation. But these are precisely the type of circumstances in which tragic accidents have a habit of happening. Next you'll be telling us that Jean-Claude Trichet was standing on the end of the runway with a fog machine.

It's an accident. It's terribly sad. That's all.

nickmason

tomterm8 wrote: »

Generali did seem to suggest Communism was acting in the name of 'socialism'.

Possibly the difficulty is that no one really knows what socialism is? It seems to mean different things to different people; it's rather like liberalism in that regard.

That's almost certainly the case - a problem that pervades all of this - or maybe it's what allows pluralism?

I tend to think both Fascism and 'communism' started off as totalitarian... they were that from the start.

From memory, totalitarianism is authoritarianism with an overlaying ideology - but as part of the government. So the distinction between us is probably a little pedantic - my view is that they start off authoritarian and then move to totalitarianism as the philosophy/ideology becomes part and parcel of the political landscape. But that's a fairly academic distinction, and broadly I'd agree with you that both fascism and communism have tended to exhibit a form of authoritarianism that is from the outset a totalitarian philosophy.

I disagree; I don't think they were ever 'Socialist' in the form the majority of people in the UK mean it. Unless 'Socialist' is taken as meaning the ruling oligarchy can steal anything that isn't nailed down.

Definitions again. Socialism has probably evolved (you'd hope), so it would be uncomfortable to associate them with modern socialists (just as there are a few legacies of the Conservative past I struggle with!)

But it is certainly the case that the two pre-eminent European fascists, Hitler and Mussolini, were Socialists in their early political activity; Hitler with the German Workers Party which started off socialist but eventually became the Nazi party. Mussolini was seen as one of Italy's leading socialists, including editing the Socialist newspaper, Avanti.

Both of them adopted nationalism (amongst other beliefs) to their socialism, Mussolini implicitly, Hitler explicitly so. This is what gave fuel and public support to what had previously been the domain of academics and philosophers; even if in so doing it rapidly pulled it away from the idealism of most socialists at the time.

carolt

Oh come on Nick, in 1920's Germany, the communists/socialists and Nazis were at each others throats. To suggest they all started off as bosom buddies is just rubbish and you know it.

Come 1933, as soon as Hitler got elected, corpses of large numbers of the socialist and communist opposition were to be seen floating off down the river. My great-uncle was very nearly one of them; fortuitously for him, he turned down the offer in 1930 to stand as a socialist councillor; that would have been the end of him. Didn't save him from a concentration camp, ultimately. But at least he got to outlive Hitler (just).

nickmason

carolt wrote: »

Oh come on Nick, in 1920's Germany, the communists/socialists and Nazis were at each others throats. To suggest they all started off as bosom buddies is just rubbish and you know it.

Come 1933, as soon as Hitler got elected, corpses of large numbers of the socialist and communist opposition were to be seen floating off down the river. My great-uncle was very nearly one of them; fortuitously for him, he turned down the offer in 1930 to stand as a socialist councillor; that would have been the end of him. Didn't save him from a concentration camp, ultimately. But at least he got to outlive Hitler (just).

You see, I have a problem here. Because
1) I know that I was taught this (that they were at each other's throats) at school - and I don't doubt that it was the case, eventually.
2) I recognise that Carol is sensible, intelligent, etc.

But yet I still discover that the evidence is at best a little more complicated. I don't "know" that anything I've said is rubbish, even less everything. I have honestly repeated only what I have learnt and remember from studying this at Uni (and to be honest, most of that is then checked against Wikipedia).

And the truth really does seem to be that Hitler, and Mussolini before him, started off as socialists. I have made all sorts of allowances for how definitions have changed since then. I am not suggesting that that makes Socialism bad (even though I do believe it is bad, but for other reasons). I just think that it is worth recognising that what is, is.

Maybe the real point is that it doesn't matter how they got there. Or how the Nazi party got its name. I'm just not sure whether it is irrelevant; or whether the same excuses are/would be made the other way.