4 ms·

You almost have a case for WW1, though I find it hilarious that people sniffing about totalitarian communism not being "real" socialism so smoothly conflate mer

You almost have a case for WW1, though I find it hilarious that people sniffing about totalitarian communism not being "real" socialism so smoothly conflate mercantilism and capitalism. WW2 flat requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist". Mind, I didn't mention the wars; I actually had in mind the people who died en masse in "peacetime". "I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of deaths in totalitarian states that described themselves as communist" You might; I'd be impressed by that as I would be the latest from the Discovery Institute.

seanl 17y ago
WW2 requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist" Only if you see the rise of Nazism and WW2 as discrete historical events with no causal relationship to the years that immediately preceded them. I've encountered reasonable arguments that the first half of the 20th century was dominated by a single protracted world war with a lapse in explicit hostilities in the 1920s. The rise of any ideology has to be accompanied by conducive political and economic conditions. You might; I'm as impressed of that as I am by ID. Apparently your repeated mistake is to confuse the methodologies that lead to sound scientific theory and the methodologies that lead to sound historical theory. I'm attempting to highlight complexity and nuance in the history of the 20th century that you are overlooking. If you refuse to see it then no amount of rational argument will help.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  "Only if you see the rise of Nazism and WW2 as discrete historical events with no causal relationship to the years that immediately preceded them." This is not required. I'm afraid I have to view the rest of your response, straw-manning arguments I haven't even made, as pure trolling; ta. EDIT: Been on the net almost 20 years, and I've come to accept that there's always going to be a class of person who'll wander up, recite one side of a script in his head, and declare victory when people realize what he's on to. :)
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
seanl 17y ago
OK, so you significantly edited your reply, rather than do the same I'll respond again: "smoothly conflate mercantilism and capitalism." That mercantilism was a phase of capitalism is a common - though not universally accepted - point of view. "WW2 flat requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist"." Repeating myself somewhat, but that depends on how you attribute causation. That capitalism was in crisis in the 1930s is pretty uncontentious. That the effects of that crisis on Germany contributed to the rise of Nazism is also fairly uncontentious. The rest depends on how you weight those factors against others. I appreciate that you are not open to the view that a non-murderous and non-totalitarian socialist society is possible. I myself am on the fence. However I do strongly believe the first half of my argument: that capitalism begets death and destruction on a scale that exceeds the murderousness of the 20th century's totalitarian regimes (whether within 'wartime' or 'peacetime' matters not to me). I hope that something better is possible. I accept that based on the empirical evidence we are screwed.

seanl 17y ago

WW2 requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist" Only if you see the rise of Nazism and WW2 as discrete historical events with no causal relationship to the years that immediately preceded them. I've encountered reasonable arguments that the first half of the 20th century was dominated by a single protracted world war with a lapse in explicit hostilities in the 1920s. The rise of any ideology has to be accompanied by conducive political and economic conditions. You might; I'm as impressed of that as I am by ID. Apparently your repeated mistake is to confuse the methodologies that lead to sound scientific theory and the methodologies that lead to sound historical theory. I'm attempting to highlight complexity and nuance in the history of the 20th century that you are overlooking. If you refuse to see it then no amount of rational argument will help.

Semiapies 17y ago
"Only if you see the rise of Nazism and WW2 as discrete historical events with no causal relationship to the years that immediately preceded them." This is not required. I'm afraid I have to view the rest of your response, straw-manning arguments I haven't even made, as pure trolling; ta. EDIT: Been on the net almost 20 years, and I've come to accept that there's always going to be a class of person who'll wander up, recite one side of a script in his head, and declare victory when people realize what he's on to. :)
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

seanl 17y ago

OK, so you significantly edited your reply, rather than do the same I'll respond again: "smoothly conflate mercantilism and capitalism." That mercantilism was a phase of capitalism is a common - though not universally accepted - point of view. "WW2 flat requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist"." Repeating myself somewhat, but that depends on how you attribute causation. That capitalism was in crisis in the 1930s is pretty uncontentious. That the effects of that crisis on Germany contributed to the rise of Nazism is also fairly uncontentious. The rest depends on how you weight those factors against others. I appreciate that you are not open to the view that a non-murderous and non-totalitarian socialist society is possible. I myself am on the fence. However I do strongly believe the first half of my argument: that capitalism begets death and destruction on a scale that exceeds the murderousness of the 20th century's totalitarian regimes (whether within 'wartime' or 'peacetime' matters not to me). I hope that something better is possible. I accept that based on the empirical evidence we are screwed.