They were both brutal dictatorships, but there were countless differences between the two.
Just compare Stalin's opportunism in foreign policy with Hitler's warhawkism, for one.
Discriminating by class versus discriminating by ethnicity also guarantees quite different outcomes, aside from the common death factor

All communist states end up having a big fat dictator and all fascist states end up commandeering private industry. They both do what they accuse the other of doing. They are both collectivists. Communists believe the individual is subservient to the worker's party, fascists believe he is subservient to his blood and soil. They are merely two totalitarian sides of the same coin arguing over who gets to leash you.

>>18022293
Libertarians always end up supporting the state

Today is Wednesday

>>18022456
Yeah because libertarians are just right wing hippies. But I am not libertarian.

>>18022272
nazis wanted to genocide whole nations by murdering them and they had more agressive foreign policy that lead to WW2

File: 1756142467518188.png (255 KB, 659x753)

255 KB PNG

>>18022272
If you want to be reductionist then sure, you can argue that both the USSR and Nazi Germany were ran by Populist Statesmen under a Single Party System focused on leveraging industry in some way in order to achieve their respective parties ideals. On paper there should've been a meaningful difference insofar as both had wildly differing ideas on how industry should be leveraged and how each respective countries power dynamics should've emerged, but in reality Stalin was a really shitty leader who couldn't transition the USSR to a postwar economy leaving Soviet Industry in the hands of their military industrial complex while Hitler was also a shitty leader who had the socialist faction of his party killed off in a bloody massacre and never even had the chance to allow Germany into a peacetime economy in the first place

>>18022462
>described national socialism as collectivemist but is not a libertarian.

Then what the fuck are you anon?

I predict that you refuse to simply answer this basic question.

>>18022478
Nazis wanted to fix Germany's problems with the east by creating better borders against savages.
Commies were invading Europe long before the nazis moved against them.

>>18022507
Objectivist. Humans evolved to use their own mind to ascertain reality, initiating force on him is to bypass their mind, that which makes them human. That is treating them inhumanely by the very definition. Consent is king and nothing else. Every government has initiated force on its populace, therefore no government has yet earned my trust or support like you posted.

>>18022511
No, they wanted to solve the "German Question" which predates Communism and the USSR

>>18022487
Hitler killed off the SA and subversive elements. Not socialists. And alot of SA were commies so needed to be purged because everyone hates commies. It's the way they talk.

File: 1657858759654.png (435 KB, 880x752)

435 KB PNG

>>18022511

>>18022272
No
Mussolini's Italy and Lenin's USSR were far more similar

>>18022512
You're a libertarian applying the NAP then.
Using force on a human is treating the human humanely. Consent is not king. Consent is a luxury. Most humans are without reason therefore cannot consent. Communists for example. Libertarianism for example. Objectivism for example. These are the notions of children. Children must be forced and checked. Force is king.

>>18022513
Cool it with the anti semitic remarks

>>18022522
>Most humans are without reason
Horseshit. Reason is the one defining trait humans have. The body is weak/frail/cold. Human reason is the method by which we keep the body warm with clothes, feeding it with cooked food and defending ourselves from creatures that can rip us in two. No other lifeform does that beyond hibernation. Humans that truly cannot reason are profoundly rare and tragic. Your argument hinges on edge cases like gender goblins like to use (the xxyy medical condition exists therefore gender exists and sex isn't binary for instance). It is also the excuse dictators use to force their worldview down everyone's throat, resulting in millions of deaths. Your argument is weak and based on might makes right, but we are not looking for "what works". We are looking for what is morally correct, and it is morally correct to deal in persuasion, not force. Dropping a nuke on my house does not negate that moral truth. Therefore "consent is a luxury" is an empty platitude. Of course you can just shoot someone who disagrees with you, but that does not make you righteous.

>>18022529
You're thinking of the Jewish Question which was different. Germans had a lot of fucking questions for some reason

>>18022533
There is basic and higher reasoning. Most manage the former. Very few the higher. Therefore correction is required as most cannot achieve higher reasoning. For example, polish diplomats in 1939 when offered excellent terms.

Dictators do indeed force measures down threats. Those throats lie in unreasoned skulls for the most part.

Might being right is morally correct to the extent that it works. Persuasion is good but force is always necessary. Indeed I can shoot someone and that could indeed make me righteous. For example, Hamas used force against innocent Israelis and killed many reservists soldiers. This was necessary and morally correct. And worked.

>>18022535
Bismarck answered that one.

>>18022550
I don't care about your desert war. Both sides kill children and then cry to free countries to win their war for them. No one asked me to pick a side between hutu's and tutsi's, that's the way I like my dumb tribal warfare, obscure and ignored. Might serves only to temporarily subside your rage while making a new generation of enemies who will shoot you the first chance they have. Life in the middle east will stay shit forever until they release their mystic grip the individual.

File: 1758591757945350.png (1.29 MB, 1168x976)

1.29 MB PNG

>>18022560
The desert war is merely an opportunity to apply higher reasoning. Which you failed to do.
As a libertarian you're basically a faggot liberal , a classic liberal as it were.
Might kills the rival and the unjust, the only morality lies in the honor of struggle, combat and strife. The Europeans knew this, as did many tribes world wide during their great days and thus developed various codes to live it. Only silly American cultists known as libertarians deny it.

>>18022581
There is no higher reasoning in spending our money and infantry lives trying to reason and liberate desert dwellers that want nothing more than to be the undisputed rulers of a giant pile of skulls. Applying reason here is simple. There are a bunch of people murdering each other for over almost a 100 years. We don't interfere, and if they hurt an american or try to apply their forceloving faggotry we nuke them in self defense. Show the world that you DO NOT fuck with a free country or a free people. If they want to enjoy the standard of living that individual freedom can bring, they must embrace that individual freedom in their personal lives. This is what libertarians lack, they still want to play world police. Objectivists are not so easily fooled. An objectivist america would have decimated israel for the uss liberty and the entire of islam for 9/11.

>>18022586
You've at least given a little thought to the matter. Interestingly your cult, having lost the ideological battle more derided the term libertarianism and adopts Objectivism. Obviously forgetting that objective seeking must require collective action also.

But at least you recognise the valour of the Palestinians in their fight against evil.

>>18022601
I accept your compliment, however backhanded the continuation is. I agree with you that there is power in numbers, but there is rarely righteousness in numbers. I do resent your final remark. There is no moral truth to be found in a theocracy. They would do the exact same as israel is now doing were the technology/money situation reversed. I wish for there to be peace in the middle east, but it can only come from a philosophical revolution, not a violent one. I don't ever see that happening in a place steeped in such mysticism though.

File: 1758423787287173.jpg (102 KB, 641x706)

102 KB JPG

>>18022612
It is granted difficult to apply true reason when your gathered facts are thin on the ground.
The rightness does not come with the numbers, it comes with the honour of the interaction. Indeed Palestinians would crush the Jews and did try to when under the boot of the British. However, the Palestinians are righteous because they do not hide their intent and therefore can conduct a more humane war. Long term they demand and intend to take it all back as does every Muslim in the world. The jews are cowards and without honour. This is the true heart of their crime. A violent revolution remains on the cards as long as Palestinians cling to their lands. Which is why the jew so desires to rio it from their grasp without the outside world knowing.

File: 57-000-german-prisoners-o(...).png (365 KB, 632x443)

365 KB PNG

>>18022632
meanwhile in reality

>>18022632
>It's okay to be a bloodthirsty savage if you are honest about being a bloodthirsty savage.
It's becoming less interesting to debate with you by the minute. The palestinians use hospitals to hide behind and then cry foul when the hospitals are bombed, they absolutely use underhanded and cowardly tactics in order to pursue war. Have a good day defending barbarism.

File: 1756714263626773.jpg (156 KB, 595x810)

156 KB JPG

>>18022635
Don't worry we'll have plenty more.
>>18022637
Im merely drawing out your innate Zionism pro Jewish tendency. Hoping you'll bite at the bait and here you are.

Youre equating savagery with violence. Which is the common tactic of dishonest scoundrels everywhere. The nigger that cries about not being able to breathe etc.

Hamas uses tunnels, those tunnels connect to hospitals for the evacuation of wounded, during the 12 day war we discovered that Jews even have hospitals full of soldiers underground in heart of their cities. The idf hq is literally in the heart of a major city too. Meanwhile the idf has bombed 30 hospitals in Gaza. There is only one true barbarian in the middle east and it's the Jew.

File: 16058.jpg (536 KB, 1200x1200)

536 KB JPG

>>18022678
>Don't worry we'll have plenty more.

>>18022689
Assessment refuted;


This blue area is full of niggers.

>>18022696
what matter is that there is less white vermin every day and those who are still wiggling are getting older and older

>>18022708
There will be enough. When the niggers get enough Gibbs they will demise as they do in the USA.

>>18022758
>There will be enough
for carrying out massacres of your vermin kin on the streets, can't wait till the piggies start squeal

>>18022560
Might is actually to kill off your male population so they cannot remove you from power. Most organized warfare is for this reason.
nta

File: dc0dd33bbc97e2afd90eb6d79(...).jpg (16 KB, 393x386)

16 KB JPG

>>18022272
>they did similar stuff so... huh... they're the same !!!
lol retard

>>18022293
>All communist states end up having a big fat dictator
That's what happens when third world revolution happen desu, whether capitalist or communist

>They are both collectivists
If you posit that rules can be applied by the community on property = collectivism, then literally everyone and every state is collectivist by the mere fact that state have boundaries, armies, and enforce property rights (which themselves are paradoxical in existence). Property as a concept doesn't exist in nature, it's simply posession ensured through force. Libertarians struggle to understand this because they evidently believe that property as a concept is a reality that needs to be protected when in reality it is simply an agreed upon convention. This definitionally voids the sanctitious nature of property rights because upholding property isn't necessarily rational for *any* individual when it is done so at the expense of others.

>>18022512
>objectivist
Objectivism is marxism except the bourgeoisie is replaced by the state and "the people". The core of objectivist philosophy is that you shouldn't live for others and that altruism is bad. The core of marxism is that the proles are alienated by having to sell themselves as labor to capitalists, thus not living for themselves but for others because of their material context.
This is ironically kinda what happened in Singapore to an extent, which supposedly ran on objectivist principles. The state offered high economic liberties, but also made sure that people wouldn't be coerced into having to become machine cogs (unless they were from elsewhere). Now you have state-owned housing, energy, wealth funds etc

>>18022550
>le dictator good because smart
It's always the same shit until the "correctional" measures end up being applied to you.

>>18022887
>objectivism is marxism
It must be joyful being so thoroughly retarded. Communism is altruism without god. Christianity is altruism with god. The value of a human is merely what they give away for free. Objectivism stands completely opposite of that. For example, communism seeks to abolish private property while objectivism celebrates it.

>>18022293
Blood and Soil produced the worker, yes, he owes his life to his life-giver.
the workers sharty or w/e isnt owed anything but maybe a Union tithe and only after they do something for the laborer.

>>18022887
>>they did similar stuff so... huh... they're the same !!!
If it walks and quacks like a duck it’s a duck

>>18022900
> he owes his life to his life-giver.
The state didn’t give him life

File: e673d04e454c65d6446187ee8(...).png (82 KB, 224x215)

82 KB PNG

>>18022896
No, I encourage you to lurk moar until you get enough knowledge.
The gist of marxism and individualism is as follows :

>the individual lives for himself
For Kant, this meant that the individual would follow his reason and adopt the Imperative (logical moral rule for all and any).
For Hegel, taking upon Kant, this meant that contradicting individuals (through their reasons) would essentially rejoin together through the state.
For Marx, while this was true, individuals reason (or egoism if you want) established itself upon the material world. If it was irrational for someone to work for someone else because of obsolete social norms, then they were alienated.

Objectivism is very Kantian in that it recognizes that individuals should live for themselves (something logical), but misses the broader context. Which is that in hegelian philosophy individual reasons contradict each other, and that in marxism this dialectic runs through the material world.
In "The German Ideology", Marx critiques Stirner who has a very similar philosophy to that of Ayn Rand (albeit more conceptual and less inductive). Stirner essentially says that living for others through morality or conventions are "spooks" which alienate humans from their true nature : themselves. Marx, in his lengthy response, precisely says that Stirner is an idealist because he doesn't understand that this egoism is meaningless without an underlining material reality.

>For example, communism seeks to abolish private property while objectivism celebrates it.
Do you think that Taggart would be able to achieve all which she did in Atlas shrugged if she had been forced to sell her labor power to an industrial to feed herself ? You could very well build the same strawman of capitalism and explain why it goes against man's fundamental egoist nature as Ayn Rand did in Atlas Shrugged for communism.

>inb4 communism is sharing to make the poor smile
Ask chatgpt before replying anything more

>>18022767
Organised whites have been defeated in battle by niggers retard.

>>18023187
Never

>>18022272
Ideologically communism is just the Slavic/Jewish equivalent to fascism so kinda. Western communists are just homosexuals though

>>18022272
Bump

>>18023205
Battle of Isandlwana

File: a4601cb548cdf7c3bea69da40(...).jpg (76 KB, 800x900)

76 KB JPG

>>18022293
Sorry Optimates citizen but the XIII and the POPVLVS have spoken for charismatic strongman rule
Better luck next triumvirate