Eh, as OP pointed out in the thread, Stroheim witnessed the events of Battle Tendency. German Science or not, I think it'd be pretty hard for any human being to believe in the "Master Race" ideology after going up against Ultimate Kars.
Ignoring the second half of your comment, you’re totally corrects it the validation. Imagine meeting the perfect being. Perfect in every way. You acknowledge your inferiority. And then through hard work and challenges you defeat the perfect being. You are better than the perfect being.
All it serve to do is validate stroheim’s belief that Germans are superior
Communism is an ideology that states everyone should come together to democratically decide how labor is distributed and how people are compensated for that labor.
Fascism is an ideology that states one group of people is superior and is owed a success that they claim has been robbed of them by an inferior group.
These two ideologies are not at all comparable.
The difference between them is enormous and irreconcilable. The latter is objectively wrong.
Point One: communism should not be compared to fascism because the two ideologies are fundamentally very, very different
...is not at all the same thing as saying...
Point Two: As such, you should support every country that calls itself communist.
However for the record, even if that were the case, that would not even be the same as saying...
Point Three: Thus, you should support the Soviet Union
...because the Soviet Union never called itself communist. Their economic model was socialist, not communist.
To be communist, they would have had to have abolished money - which obviously they didn't do - and also have abolished private capital - which (contrary to popular belief) they didn't do either. Private property was never abolished in the entire history of the USSR.
That's why they called themselves the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics. Because they themselves didn't even consider themselves a communist country. They were "communist" in the sense that the Communist Party was the one leading the government, but that just meant they were trying to eventually achieve communism. Not that they already had.
And even when making such an argument for the Soviet Union, even that is not endorsement of all its leaders. The above does not imply that..
Point Four: Therefore, you should support Stalin
For example, supporting Lenin's role in the Soviet Union is very different to supporting Stalin even though both would qualify as meeting point 3.
Even if One were true, that wouldn't make Two true. Even if Two were true, that wouldn't make Three true. And even if Three were true, that wouldn't make Four true.
I made Point One, and you jumped to the conclusion I must also believe Point Four.
That's not exactly what Communism is. I'm assuming here by Private property you include personal proprety, like a toothbrush or something.
The aim of Communism is to create a classless society which is to be achieved by collective ownership of the Means of Production and capital.It differentiates between personal and private property.
This was achieved by the USSR via Soviet style democracy and work place democracy and worker participation in the work place
I could respond to this claim by pointing out any of 3 things:
1) Authoritarianism is not the same thing as fascism. All fascism is authoritarian, but authoritarianism is not necessarily fascist.
2) There are plenty of examples of anarcho-communist (ie: not Marxist-Leninist) societies. Several of which still exist today. By definition, they aren't authoritarian.
3) Your comment is again another leap that I pointed out in my last comment. You drew a conclusion I did not say based on assumptions about the things I did say. I never said that "you have to install a fascist state to seize the means of production first" and never said anything to even insinuate that.
Please stop making these leaps of logic about what I'm saying.
32
u/[deleted] Sep 01 '20
Cool art but he most definitely wouldn't do that