Has there ever been a more dangerous ideology to humanity than socialism?

Has there ever been a more dangerous ideology to humanity than socialism?

Capitalism

Socialism as a term is vague to the point of meaninglessness.

Capitalism is an economic ideology, not a full fledged one. I'd say liberalism is the ideology which capitalism is a part of most of the time.

Why do people give such ridiculous death counts for Stalin? Wouldn't the Soviet Union be a literal depopulated wasteland?

>A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
don't see anything dangerous here as a general principle

>Hitler
>Socialism

>Capitalism is an economic ideology
So is Socialism

Population increased 1.3% under Stalin

>National Socialist Germans Workers Party

>Being this fucking uneducated

>Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Does a socialist system require people be murdered? Is murder an effect of a socialist system? It seems to me you would have to show one of these to be true to claim socialism kills like the image does. You could just as easily say "men take lives and women don't" in the same vain, as you're looking at individuals who killed others and claiming the killing was the result of one of their qualities (socialist leader, gender, etc). Am I wrong?

>>National """Socialist""" Germans Workers Party
>no workers controlled the means of production
>private companies still existed
>Being this fucking uneducated

you're not wrong, murder is an expected human action as is the strive for more property and influence which ultimately guide every political system to more or less the same result, thus eliminating the need to discuss their differences as they have no applied value

You don't think they have applied value? Isn't it concealable that one system could be better than another by more effectively checking the desires of man and thus creating a more fair society?

*conceivable, shit

I believe that's putting the cart before the horse. The most efficient system WILL become the status quo, we don't need to look for it. It would be arrogant to assume free market capitalism in its current form is the apex of political and economic thought but it is not a chain to be broken as so many naive people think. It's the most comfortable jacket that humanity has tried yet

I wish I knew the penis size for all 3 of them.

>The most efficient system WILL become the status quo
Why? Isn't in conceivable that out of chance an individual could come into power and exact an non-ideal system? If we all wait around for something better to take its place, then it never will.

>Isn't in conceivable that out of chance an individual could come into power and exact an non-ideal system?
of course - in an isolated location for a limited time. Inefficiency in this regime would undermine it from within and, when people compare it to the outside systems, from without

you could of course apply the reverse logic that an individual come suddenly come up with some utopia but it's much easier to impose a bad system than a good one and it's much easier to invent a club than an engine at random

>muh humanity
>muh 60 trillion
>being this spooked

>Inefficiency in this regime would undermine it from within and, when people compare it to the outside systems, from without

Why? What if everyone accepted the system as satisfactory although a better one existed, unbeknownst to them?

Protestantism
>Wars of Religion.
>Wars of Religion Errywhere
>Erry decade.

having a red flag

they would only accept it as satisfactory if no better system existed within their information grasp (and nowadays that grasp is near universal and global)

We accept imperfect systems as satisfactory all the time. It isn't clear to me that the knowledge of a better system means you cannot be satisfied with a lesser system. You may desire the better system, but still be satisfied with the lesser one.

>We accept imperfect systems as satisfactory all the time
because we see no perfect systems anywhere around us

I should be clear, when I say "knowledge of a better system" I mean a measurable, tangible, practical application of a better system, akin to Western Europe vs the Soviet Bloc around the end of the 1980s.

>I don't want the state to take all my shit and then shoot me when I complain that I'm starving
>"spooked"

>Union of Soviet """socialist""" Republics
>no workers controlled the means of production and in fact, didn't even have freedom of movement
>Private companies still existed (NEP bitches!)
>Being this fucking uneducated

The Nazi fuel/price fixing scheme was one of the most intricate known to man to this day. They stacked board rooms with their own, forcing all the unions into the German Labour Front and Nazi worker's councils, nationalized all private welfare programs with the NSV, winter drives, vast public spending works, mobilizing the people into scams like the Volkswagen. Truly, the epitome of laissez-faire.

>b-but muh privitization contributing 1.4% to the GDP! I get all my information from /leftypol/ and Germà Bel and can't read into anything further!

Okay. Well if I can sympathize then that with knowledge of such a system I would not easily tolerate a sufficiently inferior one.

I'm unsure if you really answered my response to your claim that all systems have no applied value tho.

*Well I can

60 mil for Stalin? You mean 60 mil increase, yes?

Imagine if fish decided, from the amount of other fish who died reaching shore, that fish do not belong on land. How would have our species evolved if not for these losses? The value of human life is the biggest spook there is, and if you are spooked by it you should honestly kill yourself to ensure the human race is advanced beyond your intellectual and moral failure.

Judaism - Islam - Christianity

>centralizing socialism this much

what do you expect?

Not laissez-faire =/= socialism

Nazi economics was pretty standard hyper-authoritarian economics. They had a private sector that only had businesses that supported the reigeme, so it can't be considered capitalism in the usual sense. But neither did any workers own the means of production, so can't be considered socialist. The closest you could call it would be state capitalist, but even then, not your typical capitalism.

Nazis used socialism in their name to garner support from the working class and cuck the communist party. Gotta remember that socialism was viewed far, far more favourably before the end of the cold war, and was used as a rallying cry for the working class. Nazism doesn't have any economic policies inherent to its ideology. I'm paraphrasing but Hitler did say something along the lines of "don't give a fuck about economics my dudes." tl;dr Nazi Germany was neither socialist or capitalist in any meaningful way

Hitler frequently sucked dicks of corporate tycoons, hell in 1938 he even owed them more than was Germany's GDP. Not to mention he was anti-communist as fuck.

No such things in SSSR. Only good ol' Marxism-Leninism

>Nazis were so socialist they wanted to wipe out all the bolshevists

Really make me thinking

/thread