Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mbailey on December 23, 2013, 11:10:41 AM

Title: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mbailey on December 23, 2013, 11:10:41 AM
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304020704579276314199448756

94 years old...not to shabby
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: DaveBB on December 23, 2013, 11:49:39 AM
He was inspired to create the AK-47 after seeing all of his fellow soldiers horribly wounded in a hospital.  He wanted to give them an edge (or at least put them on a level playing field) with the Germans.  Ironically the weapon came too late for the war, and the Germans created a very similar looking weapon, the STG-44.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on December 23, 2013, 11:56:07 AM
He was inspired to create the AK-47 after seeing all of his fellow soldiers horribly wounded in a hospital.  He wanted to give them an edge (or at least put them on a level playing field) with the Germans.  Ironically the weapon came too late for the war, and the Germans created a very similar looking weapon, the STG-44.

The Germans had it in the last battles already. The AK was made post war.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: DaveBB on December 23, 2013, 12:12:13 PM
That is exactly what I just said.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Butcher on December 23, 2013, 12:52:55 PM
That is exactly what I just said.

You have it reversed, the Germans created the STG-44 first, he took ideas from the M-1 Garand and the STG-44 and built his own rifle - after the war I think in late 1946 it got redesigned as the earlier version wasn't very reliable.

I feel bad for the guy, you would think of the millions made he would be rich, I think he lived in a 1 bedroom apartment on barely any money in the past 15 years. Secondly he was haunted because the weapons "ease" of manufacture and sell, terrorist and everyone else uses it. One point he blamed politicians for this and they cut his retirement money, putting much leaving him poor.


Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Karnak on December 23, 2013, 02:05:36 PM
You have it reversed, the Germans created the STG-44 first, he took ideas from the M-1 Garand and the STG-44 and built his own rifle - after the war I think in late 1946 it got redesigned as the earlier version wasn't very reliable.

I feel bad for the guy, you would think of the millions made he would be rich, I think he lived in a 1 bedroom apartment on barely any money in the past 15 years. Secondly he was haunted because the weapons "ease" of manufacture and sell, terrorist and everyone else uses it. One point he blamed politicians for this and they cut his retirement money, putting much leaving him poor.



He didn't feel bad for himself.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Kenne on December 23, 2013, 02:32:28 PM
You have it reversed, the Germans created the STG-44 first, he took ideas from the M-1 Garand and the STG-44 and built his own rifle - after the war I think in late 1946 it got redesigned as the earlier version wasn't very reliable.

I feel bad for the guy, you would think of the millions made he would be rich, I think he lived in a 1 bedroom apartment on barely any money in the past 15 years. Secondly he was haunted because the weapons "ease" of manufacture and sell, terrorist and everyone else uses it. One point he blamed politicians for this and they cut his retirement money, putting much leaving him poor.


I believe the Germans were the 'copiests'

The Russians were to first to basically develop all that the Germans had..albeit not literally.

case in point. FG42 which is similar to the BAR..but too heavy and with much recoil..just like the BAR.
after that you have the G43...design very much like the Russian SVT40 ie: full size cartridge and a 10rnd box mag.

but recoil in the SVT and the G43 was TREMENDOUS. and with a full size rifle..kinda unwieldy.

so with the introduction of the 7.92x33 Kurz M43 round in Germany, AND the 7.62x39 M43 in Russia, you
have the basis for development of 'intermediate' weapons to use.

So the Germans took the action from the SVT40 and put it in their MP43..yes people I typed 'MP' 43.

Hitler wasn't interested in nu rifles and anything with 'Gewehr' (means rifle) in it would rouse his ire.
but Adolf's radar was not aroused by MP weapons..so the CO that made the SG44, billed it as a MP (Machine Pistol) in its
development stages.

The Russian engineer, Siminov was hard at work before Kalashnikov and he developed the SKS45 rifle for the nu 7.62x39.
Kalashnikov had nothing but probs with the AK hence its adaption was delayed till 1947.

so Kalashnikov AK was not inspired by the SG.
considering the SVT, StG44 and SKS 'drop bolt', the AKs 'rotating bolt may have borrowed from the M1.

but then, since all 'bolts' rotate in rifles, (M1903, MosinNagant, K98, et al) it would not be a strench to keep that idea in mind
when developing a nu rifle.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: smoe on December 23, 2013, 05:16:07 PM
The AK also was a leap in stamped metal pieces parts which reduced manufacturing costs.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on December 23, 2013, 07:19:16 PM
If you believe Russian reports they have invented pretty much everything on this planet. They have their own versions of history books and by the looks of it they're dusting off the old Soviet doctrines and history books again after a short venture into western thinking.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Plawranc on December 23, 2013, 09:57:25 PM
The problem is Ripley, both US and Russian versions of history are incredibly biased. You just need to look at whats taught in school and the shows the history channel runs to see that.

"History is written by the victors"

It is common for superpowers to alter their own history to subjugate the populace. Ex: Britain said that it was liberating the India's and the America's from savagery. Or another ex: Germany is the center of the world in both culture and racial superiority and all throughout history this has been proven!. And again "When we crush the western capitalist pigs, the proletariat of the west will RISE AND HAIL THEIR LIBERATORS". And now, the phrase "Murica" seems to be more and more apparent.

Anyway, that is a thread Hijack and a completely different topic.

RIP to a truly great man.  :salute
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: phatzo on December 24, 2013, 02:07:27 AM
 :cheers:

http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/12/mikhail-kalashnikov-dead/

Quote
“Comrade Kalashnikov will be buried in a pit of mud with full military honors,” said General-Major Saiga Molot, a spokesman for the Russian army. “After a week, we will exhume his body, clean it off, and put him back to work. We expect that there shall be no issue with his functions.”

Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/12/mikhail-kalashnikov-dead/#ixzz2oNTdTI3l
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mechanic on December 24, 2013, 02:24:23 AM
Am I the only one who sees the extreme irony in the creator of the weapon that is responsible for more human death and suffering than any other single weapon in existence lived to such a ripe old age?
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: ReVo on December 24, 2013, 04:59:41 AM
Am I the only one who sees the extreme irony in the creator of the weapon that is responsible for more human death and suffering than any other single weapon in existence lived to such a ripe old age?

If they hadn't used his design, they would have used something else. I see no reason to blame him for what we all do to each other.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on December 24, 2013, 05:35:57 AM
Am I the only one who sees the extreme irony in the creator of the weapon that is responsible for more human death and suffering than any other single weapon in existence lived to such a ripe old age?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The inventor of nukes thought he would end all wars in doing so. Instead he just brought global fear and enormous suffering to a few hundred thousand people.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Butcher on December 24, 2013, 10:39:07 AM
If they hadn't used his design, they would have used something else. I see no reason to blame him for what we all do to each other.

+1 humans are the cause of so many deaths, we can blame religion or politics but in the end, humans pull the trigger.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mthrockmor on December 24, 2013, 11:03:00 AM
What Ripley said. The Soviets copied everything they possibly could. The AK is simply a slightly improved STG44. They knocked off plenty of things. They knocked off a German jet design that was to follow up the Me-262, which became the Mig-15. They knocked of the British Rolls Royce Pegasus jet engine, to power the Mig-15. They knocked off the American B-29, which became I believe the Tu-4. The concept behind the RPG, shaped charge forming a heated projectile core was designed on the German Panzerfaust.

There is no shame in admitting designs are borrowed. Countries have done this since cavemen started picked up sticks. It is funny that only the Soviets bristle at the most obvious examples of it. Kind of funny how the debate lives well after the Soviet Union died of rot.

In any case the designer of the weapon that represented the greatest threat to the American and NATO serviceman, and was the iconic symbol of tyranny, murder and rape worldwide passed.  <S>

boo
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Rich46yo on December 24, 2013, 11:03:27 AM
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The inventor of nukes thought he would end all wars in doing so. Instead he just brought global fear and enormous suffering to a few hundred thousand people.

Had we not invented it and taken the morale high ground the Soviets would have and we'd all have been under their thumb. People forget what a monstrosity the Soviet union was. Also we would have incurred hundreds of thousands of casualties invading Japan and putting an end to that rotten regime. Which was every bit as evil as Nazi Germany was.

No, this cant be put on inventors. The entire human race shares the blame. As it does with the AK and all wars.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Karnak on December 24, 2013, 11:24:36 AM
What Ripley said. The Soviets copied everything they possibly could. The AK is simply a slightly improved STG44.
That just happens to have completely different mechanics?  Please.  That is like saying the B-29 is based on the He111 because they both have glass noses.

Yes, the guns look similar visually, but the way they work is entirely different.  Kalashnikov said, and based on the way they work I believe him, that the M1 Garand was an influence, not the MP44.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: ReVo on December 24, 2013, 11:41:42 AM
(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/519e3e8869bedddc27000016/zntoagb.gif)
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: ReVo on December 24, 2013, 11:44:27 AM
(http://www.waffeninfo.net/verschluss/bild/tiltblockani.gif)

StG44
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mthrockmor on December 24, 2013, 12:01:02 PM
Completely different mechanics? Please...haha

It's Christmas so not interested in getting into a 'to do' but the design and mechanics are completely obvious. And the Soviet history of economic, technology and military espionage with plenty to demonstrate it....why is the AK-47 different?

And yes, the Tu-4 is a known knockoff of a B-29 that landed at a Soviet field after being forced there after a mission to Japan.

boo
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mechanic on December 24, 2013, 12:15:23 PM
I wasn't blaming him for anything. Just noting the irony
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Karnak on December 24, 2013, 01:23:03 PM
And yes, the Tu-4 is a known knockoff of a B-29 that landed at a Soviet field after being forced there after a mission to Japan
Who said anything about the Tu-4?

The Russians never claim it is anything other than a copy of the B-29.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: bigsky on December 24, 2013, 03:00:10 PM
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3645821952/hDBAE0CB5/)
My fav :salute
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Kenne on December 24, 2013, 06:15:37 PM
(http://www.waffeninfo.net/verschluss/bild/tiltblockani.gif)

StG44

and the SVT40 had this in 1938!

so do you wish to keep saying Siminov copied it for the SKS45?
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Kenne on December 24, 2013, 06:18:44 PM
Am I the only one who sees the extreme irony in the creator of the weapon that is responsible for more human death and suffering than any other single weapon in existence lived to such a ripe old age?

what about Henry Ford?

while he did not 'invent' the automoble, he made it avail to everyone..and now a century later..how many people have been
killed by its design?
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mbailey on December 24, 2013, 10:34:02 PM
what about Henry Ford?

while he did not 'invent' the automoble, he made it avail to everyone..and now a century later..how many people have been
killed by its design?


And as quoted above, Batty was just pointing out the irony......not blaming him for anything.....and yes Bat...i see it....irony at its best.... :aok

Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: GScholz on December 25, 2013, 07:01:18 AM
From an earlier discussion: The gas system is similar to the STG, but the rest is very different mechanically. There's some M1 Garand in there, some Browning. The folding stock on the AKS is from an MP40. The action is based on Kalashnikov's earlier carbine design, strongly influenced by the Garand, that lost to the SKS for service with the Red Army. To say the the AK-47 is a copy of the STG44 is just pure bollocks. That the STG influenced Kalashnikov's design layout is obvious.

The STG44's most direct descendant is the H&K G-3 series, even if the design moved away from gas operation to roller-delayed blowback.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: B3YT on December 25, 2013, 07:53:40 AM
AK family are nothing like the STg44 . It's like saying the  M4 carbine and MP5 are the same as they are of similar length and are both black . 
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Meatwad on December 25, 2013, 11:12:08 AM
Received this off the news wire
MOSCOW — Russia has announced funeral arrangements for Lt. Gen. Mikhail T. Kalashnikov, inventor of the AK-47 assault rifle.
“Comrade Kalashnikov will be buried in a pit of mud with full military honors,” said General-Major Saiga Molot, a spokesman for the Russian army. “After a week, we will exhume his body, clean it off, and put him back to work. We expect that there shall be no issue with his functions.”
Kalashnikov died of complications from a liver transplant operation. The liver Kalashnikov received was allegedly Romanian, but turned out to be a substandard Albanian version.
“It was a successful substitution, but it made him inaccurate and prone to blockage,” said his son, Victor.
While praised for his simple operation and ruggedness, Kalashnikov is also being remembered for his contributions to over 300 insurgencies, 524 known terrorist groups and at least 18 hostile regime changes.
“We will always be grateful to General Kalashnikov for giving us the inspiration for Kevlar,” said DuPont President and CEO Ellen Kullman.
An outpouring of support came from some unexpected areas, including Hollywood, which gave him a star on the walk of fame for his contribution to action films which “helped the audience identify the bad guys without further visual or audio cues” as well as the music industry.
“You can rhyme about a MAC-10 or Uzi, but they know you’re serious when you start pulling out that AK,” said rapper Banana Clip. “Think of what rhymes with 47 – heaven, um… Devon? 7-11? Yeah.”
Kalashnikov is survived by 21 major variants and 31 national operators in addition to several unknown and unidentified versions.


Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/12/mikhail-kalashnikov-dead/#ixzz2oVXCy1Cp
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: bozon on December 25, 2013, 01:00:27 PM
From an earlier discussion: The gas system is similar to the STG, but the rest is very different mechanically. There's some M1 Garand in there, some Browning. The folding stock on the AKS is from an MP40. The action is based on Kalashnikov's earlier carbine design, strongly influenced by the Garand, that lost to the SKS for service with the Red Army. To say the the AK-47 is a copy of the STG44 is just pure bollocks. That the STG influenced Kalashnikov's design layout is obvious.

The STG44's most direct descendant is the H&K G-3 series, even if the design moved away from gas operation to roller-delayed blowback.
They are all made of a barrel with a metal cartridge stuffed into it. They are all operated by holding them against the shoulder and pressing a trigger to punch the cap on the cartridge. How different can they be?

So this one has a folding stock and the other comes with a cup holder.


In any case the designer of the weapon that represented the greatest threat to the American and NATO serviceman, and was the iconic symbol of tyranny, murder and rape worldwide passed.  <S>
How was he an iconic symbol of rape?
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: ReVo on December 25, 2013, 02:17:20 PM
Bonnie and Clyde loved the BAR, I don't see anybody pissing on John Browning.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: danny76 on December 26, 2013, 04:20:16 AM
What Ripley said. The Soviets copied everything they possibly could. The AK is simply a slightly improved STG44. They knocked off plenty of things. They knocked off a German jet design that was to follow up the Me-262, which became the Mig-15. They knocked of the British Rolls Royce Pegasus jet engine, to power the Mig-15.

boo

It was actually the Derwent/Trent who's design was handed over to the Russians, rather than knocked off by them. The Pegasus was the engine used to power the Harrier. Which was then knocked off by the US

Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: B3YT on December 26, 2013, 09:41:36 AM
the only engine tech the Russians "stole" from RR was the materiel composition , which they got by walking through the factory with super tacky soles on their shoes.  Each Russian visitor had to gather machine swarf from different areas of engine manufacturing line .  The USA  copied far more British tech than Russia did (cough Miles M.52) .
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: SmokinLoon on December 26, 2013, 02:59:20 PM
The AK also was a leap in stamped metal pieces parts which reduced manufacturing costs.

You speak of the AKM.  The AK47 had a milled receiver.    The AKM came along later, I believe at the same time the Soviets introduced the AKMS with the under folder stock... ANOTHER copy of what the Germans used!!!  Take a look at the under folder stock on a MP40 sometime, then look at an AKMS.  :aok

This whole argument of StG44 vs AK47 vs SVT vs G43 vs Garand vs SKS is amusing.  Sort of like which came first, the chicken or the egg?  It gets real interdasting when the experts come out.    :rofl 

ReVo's animations tell volumes.  Pay attention to them.  There are so many pieces to this puzzle that it is sort of like Looshey's charts: I can make any chart and any set of figures say what I want them to say.  Read Mikhail's notes, he was not afraid to tell it exactly like it happened.  Then, look at the time lines to when what happened when.  Put the pieces together and it should be very obvious on certain things.  Also, the whole "who stole who's technology" is an amusing purse fight too.   :aok   
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Shuffler on December 26, 2013, 03:13:31 PM
You have it reversed, the Germans created the STG-44 first, he took ideas from the M-1 Garand and the STG-44 and built his own rifle - after the war I think in late 1946 it got redesigned as the earlier version wasn't very reliable.

I feel bad for the guy, you would think of the millions made he would be rich, I think he lived in a 1 bedroom apartment on barely any money in the past 15 years. Secondly he was haunted because the weapons "ease" of manufacture and sell, terrorist and everyone else uses it. One point he blamed politicians for this and they cut his retirement money, putting much leaving him poor.





That is called socialism.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: SmokinLoon on December 26, 2013, 03:15:11 PM

That is called socialism.

um... try one step further to the left... actually try two steps further to the left.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mthrockmor on December 26, 2013, 05:27:07 PM
USSR, United Soviet Socialist Republics
NAZI, National Socialist Democratic Party of Germany

Both socialists. Both believed in sovereignty of "the State" over individuals. Both existed in the absence of any political opposition thus the name of the ruling political party came to symbolize the 'form' of government. Communists were just socialists who believed in International Socialism. Nazis were just socialists who believed in Germany socialism ruling the world. Communists believed that the economy would be managed best in detail by government agents. Nazis believed that the economy would be managed best by corporations implementing the goals of State, closely monitored by government agents. This form of corporate socialism was developed by Mussolini's Italy, implemented by Hitler's Germany, also known as Fascism.

If Kalashnikov would have "invented" the AK-47 in Nazi Germany he would have finished the war hiding in his villa with millions of Marks in suitcases under his bed. Then, upon capture, spent some time before a judge at Nuremberg with the rest of the Nazi machine.

boo
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Karnak on December 26, 2013, 06:12:02 PM
USSR, United Soviet Socialist Republics
NAZI, National Socialist Democratic Party of Germany

Both socialists. Both believed in sovereignty of "the State" over individuals. Both existed in the absence of any political opposition thus the name of the ruling political party came to symbolize the 'form' of government. Communists were just socialists who believed in International Socialism. Nazis were just socialists who believed in Germany socialism ruling the world. Communists believed that the economy would be managed best in detail by government agents. Nazis believed that the economy would be managed best by corporations implementing the goals of State, closely monitored by government agents. This form of corporate socialism was developed by Mussolini's Italy, implemented by Hitler's Germany, also known as Fascism.

If Kalashnikov would have "invented" the AK-47 in Nazi Germany he would have finished the war hiding in his villa with millions of Marks in suitcases under his bed. Then, upon capture, spent some time before a judge at Nuremberg with the rest of the Nazi machine.

boo
What they called themselves doesn't have much bearing on what they are.

The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is neither democratic nor a republic, but it sounds nice on paper.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: GScholz on December 26, 2013, 07:40:13 PM
Hitler's party was the National Socialist German Worker's Party (NSDAP). "Democratic" was not part of it.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mthrockmor on December 26, 2013, 11:27:59 PM
Hitler's party was the National Socialist German Worker's Party (NSDAP). "Democratic" was not part of it.

Going back to college days I've read both and since I don't read or speak German...

boo
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: B3YT on December 27, 2013, 01:27:41 AM
The Nazi Party was also RIGHT wing where as Russia was LEFT wing . Nazi Party encouraged Private enterprise and wealth while central government provided for those that had no work or money .  It did not see itself as the provider for all or equalizer . That is the complete opposite to left wing socialism and communism . The Nazis and Communists are at oposite  ends of the political spectrum .
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: GScholz on December 27, 2013, 08:09:13 AM
That the Nazis were "right-wing" is postwar thinking, and usually from "left-wingers" that want to distance themselves from the Nazis (who wouldn't?) and attack their political enemies. The fact is that Nazism was political centralism with a socialistic economy (although not total like in the Soviet Union). National Socialism is based upon Marxism (Hitler even said so); it's just a different interpretation and adaptation of Marxism than what became Leninism and Stalinism in the Soviet Union. The only significant "right-wing" aspect of the Nazis was their appeal to nationalism as a tool to rallying support from the WWI veterans and people who hated the Treaty of Versailles. Soviet Communists differed only in being less nationalistic, and even more extreme in their opposition to the fundamental human right to own property.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/soviet_nazi_posters.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/hitler_stalin.jpg)


"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."


- Adolf Hitler
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: B3YT on December 27, 2013, 10:18:47 AM
National Socialists were technically central right  more than central left .  While some of it's ideology was very much Marxist it also had Ideology  connected more with right wing ideals (individual responsibility , promotion of private enterprise and de-centralisation of some government) . If some one else had been in charge of the nazi party it would have been a very good system of government , unfortunately it didn't . It cherry picked the best of both systems  . On the whole the weight was more on the right than to the left  .         
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mthrockmor on December 27, 2013, 11:14:48 AM
What gscholz said. The statements of the Nazi party being 'right wing' is pure, postwar propaganda pushed aggressively by the left, and now taken as gospel by most. No one every considered the Nazis at the time as being anything other than a variation of socialism. They openly preached it, practiced it and lived it. They are not even "center-right" in any reasonable discussion.

They supported total state
They supported gun control
They supported socialized medicine
They supported the bureaucratic state
They practiced Eugenics, which was the basis of the concentration camps and the final solution.

Where is their individual rights you speak of? Heck, they were so centralized in every aspect they killed homosexuals, mentally and physically retarded, by the hundreds of thousands. Clearly, these people did not have an "individual rights" to speak of as they did not fit the ordered socialist state the Nazis sought to establish. They even began to breed German women with ideal Nazi warrior/men to create a master race of babies.

Any nation that can walk into your house without due process, pull you from your family and throw you into the back of a truck on the way to a concentration camp has ZERO individual rights. I would also be interested to read of where the Nazis supported deregulation. In reading several texts on the Nazi economy it was very centralized and full of red tape down to the local level. One family that owned a dairy and had a small cafe to sell their products with sandwiches, etc noted they were required to change the shape of their tables to round, from square so that people would not hurt themselves on corners of the tables. They couldn't afford this regulation and dozens others so simply closed the cafe. I could post hundreds of such examples of the complete lack of deregulation. Regulations increased dramatically. Again, I'd be interested to read of examples to the contrary.

No, Nazis were hardcore socialists. There is nothing to the "right" about them.

boo
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: SmokinLoon on December 27, 2013, 12:47:36 PM
The Nazi Party was also RIGHT wing where as Russia was LEFT wing . Nazi Party encouraged Private enterprise and wealth while central government provided for those that had no work or money .  It did not see itself as the provider for all or equalizer . That is the complete opposite to left wing socialism and communism . The Nazis and Communists are at oposite  ends of the political spectrum .

You had better read up on the definitions of left/right, and see how it applies to fascist Germany and communist Soviet Union.  Seriously.  As far as being on the opposite ends of the spectrum????  Try again.  They are both left of center with the Soviets being more so.  

You drank the kool-aid like too many other people. 
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Rich46yo on December 27, 2013, 01:35:19 PM
The Nazi Party was also RIGHT wing where as Russia was LEFT wing . Nazi Party encouraged Private enterprise and wealth while central government provided for those that had no work or money .  It did not see itself as the provider for all or equalizer . That is the complete opposite to left wing socialism and communism . The Nazis and Communists are at oposite  ends of the political spectrum .

The economic model of the Nazi party was perhaps the most screwed up model of all time. It didnt really "encourage pvt enterprise ; More like it encouraged pvt enterprise that was onboard with its values. Most of all big business which Hitler courted from the get go, as he did small business and small farmers. The only ones who really made out however were the big arms/military supply businesses and those entrepreneurs who made fortunes on the persecution of other races and peoples. In the movie Schindlers List when Schindler told his wife he had succeeded after so many failures due to "war" he was spot on. There were many like him, tho few as moral.

Small business, like big business, despised communism and the promised nationalization of all industry and production. Thus they backed the Nazis. But the Nazi economic model was a hodge podge that didnt make much sense. They fixed most prices and actually adopted many left wing economic practices. Like forced eviction from land if the common purpose demanded it.  Certain businesses and store were communalized under their 20 point program, they did away with unearned income, they even instituted a "four year plane" which sure sounds a lot like Communism's plans.

As for the worker? He lost all rights. He lost his right to strike and even to change jobs without an employers OK. His wages were fixed and he had no say in how many hours he worked. Economics bored Hitler, as one can tell by his involvement in setting policy.

I suppose such a mess of rules and regulations could only work with such an industrious people like the Germans. Most of whom thought having a full lunch pail was better then having none at all.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Masherbrum on December 27, 2013, 01:36:13 PM
You had better read up on the definitions of left/right, and see how it applies to fascist Germany and communist Soviet Union.  Seriously.  As far as being on the opposite ends of the spectrum????  Try again.  They are both left of center with the Soviets being more so.  

You drank the kool-aid like too many other people. 

Agree.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: GScholz on December 27, 2013, 04:06:00 PM
China today is very much a Fascist society rather than Maoist/Leninist/Stalinist. The merging of state and corporation.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mthrockmor on December 27, 2013, 04:18:48 PM
China today is very much a Fascist society rather than Maoist/Leninist/Stalinist. The merging of state and corporation.

Increasingly Fascism is the model. Politicians love power and love buying influence. Corporations hate competition and love buying political influence. China made their big shift to a Fascist system after they watched the Soviet/Communist socialist model collapse and the panic of Tiananmen Square.

The increasing coziness between the United States Congres and Wall Street is not a good thing. If you've ever been to Washington DC and viewed through the eyes of a lobbyist (something I've seen etc for 20 years now) the city is litered with corporate offices holding lobbyists.

My have times changed!

PS A good friend of mine, a State Senator, was invited to speak at an international education event. About two thousand students from a dozen countries got together to network, exchange ideas, talk about the future etc. He decribes doing a joint presentation to a few hundred students from China. One of the other presenters showed video and images from Tiananmen Square, to include that old man with grocery bags standing in front of the column of T-55s. The Chinese students were completely shocked. They had never seen pictures of Tiananmen Square or known anything of it. It is spooky to know such information can be withheld from citizens. Thank G** for the internet though it leaves me wondering what I don't know; and what I think I know, which is without sufficient information.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Kenne on December 27, 2013, 05:57:23 PM
Thank G** for the internet though it leaves me wondering what I don't know; and what I think I know, which is without sufficient information.

Moon landings were faked.


 :noid
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: bj229r on December 27, 2013, 06:04:46 PM
A paraphrase from Hackworth's auto bio ("About Face") I remembered this tidbit from reading the book years ago


Quote
Col. Hackworth tells a story in Vietnam about how his men were digging fox holes on a jungle ravine and came across a NVA corpse with an AK-47 that had been buried by a B-52 bombing strike years earlier. According to Hackworth he said “men let me show you a real infantry rifle” and he took the dirty mud covered AK-47 from the hole and took his finger and cleaned mud from the end of the barrel and then fired a couple of burst into the air. A rusty AK-47 that had been encased in jungle mud was a more reliable weapon than the M16′s our soldiers carry.
M4/16 never do that
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: SmokinLoon on December 27, 2013, 06:43:26 PM
A paraphrase from Hackworth's auto bio ("About Face") I remembered this tidbit from reading the book years ago

 M4/16 never do that
 

Ah yes... the old AK47 vs M16 debate.  That debate/discussion is always a great purse fight too.

There are so many things circulating amongst the kool-aid drinkers that is complete BS about both of those weapon platforms that I get dizzy from correcting it all.  Literally... comparing the AKx vs the M16x is like comparing an apple to an orange.  They both have their merits and they both have their downfalls.  Until you've learned them both inside and out, trained with them both, and used them both in applicable situations it is difficult to understand the in's and out's of either and it certainly isn't conducive to shooting one's mouth off in a "better than" argument.  GMAN will be along shortly to chime in on this party as well.   :aok     
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mechanic on December 27, 2013, 07:11:20 PM
as a completely ignorant Brit, all I know is that the M16 is my personal choice for best looking gun of all time.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: bj229r on December 27, 2013, 07:21:55 PM
as a completely ignorant Brit, all I know is that the M16 is my personal choice for best looking gun of all time.
pffft...HERE is the sexiest looking weapon of all time! (looks just like mine, save a few scratches)
(http://www.odcmp.com/Sales/images/RifleHeader.jpg)
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mechanic on December 27, 2013, 09:06:06 PM
love the looks of the M1 and the clip ejection ping too. But still prefer either of these in sheer sexiness

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vlSt_cZUVtY/SN0Fubgf_NI/AAAAAAAAAB4/-OwBCXEHeNo/S660/M16A1_M16A2.jpg)
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mthrockmor on December 27, 2013, 09:12:56 PM
Really enjoyed the M-16A2 though the M-14 is an overall beast! For the mountains of Afghanistan, M-14, Iraq M-4.

boo
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Motherland on December 27, 2013, 10:39:11 PM
Hitler squashed the left wing of the NSDAP, aligned himself with and was put in power by a coalition of German conservative parties, outlawed the KPD and put socialists, liberals and communists in concentration camps, and sent death squads around the Soviet Union exterminating KPSS members with the ferocity they did the Jews, all just to trick us into thinking that Nazism is a "right wing" ideology.

The wars and civil wars that ripped across Europe in the early-middle part of the century between socialists/communists/anarchists and nationalists/fascists were all just brilliant charades to make us all think that these ideologies were not diametrically opposed.

They had foresight, you have to give them that.

Not being ideologically capitalist doesn't make you left wing, it just makes you not ideologically capitalist. Capitalism is one way of thinking out of dozens, at least.
The NSDAP wasn't even completely hostile toward capitalism, working closely with American industrialists up until the breakdown of relations with the US going into the 40s...

There's nothing wrong with pointing out the failures of both Nazi Germany and the USSR as well as any feudal monarchy or whatever, drawing parallels and what, but let's not pretend that any society that isn't strictly Laissez-Faire is 'left wing'
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mthrockmor on December 27, 2013, 11:01:52 PM
m

Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: B3YT on December 28, 2013, 06:32:32 AM
Hitler squashed the left wing of the NSDAP, aligned himself with and was put in power by a coalition of German conservative parties, outlawed the KPD and put socialists, liberals and communists in concentration camps, and sent death squads around the Soviet Union exterminating KPSS members with the ferocity they did the Jews, all just to trick us into thinking that Nazism is a "right wing" ideology.

The wars and civil wars that ripped across Europe in the early-middle part of the century between socialists/communists/anarchists and nationalists/fascists were all just brilliant charades to make us all think that these ideologies were not diametrically opposed.

They had foresight, you have to give them that.

Not being ideologically capitalist doesn't make you left wing, it just makes you not ideologically capitalist. Capitalism is one way of thinking out of dozens, at least.
The NSDAP wasn't even completely hostile toward capitalism, working closely with American industrialists up until the breakdown of relations with the US going into the 40s...

There's nothing wrong with pointing out the failures of both Nazi Germany and the USSR as well as any feudal monarchy or whatever, drawing parallels and what, but let's not pretend that any society that isn't strictly Laissez-Faire is 'left wing'


Indeed . Henry ford received many honours from Adolf Hitler during the 1930's , IBM was given free reign to apply for many contracts in German in the 1930's (even using IBM equipment for logging information about jews and other "dissidents" ) .  While there was the idea that everything should be done for the fartherland  small companies where given contracts  and not sucked into a state owned company . While some doctrines could be seen as Centre left internally   , the external policies were very conservative and right wing .  It was a Jackal and Hyde  political system that big US firms got very close to and enjoyed it's benefits .

In the Spanish Civil war , which side do you think Hitler and Germany sided with ? The Socialists ? Nope it was the ultra right wing Franco  army .  While Socialists were dispatching men from around Europe to fight Franco (international Brigades)  , Germany was trying out it's latest 109 fighters , JU87's and JU88's , I think even He111 got in on the action . These were sent to fight for the Fascist Franco army against the Socialists .

 

Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: GScholz on December 28, 2013, 09:57:52 AM
During the Cold War, China unofficially allied itself with America against the Soviet Union. China and Vietnam had several border clashes. Vietnam invaded Communist Cambodia. Tito in Yugoslavia hated the Soviets and remained neutral. Castro in Cuba remained reluctantly pro-Soviet due to their total dependence on Soviet aid. Every single Soviet satellite republic in Europe and Asia hated the Soviets, and the only reason they stayed within the Soviet sphere of influence was the threat of Soviet military intervention... Something Hungary suffered in 1956. The last Soviet troops left Hungary in 1991, only months before the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself.

Just because the Nazis and Soviets hated each other and fought a war doesn't mean they were diametrically opposed politically. In fact the worst enemies are those who are only slightly different; we see this in both religious faiths and politics. Historically the Abrahamic religions hate each other the most, despite having the most in common compared to other religions. Only when facing a common enemy do socialist states stand together.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: GScholz on December 28, 2013, 10:13:13 AM
This

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/M1-Garand-Rifle.jpg/800px-M1-Garand-Rifle.jpg)

+

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/RemingtonModel8.jpg/799px-RemingtonModel8.jpg)

+

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1979-118-55%2C_Infanterist_mit_Sturmgewehr_44.jpg)

+

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Maschinenpistole_MP40.jpg/800px-Maschinenpistole_MP40.jpg)

=

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/AKMS_and_AK-47_DD-ST-85-01270.jpg/800px-AKMS_and_AK-47_DD-ST-85-01270.jpg)


That's the thing about the AK: It's all the great infantry guns of the '40s combined into one.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Motherland on December 28, 2013, 10:58:28 AM
During the Cold War, China unofficially allied itself with America against the Soviet Union. China and Vietnam had several border clashes. Vietnam invaded Communist Cambodia. Tito in Yugoslavia hated the Soviets and remained neutral. Castro in Cuba remained reluctantly pro-Soviet due to their total dependence on Soviet aid. Every single Soviet satellite republic in Europe and Asia hated the Soviets, and the only reason they stayed within the Soviet sphere of influence was the threat of Soviet military intervention... Something Hungary suffered in 1956. The last Soviet troops left Hungary in 1991, only months before the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself.
To a large degree, people Soviet satellite states stood against the SU largely because they didn't want to have anything to do with socialism in the first place, not because they had some minor differences in ideology. The system was forced upon them. I don't see what that has to do with anything.
All international socialists picked bones with the Soviet Union because it was an extremely flawed implementation of a system that a lot of people thought would be the saving grace of humanity- especially while Stalin was at the helm. Just as how many people who are perfectly pro-capitalism despise the United States.
Comparing bickering and political posturing and infighting (which happens, no matter what system you're talking about) to the most cataclysmic battle in the entire breadth of human history
Doesn't quite follow

The political spectrum just isn't divided into 'right' (pro laissez faire capitalism) and 'wrong' (anti laissez faire capitalism), it's divided into right and left, as flawed and simplistic as that view may be. Almost all forms of government are in some way restrictive, but are completely unrelated. A highly traditional, extremely strict feudal monarchy with little personal freedom and complete control over the economy is not 'left' just because you consider laissez faire to be 'right'

The Abrahamic religions have the unfortunate circumstance of being in extremely close proximity to each other with constituents of their religions in constant contact. It doesn't work no matter what the religions, just look at India
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mthrockmor on December 28, 2013, 12:14:12 PM
During the Cold War, China unofficially allied itself with America against the Soviet Union. China and Vietnam had several border clashes. Vietnam invaded Communist Cambodia. Tito in Yugoslavia hated the Soviets and remained neutral. Castro in Cuba remained reluctantly pro-Soviet due to their total dependence on Soviet aid. Every single Soviet satellite republic in Europe and Asia hated the Soviets, and the only reason they stayed within the Soviet sphere of influence was the threat of Soviet military intervention... Something Hungary suffered in 1956. The last Soviet troops left Hungary in 1991, only months before the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself.

Just because the Nazis and Soviets hated each other and fought a war doesn't mean they were diametrically opposed politically. In fact the worst enemies are those who are only slightly different; we see this in both religious faiths and politics. Historically the Abrahamic religions hate each other the most, despite having the most in common compared to other religions. Only when facing a common enemy do socialist states stand together.

Nazis were socialists. And by definition socialism is on the left of the spectrum.

Nazis hated and destroyed their enemies at every turn, whether fellow socialists or not. The fact that they hunted and murderd left wingers does not mean they were right wing. That is a fallacy and historic revision. Hitler even went after private sector labor unions, leaving only public sector labor unions. Does that mean he was right wing because he attacked private sector labor unions? Then what about his alliance with public sector unions, does that make him....what? In the end, he was able to control public sector unions and destroyed that which he could not control.

Nazism and Communism were both socialist ideologies espoused by dominant political parties. They are both very left of center, and yet hated each other. Hatred of communism does not make one right-wing. I've debated admitted socialists and marxists who insist that Mao was a capitalist pig. Funny, the rest of the world would laugh at that though when one is so far to the radical left that communist mass murdering Mao seems "to the right"...

Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Motherland on December 28, 2013, 07:37:24 PM
Nazis were socialists.
The NSDAP was not a socialist party. The core tenants of socialism include equality, pacifism and secular humanism/atheism. A party whose central ideals are nationalist racism, jingoistic militarism and a weird blend of German-pagan folklore and Christianity is one-hundred-percent incompatible with socialism. A state that believes that close cooperation with corporations is an ideal economic model is intrinsically non-socialist. As is a state that outlaws the entrance of women in the work force and rewards them for tending to the home and having children is anti-socialist. Socialist societies are egalitarian societies.
As previously stated, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a Democratic Republic just because it says it is. The German Democratic Republic was not a Democratic Republic just because it said it was.

Hitler used the National Socialist movement before the term fascism was in widespread use. The name of the party did, of course, attract socialists, as well as Hitler's early views on socialism in the mid-to-late-20s, but Hitler came to hate all of them as his political ideology matured, calling them 'Marxist' (Hitler was ardently anti-Marxist of course), and by 1934 the socialist-sympathizing Nazis were completely purged from the party, often being murdered- in case you don't remember the "Night of the Long Knives" from history classes, this purge of the left (notably the murder of the leader of the left wing of the Nazi party, Gregor Strasser) from 1930s German politics is what it refers too.

(also, since when has disbanding labor unions been anti-capitalist? especially at a time when they were all headed by communists and socialists?)

“The government will not protect the economic interests of the German people by the circuitous method of an economic bureaucracy to be organised by the state, but by the utmost furtherance of private initiative and by the recognition of the rights of property.”~Adolf Hitler as the Chancellor of the Reichstag in 1933
Fascism is fascism. It's not socialism. Socialism is socialism.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Oldman731 on December 29, 2013, 12:40:20 AM
The core tenants of socialism include equality, pacifism and secular humanism/atheism.


....um....where did you read that....?

- oldman
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Plawranc on December 29, 2013, 03:42:48 AM
Socialism is a humanistic ideology, However it tends to be used to control.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: phatzo on December 29, 2013, 05:14:12 AM
as a completely ignorant Brit, all I know is that the M16 is my personal choice for best looking gun of all time.
I thought you'd be more of a Gray-Nicolls man.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mechanic on December 29, 2013, 09:30:23 AM
never really got into cricket, had to google gray-nicolls. This is more my style

(http://www.gcdataconcepts.com/images/longbow1.jpg)
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Motherland on December 29, 2013, 11:20:03 AM

....um....where did you read that....?

- oldman

Well I think that equality speaks for itself

Religion is generally considered to be a way for the ruling class to manipulate the working class. Of course there have been socialist movements that mix religion into it (the man who said 'it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the gates of heaven' especially is pretty apt to be worked into a socialist ideology and Christian Socialist movements have been pretty widespread)

And the prolific phrase 'no war but class war' should also pretty much speak for itself


Departures from these ideals are why people tend to reject states such as the USSR (especially under Stalin) and the PRC as being actually 'socialist'
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mthrockmor on December 29, 2013, 11:31:17 AM
Socialism was classically defined as total state control of the means of production. The more modern, 20th Century twist which became fascism was state via management of corporations, which divvied up the economy. As was famously stated, "Why own the cow when you can control the man who owns the cow." Mussolini called it "Corporatism" and scary enough many very prominent Americans loved it! In fact, Time Magazine named Hitler their Man of the Year for 1938, not because of his antisemitism but because of the "German miracle" brought about by their economic turnaround.

In every aspect of the German economy it was centrally controlled directly or indirectly. Your insistence in flavor as definition of socialism in consistent with about 70-years of whitewashing the socialist track record. Most socialists hate Nazism, but that doesn't make Nazis non-socialists.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
Speech of May 1, 1927 as quoted in John Toland (1976),
Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography, p. 224

Many socialists fight the truth about Nazism. Historically, socialists have been so ashamed of Nazism they want it banished from the history books altogether. Interesting that while they hate Nazism they do their best to embrace Leninism and Maoism, mostly for the sake that those two radically ideologies attempted to spread their system of equality to other countries, international socialism. And since they cannot banish Nazism from the history books they attempt to re-brand it as 'right wing' and capitalism at its best. There is a similar, though much smaller mood about Mao and his 75 million murdered during his "Great Leaps Forward" during the Cultural Revolution. 99.9% of socialists oppose the whole 'murder 200 million of our own' during the 20th Century. It is a sad but undeniable part of the movement.

Good discussion, interesting, not the first time I've seen the refutation of the most obvious: Nazism was a rabid form of socialism, and I'll add, that most socialists hate.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Motherland on December 29, 2013, 12:12:25 PM
Hitler's idea of socialism in the 20s came from a German political movement called the 'Conservative Revolutionaries' which coined the terms 'Prussian Socialism' and 'National Socialism'.  The ideas of these terms were not to align themselves with socialists, but to combine two contradictory terms and characterize a form of revolutionary, anti-capitalist conservatism in the wake of the First World War. Nationalism and reactionary politics are completely, 100% incompatible with socialism, period. That's the point of the phrase. Any nationalist or monarchist or reactionary faction, whether completely laissez-faire, corporatist, or with a completely centrally planned economy is completely opposed to socialism at its core.
As I said, if you read Mein Kampf or Hitlers statements from before the Nazi party was a major force in German politics and started to really mature idealogically into the party that would lead the Third Reich, Hitler seems like a socialist as at the time he himself thought he was a socialist. But things aren't static. Hitler of 1932 or 1934 or 1939 or 1944 was not a socialist. He did not align himself with socialism.

The ideals of the Nazi party were not aligned with Marx or Engels or Lenin or Trotsky or Bakunin or Proudhon or any socialist or anarchist philosopher or movement at any point in history. The Nazis did not feud with socialists because they had minor differences with them, the entirety of their ideologies are completely opposed, other than the idea that free market capitalism is not an ideal economic system. That is the only common thread. And that is a common thread in many many political ideologies, the rest of which are not socialist either, except socialism/communism.

Also, what socialists embrace Maoism? Mao and Stalin were hated by the international socialists about the moment they took power. The PRC is widely considered to be a state capitalist country, not just among socialists. Trotsky has been 'the' real canonized figure in international socialism since Stalin took power.

I also don't know who has ever tried to 'banish Nazism from the history books'
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: Oldman731 on December 29, 2013, 12:27:45 PM
Socialism was classically defined as total state control of the means of production.


Thank you.  Webster says:

Full Definition of SOCIALISM

1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

2 a :  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property.
   b :  a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

3 a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

I think it's important to stay with common definitions; otherwise people start making up their own and the discussion devolves to people talking past each other.

- oldman
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: GScholz on December 29, 2013, 01:06:50 PM
Motherland, Socialism is an economic system, not a complete sociopolitical system. Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. National Socialism certainly had a heavy hand in controlling the German economy. Socialism comes in many different varieties: The typical Scandinavian model is the social-democracy, where economic socialism is mixed with a democratic political structure. National Socialism was a social-militaristic dictatorship, where economic socialism was mixed with a nationalistic dictatorship.

In my country the party that is the most nationalistic, anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-Globalisation, is the Sosialist Left Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosialistisk_Venstreparti
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: mthrockmor on December 29, 2013, 11:42:44 PM
Again, Baptist, Methodists, and Church of Christ will argue for a life-time between their differing views of the Bible. While Jews, Muslims and Atheists may find their passionate bantering interesting they will all see it as one mass of Christianity.

The same here. Maoists, Lenists, Nazis, etc argue debate (and as many socialists are want to do) mass murder each other, all the while insisting their flavor of central government is pure, the others false. In the end...all socialists.
Title: Re: Mikhail Kalashnikov Dies
Post by: BuckShot on December 30, 2013, 09:39:50 PM
"A to the mutha effing K homeboy, A to the mutha effing K."

I wonder if Mikhail ever heard that Cyprus Hill song. "hey they're rapping about my rifle."