Who is your favourite revolutionary?

Svetonio wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Dean wrote: ...I  understand where Iván is coming from but get the feeling that the gist of what he is saying has become lost because he is somewhat over-stating his point. Yes the Nazi's vehemently opposed Communism and vice versa but the ideologies (especially in practice) were not diametric opposites, both can be seen as socialism, (the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party in more than just name), both were authoritarian and neither were Democracies. Still I have problems explaining my ideas in English which is not my native language. Would be much clear in my native language, being that I have my whole bibliograpgy in Spanish. I even wrote an article for El Comercio about this issue. I think that for you Ivan it will be not so hard to explain one thing - what you mean by Democracy? Is it ancient Ellada? Or this was DDR? Whether Democracy was that non-party pluralism, economic system of 100% decentralized self-management enterprises owned by the workpeople themselfs, the delegates election system and high level of freedom in the national culture etc, in Tito's Yugoslavia? Or, is Democracy for you that system in which all those lobby groups, leased by the big multinational corporations or overseas states, are lobby for domestic and foreign interest groups and the states ( as e.g. Democratic Saudi Arabia, as a big ally of the USA & UK) in the parliaments with two or three parties who are fighting for power and for what they really need a lot of money no matter from where it really came if it's "clear"  money? What is Democracy for you exactly, Ivan? ( please no wiki quotes, no stormfront.org quotes, etc, I'd like to hear that from you what is Democracy)

I will not answer for Ivan. He is perfectly capable of doing this himself.

I will, though, try to make a basic point to you, although I will be wasting my breath.

Democracy takes many different forms. It means something different to many different people and peoples.

As with the old Eastern Bloc, North Korea still styles itself as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Their definition of democracy is a world away from most on this planet. Need I go on? Isn't this plainly obvious?

Demagogues and dictators always, absolutely always, style themselves as tribunes of the people. To understand why this is so crucial, you need to go back to the Roman Republic, when a whole host of demagogues came to power as Tribunes, not Consuls.

Demagogues do not come to power by promising to slaughter the masses, or repress them. They promise to free people and introduce true "democracy". They promise to uphold their supporters, potential and actual, way of life, culture, and nation. This is so unutterably basic. It is this realisation which leads one to political and historical maturity. Anything less is the complete opposite, and this is where you fail every decent test of understanding.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Dean wrote: ...I  understand where Iván is coming from but get the feeling that the gist of what he is saying has become lost because he is somewhat over-stating his point. Yes the Nazi's vehemently opposed Communism and vice versa but the ideologies (especially in practice) were not diametric opposites, both can be seen as socialism, (the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party in more than just name), both were authoritarian and neither were Democracies. Still I have problems explaining my ideas in English which is not my native language. Would be much clear in my native language, being that I have my whole bibliograpgy in Spanish. I even wrote an article for El Comercio about this issue.

I think that for you Ivan it will be not so hard to explain one thing - what you mean by Democracy? Is it ancient Ellada? Or this was DDR? Whether Democracy was that non-party pluralism, economic system of 100% decentralized self-management enterprises owned by the workpeople themselfs, the delegates election system and high level of freedom in the national culture etc, in Tito's Yugoslavia? Or, is Democracy for you that system in which all those lobby groups, leased by the big multinational corporations or overseas states, are lobby for domestic and foreign interest groups and the states ( as e.g. Democratic Saudi Arabia, as a big ally of the USA & UK) in the parliaments with two or three parties who are fighting for power and for what they really need a lot of money no matter from where it really came if it's "clear"  money? What is Democracy for you exactly, Ivan? ( please no wiki quotes, no stormfront.org quotes, etc, I'd like to hear that from you what is Democracy)

Edited by Svetonio - September 21 2015 at 13:27

Dean wrote: ...I  understand where Iván is coming from but get the feeling that the gist of what he is saying has become lost because he is somewhat over-stating his point. Yes the Nazi's vehemently opposed Communism and vice versa but the ideologies (especially in practice) were not diametric opposites, both can be seen as socialism, (the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party in more than just name), both were authoritarian and neither were Democracies.

...I  understand where Iván is coming from but get the feeling that the gist of what he is saying has become lost because he is somewhat over-stating his point. Yes the Nazi's vehemently opposed Communism and vice versa but the ideologies (especially in practice) were not diametric opposites, both can be seen as socialism, (the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party in more than just name), both were authoritarian and neither were Democracies.

Edited by Dean - September 21 2015 at 11:38

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: Unfortunately runs into the brick wall of how people actually saw it at the time. That's called PERSPECTIVE, given by time. Let's see some things: A. Both regimens create a powerful central government B. Agrarian reform proposed by both C. Expropriations without payment in Mein Kampf and the 25 points similar to USSR D. Hatred towards capitalism and democracy E. Totalitarian systems F. Despice for human rights G. Landers are similar to Soviets H. What about the cleansing of the Romanies in 1933 USSR and the ethnic deportations in USSR between 1930 and 1950 including Cossacs, Polish, Balkars, Chechens, Tartars, etc? May seem funny, but even their propaganda is similar. Please, don't tell me this are more than casual similarities.

When you pull up some contemporary quotes and then reject other ones as 'perspective' that's called 'cherrypicking'.

If the Communists and the Nazis agreed on most things, why didn't the German Communists join the Nazi party? Why were the German Communists sent to concentration camps? Why did Communism oppose Fascism even more staunchly than the Social Democrats and so on in the 1920s? Why were the Communists the first party banned by the Nazis during Gleichshaltung? Why did the British, right-wing Daily Mail support the Fascists on the grounds that the Nazis, Mussolini, the Blackshirts etc. opposed the communists?

Similarly, you might ask, why did the SPD's repressive forces not challenge Nazism with the same energy they devoted to Bolshevism? Why were the German democrats happy to cooperate with Hitler and not with the KPD? Why was most of the real opposition to Hitler in Germany prior to his takeover conducted by Communist militants while the Democrats and Capitalists appeased him?

Nazism was not a Left-wing movement (in conception, constituency, reception and execution it was profoundly anti-left) and the Nazis and Communists in Germany detested each other.


Edited by TGM: Orb - September 21 2015 at 04:22

Svetonio wrote: Is stormfront.org enough good place for learning "the true history"?

I don't know, I never read hate pages

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: Every single form of Fascism in the world (Pinochet, Hitler, Mussolini, British Brownshirts) has been marked out by a complete attack on Communism. Ivan's idea that Nazi Germany was 'communist' is absolutely ridiculous if you consider for a moment Hitler's attitude to Communism (or the Daily Mail's support for Mussolini on the grounds that he was dealing with the Communists). I know Ivan gets off on high school debating but it's clear there's an inherent ideological opposition between the two. Fascism is generally pretty bourgeois. If you read any of Yeats' or Pound's support for fascism, they're for it largely on anti-egalitarian grounds. RIDICULOUS? Most competent historians and philosophers agree that Nazism and Communism had a lot in common Hitler hated Stalin yes, but because he had the same ambitions on Eastern Europe You can read  - Hannah Arendt's, The Origins of Totalitarianism - Goebbles said: We Nationalists are disciples of Marx and Engels" (Kampf un Berlin) - We are Socialists and mortal enemies of the actual Capialist System (Der Nationalsocialismus, die Weltanschauung des 20 Jahrhunderts)) NOTE: The translations are from Spanish and may not be literally exact)

Unfortunately runs into the brick wall of how people actually saw it at the time.

'In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.' - Adolf Hitler

yeah David.. I paid Dean the ultimate complement to protect, and NOT smear, his reputation by associating him with the feared and brutal gang of AR thugs.

What thanks do I get.. sheesh.. old Micky wouldn't have cared and would have thrown Dean under the bus to share in the glory of our war crimes against idiot forumites,  DT fans, SWilson when he dared joined the forum here, any and all forms of Neo Prog and prog metal in general.

darksinger wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Svetonio wrote:  Nazism, reprehensible as it was, appeared after Russian revolution 1917 and nazism was an excessive reaction to the Communist threat on capitalism. Nazism replaced the class struggle with the struggle between "Aryans" at one side, and Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and others "non-Aryans" on other side. Nazism displaces the class struggle onto racial struggle and in doing so, nazism obfuscates its true nature. What changes in the passage from Communism to Nazism is a matter of form, and that's where the Nazi ideological mystification resides: the political struggle to the invasion of a "foreign" (Jewish) body which disturbs that fantasized "harmony" of the "Aryan" community.   So that neo-liberal attitude towards Communism and nazism that they are both bad - is a priori wrong. When, in September 2003, Silvio Berlusconi provoked a violent outcry with his observation that Mussolini, unlike Hitler, Stalin or Saddam Hussein, never killed anyone, the true scandal was the fact that this statement is far from the expression of a specific Berlusconi's view of reality, was part of an ongoing project to change the terms of a postwar European identity, which until then had been based on anti-Fascist unity. This is the real context in which to understand the call of European conservatives in 2003 to ban communist symbols; it was a group of proto-fascist members of the European Parliament in 2003, mostly from ex-Communist countries, demanded that ban to the Communist symbols: not only the hammer and sickle, but even the red star.   And why do countries of Western Europe and the United States did not open a second front during the Second World War until 1944? Is the reason perhaps that it was selling weapons technology, products and other goods on both sides during the conflict? Why would enter the war conflict and lowered so great profits from both sides, and why the leaders of Poland and other European countries had attitude that, ''rather kneel in front of Hitler, but not to allow the presence of the Red Army on its territory''? Because they knew that under Hitler's nazism, if they cooperate with him, they would preserve their private industry and profits, while in real socialism it will never happen - all this would be under nationalization in the real socialism. So it was clear to the imperialists that communism was / is much more dangerous than nazism / fascism, because nazism / fascism will always to preserve that big (private) business. You need some clases of history I concur, especially since fascism and national socialism ("Nazism") are not mutually inclusive. Fascism actually does not have a set definition but is more of a term to describe certain characteristics that may or may not exist as a whole. Also, pro-Aryan (which "Aryan" is a fictitious concept) is not mutually inclusive to fascism. For example, Mussolini's Fascist party included Jews early on before his entanglement into Hitler's National Socialism.

Every single form of Fascism in the world (Pinochet, Hitler, Mussolini, British Brownshirts) has been marked out by a complete attack on Communism. Ivan's idea that Nazi Germany was 'communist' is absolutely ridiculous if you consider for a moment Hitler's attitude to Communism (or the Daily Mail's support for Mussolini on the grounds that he was dealing with the Communists). I know Ivan gets off on high school debating but it's clear there's an inherent ideological opposition between the two. Fascism is generally pretty bourgeois. If you read any of Yeats' or Pound's support for fascism, they're for it largely on anti-egalitarian grounds.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: SteveG wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: You need some clases of history I Think Svetonio has had classes in history, which was warped by Tito's regime, and the ability to relearn may be beyond him. I said HISTORY.......Not INDOCTRINATION.

Unfortunately, sometimes indoctrination alters history.