Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Who is your favourite revolutionary?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWho is your favourite revolutionary?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1516171819 24>
Poll Question: Who is your favourite revolutionary?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
3 [8.33%]
0 [0.00%]
2 [5.56%]
3 [8.33%]
0 [0.00%]
1 [2.78%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
2 [5.56%]
1 [2.78%]
1 [2.78%]
0 [0.00%]
17 [47.22%]
6 [16.67%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
emigre80 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 07:29
Originally posted by Triceratopsoil Triceratopsoil wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Most competent historians and philosophers agree that Nazism and Communism had a lot in common

That's the most novel interpretation of the word "competent" I've ever seen

 
Much as it pains me to agree with Triceratopsoil, I must echo his comment.  I have never encountered any competent historian that asserts this.
 
Perhaps some of the confusion here is from the identification of Soviet Russia as a communist state, when in fact it was a fascist dictatorship pretending to be a communist state. Stalin and Hitler, both being fascist dictators, had much in common, fascism and communism do not. 
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 11:37
...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
What?
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 11:52
^Agree. One had government factories while the other still had private industries, but both were systems with oppressive forms of socialism non the less.

Edited by SteveG - September 21 2015 at 12:06
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 12:30
Originally posted by Dean 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.


            
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 12:42
Originally posted by TGM: Orb TGM: Orb wrote:



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?

Because the roots of Nazism are in Marxism, but Hitler was not Communist.

If you try to identify Communism and Marxism as synonyms you are wrong.

Do you know how Mussolini called Facism?

Socialist Corporativism, he was even member of the Socialist Party of Italy and head of the socialist newspaper Avanti.



Originally posted by TGM: Orb TGM: Orb wrote:

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?

Again...Because Marxism is not a synonym of Communism


Originally posted by TGM: Orb TGM: Orb wrote:

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.

Would any right wing and/or democratic government even think in

a) Agrarian reform
b) Expropriation without compensation
c) Abolition of trusts
d) Participation of the Government in every business

No way, that's more characteristic of communism than of what you call capitalism
            
Back to Top
Svetonio View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 13:21
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Dean 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" Ermm 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
Back to Top
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Online
Points: 13626
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 13:27
Originally posted by Dean 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 agree. A lot of Ivan's points do get lost in translation somewhat.

We can, though, put all of these arguments in a far simpler way

As far as the poor wretches living under the respective regimes were concerned, there was not a jot of difference between them.

The Fascist state, Nazi state, and Stalinist state were all repressive, ugly, and responsible for the slaughter of millions of innocents. All of them described themselves as parties of the people, forms of socialist government.

It is this basic point which those of us who loathe such institutions, and Ivan is amongst them, are trying to make. Trying to justify a bunch of butchers as being somehow less nasty than another bunch of butchers is defending the indefensible. They were all butchers, and a chronic stain upon humanity.

As long as tits such as Svetonio, and he is by no means alone, continue to labour this basic wrong, humanity will continue to make the same mistakes over and over.
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Back to Top
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Online
Points: 13626
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 13:35
Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Dean 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" Ermm 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.
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Back to Top
Triceratopsoil View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 03 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 18016
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 14:33
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Because the roots of Nazism are in Marxism, but Hitler was not Communist.


No.  Nazism started off as a populist nationalist movement.  Marxism was about destabilizing Russia.  The original Bolcheviks hated Russia and Europe.  I would posit that every communist since has been a "useful idiot" as they say.  There's a reason marxism/communism doesn't work, it was explicitly thought up to ruin nations.

"You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators."
-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 15:40
Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

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" Ermm 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)

Pal, I could talk about democracy for hours, I made my thesis about the Presidential figure

Capacidad de postulación y de ejercicio del cargo de Presidente de la República

Iván Alejandro Melgar Morey - 1991 - 261 pages
https://books.google.com.pe/books?op=lookup&id=7OeHrgEACAAJ&continue=https://books.google.com.pe/books/about/Capacidad_de_postulaci%25C3%25B3n_y_de_ejercicio.html%3Fid%3D7OeHrgEACAAJ%26hl%3Des-419

But that's not the point here, democracy is not a perfect system, but the traditional modern definition one person one vote is the best one.

Samuel S Corwin (The Constitution and What It Means Today) said that the President has more powers than a king, and that's true, there will be abuse everywhere, but at least in 4, 5 or 6 years we can change the President if we believe he did wrong.

And if I don't like what is happening, I can take a plane  and go to live anywhere I want, because the fronteers are not closed.

A country where you have to close the fronteers not to prevent illegal aliens but to prevent people from escaping, is wrong.


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 21 2015 at 15:43
            
Back to Top
TGM: Orb View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 21 2007
Location: n/a
Status: Offline
Points: 8052
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 16:02
Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

Originally posted by Dean 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 agree. A lot of Ivan's points do get lost in translation somewhat.

We can, though, put all of these arguments in a far simpler way

As far as the poor wretches living under the respective regimes were concerned, there was not a jot of difference between them.

The Fascist state, Nazi state, and Stalinist state were all repressive, ugly, and responsible for the slaughter of millions of innocents. All of them described themselves as parties of the people, forms of socialist government.

It is this basic point which those of us who loathe such institutions, and Ivan is amongst them, are trying to make. Trying to justify a bunch of butchers as being somehow less nasty than another bunch of butchers is defending the indefensible. They were all butchers, and a chronic stain upon humanity.

As long as tits such as Svetonio, and he is by no means alone, continue to labour this basic wrong, humanity will continue to make the same mistakes over and over.


If the USSR had been less oppressive, I don't think it would have survived the concerted attempt of most of the world's major powers to 'strangle it in its cradle'. A victory for the White Russian alliance, which was employing pogroms on Jews and which was backed the UK, the US and Japan would have been just as bloody. Perhaps more so.

I don't think you need to justify Stalin to accept that the involvement and motives of foreign powers in the Russian Civil War were partially responsible for making the USSR as oppressive and militaristic as it was (cf. the Vietnam War, for instance).
Back to Top
TGM: Orb View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 21 2007
Location: n/a
Status: Offline
Points: 8052
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 16:30
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by TGM: Orb TGM: Orb wrote:



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?

Because the roots of Nazism are in Marxism, but Hitler was not Communist.

If you try to identify Communism and Marxism as synonyms you are wrong.

Do you know how Mussolini called Facism?

Socialist Corporativism, he was even member of the Socialist Party of Italy and head of the socialist newspaper Avanti.

Originally posted by TGM: Orb TGM: Orb wrote:

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?

Again...Because Marxism is not a synonym of Communism


Originally posted by TGM: Orb TGM: Orb wrote:

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.

Would any right wing and/or democratic government even think in

a) Agrarian reform
b) Expropriation without compensation
c) Abolition of trusts
d) Participation of the Government in every business

No way, that's more characteristic of communism than of what you call capitalism


You know that Hitler used the terms Marxism, Bolshevism and Communism interchangeably most of the time? I am fully aware that Marxism and Communism aren't equivalents, though they were typically viewed as such by the European nationalist right. The Daily Mail quote I brought up earlier clearly viewed Hitler and Mussolini favourably as right-wing parties.

Nazism's gov't involvement 'in all businesses' was only remotely true once the war broke out. Prior to the war they privatised many key elements of infrastructure, outlawed trade unions and suppressed wages. The command economy instituted by the Nazis was a necessity of Hitler's total warfare doctrine, not a left-wing political ideal and yes, right wing gov'ts would do and have done all of those measures.

Hitler was not driven by class struggle, hence he was not a Marxist. It's that simple. His dedication to national and ethnic superiority was deeply antithetical to Marxism's 'workers of the world, unite' and largely represented a reactionary defence of traditional interests. His only consistent internal opponents prior to the war were the communist parties, not the democrats or the Mittelstand.
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 16:40
^While not strictly a class struggle, Germany was in the throws of the Great Depression and many Germans starved, lost homes, etc. Hitler played up these 'have nots' and created a scapegoat that was later largely exterminated. He may have not been a man of the people but he still portrayed himself as a man for the people. The German people.
Back to Top
TGM: Orb View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 21 2007
Location: n/a
Status: Offline
Points: 8052
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 16:58
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^While not strictly a class struggle, Germany was in the throws of the Great Depression and many Germans starved, lost homes, etc. Hitler played up these 'have nots' and created a scapegoat that was later largely exterminated. He may have not been a man of the people but he still portrayed himself as a man for the people. The German people.


True enough, hence the coopting of the sozialismus label but, as a rule, the Nazis were more electorally successful in areas of lower unemployment, while the communists were generally more popular in the areas of high unemployment. A lot of Hitler's electoral support came from bourgeois and reactionary elements supporting him against the Marxists. If he had, as Ivan wants to assert, been some sort of Left-wing Marxist figure, the social democrats would have invested just as much time and energy in shutting him down as they did in oppressing the Communists.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 18:31
Originally posted by TGM: Orb TGM: Orb wrote:



You know that Hitler used the terms Marxism, Bolshevism and Communism interchangeably most of the time? I am fully aware that Marxism and Communism aren't equivalents, though they were typically viewed as such by the European nationalist right. The Daily Mail quote I brought up earlier clearly viewed Hitler and Mussolini favourably as right-wing parties.

What Hitler used is not transcendental, Hitler was an ignorant soldier (Not officer), who spoke with the language he wanted the people to listen but usually fell in contradictions

He spoke well of the Church and Christianity, but also said "Religion is incompatible with the Reich" and the more memorable

“In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.” –Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 6

“Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it’s the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back fifteen centuries.” –Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 322

Here you have a few Hitler quotes

“If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites – and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose.” “How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?”

Adolf Hitler Speech to the NSDAP 1920


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 (1927)


“I am a Socialist and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend Count Reventlow.” 

Adolf Hitler 1930 Conversation with Otto Strasser


Quote

In a 1924 New York Times article written by Goebbels (the Propaganda Minister), Goebbels revealed that Lenin and Hitler’s National Socialist Labor Party can be compared; the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith was very slight. This admission didn’t go down well with potential voters; thus, the Nazi’s changed their tactics and never again publicly stressed their resemblance to Communists.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2686291/posts

I believe it's more than obvious.


Originally posted by TGM: Orb TGM: Orb wrote:

Nazism's gov't involvement 'in all businesses' was only remotely true once the war broke out. Prior to the war they privatised many key elements of infrastructure, outlawed trade unions and suppressed wages. The command economy instituted by the Nazis was a necessity of Hitler's total warfare doctrine, not a left-wing political ideal and yes, right wing gov'ts would do and have done all of those measures.

Sorry, please read this

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

Munich 24 February 1920



Hitler may have waited to the war to implement this changes BUT HE PROPOSED THEM IN 1920, IN OTHER WORDS, 19 YEARS BEFORE THE WAR


Originally posted by TGM: Orb TGM: Orb wrote:

Hitler was not driven by class struggle, hence he was not a Marxist. It's that simple. His dedication to national and ethnic superiority was deeply antithetical to Marxism's 'workers of the world, unite' and largely represented a reactionary defence of traditional interests. His only consistent internal opponents prior to the war were the communist parties, not the democrats or the Mittelstand.

Ethnic superiority was unethical for marxists

What about?

  1. Ucranians 
  2. Chechens
  3. Romanian Jews
  4. Balkans
  5. Jews
  6. Gemans
  7. Koreans
  8. Etc
All of them exterminated or relocated by force, which also constitutes Genocide




Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; 

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (Holomodor)

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (Jews, Chechens, Balkans, etc....)


So please don't tell me about Marxist morality as some sort of Categorical Imperative, because even when there are moral Marxists, Stalin was immoral and criminal.



Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 21 2015 at 19:26
            
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 18:41
LOL



when will you all ever learn....



The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65240
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 18:46
 
19 Great Costume Ideas For The Night
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 18:48
hahahhaha Thumbs Up
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65240
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 18:49
He is rather Ivan-like, isn't he.   I think Galt is my favorite revolutionary.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 21 2015 at 18:55
oh no doubt!  Clap God help this forum if Ivan ever left.... he is definitely an alltimer top 5'r PA's character...

in fact I'd put him at #2 on my list behind the irrepressible Tony R. 
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1516171819 24>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.