Who is your favourite revolutionary? |
Post Reply | Page <1 1516171819 24> |
Author | ||||
emigre80
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 25 2015 Location: kentucky Status: Offline Points: 2223 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 07:29 | |||
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.
|
||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
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?
|
||||
SteveG
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 11 2014 Location: Kyiv In Spirit Status: Offline Points: 20604 |
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.
|
||||
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19535 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 12:30 | |||
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. |
||||
|
||||
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19535 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 12:42 | |||
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.
Again...Because Marxism is not a synonym of Communism
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
|
||||
|
||||
Svetonio
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 20 2010 Location: Serbia Status: Offline Points: 10213 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 13:21 | |||
Edited by Svetonio - September 21 2015 at 13:27 |
||||
lazland
Prog Reviewer Joined: October 28 2008 Location: Wales Status: Offline Points: 13626 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 13:27 | |||
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! |
||||
lazland
Prog Reviewer Joined: October 28 2008 Location: Wales Status: Offline Points: 13626 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 13:35 | |||
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! |
||||
Triceratopsoil
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 03 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 18016 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 14:33 | |||
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 |
||||
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19535 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 15:40 | |||
Pal, I could talk about democracy for hours, I made my thesis about the Presidential figure
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 |
||||
|
||||
TGM: Orb
Prog Reviewer Joined: October 21 2007 Location: n/a Status: Offline Points: 8052 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 16:02 | |||
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). |
||||
TGM: Orb
Prog Reviewer Joined: October 21 2007 Location: n/a Status: Offline Points: 8052 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 16:30 | |||
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. |
||||
SteveG
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 11 2014 Location: Kyiv In Spirit Status: Offline Points: 20604 |
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.
|
||||
TGM: Orb
Prog Reviewer Joined: October 21 2007 Location: n/a Status: Offline Points: 8052 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 16:58 | |||
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. |
||||
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19535 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 18:31 | |||
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
Here you have a few Hitler quotes I believe it's more than obvious.
Sorry, please read this 11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery. 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
Ethnic superiority was unethical for marxists What about?
All of them exterminated or relocated by force, which also constitutes Genocide
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 |
||||
|
||||
micky
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46833 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 18:41 | |||
when will you all ever learn.... |
||||
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
||||
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65239 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 18:46 | |||
|
||||
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
||||
micky
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46833 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 18:48 | |||
hahahhaha
|
||||
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
||||
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65239 |
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
|
||||
micky
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46833 |
Posted: September 21 2015 at 18:55 | |||
oh no doubt! 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
|
||||
Post Reply | Page <1 1516171819 24> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |