Also, Goering, Sportpalast, 1933.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/OAK---Marxism-in-America----Video.html?soid=1102905912381&aid=qYibscDslJ8
This is some of the nonsense that Stewart and Colbert are talking about[/quote]
that guy doesnt know marxism very well, I doubt he have ever read the communist manifesto or other writings of him, and what the fuck does hitler( the biggest antimarxist ever ) have to do with marxism.
[/quote]
The people that do not think there is an Anti Obama machine running on nothing more than nonsense , are is denial . This is just one example . I think it is frightening to believe People let stuff like this gain traction. [/quote]
its actually more sad than frightening from my wiew. Instead of making this nonsene up, they could have attacked him on real issues, like: afganistan. why dont more people react to the fact that theire taxmoneys are used and debt are created to blow people up in afganistan. Thats a real issue, but no lets make up some marxist/illumunati/bilgerberger/new world order conspiracy because the real world is to complicated. [/quote]
You are preaching to the choir , But I am sure why they do not want to criticize him for the war on Afghanistan is the Republicans want to feed the war machine as much as the Dems .[/quote]
lets just hope that antiwar-conservatives like ron paul and antiwar-progressives like ralph nader get more heard the years to come.
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, Goering, Sportpalast, 1933.
[/quote]
can you provide a link?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/OAK---Marxism-in-America----Video.html?soid=1102905912381&aid=qYibscDslJ8
This is some of the nonsense that Stewart and Colbert are talking about[/quote]
that guy doesnt know marxism very well, I doubt he have ever read the communist manifesto or other writings of him, and what the fuck does hitler( the biggest antimarxist ever ) have to do with marxism.
[/quote]
Well, Hitler was about as anti-Marxist as the Pope was anti-Lutheran.
Schisms are the worst.
[/quote]
If you dont recognize wikipedia, find me another objective article from a source you like better, but for know this will do. It clearly states that nazisme is not even close to marxism. It says what I have said on this forum all along that nazism and fascism are a mix of different ideologys with a rather strong racist and totalitarian streak. One point thats made in the article that I have read in my text in political philosophy, is that the nazi definition of socialism is very different from the the marxist one. If you ask I can qoute you the pharagraph from the textbook if you like.[/quote]
Well, thank God real live “Marxian” socialism never had racist, totalitarian or anti-semitic streaks.
Who was it again who had 4 year plans and who had the 5 year plans?
I always seem to forget.
No, really, they were totally different.
[/quote]
please provide some evidence for racist marxists?
you know that marxist are proletarian internationalist, and because of this they have solidarity with all workers wherever they are and whatever they skintone is.
trotsky, marx, bernstein and others where semits. Are you calling them selfhating jews?
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
So has anyone else noticed that yesterday just after Obama makes this failure of an appearance there was a worldwide terror alert with bombs being airmailed to synagogues? [/quote]
Yes I have noticed. And?[/quote]
I figured it was just a matter of time before some assholes said it was a secret CIA plot to distract us like they did on 9/11. So I was trying to be ahead of the curve. If you read the comments section in Britain’s daily Telegraph there already are people over there saying it was the CIA.
There really are people out there who believe that shit so deeply that to them it is their reality.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/OAK---Marxism-in-America----Video.html?soid=1102905912381&aid=qYibscDslJ8
This is some of the nonsense that Stewart and Colbert are talking about[/quote]
that guy doesnt know marxism very well, I doubt he have ever read the communist manifesto or other writings of him, and what the fuck does hitler( the biggest antimarxist ever ) have to do with marxism.
[/quote]
If I remember correctly, Hitler was actually pretty short.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/OAK---Marxism-in-America----Video.html?soid=1102905912381&aid=qYibscDslJ8
This is some of the nonsense that Stewart and Colbert are talking about[/quote]
that guy doesnt know marxism very well, I doubt he have ever read the communist manifesto or other writings of him, and what the fuck does hitler( the biggest antimarxist ever ) have to do with marxism.
[/quote]
Well, Hitler was about as anti-Marxist as the Pope was anti-Lutheran.
Schisms are the worst.
[/quote]
If you dont recognize wikipedia, find me another objective article from a source you like better, but for know this will do. It clearly states that nazisme is not even close to marxism. It says what I have said on this forum all along that nazism and fascism are a mix of different ideologys with a rather strong racist and totalitarian streak. One point thats made in the article that I have read in my text in political philosophy, is that the nazi definition of socialism is very different from the the marxist one. If you ask I can qoute you the pharagraph from the textbook if you like.[/quote]
Well, thank God real live “Marxian” socialism never had racist, totalitarian or anti-semitic streaks.
Who was it again who had 4 year plans and who had the 5 year plans?
I always seem to forget.
No, really, they were totally different.
[/quote]
please provide some evidence for racist marxists?
you know that marxist are proletarian internationalist, and because of this they have solidarity with all workers wherever they are and whatever they skintone is.
trotsky, marx, bernstein and others where semits. Are you calling them selfhating jews?
[/quote]
time magazine 1964:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,875826,00.html
The major center of persecution of Jews nowadays is the Soviet Union. In a land openly dedicated to atheism, the 3,000,000 Jews of Russia suffer more than any other faith because they are attacked both for their religion and as a despised national minority. Last week in Washington, more than 500 representatives from 24 U.S. Jewish organizations gathered to plan the kind of loud foreign protest that so far has proved the best curb on Soviet antiSemitism.
There was plenty of evidence to prove that pious Soviet denials of anti-Jewish activity are hollow. The most topical was a book called Judaism Without Embellishment, published last year by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. One cartoon from this “history” of Judaism showed a man with an exaggeratedly hooked nose described as a Zionist leader serving the “Hitlerite” invaders of the Ukraine.
Books for Yakuts. In the days of the Czar, Russian Jews were periodically subject to brutal, bloody pogroms, but they could often escape suffering by fleeing Russia. The Soviet government forbids emigration and plans its persecutions in more subtle ways. Theoretically, Russian Judaism is permitted to preserve its own culture. But all 17 Yiddish theaters in Russia have been closed down, and only six books in Yiddish have been published since 1959â??compared with 144 in one year alone for the 236,000 members of the obscure Yakut nation of Siberia.
The Russians have done all they could to discourage Jewish religious observance. Since 1956 the number of active synagogues has dropped from 450 to 97. There is only one kosher butcher shop and only one seminary for rabbis in all of Russia. Just before Passover last month, the Soviet government expressed its good will toward the Jews by allowing Moscow’s chief rabbi to open a special matzo bakery. Two days later, it was closed down as a health hazard, and customs officials confiscated matzos shipped to Russia by American Jews.
Jewish Names. Sometimes persecution takes a more malevolent form. About half of all persons sentenced to death in recent years for such crimes against the state as black marketing and embezzlement have had Jewish names. In some parts of the Soviet Union, notably in Nikita Khrushchev’s Ukraine, Jews constitute about 80% of the criminals sentenced to death.
THERE’S NOTHING NEW about the upsurge in recent months of leftist theories about Jewish conspiracies, particularly in Europe. Anti-Semitism has long been established in the history of the radical left. It reached its peak in the Soviet repression and mass murder of Jewish Bolsheviks during the 1920s and 1930s. And it found tragic repetition in the early 1950s, when Joseph Stalin launched new purges against the Communist elite both in Moscow and in Eastern Europe.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/666jpuxd.asp
Stalin and the Jews
Along with the purges went a pogrom directed at a group of Soviet doctors, many of them Jewish, as a pretext for wholesale deportation, and yet another effort at mass murder, of the Jews. The episode, known as “the Doctors’ Plot,” represented the last convulsion of Stalinism in its most extreme, pathological form. This year–on the fiftieth anniversary of the Soviet dictator’s death–Jonathan Brent and Vladimir P. Naumov have published “Stalin’s Last Crime: The Plot Against the Jewish Doctors 1948-1953.” Brent is the head of Yale University Press and best known for directing the outstanding “Annals of Communism” series issued by Yale, which translates and annotates archival documents. Naumov is a leading Russian historian and former state official. Together, their scholarship makes Stalin’s homicidal, Judeophobic intentions undeniable
The antisemitic campaign of 1948-1953 against so-called “rootless cosmopolitans”, destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, the fabrication of the “Doctors’ plot”, the rise of “Zionology” were officially carried out under the banner of “anti-Zionism,” but the use of this term could not obscure the antisemitic content of these campaigns,[original research?] and by the mid-1950s the state persecution of Soviet Jews emerged as a major human rights issue in the West and domestically.
As for racism:
Well, there was the Holodomor, the resettlement of the Tatars, Kalmyks, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Karachai,
Meskhetians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and Armenians, in other words, non Russian minorities were specfically targeted.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, Goering, Sportpalast, 1933.
[/quote]
can you provide a link?[/quote]
By the power vested in me by Google, I hereby provide a link:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, Goering, Sportpalast, 1933.
[/quote]
can you provide a link?[/quote]
By the power vested in me by Google, I hereby provide a link:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goering1.htm[/quote]
he makes a distinction beetwen marxist-socialism and national-socialism. thanks for proven my point. national-socialism is not part of the marxian tradition.
and to your post about racism in sovjet. Did the sovjet regime have racist policy because it was founded on marxist-leninism, or was it because something else? maybe lets see: a tradition of antisemitism from before the revolution. My point is, you dont prove that marxism is racist because some people calling themself marxist are racist! its the same as saying that christianity preaches war because of the crusades. its a conclusion based on a failed logic. Read marx and even Lenin, they did not argue for racism. heck even lenin warned the party about the fraction he called “the socialnationalist” and how they where not real marxist because they where holding on to a nationalist mentality, that where and are in direct conflict with the internationalist perspectiv of marxism. Since I am a marxist I allways react negativ to talk about patriotism and national pride etc because I know it can under the wrong circumstances lead to nasty bussines.
[quote]orion wrote:
As for racism:
Well, there was the Holodomor, the resettlement of the Tatars, Kalmyks, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Karachai,
Meskhetians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and Armenians, in other words, non Russian minorities were specfically targeted.
[/quote]
You left out the Ukrainians and we all know what happened to them.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
As for racism:
Well, there was the Holodomor, the resettlement of the Tatars, Kalmyks, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Karachai,
Meskhetians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and Armenians, in other words, non Russian minorities were specfically targeted.
[/quote]
You left out the Ukrainians and we all know what happened to them.[/quote]
Que?
What do you think a “Holodomor” is?
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, Goering, Sportpalast, 1933.
[/quote]
can you provide a link?[/quote]
By the power vested in me by Google, I hereby provide a link:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goering1.htm[/quote]
he makes a distinction beetwen marxist-socialism and national-socialism. thanks for proven my point. national-socialism is not part of the marxian tradition.
and to your post about racism in sovjet. Did the sovjet regime have racist policy because it was founded on marxist-leninism, or was it because something else? maybe lets see: a tradition of antisemitism from before the revolution. My point is, you dont prove that marxism is racist because some people calling themself marxist are racist! its the same as saying that christianity preaches war because of the crusades. its a conclusion based on a failed logic. Read marx and even Lenin, they did not argue for racism. heck even lenin warned the party about the fraction he called “the socialnationalist” and how they where not real marxist because they where holding on to a nationalist mentality, that where and are in direct conflict with the internationalist perspectiv of marxism. Since I am a marxist I allways react negativ to talk about patriotism and national pride etc because I know it can under the wrong circumstances lead to nasty bussines.
[/quote]
If you had actually read the link instead of skimmed it you would know that he was proud that he took marxism from the Marxists and blended it with nationalism.
Also, the same can be said about Fascism. It is not inherently racist, nor is it inherently anti-semitic. In fact, most fascist movements were neither.
Plus, you are missing the bigger point:
When you vest so much power in the state it is only a matter of time before sociopaths are drawn to that power and then it is no longer possible to distinguish between the two ideologies if you are on the receiving end of their cruelty.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
As for racism:
Well, there was the Holodomor, the resettlement of the Tatars, Kalmyks, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Karachai,
Meskhetians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and Armenians, in other words, non Russian minorities were specfically targeted.
[/quote]
You left out the Ukrainians and we all know what happened to them.[/quote]
Que?
What do you think a “Holodomor” is?
[/quote]
Okay I was wondering and I didn’t bother to google search. I’ve never heard that one before.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, Goering, Sportpalast, 1933.
[/quote]
can you provide a link?[/quote]
By the power vested in me by Google, I hereby provide a link:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goering1.htm[/quote]
he makes a distinction beetwen marxist-socialism and national-socialism. thanks for proven my point. national-socialism is not part of the marxian tradition.
and to your post about racism in sovjet. Did the sovjet regime have racist policy because it was founded on marxist-leninism, or was it because something else? maybe lets see: a tradition of antisemitism from before the revolution. My point is, you dont prove that marxism is racist because some people calling themself marxist are racist! its the same as saying that christianity preaches war because of the crusades. its a conclusion based on a failed logic. Read marx and even Lenin, they did not argue for racism. heck even lenin warned the party about the fraction he called “the socialnationalist” and how they where not real marxist because they where holding on to a nationalist mentality, that where and are in direct conflict with the internationalist perspectiv of marxism. Since I am a marxist I allways react negativ to talk about patriotism and national pride etc because I know it can under the wrong circumstances lead to nasty bussines.
[/quote]
If you had actually read the link instead of skimmed it you would know that he was proud that he took marxism from the Marxists and blended it with nationalism.
Also, the same can be said about Fascism. It is not inherently racist, nor is it inherently anti-semitic. In fact, most fascist movements were neither.
Plus, you are missing the bigger point:
When you vest so much power in the state it is only a matter of time before sociopaths are drawn to that power and then it is no longer possible to distinguish between the two ideologies if you are on the receiving end of their cruelty.
[/quote]
I think you skimmed the speach. He was proud of taking socialism from the marxist, and then blending it with nationalism and therefor creating the german nazism. He then starts rambling on how they must crush marxists and marxism. the nazi definiton of socialism is not the same as the marxist ( how many times must I say this ). the marxist defined that word in the 1800s. the nazis did come along in the 1920s and made theire own definition. If you blend marxian-socialism with nationalism, you dont get nazism. You get Stalinism.
to the other: Nazism is in its core racist, but italian fascism is not.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, Goering, Sportpalast, 1933.
[/quote]
can you provide a link?[/quote]
By the power vested in me by Google, I hereby provide a link:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goering1.htm[/quote]
he makes a distinction beetwen marxist-socialism and national-socialism. thanks for proven my point. national-socialism is not part of the marxian tradition.
and to your post about racism in sovjet. Did the sovjet regime have racist policy because it was founded on marxist-leninism, or was it because something else? maybe lets see: a tradition of antisemitism from before the revolution. My point is, you dont prove that marxism is racist because some people calling themself marxist are racist! its the same as saying that christianity preaches war because of the crusades. its a conclusion based on a failed logic. Read marx and even Lenin, they did not argue for racism. heck even lenin warned the party about the fraction he called “the socialnationalist” and how they where not real marxist because they where holding on to a nationalist mentality, that where and are in direct conflict with the internationalist perspectiv of marxism. Since I am a marxist I allways react negativ to talk about patriotism and national pride etc because I know it can under the wrong circumstances lead to nasty bussines.
[/quote]
If you had actually read the link instead of skimmed it you would know that he was proud that he took marxism from the Marxists and blended it with nationalism.
Also, the same can be said about Fascism. It is not inherently racist, nor is it inherently anti-semitic. In fact, most fascist movements were neither.
Plus, you are missing the bigger point:
When you vest so much power in the state it is only a matter of time before sociopaths are drawn to that power and then it is no longer possible to distinguish between the two ideologies if you are on the receiving end of their cruelty.
[/quote]
I think you skimmed the speach. He was proud of taking socialism from the marxist, and then blending it with nationalism and therefor creating the german nazism. He then starts rambling on how they must crush marxists and marxism. the nazi definiton of socialism is not the same as the marxist ( how many times must I say this ). the marxist defined that word in the 1800s. the nazis did come along in the 1920s and made theire own definition. If you blend marxian-socialism with nationalism, you dont get nazism. You get Stalinism.
to the other: Nazism is in its core racist, but italian fascism is not.
[/quote]
Neither was Portuguese, Spanish or Austrian fascism.
So the Nazis were a form of socialism? Developed by Marx, among others, but somehow completely different.
So the big difference is what exactly when you live under either regime?
no.
socialism has never been “developed by Marx, among others”.
socialism already existed as an ideology and as a political movement decades before Marx.
Marx just thought it was the “next stage” of developement of the economy. before communism, which would end the war between classes started in the neolithic.
the so-called socialism of Nazism was essentialy a propaganda argument. Nazis pretended being both socialists and nationalists in order to unite both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie under their own Fürher.
nazism was a volkisch movement. first and foremost. with very little concern for economical questions.
when they got the power, they didn’t started a socialist revolution, nor socialist reforms.
they do very little change to the structure of the economy, besides those required by the war and their racist totalitarian ideology.
and yet, the militaro-industrial corporations themselves weren’t socialized, collectivized or nationalized by the third reich.
you can still argue they were socialists because they weren’t libertarians, and that if you are not a libertarian, you are a marxist pig. but it’s beyond ridiculous.
[quote]kamui wrote:
no.
socialism has never been “developed by Marx, among others”.
socialism already existed as an ideology and as a political movement decades before Marx.
Marx just thought it was the “next stage” of developement of the economy. before communism, which would end the war between classes started in the neolithic.
the so-called socialism of Nazism was essentialy a propaganda argument. Nazis pretended being both socialists and nationalists in order to unite both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie under their own F�¼rher.
nazism was a volkisch movement. first and foremost. with very little concern for economical questions.
when they got the power, they didn’t started a socialist revolution, nor socialist reforms.
they do very little change to the structure of the economy, besides those required by the war and their racist totalitarian ideology.
and yet, the militaro-industrial corporations themselves weren’t socialized, collectivized or nationalized by the third reich.
you can still argue they were socialists because they weren’t libertarians, and that if you are not a libertarian, you are a marxist pig. but it’s beyond ridiculous.
[/quote]
great post. this sums it up nicely.
Nazi Social Control
(a) Control of mass media. All the means of communication were monopolized by the government. The press and the cinema had to show pictures glorifying the Nazi movements. The Ministry of Propaganda, in the hands of Dr. Goebbels, worked to build up the popularity of the Fuhrer.
(b) Control of education. Education, from kindergarten to university, was a toll for indoctrinating the young. Boys (10-18 years old) were sent to the Hitler Youth, girls (10-18 years old) to the Hitler Maidens. School textbooks were re-written along Nazi lines (e.g. race study was emphasized). University professors were required to wear swastika and take an oath of allegiance to Hitler.
(c) Crushing of discontent. Hitler also made use of the S. S. (Hitler’s elite body-guard) to execute many of his political opponents and put them into the concentration camps.
Economic Re-organization
An economic re-organization of Germany was also undertaken.
(i) The Labour Policy:
(a) All labour unions were abolished by a decree of July 14, 1933. The Labour Front was set up instead. Both employers and employees joined it. According to the National Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state would exert direct influence and control over all business employing more than twenty persons. In other words, both employers and employees were put under the control of the government.
(b) The employees were forbidden to strike. In future, if they had any dispute with their employers concerning wages and conditions, they had to refer them to the Labour Trustees.
[Go Top]
(ii) Nazi Economic Policy:
The goal of the re-organization of the economy was to achieve German self-sufficiency (Autarky). In September 1936, a Four-Year Plan was launched. It was intended to make Germany self-sufficient in coal, iron, steel and other basic raw materials and improve the economy by initiating public works and financial aid to industry and agriculture. After 1935, Hitler also implemented a massive rearmament programme.
Hitler’s economic policy did solve the problem of unemployment. Unemployment dropped from 6 millions in 1932 to less than I million in 1936. The reasons were that:
(a) Many Germans were conscripted into the army.
(b) Many Germans found jobs in the huge public work projects, Hitler Youth, concentration camps and the Nazi party.
(c) Jews and married women were forced out of public service as far as possible, and so created many vacancies.
So they took complete control over the media and education and vowed to bring any company over 20 employees under their control, but they were socialist in name only?
Got it.
Also:
â??The party takes over the function of what has been societyâ??that is what I wanted them to understand. The party is all-embracing. It rules our lives in all their breadth and depth. We must therefore develop branches of the party in which the whole of individual life will be reflected. Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no licence, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialismâ??not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper. It does not alter external conditions; no, it establishes the relation of the individual to the State, the national community. It does this with the help of one party, or perhaps I should say of one order.â??
Adolf Hitler
If we feel and experience this great era thus,â?? Hitler concluded, â??then we shall not be disturbed by details and individual failures. We shall know then that every road leads us forward, no matter how much it seems to go in another direction. And above all, we shall then maintain our passionate desire to revolutionize the world to an extent unparalleled in history. It gives us also a special, secret pleasure to see how the people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.â??