Posted on 12/10/2001 10:32:57 AM PST by Ditto
So you are saying that the academics and media elits who redefined the Nazis as right-wing after the war are the same as crooked Cicero politicians?
Works for me. ;~))
Genocide is needed to maintain the control, the victim is irrelevant, it is usually the Facist if the Communist are in power, and vice versa. Hitler used race because it was already in the Nationalist Party Platform, but he also targeted the Communist in Russia and Eastern Europe. Class has also be used. Any division can be utilized, as the ends justify the means.
people to adopt socialism at first, before violent upheaval brings about the communist state. No, communism and socialism are identifies as two stages, and the transition between the two is necessarily peaceful: it is predicated on the "modification" of men and increased roductivity. Most of this was refined by Lening from the rudiments given by Marx and Engels.
In the former Soviet Union, they declared the victory of socialism around 1937. No revolutions there.
The vanguard can be class envy. It can be racism. It can be religion. These are morives, and the terminology is certainly not Marxian. Nothing about racism, either: history is the struggle of economic classes, everything else is a byproduct.
Originally, Marx and Engels felt that nationalism was an impediment to Marxism. No, not to Marxism. And not quite: Marx believed that the revolution could not happen in one country; socialism must win everywhere at once. It was Lenin who abandonde that premise and led his proletariat to victory in 1917.
The leftist uprising that led to the Axis and World War II Surely you ar enot suggesting that WWII started as a reaction to some misterious leftis uprising!
The Shootist claimed that Hitler was not a socialist because whatever views his were based on, he perverted to his own end. That is just the point; Marxist theory holds that this is precisely what will happen and why the progression from private ownership to a form of socialism and then to communism is inevitable. Sorry, this is false.
Men will grab hold of a vanguard and twist it to their own ends, with it resulting in socialism. Whatever it takes. The result is what is important, not what path is chosen.
Actually, they have debated this point quite a bit. In restrospect, we know that, historically, those who followed or aspired to socialism did, in fact, begave this way.
However, this does not follow from their wrtings, which is why socialism is so attractive to many: they often claim that true socialism has never been tried; Stalin and Mao perverted it. Perhaps, the proper way to say it is this: with no built-in protections from the base elements in the human nature, socialism always deteriorates into violent oppression of its own, although the abominable methods are not actually advocated.
Heck, if you go to Marxists.org and read their philosophies and current thinking, you will find that now radical Islam is accepted by them as being a tool for "social change".
This is patently false. And, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Web is not the ultimate source of education.
That is why you have radical leftists like Ramsey Clark stating that "Islam has probably a billion and a half adherents today. It exists. And it is probably the most compelling spiritual and moral force on earth today. People hate to hear that." The truthfulness of this observation does not depend on whether the protagonist has socialist aspirations.
Notice that the radical Islamics such as Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban all are virulently opposed to capitalism. I have never heard this stated before. Could you please point me to the source?
Rarely do you ever hear that Nazism only became possible as an outgrowth of Communism and totalitarian politics.
Do you have any references to the use of the terms right and left from that time period? I always thought in these inter party battles, the winners called the losers 'counter revolutionaries." I never saw anything that used the terms right vs left.
Lefties today want to blame "nationalism" on the horrors of the 20th century while totally exonerating socialism and communism. When held up to the facts, they just don't pass the smell test. Most of the left loves Nietzsche's "Will to Power" and will excuse away the consequences of this with flimsy explanations. Even more of them have avoided talking about the deadly effects of communsim altogether.
At any rate, the Nazi's were a leftward group, but its "nationalism" contrasted with the the other lefts' "internationalism".
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
Because, as I said, those designations are arbitrary and pretty much worthless. You can use pieces of them to describe just about anyone - remember when Yeltsin stood against the established Communist party? And it was they who were labeled the "rightwing" and Yeltsin, their opponent, who was labeled "leftwing?"
The same might be said about the labels "conservative" and "liberal" - they're pretty much arbitrary. An American "liberal" is nothing like a classic, Continental liberal, who believed in free markets. Neither is a British Liberal. And "conservative" depends pretty much on what it is you're trying to conserve - tree-huggers, who wish to conserve the status quo when it comes to logging, blanch at the thought that they'd be so labeled, so much so that they had to change the very name of the activity from "conservation" to "environmentalism." And to make the whole thing even sillier, they, who are chaining themselves to road machines to prevent development, call themselves "progressives."
I think we'll have to find other, more accurate labels if we're really to have them mean something in political discourse. But that will mean that people have to think instead of merely using pigeonhole labels as intellectual crutches, and I don't think most are willing, and some not able, to put up the necessary effort.
Sonce German national socialism postulated state control with private ownership and management then it clearly is possible for corporations to continue to function so long as the Nazi Party got their cut. It actually is not all that different than many companies operating in socialist nations. By the way the Volkswagon was Hitler's idea. It was designed by Willy Porshewith much personal input from Adolph himself.
Volkswagon was founded as a Nazi company.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
The word is vanguard. And it means the frontal position or tose occupying the same.It also means the forefront of an action or movement. Often, what is at the forefront of a movement is a shared motivation. A driving force, if you will.You are talking about motives. Marxists have identifies the proletariat as the vanguard. No variations.I would agree with you, except for the fact that you are wrong. From Marxists.org:In any social movement there is a vanguard and a mass. On one side, the vanguard, are groups of people who are more resolute and committed, better organised and able to take a leading role in the struggle, and on the other side, the mass, are larger numbers of people who participate in the struggle or are involved simply by their social position, but are less committed or well-placed in relation to the struggle, and will participate only in the decisive moments, which in fact change history.ANYTHING which can be used as the motivation for the vanguard.people to adopt socialism at first, before violent upheaval brings about the communist state. No, communism and socialism are identifies as two stages,Which is just what I said.and the transition between the two is necessarily peaceful: it is predicated on the "modification" of men and increased roductivity. Most of this was refined by Lening from the rudiments given by Marx and Engels.Again, from Marxists.org:The Marxist theory of the vanguard, in relation to class struggle under capitalism, stipulates that the working class, the mass, needs to be militantly lead through revolutionary struggle against capitalismThe vanguard can be class envy. It can be racism. It can be religion. These are morives, and the terminology is certainly not Marxian.You are arguing about a distinction with no difference. The vanguard are the motivated people who overcome the apathy of the mass. What moves the vanguard does not matter. When a wave sweeps over a nation, one can say that the motivations were incidental, that the people involved swept the nation, but more likely it would be described as the motivation sweeping the nation (so-and-so was swept into power on a wave of nationalism, for example).Surely you ar enot suggesting that WWII started as a reaction to some misterious leftist uprising!I am suggesting that WWII could not have occurred had leftists remained out of power.However, this does not follow from their wrtings, which is why socialism is so attractive to many: they often claim that true socialism has never been tried; Stalin and Mao perverted it.That is because Marxism is wrong.Perhaps, the proper way to say it is this: with no built-in protections from the base elements in the human nature, socialism always deteriorates into violent oppression of its own, although the abominable methods are not actually advocated.Close. There can be no built-in protections. None are possible. It will always degenerate. It is a flaw in the theory, and it is the reason why Marxism has been the most evil theory ever promoted on the planet.> Heck, if you go to Marxists.org and read their philosophies and current thinking, you will find that now radical Islam is accepted by them as being a tool for "social change".You are right. Silly me, ignore the Marxists and what they themselves put out (which does include all of the references to the books and such), and instead listen to TopQuark!This is patently false. And, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Web is not the ultimate source of education.
Notice that the radical Islamics such as Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban all are virulently opposed to capitalism. I have never heard this stated before. Could you please point me to the source?You can do your own research, thank you, but let me start you with this excerpt:"But I am confident that Muslims and this nation of 12,000 million Muslims, will, God willing, be able by counting on the help of God to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America. [snip]Sound familiar? Where else do we hear about the mass having their rightful property stolen from them by capitalists (Americans), leaving them with mere crumbs?"The American forces should expect reactions to their actions, from the Muslim world. Any thief or criminal or robber who enters the countries of others in order to steal should expect to be exposed to murder at any time.[snip]
"But to count of these non-believers, who steal the wealth of Muslims then give back some crumbs to certain Islamic states or mini-states reflects a flawed understanding of their duties...
"...the world is governed by the law of the jungle." ABC News interview with Osama Bin Laden
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.