• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Socialism and National Socialism

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What?

It's pretty obvious that socialism encourages national socialism, which encourages tyranny, oppression, and eventual collapse or restructuring. It's a power paradigm, not because socialism is evil or whatever. Power flows that way under those rules, it's like Ohm's law for national power flow.
How is it obvious?

Actually, in the past few hundred years, it was capitalism coupled with a great deal of personal freedoms that fueled the biggest booms in human productivity, prosperity, and freedoms, that has yet to stop. And these accepted community, and freed them sufficient to allow them to serve one another on their own terms, with few controls or middle men, and only tax as the overarching big brother that dips his hand in. What it did was RESTRICT you from getting into my personal business. It was explicitly RESTRICTING the flow of power from individual to community that fostered it.
Capitalism has given us a great boost but it's time has come and gone. What you have now is an obscuring of the ways that others have control over your life.

It was the recognition that individuals sufficiently empowered innovated, created, served, and profited, like never before. Once the nobles and elite were no longer telling everyone what to do, amazing things happened. Going to socialism just replaces nobles with a collective, which inevitably becomes a power base, which quickly turns into the elite/nobles again, and you're back to "you're screwed and living in 1984 again".
Except we know now that throwing money at people isnt the best way to motivate them. And what you're describing sounds more like Communism.


:shrug: You define "society" to include whom you wish and exclude those you don't want. It's not neurosurgery there, and it's something societies have been doing as long as there have been societies.
Re-defining an already established society is much more difficult.

There's nothing about socialism which excludes it, either.
That is not a valid argument and you know it.

You're the one claiming it does. You're the one saying that racism can't exist within socialism.
I'm saying racism runs contrary to the goals of Socialism and it's methodology.

When one of the founders and the chief architect of a philosophy envisions his system to allow for racism, then yeah, it really does.
Alright, then show me how Marx was somehow different than anyone else of the period.

Wow; you're really unfamiliar with the first half of the 20th century, aren't you?
Where else did National Socialism appear?

:facepalm: you realize that's sort of like saying that the animal in front of you isn't a dog, it's a terrier? Communism is a subset of Socialism.
They are related but distinct ideologies.

as is national socialism. they both grew out of the same general intellectual movement towards nationalized control over industry and reaction against enlightenment-era liberalism.
National Socialism is not Socialism in almost all respects. The tennents of the different ideologies are almost polar opposite.

yup. you know who killed the most socialists and communists within their own country? ;) Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Bolshevicks killed Menschevicks by the score for the same reason that Nazis killed the internationalist-socialists; they were the competition.
That has nothing to do with my point.

not at all; their ideology was thoroughly left-wing.
How on Earth is that even possible? Socialism and National Socialism are inherently conflicting ideologies.

you are defining "socialists" far too narrowly; methinks in the context of modern socialist parties in Western Europe rather than in the intellectual era of the 1930's.
Care to elaborate?

:fail: mussolini came to power in 1922.
Mussolini was a Fascist, not a National Socialist. Fascism and National Socialism are related but distinct ideologies.

because that's how you unify society. you need an "other"; whether that be the burgeosie, trotskyites, communists, capitalists, jews, etc so on and so forth.
Unity is perfectly achievable with the "other" of poverty, disease, starvation etc etc.

then i would suggest that you study who made up the Eugenics movement and get back to us once your knowledge is enhanced ;).
What on earth does Francis Galton have to do with this?


Are you honestly comparing free choice dependence that I must be part in, to a forced compliance dependence?
If you want to continue your lifestyle in it's present form, yes.

Like I said, the two kind of dependences are not comparable. In any kind of society people will work together for a goal. The difference is free choice with lack of force. The entire reason society was created is to work together to make "yourself" have a better chance of survival and still be free.
That's Socialism, son :)

That isn't ignoring anything. That is staying true to the vision of the society we are in which has always been against force, which clearly minimum wage is, and clearly what unions represent.
Against force? We're plenty for the use of force against marginal elements of our society, see the Civil Rights movement, Native Americans, Kent State, etc etc.

Oh but that doesn't have to do with the policies put in place. The polices put in place in the end did more harm than good. The thing that changed the behavior was knowledge. What I was trying to point out was that no matter what you do, the underlining problem is a built in mechanism that can only be played with, but not replaced.
What knowledge changed? Black people are just as black today as they were fifty years ago.

The papers in themselves don't teach all that much in all honesty. They teach what they thought of the subject, not how it has ever actually worked. I never put much backing on theories that have never actually came to the light of day. They're all appear to me to be theories made by delusional men.
Politics IS theory until you try it out.

You appear to missing the point completely. Its not about the control of the private sector. The private sector has nothing to do with why socialism leads to national socialism. The problem is the government and human nature for why the change happens.
You assume that human nature is immutable and unchanging when very clearly it can and has

One of things you must always remember is just this. Socialist policies can only be enacted through means that a socialist would never approve of.
Not true at all. Look at many European countries and systems such as Social Security and Medicare in this country, public health in Canada, etc etc.

Did we know? Name an example?
The fact that two gay men or two gay women can walk down the street holding hands and NOT be arrested or shot at is a pretty big step. The election of openly gay public officials and the repeals of several bans on gay marriage.

So where would you stop?
That question seems a little too broad to answer with any degree of accuracy.
 

Yossarian

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
258
Reaction score
121
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
2. [...] the famous german national-socialist flag was colored red openly for the reason of appealing to those who had already been part of the larger socialist movement.

Similarly, I think it's logical to suggest that Hitler's vehement criticism of socialism in Mein Kampf and his purging of the Brownshirts were both very blatant attempts to appeal to that socialist constituency...

'Socialism' in a Nazi context has nothing to do with class struggle, wealth redistribution or any other tenet that one would usually regard as an aspect of the socialist panacea. It is all to do with the duty the individual owed to the volk, the 'German Identity' and to the Hegelian concept of the Nazi state (and thus the Fuhrer) as the embodiment of the German peoples' will. While socialism is an internationalist movement which is based on class, national socialism is, as I have just said, based on service to the state as the embodiment of the nation, and hence is strongly nationalistic. The only congruence between the two 'socialisms' is a vague acceptance of communitarianism, but that is not enough to found the argument that the two are identical.

Simply put, conflating 'national socialist' theory with socialism per se is a classic case of semantic reductionism - I mean, they both use the word 'socialism', right? :roll:
 

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It seems the buzzwords "socialism", "fascism" and "communism" are thrown around here in the attempt to attach evil deeds with them, or to attack the respective political opponent. In order to have a fruitful debate, maybe it would be helpful to define these words first, and to look at historical facts:

First, it seems to be en vogue to label anything as "socialism" that's not conservative-style laissez faire capitalism. I think this use of the word doesn't do justice neither to the term "socialism", nor to the concept of a "republican, constitutional system". Nationalizing a few banks, limited regulation of the economy and social welfare systems don't make "socialism". Monarchist-conservative German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck introduced encompassing social welfare systems in the 1880's, including health insurance and public pensions. Obviously, it would be ridiculous to label Bismarck a "socialist".

Then let's have a look at German history: The socialist party SPD (Social Democrats) was the strongest supporter of a constitutional, republican, democratic system during the Kaiserreich, and they were leading the revolution in 1918 to topple monarchy. It was mostly the socialists who established the free, republican Weimar system, along with the Christian Centrists, also for the price of making the communists their enemy. They stood strictly against communism, revolutionary Marxism from the left and fascism or restaurative, authoritarian monarchism from the right. The SPD was the only party to vote against Hitler's "Enabling Act" in 1933, because they wanted to preserve constitutional republicanism. Obviously, "socialism" and flirts with Marxism do not necessarily lead into tyranny. In fact, this brand of political ideology was the only thing that stood against the Nazis in Weimar.

The Nazis, often considered a brand of fascism, were certainly not "socialist" in that original sense of the word. It's true they took many elements from socialism (or rather communism), but they took at least as many ideological elements from the conservative and right side of that time. For example, the main elements of Nazism that are usually closely associated with Nazism today -- militarism, anti-Semitism, racism, imperialistic ambitions -- were taken from the right of that time. It were the monarchist conservatives that had run the country on an ideology of imperialism, racial superiority, militaristic values and ambitions for world domination from 1871 to 1918, often opposed by the socialists, who had a strong internationalist and pacifist wing. That's why the Nazi Party allied with the monarchist-conservative DNVP (National-German People's Party) by the end of Weimar, and why this coalition was the one that finally brought the Nazis into power. And that's why Hitler attempted to sell the myth of a unbroken continuity -- Frederick the Great, Hindenburg, Hitler -- of German nationalism to the masses, at the "Day of Potsdam", when monarchist-conservative President Hindenburg shook hands with Hitler in public. Also, that is why the Nazis called their nation the "Third Reich" (after the "First Reich" of the Holy Roman Empire and the "Second Reich" of the monarchy from 1871 to 1918), and why they skipped the democratic colors black-red-yellow (that were en vogue among liberals, socialists and all people who supported constitutional republicanism) to replace them with the conservative-monarchist colors of black-white-red once again. The constitutional republic of Weimar was accordingly just called "the system" by the Nazis, an allegedly "socialist and democratic abberation" dominated by "socialists, Jews and democrats". The last genuine Germany, in their eyes, had been the conservative Kaiserreich.

The Nazis did all they could to evoke the impression they continue the true conservative tradition of the authoritarian, monarchist Germany, against any attempts for liberal-constitutional revolution from the side of socialists, liberals, or democrats, and in order to do so, they allied with monarchists and conservatives. The Nazis' intellectual elite -- think of law philosopher Carl Schmitt, for example -- was recruited from the so called "conservative revolution" of the 20s, all intellectuals who opposed socialism and republicanism, but instead supported monarchist conservatism, a monarchist restauration or, in the end, Nazism. And the rabid anti-Semitism had been a specialty of the right, before the Nazis took advantage of it, often opposed by socialists who were internationalist and many of which were Jews themselves. And the militaristic "Kadavergehorsam"-authoritarianism was directly taken from the monarchist-conservative playbook, often opposed by pacifist socialists.

But of course, Nazism was not "conservative" or "monarchist", despite these attempts. There were also many socialist elements in Nazism. But just because the Nazis copied these elements, and merged them with elements that originated from the right, doesn't mean they were "socialist" or "left". The Nazis combined elements from both right and left to appeal to as many people as possible. And I'd say the crucial bunch of ideas, which made Nazism so horrible, was not the idea of universal health care i.e. copied from the left, but the militarism, authoritarianism and anti-Semitism copied from the right.

Also, before someone here misunderstands me, let me note that "conservatism" did mean something very different back then, than what it means today. I don't mean to smear conservatism in general. But fact it, the Nazis rode on a wave of conservative thought in 1920s' Germany, and what made them ultimately successful was their attempt at painting themselves as a bulwark against leftist ideas of republicanism, pacifism, equality and internationalism -- in an alliance with conservative monarchists.

The socialists of that time favored equality, and eleminating barriers between different classes and nationalities. Some advocated class warfare to achieve that goal. The Nazis favored nothing of that kind: They were only in favor of equality only insofar as "Volksgenossen" were concerned, but they were strictly against the idea of equality between different nationalities or even races. They did not want class warfare, but race warfare. You may say both is equally bad, but it's obviously a different kind of thing nevertheless.
 
Last edited:

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re-defining an already established society is much more difficult.

Doesn't matter. Besides, that's the current goal of socialists AND socialISM, so if that's what you're going to hang your hat on, you've surrendered your whole ideology.


That is not a valid argument and you know it.

It's not an argument for its own sake; it's a refutation of your argument.

I'm saying racism runs contrary to the goals of Socialism and it's methodology.

No, you say it's preposterous to compare socialism and national socialism because socialism runs counter to racism. But there's nothing in it that does. Which is why it is, indeed, a valid refutation of your premise.

Alright, then show me how Marx was somehow different than anyone else of the period.

Not only is this irrelevant, it actually works in my favor. Pretty hard to say socialism is against racism when, according to you, all those socialists were racists.


Where else did National Socialism appear?

You didn't say "national socialism"; you said fascism. Mussolini established a fascist government in Italy in 1924. Franco became the fascist dictator of Spain in 1936. And as for national socialism itself, it dates back to 1919 and had achieved significant power in Germany by the late 20s; total power by 1933. In general, the 1920s were the heyday of fascism. Decades before WWII. And that, of course, was the period, continuing through the '30s, when Progressives in the west swooned for them.
 
Last edited:

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
20,388
Reaction score
11,954
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
How is it obvious?
How is it not?
You and 10 others own your home and get to determine who can come/go, what improvements, etc. are made.
vs.
You and 10 others now jointly "own" the community. How do you decide who gets to come and go and how improvements are made?
1. you each decide independently? Then it's an absurd system, just let everyone own it to get that.
2. you vote? establish rules and regulations governing how choices are made? Now if the other 10 don't like you, you're ****ed. You think others having that much control over you is good? And what happens when one person gets enough dirt on the other 10, and politically, hell, violently, takes control? Oops, right back to Heil Hitler.

Capitalism has given us a great boost but it's time has come and gone. What you have now is an obscuring of the ways that others have control over your life.
Has something fundamental in Human nature evolved in the past 1000 years? Based on science, that's absurd to claim that the system has "come and gone" in effectiveness. We're the same animals. It didn't give a boost, it was like the sun compared to a ****ing candle.

And you're reasoning is off. Our relatively democratic and capitalistic society gives you enormous control and power on an individual level. Who controls you, Bill Gates? Let's see. I want to write some software of my own. I hire a programmer for $50/hour, pretty cheap depending on where you live. Or, I "hire" Microsoft, and pick up say windows7 off the shelf at Best Buy for $400. The power I wield with controlling directly that $50/hr yields what, 8 equivalent hours of programming? ($400/50$/hr = 8 hrs). What kind of program are you getting for 8 hours? Hello world? W7 took what, 1000 staff, 3 years, 2000hrs/year = 6M person hours. Equivalent of $300M worth of software that you get for actually more like $200 or less when you get OEM (with a PC).

You are RICH BITCH. And you have the power of the sun accessible to you for what amounts to a few days of your labor. That's power, that's freedom, that's control. Nothing else even comes close.

Except we know now that throwing money at people isnt the best way to motivate them. And what you're describing sounds more like Communism.
I didn't suggest it was. Throwing freedom at them was what capitalism did. Choose to work more, make more. Work less, make less. Communism is work more, make the same, work less, make the same. What communism will always lead to is "you're forced to work, and work harder, for as little as they can get away with", once you add the inevitable power grab into the mix.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
There can be a perfectly socialist system which admits only one race, and in fact, Karl Marx himself was a racist prick.
a bold statement. doubtless you can support it with some sort of evidence?

I ask as it is diametrically opposed to the view most folks with any knowledge of the fact have of m. Marx, both supporters AND opponents. the facts are, Marx was a leading European abolitionist. During the U.S. Civil War Marx, as Britain considered providing the agrarian Confederacy with materiel in it fight against the idustrialized North, Marx organized English textile workers to support the blockade against the Confederacy, even though it was against their immediate economic interests and led to massive layoffs due to the cutoff of cotton imported from the South.
"In the United States of North America every independent movement of the workers was paralyzed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the republic. Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded."
Karl Marx - Das Kapital

and no, it was not just Slavery to which he was opposed. Britain had a loooong history of racism prior to their African Adventures:
"Every industrial and commercial center in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. [ the antagonism breween the two] is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.... the national emancipation of Ireland is...the first condition of their own social emancipation."
Letters of Marx and Engels 1870

Speaking of "intellectual honesty" . . .
and then, there was silence.

geo.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
How can anyone with any degree of intellectual honesty make a comparison of this kind?

can't

National Socialism was certainly nationalist but it was in no way Socialist. just ask Union Banking (the origin of the Bush Family wealth), Ford Motor Company, ITT, Chase, Standard Oil... all made a chunka change in furnishing the Nazis with what they needed to terrorize Europe and didn't share a dime. GM made airplanes for the Luftwaffe, Ford made Wermacht troop transports (the CEO was awarded the German Eagle for his efforts). BOTH these corporations has the balls to demand war reparations from the U.S. govt for the destruction of their properties by Allied bombing, btw. THOSE are just the American Profiteers.... need we recall the hideous I.G. Farben or Volkswagen, for that matter, both of whom made huge profits without having to 'redistribute' any of it except to Hitler.

no, hitler was no socialist. he USED socialist rhetoric to enlist dummies into his ranks, but he was whatever he needed to be to gain and hold power.

but... don't let a few facts get in the way...

geo.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
and then, there was silence.

Nice pre-emptive declaration of "silence" there, champ. Most Internet chest-puffers at least wait two to three minutes and then make such a bold declaration of victory in a separate post.

Do you think that all racism has to be about mere skin color, and that it has to be about white racism against blacks?

Notwithstanding, he WAS awfully fond of the word "n_gger."

And lets see, he hated Jews (he really, REALLY hated Jews) . . .

What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

. . . In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.

On the Jewish Question, 1844.

Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.


… the real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loanmongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securities… Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a traveler’s valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader… The language spoken smells strongly of Babel, and the perfume which otherwise pervades the place is by no means of a choice kind.


… Thus do these loans, which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah. This Jew organization of loan-mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners… The fortunes amassed by these loan-mongers are immense, but the wrongs and sufferings thus entailed on the people and the encouragement thus afforded to their oppressors still remain to be told.


… The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, and that the moneychangers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence. The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose and stigmatize their organization.

The Russian Loan, 1856.


He hated Slavs, particularly Russians, which he referred to as "the Slavic rifraff," "retrograde races," "cabbage eaters," and "ethnic trash." His partner Engels, with his approval, published tracts advocating their complete extermination in Neue Reinische Zeitung:

To the sentimentalist slogans of brotherhood which are here offered us in the name of the counterrevolutionary nations of Europe [including the Slavs], we reply that hatred of Russia was and still is the first revolutionary passion of the Germans; that since the Revolution [of 1848], hatred of the Czechs and Croats has been added to it, and that we, along with the Poles [= good Slavs] and Magyars [= Hungarians], will only be able to secure the Revolution through the most determined terror against these Slavic peoples. . .

Then it's war. "A ceaseless fight to the death" [quoting the pan-Slavist Bakunin] with Slavdom, which betrays the Revolution, a battle of annihilation and ruthless terrorism -- not in the interests of Germany , but of the Revolution.

These remains of nations [the Slavic peoples] which have been mercilessly trampled down by the passage of history, as Hegel expressed it, this ethnic trash always becomes and remains until its complete extermination or denationalization, the most fanatic carrier of counterrevolution, since its entire existence is nothing more than a protest against a great historical revolution. . .

The next world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties but also entire reactionary peoples to disappear from the earth. And that too would be progress.

But hey, as long as he opposed slavery and stood up for the Irish, I guess he wasn't a racist. :shrug:
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
12,237
Reaction score
6,496
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I love how you quote On the Jewish Question as if you've read it and know what it's about. It's funny, because it's about the exact opposite of what you're attempting to claim, i.e. it's about the emancipation of the Jews.

This is true of everything else that you have posted. In other words, you clearly have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about.

The Russian Loan, 1856.

BTW do you have a source link to this? I can't find it anywhere. Where in MCW is this, what is the piece actually called?

He hated Slavs, particularly Russians, which he referred to as "the Slavic rifraff," "retrograde races," "cabbage eaters," and "ethnic trash."

Where did he say this?

To the sentimentalist slogans of brotherhood which are here offered us in the name of the counterrevolutionary nations of Europe [including the Slavs], we reply that hatred of Russia was and still is the first revolutionary passion of the Germans; that since the Revolution [of 1848], hatred of the Czechs and Croats has been added to it, and that we, along with the Poles [= good Slavs] and Magyars [= Hungarians], will only be able to secure the Revolution through the most determined terror against these Slavic peoples. . .

Then it's war. "A ceaseless fight to the death" [quoting the pan-Slavist Bakunin] with Slavdom, which betrays the Revolution, a battle of annihilation and ruthless terrorism -- not in the interests of Germany , but of the Revolution.

Do you even know what this is about or did you just pull it off a google search?

Explanation:

The main concern of Marx and Engels was to act as the extreme left wing of the movement and, through organising from below, to push the movement as far as they could.

This raised the question of the Slav people’s struggle for liberation within the context of the competing European empires. Marx and Engels recognised that there could not be self-determination at the end of a struggle against the German Revolution orchestrated entirely by the Russian Empire. Therefore they differentiated themselves from those such as Bakunin, who wanted struggle by all the Slavs to be unified under the banner of pan-Slavism—which meant the subservience of the mass of Slavs to the one Slav nation that could at the time play no progressive role, the Russian autocracy.

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=192&issue=110

IN OTHER WORDS, this was about pan-Slavism as a bulwark of the Russian reaction during the 1848 revolution, and their opposition to it.

I also couldn't find a source for the second quote.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
12,237
Reaction score
6,496
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
BTW here's Marx's own statement on the second to last quote that you quoted, basically saying exactly what I said:

Let us note first of all that there is much excuse for the political romanticism and sentimentality of the democrats at the Slav Congress. With the exception of the Poles - the Poles are not pan-Slavists for very obvious reasons - they all belong to peoples which are either, like the Southern Slavs, necessarily counter-revolutionary owning to the whole of their historical position, or, like the Russians, are still a long way from revolution and therefore, at least for the time being, are still counter-revolutionary. These sections, democratic owing to their education acquired abroad, seek to bring their democratic views into harmony with their national feeling, which is known to be very pronounced among the Slavs; and since the real world, the actual state of things in their country, affords no basis, or only a fictitious basis for such reconciliation, there remains for them nothing but the other-worldly "airy kingdom of dreams" [quoting Heinrich Heine] the realm of pious wishes, the policy of fantasy. How splendid it would be if the Croats, Pandours and Cossacks formed the vanguard of European democracy, if the ambassador of a republic of Siberia were to present his credentials in Paris! Certainly, such prospects would be very delightful; but, after all, even the most enthusiastic pan-Slavist will not demand that European democracy should wait for their realization - and at present it is precisely those nations from whom the manifesto specially demands independence that are the special enemies of democracy.

We repeat: apart from the Poles, the Russians, and at most the Turkish Slavs, no Slav people has a future, for the simple reason that all the other Slavs lack the primary historical, geographical, political and industrial conditions for independence and viability.

Peoples which have never had a history of their own, which from the time when they achieved the first, most elementary stage of civilization already came under foreign sway, or which were forced to attain the first stage of civilization only by means of a foreign yoke, are not viable and will never be able to achieve any kind of independence.

And that has been the fate of the Austrian Slavs. The Czechs, among whom we would include the Moravians and Slovaks, although they differ in respect of language and history, have never had a history of their own. Bohemia has been chained to Germany since the time of Charles the Great. The Czech nation freed itself momentarily and formed the Great-Moravian state, only immediately to come under subjugation again and for 500 years to be a bill thrown from one to another by Germany, Hungary and Poland. Following that, Bohemia and Moravia passed definitely to Germany and the Slovak regions remained with Hungary. And this historically absolutely non-existent "nation" puts forward claims to independence?

The same thing holds for the Southern Slavs proper. Where is the history of the Illyrian Solvenes, the Dalmatians, Croats and Shokazians? Since the 11th century they have lost the last semblance of political independence and have been partly under German, partly under Venetian, and partly under Magyar rule. And it is desired to put together a vigorous, independent, viable nation out of these tattered remnants?

Democratic Pan-Salvism

It goes on, of course.

Notwithstanding, he WAS awfully fond of the word "n_gger."

You realize this was a common term at the time, similar to negro, correct? Guess how you say nigger in Spanish? Or French? Do you really think it has the same impact it does nowadays? Wait, no you don't realize that, otherwise you wouldn't have brought this up. Or you do and you're just being dishonest...
 
Last edited:

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Nice pre-emptive declaration of "silence" there, champ. Most Internet chest-puffers at least wait two to three minutes and then make such a bold declaration of victory in a separate post.
well, one can hope when what all one hears is bull**** that silence will follow. so much for "Hope", eh?
Notwithstanding, he WAS awfully fond of the word "n_gger."
notwithstanding the lack of a single attribution.... again... lots of radical rightwing claims... not a single citation, though. close as anyone comes is the term "itzig" used in reference to La Salle. It was a stereotyping, to be sure, in that it was the name of one of Austria's wealthiest families who happened to be Jewish. The term became a pejorative under the Nazis, but, of course, Marx predated Hitler by a few years.

I hesitate to speculate as to where YOU got the idea.
And lets see, he hated Jews (he really, REALLY hated Jews) . . .
yeah? and you think you make the point? well, let's check out the two quotations you cite....

i'll allow as to how I half-expected that you might post such drivel. I had half hoped that, in the interest of "intellectual honesty", we could avoid the predictable rightwing regurgitation. but....

let's take these one at a time, but, if you will overlook the impertinence of my suggesting it, you really should change the cut 'n paste 'extracts' a LITTLE... otherwise it becomes too easy to find the precise phrasing you employ, editorial ellisions included, on such sites as STORMFRONT. org (the nazis hate marx, slogan "White Pride Worldwide!")), GUYWHITE.org (more nazis) and suchlike places.

Marx was not anti Jew as such. He WAS a jew... his grandfather was a rabbi as whas his great and greatgreat grandfather.

Marx was antireligious (the opiate of the masses", remember?). his criticism of "Judaism" is an academic criticism of religion. How can we know this. well, we can actually READ his criticism, rather than take self serving snippets from right wing ideoblogs.

but, don't get all upset, you won't have to read very far. He makes his intent explicitly clear in the first paragraph:
Criticism here is criticism of theology, a double-edged criticism of Christian theology and of Jewish theology.

Hence, we continue to operate in the sphere of theology, however much we may operate critically within it.
- Karl Marx On The Jewish Question

now, we may find his antireligionism as unsavory as racism, but there is a very real difference.

in the above, "here" meant Germany. the 'Jewish Question', he says means different things in different places. In the U.S. which had no state sanctioned religion, he sees a difference:
the relation of the Jew, and of the religious man in general, to the political state, and therefore the relation of religion to the state, show itself in its specific character
no, his argument does not change - it is still an argument against religion in the state.
the displacement of religion from the state into civil society, this is not a stage of political emancipation but its completion; this emancipation, therefore, neither abolished the real religiousness of man, nor strives to do so...political emancipation from religion leaves religion in existence, although not a privileged religion.
Marx, ibid
sorta jeffersonian, innit?

his argument is not with Judaism (either ethnic or religious), as such, but with his predecessor Bruno Bauer who argued that:
If the Jews want to become free, they should profess belief ...., in the dissolution of religion in general, that is to say, in enlightenment, criticism and its consequence, free humanity.
- Bruno Bauer - The Capacity of Today's Jews and Christians to Become Free

trouble is, Bauer thought this not possible:
The Jew contributes nothing to mankind if he himself disregards his narrow law, if he invalidates his entire Judaism.
Bauer, ibid

Marx disagreed:
Therefore, we do not say to the Jews, as Bauer does: You cannot be emancipated politically without emancipating yourselves radically from Judaism. On the contrary, we tell them: Because you can be emancipated politically without renouncing Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation.
real, human emancipation, thought Marx, obliged emancipation from religion, as well. I would disagree as i disagree with many of his criticisms and conclusions, but i would not mislabel it as racism simply because i had no valid arguments to make.

I will dispense with the second "The Russian Load" quotation briefly. Although we will find this in a number of places (including !SURPRISE! Stormfront.org) attributed as an article published in the New York World Tribune, the trib, on their page dedicated to articles by Karl Marx does not list it and I can find no other reference to it.

you fail to provide any citation at all for the 'antislav' quote. again, we can find the exact pharsing, editorial ellisions included, without attribution in a number of places... places i would not visit, normally. i will not thank you for the offense checking up on your putative quotes have done to me.

so, if you can demonstrate that either article ever actually appeared... anywhere... i will address it as well as i can

geo.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
12,237
Reaction score
6,496
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
you fail to provide any citation at all for the 'antislav' quote. again, we can find the exact pharsing, editorial ellisions included, without attribution in a number of places... places i would not visit, normally. i will not thank you for the offense checking up on your putative quotes have done to me.

The second to last quote was an article from Neue Rheinisch Zeitung. It's available on MIA, although I can't be arsed to look it up because it's already been dealt with.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The second to last quote was an article from Neue Rheinisch Zeitung. It's available on MIA, although I can't be arsed to look it up because it's already been dealt with.

nice work. thanks.

there was, of course, at the time, considerable animosity against the Russian state in Europe in general at the time... they were not behaving very nicely. i will go and find the article and read it. thanks again.

geo.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I love how you quote On the Jewish Question as if you've read it and know what it's about. It's funny, because it's about the exact opposite of what you're attempting to claim, i.e. it's about the emancipation of the Jews.

Sure, it's about the "emancipation" of the Jews by destroying their religion. Ask around and find out what Jews might think of that. Nothing anti-Semitic about wanting to stamp out Judaism. Nope.


This is true of everything else that you have posted. In other words, you clearly have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Oh, imagine that -- the foremost apologist and whitewasher of all things Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist saying I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Could never have imagined it.

Sometimes the disgust at your willingness to shill for these thugs and murders is very difficult to keep down in the throat.

Thing is, I have no doubt you believe the bile you spew in defense of some of history's greatest villains and architects of industrialized murder. But it's no less disgusting for all its brainwashed stupidity.



BTW do you have a source link to this? I can't find it anywhere. Where in MCW is this, what is the piece actually called?

It's called "The Russian Loan," published January 4, 1856 in the New-York Daily Tribune, reprinted in The Eastern Question, downloadable here: Book Club

Dunno why it's not the MCW; you'll have to ask those who selected the works. Can't imagine why a fan of Marx would want to leave it out, though.

Where did he say this?

In letters.



Do you even know what this is about or did you just pull it off a google search?

Explanation:

IN OTHER WORDS, this was about pan-Slavism as a bulwark of the Russian reaction during the 1848 revolution, and their opposition to it.

Sorry; that just does not tack, and oh wow, this "explanation" appears in a book review on a socialist blog -- surprise! In response, why don't I link to FreeRepublic.com?

And I submit it doesn't matter even if it's true. You don't shake the hand of the devil and say you're only play-acting for a "nobler" cause.


I also couldn't find a source for the second quote.

Same as the other.

Look, I get that you need to convince yourself as much as possible that these heroes of yours are white as snow and anything bad attributed to them is simply a capitalist misinformation and propaganda campaign. I get it. I find it disgusting and vile, as I said, but I get it.

I'm also fully aware of how "n_gger" was used at the time and that it's a favorite tack of apologists to say it didn't really mean what we might think it means. I'm also fully aware that every racist prick I've ever met said they use the term in exactly the same way and they don't mean anything negative by it, either. Well, except for the ones who are honest about being racist pricks.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
12,237
Reaction score
6,496
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Harshaw said:
Sure, it's about the "emancipation" of the Jews by destroying their religion. Ask around and find out what Jews might think of that. Nothing anti-Semitic about wanting to stamp out Judaism. Nope.

LOLOLOL Marx never advocated the "destruction of religion". Seriously Harshaw you're just completely embarrassing yourself now. Marx specifically criticized Feuerbach for his "bourgeois anti-theism". In fact, he viewed religion as both a good and a bad thing. This is contained in his famous phrase "religion is the opiate of the masses":

Marx said:
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.


A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right


In other words, Marx was interested in analyzing the two-fold nature of religion - both its backwardness as an expression of the human form not yet realized into superhuman concepts, as well as its emancipatory character. Both the progressive and the reactionary nature of religion are bound up in his famous phrase.


Marx was never in support of attacking religion, because he realized that religion is the expression of the human essence in a world where that essence has not yet materialized, and that this projection is produced through an entire socials structure. In fact, his entire argument is regarding what causes religion and that once these causes are done away with, religion itself would become superfluous.


But it's pretty funny how you're first trying to go from the anti-semitism claim of your last post to this "he hates religion" crap. That is a clear and undeniable backpedal.


Sometimes the disgust at your willingness to shill for these thugs and murders is very difficult to keep down in the throat.

Quit the bellyaching, Harshaw. You've been exposed as a liar and backpedaler in this thread. Your best course of action would be to simply stop posting in it, because it is absolutely clear that you:


1. Don't know anything about what you're talking about
2. Are not willing to admit as such
3. Probably got your "arguments" from a Google search and have never read any of the pieces you have quoted or tried to actually understand them.


But then again, when actual argumentation doesn't work the next best course of action is to just start trolling, right? Seems that's all you people know how to do once your "argument" is entirely dismantled.


Thing is, I have no doubt you believe the bile you spew in defense of some of history's greatest villains and architects of industrialized murder. But it's no less disgusting for all its brainwashed stupidity.


I translate this as: "I can't defend my assertions because they're completely and utterly wrong, and I didn't even know enough about them before posting them to offer up a defense, so now I'll start trolling."


It's called "The Russian Loan," published January 4, 1856 in the New-York Daily Tribune, reprinted in The Eastern Question, downloadable here: Book Club

Dunno why it's not the MCW; you'll have to ask those who selected the works. Can't imagine why a fan of Marx would want to leave it out, though.


Hmm let's look at what your Book Club site says:


"The Eastern question, a reprint of letters written 1853-1856 dealing with the events of the Crimean War [1897] by Marx, Karl, 1818-1883 and Aveling, Eleanor Marx, 1855-1898; 684 pages"


A reprint of letters. So this is in a letter, not a newspaper article. Yet, this Book Club source costs money to view. Now you can go and link to this letter where it is viewable. Because I know you didn't pay the $10 to actually buy this.



In letters.

LOL, what letters?


And I submit it doesn't matter even if it's true.


Submit what you want, you're clearly wrong, and you admit it.


Sorry; that just does not tack, and oh wow, this "explanation" appears in a book review on a socialist blog -- surprise! In response, why don't I link to FreeRepublic.com?


Wow, the explanation was corroborated by Marx's own ****ing words. You got destroyed on that one. :D


And I submit it doesn't matter even if it's true. You don't shake the hand of the devil and say you're only play-acting for a "nobler" cause.

And, as predicted, here the backpedaling comes in.


Same as the other.


No it's not from the same article, I checked.


Look, I get that you need to convince yourself as much as possible that these heroes of yours are white as snow and anything bad attributed to them is simply a capitalist misinformation and propaganda campaign. I get it. I find it disgusting and vile, as I said, but I get it.

LOL and I find that you can't offer up a single ****ing credible argument to defend anything that you are saying, and have thus shown yourself to be completely and utterly wrong. You've completely embarrassed yourself by attempting to offer up a Google-search argument to some people that have studied Marx and Marxism for years. You've been completely and utterly blown out of the water.


Yet you continue to further embarrass yourself by still posting. When are you going to get that you've just humiliated yourself in this thread?

Anyways, continue on, if you wish. I am thoroughly enjoying this.
 
Last edited:

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Oh, I get it -- your entire response is "Nuh-uhhh!!! Yer a LIAR!!!!"

Look, apologists try to explain away things their heroes say as though they really said something entirely different. That's all you've done here. (Oh, and also accuse me of "backpedaling," which of course I didn't do. I stand fully behind everything I said.)
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
258,076
Reaction score
78,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Oh, I get it -- your entire response is "Nuh-uhhh!!! Yer a LIAR!!!!"

Look, apologists try to explain away things their heroes say as though they really said something entirely different. That's all you've done here. (Oh, and also accuse me of "backpedaling," which of course I didn't do. I stand fully behind everything I said.)

collectivism has several strains but deep down they are all the same disease that we need to eradicate. Hitler and Stalin were essentially the same kind of germ
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
78,136
Reaction score
34,586
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh, I get it -- your entire response is "Nuh-uhhh!!! Yer a LIAR!!!!"

Look, apologists try to explain away things their heroes say as though they really said something entirely different. That's all you've done here. (Oh, and also accuse me of "backpedaling," which of course I didn't do. I stand fully behind everything I said.)

Uhh, when you're wrong, it's pretty standard and proper debate for us to tell you that you're wrong, and explain how.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The reason why the basics of socialism has bad connotations is because Hitler and other such people *use* the term 'socialist' when, in fact, they weren't *actually* socialist.

When it's abused and distorted it easily permits fraud, duress and corruption.
But socialism at it's most basic components *does not* use these thing.

A functional form of socialism is the Jewish community usury (not to be confused with the legal term 'usury') which the Jewish community used to support each other during dark times.

In order for socialism to function properly it must be USED properly - for the betterment of everyone who puts into it - and NOT used to harm others.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
78,136
Reaction score
34,586
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The reason why the basics of socialism has bad connotations is because Hitler and other such people *use* the term 'socialist' when, in fact, they weren't *actually* socialist.

When it's abused and distorted it easily permits fraud, duress and corruption.
But socialism at it's most basic components *does not* use these thing.

A functional form of socialism is the Jewish community usury (not to be confused with the legal term 'usury') which the Jewish community used to support each other during dark times.

In order for socialism to function properly it must be USED properly - for the betterment of everyone who puts into it - and NOT used to harm others.

There's also the issue of things not being black and white. Socialism isn't a binary. Our roads are "socialized," but calling everyone who is in favor of publicly funded roads a socialist would be a bit silly, wouldn't it?
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The reason why the basics of socialism has bad connotations is because Hitler and other such people *use* the term 'socialist' when, in fact, they weren't *actually* socialist.

When it's abused and distorted it easily permits fraud, duress and corruption.
But socialism at it's most basic components *does not* use these thing.

A functional form of socialism is the Jewish community usury (not to be confused with the legal term 'usury') which the Jewish community used to support each other during dark times.

In order for socialism to function properly it must be USED properly - for the betterment of everyone who puts into it - and NOT used to harm others.

Well, to be fair, many socialist organizations in the past has threatened to bring about socialism through force of arms. It is those violent extremists who have also given "socialism" a bad name.

There is a branch of socialism that attempts to work with the government in order to peacefully initiate socialist policies, democratic socialism. There are many democratic socialist parties throughout the world who use peaceful politics to bring about their ideals.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
12,237
Reaction score
6,496
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh, I get it -- your entire response is "Nuh-uhhh!!! Yer a LIAR!!!!"

Look, apologists try to explain away things their heroes say as though they really said something entirely different. That's all you've done here. (Oh, and also accuse me of "backpedaling," which of course I didn't do. I stand fully behind everything I said.)

Dude I responded to each and every one of your points with a detailed explanation of why you are a dishonest liar. I have done so with your past two shoddy posts. Yet this is characteristic of how you respond to us; not addressing any points made and just trolling.

I think it's quite clear to anyone that can read who is actually right here and who isn't and doesn't know what they're talking about.

Let me know if you want to actually respond to my points; otherwise I'll just assume you've conceded and don't wish to embarrass yourself further.

Deuce said:
There's also the issue of things not being black and white. Socialism isn't a binary. Our roads are "socialized," but calling everyone who is in favor of publicly funded roads a socialist would be a bit silly, wouldn't it?

Actually, the roads are nationalized, not socialized. Big difference.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well, to be fair, many socialist organizations in the past has threatened to bring about socialism through force of arms. It is those violent extremists who have also given "socialism" a bad name.

There is a branch of socialism that attempts to work with the government in order to peacefully initiate socialist policies, democratic socialism. There are many democratic socialist parties throughout the world who use peaceful politics to bring about their ideals.

True, and we've spread democracy in that means as well as other things . . But that's never the basis or platform for an economic form or social construct - that's the vehicle of implementation and exertion - a personal choice of a dictator or elitist, etc, not a crucial component.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I stand fully behind everything I said.)

there are perfectly good arguments to be made opposing marxism. you just haven't made them. primarily because you seem to find your 'arguments' in places that specialize in disingenuous propagandizing.

attempting to equate marx and hitler is one of the wrong arguments. there is no relationship;

attempting personal attacks on marx is also not very useful, as legitimate as they may be of his person. jefferson kept slaves even long after he came to understand it was evil - even fathered a child on one of his own slaves. that does not discredit his monumental achievements.

try to make good arguments.

here's one. marxism is anti-humanist in denying the right of the proletariat to decide for itself. it is anti-democratic. it assumes an apriori "rightness" to the ideology and therefore the rightness in imposing it onto an unwilling citizenry.

here is another. marxist communism denies elements of human culture that derive directly from what humans are as creatures. competition is innately human. stratification of society (a class system) is an organically evolved cultural response to complexity and the availability of excess.

both statements are arguable, but neither is simply regurgitated propaganda.

try and make legitimate arguments... or just stick with repeating weak dogma... maybe you can convince yourself that it really is intellectually honest.

geo.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
True, and we've spread democracy in that means as well as other things . . But that's never the basis or platform for an economic form or social construct - that's the vehicle of implementation and exertion - a personal choice of a dictator or elitist, etc, not a crucial component.

I don't understand what you mean here. Could you clarify it?
 
Top Bottom