Communism; Nazism and US politics. Aldeth.

Remove all ads!

Unless you use this as an argument for killing off large groups of people. Which is where this usually leads. (As more recent examples, see Serbia/Yugoslavia and Rwanda).

So your argument is that communism is bad because it leads to "bloodshed and destruction". On the other hand, nationalism is not so bad, because... you do not really want to look at the end results of this ideology. Give us some examples of 'civilized ' countries who pursue a strongly nationalist policy. (Another example of government based on 'race superiority ideas' is given by prewar Japan).

And as a matter of fact, not all communist regimes end in mayhem. Look at China today. Looks like they might find a way to 'leaven' communism with some free market ideas, and flourish. Also, one should not underestimate the advances Russia made under the reds. They started from a almost medieval age culture in the beginning of the 1900, and by the midcentury they were an industrial and scientific powerhouse (one of the two superpowers, indeed). You should be aware of this, I imagine

 

The House UnAmerican activities Comittee was originally crafted to combat Nazism before World War II. But afterward began investigating communists.

Later they investigated Hollywood:

Edit: Svy - I did see that you agreed that communists were thought of differently during the Cold War than they are now, but many in the "gray generation," those over 60, still carry much of the same feelings towards communists. Many in the KKK and other realted groups embrace Nazi ideology. I would suspect that among many Klan sympathizers, being a Nazi is not nearly as bad as being a Commie.

Your biggest mistake is that you think of those on the Left as being socialists or communists. Here in the US, that is called "Red baiting." It is how those on the right attempt to discredit those on the left. It's the same as if I said those on the right were Nazis, or Fascists.

[ November 21, 2005, 03:41: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Just a quick word on left/right and communism/nazism.
"National Socialist German Workers Party" includes it, actually quite a few ideas of this party were not particulary "right", but quite left, especially concerning the employment politics.
It was a powerfull weapon to mix up political and ethnic vocabulary, it`s partly hard to say what this leaders in nazi germany were actually saying.. ("Folk", "race", "religion"... big mess there)

 

The party ideology you describe is meaningless because it was formed before Hitler took control of it. Afterwards, policy was controled by Hitler and his inner circle. Hilter converted the "party" to his own political and military uses. There was nothing "LEFT" about it in the sense that you are trying to portray, despite the name of the party as "the German Workers" party.

 

Economywise, Yes, IMHO. That Hitler took power and what targets he tried to achieve doesn`t change that.
Don`t get me wrong, it was a DICTATORSHIP, nothing else. Few Ideas just weren`t right.

[Edit: politically right wing, that is!]

E.g. The "Reichsarbeitsdienst", Or RAD, "NationalWorkForce" (roughly translated).

What I`m saying is nazism and right wing politics are not the same (obvioulsly).

[ November 21, 2005, 04:17: Message edited by: Tillix ]

 

Oh, yes. Argeed, Tillix. Sorry I misunderstood you.

 

Chomsky isn't a commie - he's an anarchist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky#Political_views

And that's all I have to say, because I'm lazy and can't be much bothered getting into this debate - enjoy

 

I said that is response to Chandos saying one could ruin his career. Chomsky career is firm and strong.

To deprive people of personal freedom is another way of seeing this. This is evil in my book.
Plus, I disagree with your notion of nazism. Equality if evil to me, because it can NEVER - and that is obviosly a fact - be fulfilled by non-artificial, non-violent and non-oppressive means.

Might as well be, but Finland is a very small country, and has no relevance in the greater dispute of right vs left.

That is funny. People usually call themselves socialists when they want to make clear they are not as extreme as commies are - or because they are afraid of admiting so.
To you, a socialist regime seems to be the exact opposite. That is quite an unusual opinion.
It is even more strange considering western social democracies are socialists.

Except that Marx was a walking contradiction, and urged the proletarians to make a revolution.

That is pure BS! Communism is an ideological system, not economical, as Capitalism is, which was never created on papers by the way, but rather grew out of people's experiences and dealing. Capitalism was later conceptualised by thinkers, but it existed much before that. Capitalism is an economical system, a way to organise the production factors, born out of the evolution of society. Communism is a way of seeing the world - what you call Weltanchauung or something? An ideology born out of the mind of a sick hipocrital moron.
That is why Capitalism and communism are notmutually exclusive, as one is an economical system, while the other a world view. China is a good example of that.
----------------------------------------------------

Racial superiority has nothing to do with the Jugoslavian conflict.
I don't know a damn thing about Rwanda, so I won't comment. Aren't they all blacks?

Your argument is false, because it equates Nationalism with racial superioty.

Regarding the first part of your post, I am sure China is not a good example. Typical commie repressive and violent control. You know what their people has to go through? Appals me that you would cite them as an example to anything positive.
As to the last part of your post, the only thing which I should know is that it is utterly offensive to my people.
The commies murdered the greatest Russian minds, because their intent was to annihilate Russian identity. Their cleansing was a huge genetical setback to Russia. I just wonder how much farther Russia could had got if they had not murdered the most inteligent and capable people. All they did was bring destruction. They industrialised Russia - which was happening already anyway - by exploiting, murdering and starving the people.
--------------------------------------------------

I see. However, when I was talking about nazis and commies, I did mention both David Duke and the late Dr. William Pierce, whom are not nazi per see, but rather stand in the far right. So I don't really think I was being biased against leftist. I applied the same criterion to both far right and far left.

 

Well, no other way of saying this, but that is wrong. That is not at all about what communism is. That is a biased, unknowledgable comment. End of story.

Communism is an economic system, where wealth is held evenly amoungst the people. It's a 'eutopia' - a perfect state, that according to Marx, all nations wil eventaully progress into.

Communism in it's true forms is very rare - through out time it has been, and always will be. Even in modern socity you will find a few examples. Small examples, but there will be a few. These are usually communities which have got together with this ideal in mind (usually no more than 100 or so people).

There is no part of communism which deals with removing peoples freedom and rights. Infact, communism in it's true form is completely and utterly the opposite to this, in nearly every single way.


Communism is something that has been changed and deformed by the media over the past half a century or so. Most people, you will find (atleast most people I know of) will hold a similar belief of communism as what you have just described. Once again I repeat that this is wrong. What you are describing is a dictatorship, which can happen using any economic system imaginable - usually extreme right or left, but it can be maintained under any. Under proper Communism there is no central government at all - all power is in the hands of the people.


[Edit] Just read it over and realised how much I'm rambling..... I'll try adding some more in to make it a bit clearer.

To explain Communism and Marx's theory, form my understanding of it, which just comes from a few days reading about a year ago, so it may not be completely correct.

Marx's believed that the world was under-going a constant 'evolution' (for a lack of a better word). This evolution sees the power shift down the classes, until it reaches a perfect and final state. 100s of years ago we saw all the land and power in the hands of the upper classes and the church. Over the next ~100 following the French Revolution power shifted away from the Upper Class into the hands of the Middle Class - democracy, as we know it today. This transition usually occured with a revolution, but this is not always the case.

According to Marx, after this stage there are two other stages to follow - of which, all the examples that people have used above only fit into the first of the two. First of all is a Dictatorship. After the Middle Class has been over thrown, says Marx, a few individuals from the Lower Class will assume power, but not for long. They will purge the state of 'unbelieves' and get the country ready for 'utopia'. After 10 or so years these dictators will step down, and government organisations will be disbanned, forming a completely free, equal and perfect country - Communism. Of course, this is a theory, and as such it's as far reaching in its truths as, say, Intellegent Design.

The closest we have ever come to seeing a country undergo a Communist reformation was in Russia, just after Lenin took power there. All monetary thingys were scraped, and everything was put into the hands of the state, before been distributed out on a (near) even scale. Of course, this failed completely and lead to so much starvation there are many recorded cases of canabilism, just to survive. But this is the closest we have seen Communism on a large scale.

[Edited the 2nd time!] Don't get Communism confused with other beliefs such as Leninism (I believe that's the word - was based off a book he printed during his exile from Russia during the War) and the likes - these are mutations of Marx' communism. Although similar in many ways, from my understanding, the final goal tends to stop at the stage before communism, although I could be wrong.


[Edited again]
Nazism, on the other hand, we have seen. During World War Two, Nazism was actively pursued. Nazism is a realistic scheme, which we have seen. One based around Race Superiority. That, in short, is why Nazism is more disliked than Communism.


***

[Edit x4]

Yes, they are. But it was still a race conflict. Watch the movie Hotel Rwanda - VERY good movie, and explains a lot accurately.

True - wont' argue there! But it must be pointed out that starvation, exploiting and murdering was going on in the Tsarist Russia, before Lenin took power. Maybe even on a greater scale, in some cases...

[Edit x5] Remind me to read the entire post before posting!

Mate, I would go as far as saying that THAT is utter BS. Learn your definitions. China is no way at all (maybe other than name) a Communist State. Communism and Capitalism ARE economic systems! Communism can (atleast communism as we know it) be run under a democracy, but cannot, in any way at all, be run the same time as a Capitalist economic system is run. Capitalism and Communism are like black and white, off and on, up and down, left and right, day and night. Complete opposites!


[Edited for the 6th time!] Just incase you think I'm been biased towards communism, my political (and economic) views are very right leaning, so I am not trying to promote communism over capitalism in any way - merely pointing out the faults in the above argument.


[Edited for the last time!]

Well, does that mean you don't think Nazism is evil? I'm sure that's not what you mean, but that's the only way I can read what you said. Also, equality does not exactly imply complete equality (which even that can be done in a non-violent/oppressive manner). Your sickleave at work is a means of creating equality, as is public schooling and road services. Are they evil?

[ November 22, 2005, 05:48: Message edited by: Rotku ]

 

Rotku,

Your post is very confusing. I can not make much out of it, but then maybe it is because it is late right now and past bedtime.
Just wanted to say I do not share your view on communism, which is to me, very clearly, an ideology, not an economical system.

BS. Tsarist regime had it's faults, but it does not condone a bunch of non-Russian overthrowing it to bring havoc on the Russians.
Communism was obviously much worse, because it was run by non-Russians, who mostly clearly had not the least respect for Slavs.

Don't pick up my interest, but anyway, a race conflict does not imply the notion of racial superiority.

Do ourselves a favor, and read both Gramsci and Poulantzas for a "few days" - as you did with Marx's thousands pages work - before we continue this. No point going further.

Where does it says in the nazi ideology that public schooling, road services etc are forbidden? Much on the contrary...

 

@Svy & Rotku:
You're both right. Communism is political and economic. From wikipedia:

(Bolded for emphasis.)

Socialism, on the other hand, is the step between capitalism and communism. Again from wikipedia:

Note that all systems claiming to have been communist were actually socialist systems working to become communist. None of them quite made it.

 

Allegedly working to become communist.

Yes, I know it's confusing. There are socialists, and there are socialists. Some prefer the democratic, and some the totalitarian approach.
Because Marx never wrote about the allocation of political power. He did not create a political system.

Maybe, because he thought that capitalism was at its end.

No. It was not an race conflict. It was a war between two traditionally warring tribes.

 

Well, I don't know what else I can say that hasn't already been said. I guess I'll say this - while most people will agree that both nazism and communism are evil, I feel that most Americans look down more upon communists, simply because communism is still a viable (although very much fringe) political movement in the U.S. Nazis, on the other hand, are considered fringe-element kooks and nutjobs. The only Nazis running around are the cazies roaming around Idaho waiting for the next big war. They are socially, politically, and economically irrelevant. Communists, while still earning less than 1% of the popular vote in elections have a national political party. Moreover, from a cultural standpoint, being associated with the Communist party is considered being very anti-American. I will concede that this viewpoint is not nearly as widespread today as it was during the Red Scare of 50 years ago, but it is still undoubtedly present.

As far as comments in the opening post concerning rightism vs. leftism, I will only comment briefly, as the post has clearly not taken that direction.

Rightism = pro-war, pro-big business, pro-tax cuts, anti-labor unions, anti-social programs (like Social Security, Medicare, etc.) and I think Bush hits all those points well. Recently, the right has also been closely associated with religion, although I wouldn't list that as one of its core values.

[ November 22, 2005, 19:52: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but were you not arguing in another thread about purity of race ideas, and how arab/black people are incapable of adjusting and becoming a part of a western civilization? So while you technically are right (i. e. nationalism and racism are technically different) in practice, it amounts to pretty much the same thing. After all, it is a small step from saying "we are better than people outside our national border" to saying "we are better than people outside our ethnic group".

I also notice you were not able to come up with a good example for a 'nationalist' country maybe because the available ones are not so good for your argument

 

What does the country's size or population density have to do with anything? It's a valid example like any other. How big does a country need to be before it "counts?"

Finland was never invaded by nazis, but it was invaded by Soviet communists. Finland was in fact an ally of Germany for a time in WW2. The nazis helped Finland against the Soviet Union, and for that reason many old people and many of those now approximately middle aged people, whose parents were in the war, definetely see nazis as the lesser evil.

Btw, a race conflict is one that's reasons are based on race, and even if it's not an Aryan type of "we are genetically superior", it usually involves a mentality of "we are better than them." And this mentality does not limit itself to the soldiers or the individuals originally responsible for the conflict - it extends to seeing an entire race in a certain light.

Nowhere, forget the nazis for a second. These are means of attempting to provide equality. And this is what you said on equality:

 

I have always seen the right left argument in the following terms: The Right is interested in tradition. They believe that the people who went on before us had good ideas. They believe in established institutions like religion, the family, and the political system that has been in place in the area in question (for a long time, that meant support for monarchies or governments that had a monarchalflavour to them.) They do not believe in change unless that change will CLEARLY better the lot of the majority of the population.

Leftists are all about change. They are the revolutionaries who want to do things differently. Rather than respect the traditions and institutions that have been in place for generations, they tend to reject these things as outdated. They favour attempting innovative and extreme experiments in social structures.

Now the discussion being conducted here was about communism and nazism, supposedly. The thing that I would say about this was that both the German Nazis and the Soviet Communists were totalitarian regimes. The government, for whatever reason, was deeply intrusive into the lives of its people. That intrusion of the government into private life is what rankles many Americans, as they do not like "The Man" telling them what to do.

During the Second World War, of course the Nazis were the absolute worst thing to the American conscience. They were racist (though America itself had it's own segregationist policies), violent (though the Americans had fought their share of wars) and believed in expansion of their borders (Manifest Destiny ring any bells?)

Pardon the sarcasm, but in any event, the Nazis were the threat to world peace and so that's who the Americans hated. After WW2, the Nazis were no longer a threat. The USSR was. Thus commenced the Cold War, and like in any other war, the enemy is vilified. So for the next 60 years or so, the Commies were the ultimate evil.

The Americans did not suffer civilian losses during the Second World War. Thus they found it easier to shift their animosity to the Soviets than did, say, the French, who had suffered grievously under the Nazi occupation.

End rant.

 

He created a world view; one that is incorporated - although midly changed to fit our times - by thinkers such as Gramsci and Poulantzas, both of which have a great impact on western thinking nowadays.

If it was at it's end, why bother taking arms?
---------------------------------------------------

Except that I never said Nationalism was about claiming National superiority. I dare you to find a quote of me saying my people/Nation is the supreme one.
Nationalism is about loving and wishing to preserve your people/culture. You can believe within you, that your ethnical group is superior to the others, but in no way this the political/ideological goal of Nationalism.

I don't care for what the germans or the japs did. My ideology has nothing do to with nazism or Japanese imperialism.
I don't need to use their - foreign - example to justify or excuse my world view on my Nation.
----------------------------------------------------

Size is very relevant. Do you think if Switzerland was the nazi state in WWII instead of germany, there would had been any conflict or destruction as we had?

No. A race conflict revolves around defending your people against a different ethnical group. It does not need to be based upon notions of superiority.
Anyway, as I said, I don't know **** about what happened in Rwanda, but Fabius said it was not even a race conflict, so maybe you should review your argument.

You said nazism is evil because it is based upon inequality.
Then you said things like public schooling and road service create equality. Nazism is not the least opposed to these measures - quite the contrary. Thus, nazism can create equality. Your logic is equality = good; inequality = evil.
So, nazism can be good...

 

Svyatoslav:

I wasn't talking about a small country's significance in a war. I brought it up as an example of a place where communism has a worse ring to it than nazism. It seemed strange to me that you would just dismiss that because the country is small.

If nazis had come from a counrty as small as Switzerland, surely the conflicts would have been smaller. But one must remember that compared to the Soviet Union and the US, Germany was pretty small too.

I wasn't talking about Rwanda, but the definition of a racial conflict. I looked up the definition and it seems you are correct; an ethnic conflict doesn't need to have its basis in racial issues, even though they often do.

Actually it was Rotku who brought up the schooling and roads, and this was in response to your comment that "equality is evil because it can only be achieved through artificial, forcible means." I took his point to be that no, equality is not an evil thing.

Since your response to Rotku didn't strike me as a very sensible one, I basically said the same thing to you: that since your logic was equality=evil, public schooling and such things that aim for equality must by that logic be evil as well. The reason for saying this was that the argument that "equality is a bad thing" seems very strange to me.

LKD:

You've painted a somewhat rightist-favored view of what rightism and leftism are. One with a more leftist bent might say rightists object change, period. And that leftists, instead of change for change's sake, wish to change society for the better.

 

I see what you mean, but all that I am saying is that even if in a small Nation X way of thinking is imperative, it makes no difference if the bigger countries think otherwise, in practical terms.
In this case, even if in Finland communism is seen is a worse light than nazism is, it makes no difference in worldly matters, considering elsewhere big and powerful - germany, France, the UK - the opposite is true.
One just have to look to the fact nazi parties are banned in some of those countries, while commie ones are not.

Yep. Notions of superiority might be at stake in these conflicts, but then they might be not.

Ok, it was Rotku. My argument stands the same though.

 

It would be good if you can demonstrate this formula in a verifiable way, one which would have some test in reality. Of course I am approaching this very fluid definition from an American's perspective, and yours, in your own country may be a bit different.

I suppose the New Deal was a sort of revolution, one which the right has been trying to undo for the last 60 years. To my mind, the real political left is still the New Deal advocates, with fairness to the American workers, the poor, the sick and the elderly. The New Deal advocates believe that goverment should protect the weak and those who are in need. The right believes something different, and since I'm not on the right, I would not persume to speak for them. My definition of the right would only be jaded by my leftist thinking. But I am familar with the leftist approach to the problems of ecology, healthcare, retirement, education for those who cannot afford it, and worker's rights, as these issues are represented by FDR, the New Deal, and the policies that have come about as a result of the New Deal. That is the real "left," at least as far as I am concerned.