Communism; Nazism and US politics. Aldeth.

Remove all ads!

Sorry about that... was way past my bedtime when I wrote it..

Just out of interest, although it is slightly off topic, I thought the Soviet Union was run by Slavs? Who was it run by then? Not trying to argue here, just want to know myself.

Okay, then, I will repeat what Susipaisti said, because I think that cuts straight to the point

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 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.

As I stated in my previous post, Marx believed that an armed revolution was a natural progression and was needed to end the rule of the Middle Class.

As I really don't have time right now (in the middle of exams) would you be able to explain to me how Communism and Capitalism can co-exist? But I will add them on my list of things to read! (oh, and I read Marx's in two days, not what I stated; I have read ABOUT his theories - there's a difference )


Felinoid and Fabius Maximus:
Thanks for clearing up those points! I stand corrected.

 

Actually I'd say that nazism is considered a lot worse. When the Winter War began it was considered to be a Russian invasion more than a Communist invasion which is one of the main reasons why Finnish communists did not deffect to the Russian side. After the wars the government spread across a lot of Soviet friendly propaganda to support its pro-Soviet policies and quite frankly it worked. There were no big demonstrations or protests when the YVA-agreement was signed, and the communist party was quite strong for several decades after the war.

Nazism however did not have big support during the war nor after the war. Finland was more pro-german than pro-nazi during WWII, because of the fact that we almost chose a German for our king, they helped us in the civil war and were the first country to (or second, I can't remember if Sweden actually got it first) recognize Finland as independent. So yes I would claim that Finland has nearly allways had bigger acceptance for communism than nazism, with the exception of the civil war of 1918.

[ November 23, 2005, 13:15: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

From the BBC
Both are apparently banned in Germany.

To my knowledge, neither the Nazi or Communist party is banned in the UK but calling a party such would be a complete waste of time given the connotations of the name. The ideals of the two are probably best represented by the British Nationalist Party (BNP) and National Front vs the Communist party (didn't have enough votes to get listed) and Scotish Socialist Party.

I had a quick straw pole round the office (UK), and there was general agreement that Nazism is worse than Communism. OK, it's reasonable to believe that this is down to WW2, but interestingly the British as a whole tend to have more nationalistic tendancies than socialistic. (Borne out by the 2005 Election results if you compare far left and far right parties)

Maybe not in your own country, but unfortunatly the leaders of the Nationalistic parties in Britain have long been racist b*stards whose political goal doesn't extend much past kicking those foreigners "back to where they come from".
Personally I can't see why you can't "Love and Preserve your people/culture" alongside people of differing ones. The practice of banning/preventing other cultures from being alongside you could be viewed as a personal insecurity that your own is strong enough to survive the event.

Funny, whilst I might be described as "rootless", according to your desciption above I'm certainly "Nationalistic". I love Britain, the country, the people, and the whole "Britishness".

[ November 23, 2005, 15:15: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

I would say both communism and nazism are despised in Finland, but based on my experience with people older than me it seems nazism isn't so much talked about, because we've had less first-hand experiences with it. The Winter War and it's followup are for some reason more fresh in the public's collective memory than the Lapland War. Some of my relatives who are somewhat right-wing like to call anyone tilted to the left a communist, and not with a very fond tone. The attitude towards nazi Germani seems to be, "they were scum too but at least they helped us a bit."

What I will definetely agree on is that the invasions have always been thought of as Russian rather than communist. The attitudes towards communism are intertwined with attitudes towards Russians, and the history starts long before the rise of communism. I don't think many Finns have such strong feelings towards Chinese communists, for example.

Nazism didn't have support after the war for the simple reason that it was mostly dead. Communism was still alive and kicking, and Finnish politicians wanted to be careful not to get into any further conflicts with the Soviet Union.

 

Although not openly supported in most of Finnish towns, in some places Neo-nazism and right-wing extremism is doing well.

In the last city council election in Turku (3rd biggest town in Finland?) the person who gained second most votes is a right-wing extremist with neo-nazist affiliations. He's stalling the decision making and council votings because he does not want to work with a person with a different ethnic backround.

Also, one of the peole that gained highest amounts of votes in the parliament elections has made some extremely racist comments concerning immigrants, and he's also known for his (previously) close connections with neo-nazis.

Luckily their parties are rather small, thus reducing their influence. As both right- and left-wing extremism isn't greeted with open cheering, the attitudes are still going strong underneath the surface of what can be said publicly.

 

It happens to the best of us.

Ok, here it is some of the most influential people of the SU before Stalin's death - when Russians effectively started to take control of the country: Lenin, Trotski, Stalin, Mikhail Kaganovitch, Yagoda, Beria, Yoruvski, Dzerzhinski - Slavic but not Russian - Zinoviev, Solomon Lozovsky, Andropov, Sverdlov, Lazar Kaganovich, Olga Bronstein, Paulina Zhemchuzina, Matvei Berman, Naftaly Frenkel, Lev Inzhir, Boris Berman, K.V. Pauker, Ilya Ehrenburg, Kamenev etc. Of course this is only a small list that I can think right now out of my head. What do they all have in common? None of them are Russians...
When you take into consideration the ethnicity of the soviet leaders, it becomes much easier to undestand the infinite hate and despise they had for Russian lives.

Ok, but by the same logic I could claim nazism is good, because it can create equality.

Which is a contradiction to the notion that communism was the natural evolution to Capitalism.

I believe I have mentioned Gramsci in past threads, so if you do a small research of my posts, you will find something more in-deepth.
However, I can briefly say that in this perspective of communism as an ideology, a world view, they created a "theory" in which communism could be achieved through the exploit of Capitalism itself. The capitalistic means of production should not be changed - the economic system - and communism should be achieved through the ideological conquer of civil society, which he explained in his "hegemony" theory.
In sort, while the capitalistic economical system fully functions, the commie intellectuals should focus their efforts into poisoning the civil society with their ideas and values.
In this regard, capitalism and communism are fully workable in the same time and space. It is a white revolution, instead of a violent and armed one.
Gramsci was a marxist thinker, and cofounder of the Italian commies party, so there is no doubt about his ideology...

 

I apologize profusely for the rightist slant of my post -- I thought all people knew of my leanings -- most of what I say is colored by my belief in conservative principles, so my antipathy to the left tends to shine through.

The terms "right" and "left" come from the arrangement of seating in the French government after their Revolution. Those who favoured change sat on the left. Those who favoured tradition sat on the right. Thus the terminology.

As for quantifiable examples, well, let's look at some issues that illustrate the difference.

1: Abortion: For centuries it has been frowned on by most (but not all) cultures. Today, the conservatives in western society tend to oppose abortion, while leftists tend to advocate it.

2: Capital punishment: Again, conservatives advocate a punishment that has been common in many cultures. The left tends to oppose it and advocate change in the penal system.

That's enough for now.

 

The left does not "advocate" abortion - they advocate a woman's right to choose. Yes, and how many middle class, good chrurch-going, Bush supporting mothers here in Houston, are the first ones to cart their teenage daughters off to the clinc once they turn up pregnant? It's pretty easy to oppose a woman's right to choose when it's another woman, or someone else's daughter.

 

though the general beleif is that nazism is the extreme right, i also believe this is false, besides that i despise communism(yea i know spl), and i myself is highly liberal.

some people are more needed than others, therefor more worth to society, this is not race determined however...

 

So, by this you insinuate that some people are worth more than others? If that's so, by which, and most importantly by whom's, scale would the worth of a human being be judged?

Neither liberalism, nor communism, indicates the worth of one human being to rise above that of others. Indeed, liberalism is about the freedom to do what you want despite what others may think you should based upon any "pre-set" criteria.

Who are needed more than others? Surely, we need the teachers just as much as a garbage man (the perfect cliche) or a president. Indeed, without the teacher there would be no president and (at least in Denmark) no garbage man. Civilized society relies on everyone who is working to do their part. To quote Pink Floyd; they're "bricks in the wall", though here meant more positively.

 

Svyatoslav:

Thanks for that. Never knew Lenin and them weren't Russian. I knew one of his top 3 (or was it 2) was an American - or atleast studied in American, but I didn't know Lenin wasn't a Russian.

Two falling points, atleast from my view, with that logic there. First of all, equality doesn't automatically mean good. Equity, maybe, but equality no. Equality does not equal fairness.
The second point is... well, I can't see how Nazism can create equality. Would you mind explaining that, please?

Did I say that? Well, if I did say that Marx's believed that Communism was a natural evolution to Capitalism I take it back - it's meant to be the opposite.

Hmm... I'm still not quite on par with how you think they can work together. Just maybe to help me understand a bit better, woul dyou mind explaining how you define communism and capitalism? Reading back over your other posts in this thread I saw something breif about communism, but there wasn't a load of detail there.

 

Several are jews who were born in russia. In Svys world, they were not russian because they were jews.

The russian anti-semitism would be one of the reason for them to join the bolshewiki(?). (I'm not saying that Svy is a anti-semite.)

What was Lenin if not russian? He was born there.

 

I think someone has mentioned equality is good/inequality is evil - was it Susipaist? Then I said I disagree, because I think equality is evil, because it can only be achieved by oppression or violence. Then someone rebuked me saying you can create equality by the mere implementation of road service or public schooling. I said nazism can implement both things as well - which are perfectly on par with it's ideology. Thus, if these simple examples are enough to create equality, and if equality is inherently good, by a mere logical sylogism nazism canbe good as well.

No. Marx said it so himself. He was an evolutionary, and believed so. He was a walking contradiction.

I define communism as a world view based upon artificial and jealous notions of equality, which can never be implemented if not by forceful or violent means - at least originally. But then Gramsci came, and gave a whole new context to communism. He defended a "peaceful" revolution, grounded on the slow destruction of the values of the "liberal-burgueous society", and the replacement of those values to new ones which would allow the transformation of society into the model of the communist ideology/world view. This replacement he called "counter hegemony", which, as the name itself implies, means countering the hegemonous common sense, principles, convictions and values shared in western liberal societies, by those in accordance to marxist ideology. This "counter attack" should be done by infiltrating colleges, mass media, intellectual thinking, entertainment media etc.
In this sense, it can easily be pictured a country with a Capitalist means of production, but with a commie ideology running wild. Of course slowly these two things start to mix themselves, but this is the whole idea behind it to begin with.
----------------------------------------------------

Yes, they are not Russians, not only in my world, but this is common sense amongst Russians.
If you notice the hateful commie mindset, their destructive and terrible will and actions after - and during - the revolution, it becomes crystal clear their motivations: they were not Russians, and hated us with all their passion.

There is no Russian anti-semitism. In the other hand, they seemed to hate us very much. There is a Russian saying that goes like "You end up hating the people you bring harm to".

A mix of zhid, Swedish and tartar.

 

There is no Russian anti-Semitism? Do you mean now? Because historically there sure as hell was. To be fair, though, most European nations have a history of prolific anti-Semitic behaviour -- as does North America.

Chandos, I was merely using abortion as an example of a shibboleth by which liberals and conservatives can be distinguished -- I was not trying to kick off that debate in this thread. Apologies.

 

But his father became a noble... He must have done something right to rise so high under a russian tzar. Despite being no russian.

Or do you want to tell me that the Romanovs were no russians, too?

As I said in an other thread, socialisation and upbringing is crucial. Not genetic heritage.

This is a lie. I don't know who you are lying to: yourself or us. But it is simply not true. Both the tzarist and leninist/stalinist regimes opressed jews. The orthodox church opressed jews. And the people followed.

Maybe. But you also end up hating people who harm you. I think this is the case most of the time.

I bet these jews supported the bolshewiks because they hoped to end this structural anti-semitism. They were wrong, obviously.