Why the nazis hated the communists?

[cappiej]

I want the opinion of some self-identified communists on this, when studying for my history exam I asked my teacher why, when their economic policy seemed so similar, the NSDAP hated the communists so much, he said that it was in fact because they were so similar that it posed a thread to Hitler getting elected.

He said political parties don't like other parties that could take part of their vote, and this was the case with the communists & nazis in pre-war Germany.

I asked whether the racial policy of the NSDAP had anything to do with it and he said not really as the majority of Germans felt the same as the nazis about jews and gypsies etc.

[Demogorgon]

Please identify the similarities in economic policies. The Nazi economic policy was based on cosy relationships with big business after all whereas the Communists wanted to destroy big business. That is why large businesses bankrolled the Nazis to such an extent.

[Havet]

Please identify the similarities in economic policies. The Nazi economic policy was based on cosy relationships with big business after all whereas the Communists wanted to destroy big business. That is why large businesses bankrolled the Nazis to such an extent.

very true.

Fascism relied on granting monopolies to big businesses and largely restricting competition

The theory of communism consists of abolishing money and to provide services "for free", without any businesses or owners whatsoever.

I guess the only similarity is that they both end up eliminating a free market.

[Dust Bunnies]

I want the opinion of some self-identified communists on this, when studying for my history exam I asked my teacher why, when their economic policy seemed so similar, the NSDAP hated the communists so much, he said that it was in fact because they were so similar that it posed a thread to Hitler getting elected.


Nazis buddy up with Capitalists, the Soviets didn't. Also because they saw the Slavic Soviets as inferior and their fundamental beliefs were very different. We kill Capitalists and White Army Officers, not jews. ;)



He said political parties don't like other parties that could take part of their vote, and this was the case with the communists & nazis in pre-war Germany.

See above, the two ideals are opposite, extreme left versus extreme right. Also around the end of WW1 and I think it extended into 1920 as well, there was an attempted Socialist revolution.



I asked whether the racial policy of the NSDAP had anything to do with it and he said not really as the majority of Germans felt the same as the nazis about jews and gypsies etc.

The reason why they felt the same is the reason why so many people bow down and kissed Bush's feet. They wanted to be fed answers in such difficult times (pre-Nazi Germany was wracked with inflation, it is said it took a wheel barrel of money to buy a loaf of bread).

[danyboy27]

Nazis buddy up with Capitalists, the Soviets didn't. Also because they saw the Slavic Soviets as inferior and their fundamental beliefs were very different. We kill Capitalists and White Army Officers, not jews. ;)



that a big misconception, capitalists dosnt care with who they make buisness with, capitalists, communists, socialist, if they pay its fine!

canada had verry lucrative trade with the soviet union back then, we sold a lot of wheat in difficult times.

j.walter christies sold the patent to design for the t-34 to the red army beccause they paid for this, and america didnt.

you can find ton of trades exemples like that.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There is a fundamental ideological conflict between communists and fascists: Communists strongly uphold the idea of human equality, and fascists strongly uphold the idea of human inequality. In the case of the Nazis, this took the form of upholding the idea of extreme inequality between races.

So, basically, the short answer to your question is: Because communists say that we are all equal, and Nazis say that we are absolutely not equal.

There are also other reasons. Communism advocates international solidarity and class struggle ("workers of all countries unite and overthrow the capitalists!"), while Nazis advocate nationalism and class collaboration ("workers and capitalists of our country, stand together and fight other countries!")

And, of course, Nazis also believed that communism was an evil Jewish conspiracy for world domination.

[Dust Bunnies]

that a big misconception, capitalists dosnt care with who they make buisness with, capitalists, communists, socialist, if they pay its fine!

canada had verry lucrative trade with the soviet union back then, we sold a lot of wheat in difficult times.

j.walter christies sold the patent to design for the t-34 to the red army beccause they paid for this, and america didnt.

you can find ton of trades exemples like that.

Well what was the Soviet Union supposed to do? Starve? I'm not sure if it was Lenin or Stalin who said this but this is very applicable. "They will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." But it is true Capitalists will make money off of everybody they can, Capitalists after all, don't produce anything but poverty, they have to stay afloat some how.

[danyboy27]

Well what was the Soviet Union supposed to do? Starve? I'm not sure if it was Lenin or Stalin who said this but this is very applicable. "They will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." But it is true Capitalists will make money off of everybody they can, Capitalists after all, don't produce anything but poverty, they have to stay afloat some how.

so you aknoledge that capitalist dont do favoritism toward the nazi and do buisness with virtuallly everybody?

for sure the nazi model was more attractive beccause they empowered big corporation but buisness is buisness, they didnt decided to make a deal with the nazi beccause they where extreminating the jews or the slav but beccause it was more convenant to deal with them.

if you want to blame someone for that, blame the us governements for their lack of restriction in 1930s toward hostile countries, not the cappies who just wanted to do a quick buck.

its like a mad dog that is chasing car, if nobody put a leash on him he gonna chase the car all the time.

[Robespierre2.0]

I want the opinion of some self-identified communists on this, when studying for my history exam I asked my teacher why, when their economic policy seemed so similar, the NSDAP hated the communists so much, he said that it was in fact because they were so similar that it posed a thread to Hitler getting elected.

Your teacher says that the NSDAP and the Communists were similar, eh? Let me elaborate on this a bit.

History classes just lump together fascism and communism haphazardly, which obscures the true relation between the two.

Fascism is a reactionary ideology- it is a reaction to economic problems of liberal capitalism and the growth of socialist movements opposed to it.
However, the difference is that communism is working-class and internationalist, whereas fascism is class-collaborationist and nationalist- It seeks to achieve the same unity of a socialist society, except instead of wielding that power in the interests of the worldwide working class, it is used in the interests of one country at the expense of others.

To put it short- Fascism is when the capitalists get spooked by a growing communist movement, and try to woo people away by creating their own 'phony socialism'.

[danyboy27]

not mentionning that the soviet union wasnt really communist and wasnt really controlled by peasant and worker but wealthy bureaucrats.

[Dust Bunnies]

so you aknoledge that capitalist dont do favoritism toward the nazi and do buisness with virtuallly everybody?

for sure the nazi model was more attractive beccause they empowered big corporation but buisness is buisness, they didnt decided to make a deal with the nazi beccause they where extreminating the jews or the slav but beccause it was more convenant to deal with them.

if you want to blame someone for that, blame the us governements for their lack of restriction in 1930s toward hostile countries, not the cappies who just wanted to do a quick buck.

its like a mad dog that is chasing car, if nobody put a leash on him he gonna chase the car all the time.

Capitalists favor where they can make the most profit, a blueprint deal with the Soviet government won't be as profitable as years and years in Nazi Germany. Capitalists don't care what your government calls themselves, they just care how much money they could make being there (example is China, China calls themselves Communist but in reality they are pure and utter Capitalists).

The government wasn't saying "okay boy go get the monies", the Capitalists chose to expand and sell things.

So no, I don't agree with this: "so you aknoledge that capitalist dont do favoritism toward the nazi and do buisness with virtuallly everybody?
"-DannyBoy25

Capitalists will love who ever give them the most money.

[danyboy27]

Capitalists favor where they can make the most profit, a blueprint deal with the Soviet government won't be as profitable as years and years in Nazi Germany. Capitalists don't care what your government calls themselves, they just care how much money they could make being there (example is China, China calls themselves Communist but in reality they are pure and utter Capitalists).

The government wasn't saying "okay boy go get the monies", the Capitalists chose to expand and sell things.

So no, I don't agree with this: "so you aknoledge that capitalist dont do favoritism toward the nazi and do buisness with virtuallly everybody?
"-DannyBoy25

Capitalists will love who ever give them the most money.

tanks :D

[Pogue]

Nazis hate communists cos we're all a bunch of Jews.

Fact.

[danyboy27]

Nazis hate communists cos we're all a bunch of Jews.

Fact.

nazi hate you guy beccause their core belief class collaboration goes against your core belief, class struggle.

fact.

[Pogue]

nazi hate you guy beccause their core belief class collaboration goes against your core belief, class struggle.

fact.

We're still Jews, though.

Up the ZOG!

[Il Medico]

nazi hate you guy beccause their core belief class collaboration goes against your core belief, class struggle.

fact.
And because we are an evil Jewish conspiracy.

[danyboy27]

We're still Jews, though.

Up the ZOG!

for some retarded kkk member yes, i doubt this is the case for the one that got fascist economical beliefs.

[danyboy27]

And because we are an evil Jewish conspiracy.

but anarkiwi proved that it was possible to have leftist that believe jews are evil so...

[AnthArmo]

I want the opinion of some self-identified communists on this, when studying for my history exam I asked my teacher why, when their economic policy seemed so similar, the NSDAP hated the communists so much, he said that it was in fact because they were so similar that it posed a thread to Hitler getting elected.

He said political parties don't like other parties that could take part of their vote, and this was the case with the communists & nazis in pre-war Germany.

I asked whether the racial policy of the NSDAP had anything to do with it and he said not really as the majority of Germans felt the same as the nazis about jews and gypsies etc.

This looks like that conspiracy to try and shift Fascism to the left. Goddammit

The economic policies of the Communists and the Fascist's were VERY different.

The Nazi's economy is what is known as corporatism. Essentially, you have a capitalist economy, but the government intervenes to help out big businesses. Which is exactly what the Nazi's did.

The Communist's expoused a Socialist economy. Socialism is were the economy is democratically controlled by the workers.

Nazism and Fascism is far-right for a reason, it emphasizes Nationalism and Racism instead of Internationalism and Class Struggle

[AnthArmo]

Actually, I just found this amusing post on Stormfront addressing this question

http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php?p=7088274



Hitler chose the word "Socialist" in "National Socialist Party" because he knew that socialism was a popular ideal in Germany. Nevertheless, nearly everyone who was rich before he came to power remained rich after he came to power. In a real leftist revolution the rich lose their wealth. This is why most of Germany's rich supported him when the alternative seemed to be the German Communist Party.

oh, and on the same thread


As a side note, while Communism is commonly referred to as Left-wing, the USSR did not, in fact, have a socialist economy, but a Statist controlled economy. The workers had no power, as opposed to the National Socialist ideal of the workers becoming the state.

Fascists aren't so completely stupid after all :rolleyes:

[Jimmie Higgins]

I want the opinion of some self-identified communists on this, when studying for my history exam I asked my teacher why, when their economic policy seemed so similar, the NSDAP hated the communists so much, he said that it was in fact because they were so similar that it posed a thread to Hitler getting elected.

He said political parties don't like other parties that could take part of their vote, and this was the case with the communists & nazis in pre-war Germany.

I asked whether the racial policy of the NSDAP had anything to do with it and he said not really as the majority of Germans felt the same as the nazis about jews and gypsies etc.

The NAZIs came out of a reaction against communism - it was their very origin. After the Russian Revolution, there was a series of revolutions in Germany - they were lost and beat down but the forces that fought these uprisings were the Freicorp - these nationalists and ex-soldiers made up what eventually became the various fascist groups in the 20-30s.

Much of the NAZIs hatred of jews came from the idea that Jews spread communism and that communism was a jewish plot.

In the depression, class struggle became very violent and there were many strikes and militant worker actions. The NAZIs argued that this was tearing the nation appart and so their selling point was to "get rid of all politics" so that the strife would be over.

The economic policy of the NAZIs was not very similar to the ideas of radicals like Rosa Luxembourg. There maybe some social-democratic things that the NAZIs did like cancel the War debt, but their goal was to "restore the nation" not make life better for workers let alone achieve a worker-run society.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE]There is a fundamental ideological conflict between communists and fascists: Communists strongly uphold the idea of human equality, and fascists strongly uphold the idea of human inequality.

This is not really true. The nazis supported GERMAN equality "All Germans were equal, all were comrades." They embraced a racial theory as opposed to the class theory.
But even that is not a "fundamental ideological conflict." Both developed in the same fashion. Indeed the first National Socialist Party in Europe formed as a result of a schism within a Social Democratic Party.





There are also other reasons. Communism advocates international solidarity and class struggle ("workers of all countries unite and overthrow the capitalists!"), while Nazis advocate nationalism and class collaboration ("workers and capitalists of our country, stand together and fight other countries!")


True, the nazis sought to unite all capitalists and all workers as one big mass. It would seem a broader objective of all socialists parties, as smashing the capitalists has the broader result of uniting all the people in one big mass.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Gravedigger;1489625]The NAZIs came out of a reaction against communism - it was their very origin. After the Russian Revolution, there was a series of revolutions in Germany - they were lost and beat down but the forces that fought these uprisings were the Freicorp - these nationalists and ex-soldiers made up what eventually became the various fascist groups in the 20-30s.


Fascism was indeed a reaction to the rise of communism. But it is not true that Freicorp ect. eventually made up the fascist groups.



Much of the NAZIs hatred of jews came from the idea that Jews spread communism and that communism was a jewish plot.


True. It was also based upon the belief the Jews economically ran German for their own benefit as against the interests of Germans. Anti-semitism rarely makes sense even on it own terms.



In the depression, class struggle became very violent and there were many strikes and militant worker actions. The NAZIs argued that this was tearing the nation appart and so their selling point was to "get rid of all politics" so that the strife would be over.


Actually, the nazis participated in such "strife." They had their own unions, worked with the SPD and KPD to organise strikes ect.



The economic policy of the NAZIs was not very similar to the ideas of radicals like Rosa Luxembourg. There maybe some social-democratic things that the NAZIs did like cancel the War debt, but their goal was to "restore the nation" not make life better for workers let alone achieve a worker-run society.


The nazis argued that by restoring the nation, it would result in making life better for all Germans.

[Old Man Diogenes]

nazi hate you guy beccause their core belief class collaboration goes against your core belief, class struggle.

fact.

Both are facts, the Nazis were anti-Communist because Hitler believed that Germany had been ruined by Jewish Communists, and they also believed that the emphasis on class struggle in Communism took the emphasis of the Nazis racial struggle beliefs. The Nazis were also Social Darwinists and as many people know Communism is a profoundly egalitarian philosophy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

True, the nazis sought to unite all capitalists and all workers as one big mass. It would seem a broader objective of all socialists parties, as smashing the capitalists has the broader result of uniting all the people in one big mass.Just as capitalism has united working people into one big mass for making profit for a few.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The nazis supported GERMAN equality "All Germans were equal, all were comrades."
False.

From Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler, volume II, chapter 4 (http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch04.html):

"It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality."


They embraced a racial theory as opposed to the class theory.
Yes, which is among the major sources of conflict between them and the communists.


But even that is not a "fundamental ideological conflict." Both developed in the same fashion.
What fashion is that?


Indeed the first National Socialist Party in Europe formed as a result of a schism within a Social Democratic Party.
Yes, but the party you are referring to - the Czech National Socialist Party - was a moderate liberal party advocating Czech independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire (hence the "national" part) and had nothing in common with the Nazis except its name.


True, the nazis sought to unite all capitalists and all workers as one big mass. It would seem a broader objective of all socialists parties, as smashing the capitalists has the broader result of uniting all the people in one big mass.
There's a bit of a difference between "let's be friends with the capitalists" (fascist goal) and "let's smash the capitalists" (socialist goal), wouldn't you say?

[Il Medico]

but anarkiwi proved that it was possible to have leftist that believe jews are evil so...
Leftist don't get banned on revleft. I have never seen a left wing anti-Semite.

[danyboy27]

Leftist don't get banned on revleft. I have never seen a left wing anti-Semite.

depend, was stalin considered a left-winger?

i dont want to start any stalin debate, i just need your opinion on this.

[Conquer or Die]

The words of the man who hung at the end of a rope: http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm


No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16).

Socialists are anti statists until the state is completely directed at furthering the goal of human equality. This is the fundamental direct negative of fascism.

That the vicissitudes of economic life - discoveries of raw materials, new technical processes, and scientific inventions - have their importance, no one denies; but that they suffice to explain human history to the exclusion of other factors is absurd. Fascism believes now and always in sanctity and heroism, that is to say in acts in which no economic motive - remote or immediate - is at work. Having denied historic materialism, which sees in men mere puppets on the surface of history, appearing and disappearing on the crest of the waves while in the depths the real directing forces move and work, Fascism also denies the immutable and irreparable character of the class struggle which is the natural outcome of this economic conception of history; above all it denies that the class struggle is the preponderating agent in social transformations. Having thus struck a blow at socialism in the two main points of its doctrine, all that remains of it is the sentimental aspiration-old as humanity itself-toward social relations in which the sufferings and sorrows of the humbler folk will be alleviated. But here again Fascism rejects the economic interpretation of felicity as something to be secured socialistically, almost automatically, at a given stage of economic evolution when all will be assured a maximum of material comfort. Fascism denies the materialistic conception of happiness as a possibility, and abandons it to the economists of the mid-eighteenth century. This means that Fascism denies the equation: well-being = happiness, which sees in men mere animals, content when they can feed and fatten, thus reducing them to a vegetative existence pure and simple.

That the state is used to direct the flow of human life based on arbitrary (social darwinistic) measures is both an invalidation of marxism and humanism from which the communist movement takes a cue from.

In short, Fascists see the value in rules and laws and philosophy to promote a supremacy amongst the world. Capitalists see the anarchy of the market as a reasonable tool to gauge the supremacy of individuals. Both are rooted in one thing: supremacy. Communism has one immutable, inarguable point that is not allowed for debate: supremacy has its solution waiting for it at the end of a gun barrel.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE]
"It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality."


He is arguing biological considerations here.




Yes, but the party you are referring to - the Czech National Socialist Party - was a moderate liberal party advocating Czech independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire (hence the "national" part) and had nothing in common with the Nazis except its name.


It was a party which based its program upon the program of the Austrian Social Democratic Party, with the addition of Czech nationalism.
Germans in the area modeled their own political party along it (stressing German nationalism) and eventually changed their name to the German National Socialists. Its membership provided the fodder to the party which Hitler discovered.



There's a bit of a difference between "let's be friends with the capitalists" (fascist goal) and "let's smash the capitalists" (socialist goal), wouldn't you say?


Its more along the lines of "let's tell the capitalist what to do" than being buddies.

[Green Dragon]

Both are rooted in one thing: supremacy. Communism has one immutable, inarguable point that is not allowed for debate: supremacy has its solution waiting for it at the end of a gun barrel.


The justification for communism lies in its claim that the workers should be supreme because they have the raw numbers. To claim that the communists have no intererest in supremacy is risable.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

He is arguing biological considerations here.
Of course he is - because the entire ideology of Nazism was based on the "biological considerations" of race. What other considerations are there, for a Nazi?

Besides, if you wish to deny that Hitler was an ardent opponent of human equality even when faced with his explicit statement that he wanted to "make war on the Marxist principle that all men are equal," you are out of your mind.


It was a party which based its program upon the program of the Austrian Social Democratic Party, with the addition of Czech nationalism.
Germans in the area modeled their own political party along it (stressing German nationalism) and eventually changed their name to the German National Socialists. Its membership provided the fodder to the party which Hitler discovered.
You are misinformed. The party that Hitler discovered and joined was in Bavaria (a part of Germany), not in the Czech lands (a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before WW1, and a part of Czechoslovakia afterwards). Furthermore, the party that Hitler joined was called the "German Workers' Party," it had only been formed a couple of years earlier, and it had a grand total of about 50 members when Hitler joined. Fifty people. They used the term "Party" really just for making themselves feel important. There was probably no one outside the city of Munich who even knew they existed.


Its more along the lines of "let's tell the capitalist what to do" than being buddies.
Many capitalists did not mind at all being told what to do, as long as their profits kept growing.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE]Besides, if you wish to deny that Hitler was an ardent opponent of human equality even when faced with his explicit statement that he wanted to "make war on the Marxist principle that all men are equal," you are out of your mind.

Not German equality; all germans were equal. It was a constant theme in nazi germany. There was no such thing as Bavarans or Prussians, poor or rich, aristocrat or not, only being a German mattered.




You are misinformed. The party that Hitler discovered and joined was in Bavaria (a part of Germany), not in the Czech lands (a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before WW1, and a part of Czechoslovakia afterwards). Furthermore, the party that Hitler joined was called the "German Workers' Party," it had only been formed a couple of years earlier, and it had a grand total of about 50 members when Hitler joined. Fifty people. They used the term "Party" really just for making themselves feel important. There was probably no one outside the city of Munich who even knew they existed.


A German Workers Party rose up a few years after the Czeck National Socialist Party did. It eventually managed to send a few delegates to the Reichtag in Vienna. It modeled itself after the Czeck National Socialists and eventually would change its name to the German National Socialists. After the collapse of Austria, its members were scattered in Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Several of its members laid out its ideological framework the the German Workers Party of Anton Drexler. That is what Hitler found.



Many capitalists did not mind at all being told what to do, as long as their profits kept growing.


Or remaining alive...

[Demogorgon]

This notion that the Nazis must somehow have had any connection to previous parties calling themselves "National Socialist" is ridiculous. For instanc ethere was a party of that name that ran in the 1918 election in the UK as a sort of part of the Labour Party. Three candidates were elected, two as Labour candidates, one under the name National Socialist. The name was simply meant to invoke that they were operating across the whole country. Is anyone seriously going to claim they were related to the Nazis?

[Conquer or Die]

The justification for communism lies in its claim that the workers should be supreme because they have the raw numbers. To claim that the communists have no intererest in supremacy is risable.

No, the workers are the foundation of society and the creators of its product. The owners are an unnecessary and unethical branch of the world that uses force to acquire power.

Communism is not a religion, diet, or art style. It's the solution to economic inequality and the pathway to freedom.

[GPDP]

Communism is not a religion, diet, or art style. It's the solution to economic inequality and the pathway to freedom.

Not that I necessarily disagree with this sentence, but you gotta admit it sounds awfully dogmatic.

[Conquer or Die]

Not that I necessarily disagree with this sentence, but you gotta admit it sounds awfully dogmatic.

I'm a dogmatist for freedom and equality. I'm close minded when it comes to tolerance of intolerance, slavery, and inequality. I'll openly admit this.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Not German equality; all germans were equal. It was a constant theme in nazi germany. There was no such thing as Bavarans or Prussians, poor or rich, aristocrat or not, only being a German mattered.
You mean they put national identity above all other forms of personal identity or affiliation. The Nazis said "we are all Germans, before we are anything else." But that has nothing to do with equality, and the Nazis never claimed it had anything to do with equality. They never said "all Germans are equal" - in fact they said the exact opposite, that some Germans are better than others and these elites need to be promoted.

You are confusing the notions of identity and loyalty with the notion of equality. The Nazis were very much into identity and loyalty. But to say "we must all follow the same leader, pursue the same goal and serve the same nation" is not to say "we are all equal." An army follows the same leader, pursues the same goal and serves the same nation - in fact, that comparison is particularly accurate, since the Nazis pretty much wanted to organize German society as an army. Yet an army is a strict hierarchy with a chain of command, and inferiors are supposed to obey the orders of their superiors without question - the very opposite of equality.


A German Workers Party rose up a few years after the Czeck National Socialist Party did. It eventually managed to send a few delegates to the Reichtag in Vienna. It modeled itself after the Czeck National Socialists and eventually would change its name to the German National Socialists. After the collapse of Austria, its members were scattered in Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Several of its members laid out its ideological framework the the German Workers Party of Anton Drexler. That is what Hitler found.
Ah, now I know which one you were talking about. The Austrian National Socialist Party. Yes, it existed - though it was inconsequential. But let's sum up this so-called "connection" between the Nazis and social democrats, shall we?

A tiny handful of early Nazis (not including Hitler or any of the other Nazi leaders at the time when the Nazis were in power) had been members of a non-Nazi political party in a different country that had been inspired by - but did not derive from - a Czech party which was itself a moderate nationalist splinter group from a social democratic party.

Wow. Seriously, wow. That is quite possibly the most tenuous, ridiculous, far-fetched "historical connection" that I have ever seen. You'd have a better case in claiming there was a connection between Leninism and Tsarism because the Red Army eventually came to include a number of ex-Tsarist officers. Hell, by those standards, you could easily find a connection between anyone and anyone else.

I mean, for God's sake, you're saying that I'm connected to you if I'm a member of an organization which at first included some people that used to be members of another organization which was inspired by a group of people who used to be your friends.

[9]

Nazis hate communists cos we're all a bunch of Jews.

Fact.

The truth has been spoken.

[GPDP]

I'm a dogmatist for freedom and equality. I'm close minded when it comes to tolerance of intolerance, slavery, and inequality. I'll openly admit this.

Fair enough. I just wanted to say it before one of the OIers did. :D

[Rosa Provokateur]

very true.


The theory of communism consists of abolishing money and to provide services "for free", without any businesses or owners whatsoever.



The theory but, so far, not the practice. I've yet to see any Communist Party advocate the abolition of economy; they usually stick to the program of tax-hikes, nationalization, etc.

The difference is that Communists advocate socialism based on class, Nazis advocate socialism based on race.

Their lingo is even interchangable:

Class War / Race War

Bourgeois / Jew

Proletariat / Aryan

Working Class / Master Race

Both feel victimized, both see conspiracy everywhere, both see the other as winning control all the time (for Communists it's the Right, for Nazis it's the Left), and both founders of each philosophy will be forver remembered for their avante-garde style in facial hair.

[mykittyhasaboner]

The theory but, so far, not the practice.Actually no, you like the person you have replied to don't understand Marxism at all. Communists do not wish to "abolish money" in some arbitrary way like Hayenmill has described; instead communists see the elimination of money as a gradual and far sighted goal. Basically money is to become superfluos, as the forces of production advance to the point where material scarcity has been all but eliminated and an abundance of material production attained.



I've yet to see any Communist Party advocate the abolition of economy; they usually stick to the program of tax-hikes, nationalization, etc.UH thats because "the aboltion of economy" is an incredibly stupid goal.





The difference is that Communists advocate socialism based on class, Nazis advocate socialism based on race.:lol::rolleyes:


Their lingo is even interchangable:

Class War / Race War

Bourgeois / Jew

Proletariat / Aryan

Working Class / Master RaceWoah, you once again demonstrate how you fail to understand politics, class, socialism, or anything related. Do you honestly think class war, and "race war" are interchangeable terms? The two are about as different as the rest of your "analogies".


Both feel victimized, both see conspiracy everywhere, both see the other as winning control all the time (for Communists it's the Right, for Nazis it's the Left), and both founders of each philosophy will be forver remembered for their avante-garde style in facial hair.hhaha, and you will always be remembered here for how you constantly apply the most hopelessly idealist loads of crap, like this post of yours.

[9]

The theory but, so far, not the practice. I've yet to see any Communist Party advocate the abolition of economy; they usually stick to the program of tax-hikes, nationalization, etc.

The difference is that Communists advocate socialism based on class, Nazis advocate socialism based on race.

Their lingo is even interchangable:

Class War / Race War

Bourgeois / Jew

Proletariat / Aryan

Working Class / Master Race

Both feel victimized, both see conspiracy everywhere, both see the other as winning control all the time (for Communists it's the Right, for Nazis it's the Left), and both founders of each philosophy will be forver remembered for their avante-garde style in facial hair.

And of course, as it completely ignores the roots of the doctrine and class of the traditional advocates of the "Jewish conspiracy", I find this comparison particularly revolting. I don't think Ford hated Jews because he considered them bourgeois :rolleyes:
And when did acknowledging that in a capitalist society, the moneyed class inevitably owns the means of production become conspiratorial? Frankly, its common sense.

[#FF0000]

The theory but, so far, not the practice. I've yet to see any Communist Party advocate the abolition of economy; they usually stick to the program of tax-hikes, nationalization, etc.

mykittyhasaboner has demonstrated why you're wrong but let me just add this to drive the point home.

You have never known what you were talking about, even when you weren't restricted.


The difference is that Communists advocate socialism based on class, Nazis advocate socialism based on race.That doesn't even make sense. Communists want to abolish the class system. Nazis want some social welfare programs, (country) jobs for (country) people, and some other things. I mean, they don't even want to do away with class. I don't think you know what socialism is.


Their lingo is even interchangable:

Class War / Race War

Bourgeois / Jew

Proletariat / Aryan

Working Class / Master RaceClass War / War on Terror

Bourgeois / Terrorist

Proletariat / American

Working class / Americans.

See what I did there?

They actually aren't interchangeable. Mostly because marxist class analysis is actually based in some real observation and racist analysis is based in laughably bad science.

By the way, "proletariat" and "working class" are the exact same thing.


Both feel victimizedLeftists see workers separated from the product of their labor. Nazis see their race as victimized by some "other" that is keeping the Master Race from realizing their RACIAL POWER or some bullshit like that. There is a difference here. Do you see it?


Both see conspiracy everywhereYeah, if they're stupid and think that everything that happens in society as a result of direct, mindful interference by the bourgeoisie. People who aren't dumb realize society's a liiiittle more complicated than that.


both see the other as winning control all the time (for Communists it's the Right, for Nazis it's the Left)That isn't true either. If you said "the forces of (or interests of) capital", then you'd be a little bit more correct, I guess, but even then you'd still be wrong.

I mean really. You are so wrong about everything and your understanding of leftism is so bad, even after being one yourself for so long, that it actually makes me a little bit mad.


WHEN

DO

YOU

GET

TIRED

OF

BEING

WRONG

[Rosa Provokateur]

it actually makes me a little bit mad.




Atleast I'm getting some kind of good accomplished:D

[#FF0000]

Atleast I'm getting some kind of good accomplished:D

I'm an orphan and I act as a parent to my 6 siblings as I'm the only one old enough to work. I also have a heart condition and if my blood pressure gets too high I could have a heart attack and die

why do you want my brothers to starve to death.

[GPDP]

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4052/1219806851880ql2.png

[Rosa Provokateur]

Actually no, you like the person you have replied to don't understand Marxism at all. Communists do not wish to "abolish money" in some arbitrary way like Hayenmill has described; instead communists see the elimination of money as a gradual and far sighted goal. Basically money is to become superfluos, as the forces of production advance to the point where material scarcity has been all but eliminated and an abundance of material production attained.

UH thats because "the aboltion of economy" is an incredibly stupid goal.



:lol::rolleyes:

Woah, you once again demonstrate how you fail to understand politics, class, socialism, or anything related. Do you honestly think class war, and "race war" are interchangeable terms? The two are about as different as the rest of your "analogies".

hhaha, and you will always be remembered here for how you constantly apply the most hopelessly idealist loads of crap, like this post of yours.

Fuck that, do away with the dollar now. There's no play-by-play on how this stuff is to work, no matter how hard Marxists try to shuffle everything into "stages" of capitalism, socialism, communism. Quit trying to program and control everything.

It's only stupid if you want it around to gain power, which is what Communists have historically done so I understand your frustration.

They may not all have the same definition but to anyone watching the two sides, there's no difference. Both have a ludicrous devotion to out-dated 20th century ideas which they think will save the world but instead only end up slaughtering it's inhabitants.

As to my idealism, I quote Emma Goldman: "Idealists foolish enough to throw caution to the winds have advanced mankind and have enriched the world."

[Rosa Provokateur]

I'm an orphan and I act as a parent to my 6 siblings as I'm the only one old enough to work. I also have a heart condition and if my blood pressure gets too high I could have a heart attack and die

why do you want my brothers to starve to death.

I dont, I pity them for having a pig-headed sibling intolerant of us lesser educated.

[Manifesto]

They are pretty much opposites.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Fuck that, do away with the dollar now. There's no play-by-play on how this stuff is to work, no matter how hard Marxists try to shuffle everything into "stages" of capitalism, socialism, communism. Quit trying to program and control everything.
Again, you strawman your way to oblivion.


It's only stupid if you want it around to gain power, which is what Communists have historically done so I understand your frustration.Um, no its stupid because things need to be produced, distributed, exchanged, etc. That is why "abolishing the economy" is a stupid goal.


They may not all have the same definition but to anyone watching the two sides, there's no difference.So they may not have the same definition, but to anyone "watching the two sides" there's no difference? What the fuck are you on about? Not only is what you just said completely useless and contradictory, but it amazes me just how ignorant you think others are, most likely in relation to your own.

Class war- conflict between socio-economic classes; classes manifest themselves in their determinate relation to the means of production.

Race War- some loosely defined phrase describing war between conflicting ethnic/racial groups.

Not the same.

Bourgeoisie- A class that is historically associated with the development of capitalism, and is manifested in it's private ownership of their means of production and as ruling class in capitalist society.

Jew- an individual who follows Judaism, a religion.

Not the same.

Proletariat- a class which manifests itself as a laboring class, which relies on its labor, which is bought by and owned by the bourgeoisie. This class is historically associated with industrial workers, and the class which fights for socialism, or the rule of the working class.

Aryan- a "racial" classification referring to "pure-blooded" white Anglo-Europeans, specifically Germans.

Not the same.

Working class(why did you repeat yourself?), and "Master race" is not the same.


Both have a ludicrous devotion to out-dated 20th century ideas which they think will save the world but instead only end up slaughtering it's inhabitants.
Why not try actually constructing a coherent, reason-based argument? It could be better than just talking out of your ass at your normal rate.


Oh wait, sorry GA, i forgot i was dealing with you.




As to my idealism, I quote Emma Goldman: "Idealists foolish enough to throw caution to the winds have advanced mankind and have enriched the world."
I don't give a fuck what Emma Goldman says and that quote is completely out of context. Here you are, with your idealist tirade, basing all of your opinions and positions and little more than what you blindly believe. "Idealists foolish enough..." is where the quote should stop in your case.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Again, you strawman your way to oblivion.

Um, no its stupid because things need to be produced, distributed, exchanged, etc. That is why "abolishing the economy" is a stupid goal.

So they may not have the same definition, but to anyone "watching the two sides" there's no difference? What the fuck are you on about? Not only is what you just said completely useless and contradictory, but it amazes me just how ignorant you think others are, most likely in relation to your own.

Class war- conflict between socio-economic classes; classes manifest themselves in their determinate relation to the means of production.

Race War- some loosely defined phrase describing war between conflicting ethnic/racial groups.

Not the same.

Bourgeoisie- A class that is historically associated with the development of capitalism, and is manifested in it's private ownership of their means of production and as ruling class in capitalist society.

Jew- an individual who follows Judaism, a religion.

Not the same.

Proletariat- a class which manifests itself as a laboring class, which relies on its labor, which is bought by and owned by the bourgeoisie. This class is historically associated with industrial workers, and the class which fights for socialism, or the rule of the working class.

Aryan- a "racial" classification referring to "pure-blooded" white Anglo-Europeans, specifically Germans.

Not the same.

Working class(why did you repeat yourself?), and "Master race" is not the same.

Why not try actually constructing a coherent, reason-based argument? It could be better than just talking out of your ass at your normal rate.



I don't give a fuck what Emma Goldman says and that quote is completely out of context. Here you are, with your idealist tirade, basing all of your opinions and positions and little more than what you blindly believe. "Idealists foolish enough..." is where the quote should stop in your case.

"Hi, oblivion, how's the wife and kids?" (Rocky Horror reference ;))

As if the market expires people are gonna stop making and trading? Just because it isnt organized and directed doesnt mean it's impossible to do.

I aim to amaze, astound, and entertain. Glad I didnt dissapoint.

Here's my point:
For Communists the antagonist is the Bourgeoise, for Nazis it's the Jew

For Communists the oppressed is the Proletariat, for Nazis it's the Aryan race

Proletariat doubles as Working Class, Aryan doubles as Master Race

The argument is that, for all the hatred both spectrums have for eachother, they're quite similar. They even love the color red.

Me neither but she was a cool person and I figured it would help me with the lack of ammo I have. Hard-headed literalists need more than usual.

[Zurdito]

To answer the OP, communism calls for the working class to triumph in the class struggle. The Nazis didn't just hate communism but class struggle itself. They aimed to make Germany, meaning the German ruling class, hegemonic in Europe.

The dualism between "statism" and "the market" isn't absolute, more that the bourgeosiie alternates between the approaches dependent on their interests at the given time. the German state intervened to avoid the collapse of German capitalism, and to do this it had to discipline both renegade capitalists whose personal advantage may weaken German imperialism as a whole, and obviously so as to defeat the German working class and, through both brutal force and the promise of a small share in the fruits of German global supremacy, get them to work for the benefit of German imperialism and not fight for their own rights.

However nefarious the Communist Party was, it still based itself on class struggle and was loyal to the interests of the Soviet bureaucracy and not German imperialism, making them not just "political" rivals of a "party", but representatives of social forces whose interests were incompatible with Nazism. Also remember that Nazism did not just aim to liquidate the Communist Party but all expressions of class struggle.

[Zurdito]

Class War / Race War


But "class" as marxists use the term can be scientifically shown to exist. "Race" as Nazis use it has been disproved as a theory.

As for your dislike of hate, if you can quote Emma Golman I can quote this. listen to the lyrics man, I mean, really listen:lol::

WtpF2uM7tWk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtpF2uM7tWk)

.

[Rosa Provokateur]

But "class" as marxists use the term can be scientifically shown to exist. "Race" as Nazis use it has been disproved as a theory.

As for your dislike of hate, if you can quote Emma Golman I can quote this. listen to the lyrics man, I mean, really listen:lol::

WtpF2uM7tWk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtpF2uM7tWk)

.

Mmmm, good song. I remember first hearing it on the Warped Tour 2004 album in the 8th grade, kicked ass then and kicks ass now.

[Dimentio]

I want the opinion of some self-identified communists on this, when studying for my history exam I asked my teacher why, when their economic policy seemed so similar, the NSDAP hated the communists so much, he said that it was in fact because they were so similar that it posed a thread to Hitler getting elected.

He said political parties don't like other parties that could take part of their vote, and this was the case with the communists & nazis in pre-war Germany.

I asked whether the racial policy of the NSDAP had anything to do with it and he said not really as the majority of Germans felt the same as the nazis about jews and gypsies etc.

National socialism thinks that communism is a Jewish plot to create a worldwide Jewish communist totalitarian dictatorship under control of Jewish bankers in Wall Street. This dictatorship would crush the church, make blonde girls behave like "whores" and sleep with men of colour, encourage homosexuality and drug use and work to crush Germany. Nazis usually hates both big capitalists and communists/other kinds of socialists.

The main reason why is that National Socialism is some sort of populist reaction built up by two main groups. Firstly, people who have no real class background. Those could be pimps, mentally insane, failed university graduates and artists, and then a larger cluster of farmers, small business owners and even industrial workers with savings.

It is people who would not in the short term benefit neither from capitalism or socialism which are building the backbone of fascism. But fascism can most often not reach power if there is'nt a crisis and a large working class movement, so it would be pragmatic for big capitalists to support them.

[mykittyhasaboner]

As if the market expires people are gonna stop making and trading? Just because it isnt organized and directed doesnt mean it's impossible to do.

What?


I aim to amaze, astound, and entertain. Glad I didnt dissapoint.
You should aim to make logical sense for starters.


Here's my point:
For Communists the antagonist is the Bourgeoise, for Nazis it's the Jew
Except the bourgeoisie does own the means of production, and establish their rule on society accordingly. "The Jew" is just a scapegoat.

Your "point" falls flat on its head.



For Communists the oppressed is the Proletariat, for Nazis it's the Aryan race
Except the proletariat is oppressed, and the "Aryan race" is another scapegoat like construct. Maybe you should just stop believing what Nazi's say?



Proletariat doubles as Working Class, Aryan doubles as Master Race
Exactly which is why it was redundant.


The argument is that, for all the hatred both spectrums have for eachother, they're quite similar. They even love the color red.

No they aren't they are diametrically opposed.

Liking the color red has nothing to do with anything, shut up.


Me neither but she was a cool person and I figured it would help me with the lack of ammo I have. Hard-headed literalists need more than usual.
"Hard-headed literalist"? :lol:

Maybe you should just give up on idealism instead of struggling to find "ammo".

[Kassad]

Why is it that when we restrict someone for having an incredibly narrow ideology, instead of trying to evolve and comprehend a more rational and just system, they just wind up embracing the most wildly-ridiculous ideology they can, such as anarcho-capitalism?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Why is it that when we restrict someone for having an incredibly narrow ideology, instead of trying to evolve and comprehend a more rational and just system, they just wind up embracing the most wildly-ridiculous ideology they can, such as anarcho-capitalism?

Oh I don't think hes an "Anarcho-capitalist" anymore, now he says "fuck the revolution". So I guess hes a reformist, or doesn't mind the capitalist system at all, which is not really surprising.

[gorillafuck]

I think he is a post-left anarcho-pacifist.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I think he is a christian post-left anarcho-pacifist, to cram as much words as I can into that description.

Another one.

[Rosa Provokateur]

now he says "fuck the revolution". So I guess hes a reformist, or doesn't mind the capitalist system at all, which is not really surprising.

When I say "Fuck the Revolution", I'm talking about the ideology that you guys have stamped onto it. This idea that it can only be acheived through class warfare; this idea that, at it's core, class is the main focus; the use of a vanguard; etc. I always hear about "the Revolution" this and "the Revolution" that and, quite frankly... fuck it.

It's not something that can be planned and organized into action, we've gotta wipe these non-sense ideas of building a new society out of our heads and get to revolution at it's most basic which is living.

Parties and vanguards have failed, we must turn to the individual to be the maker of his own freedom. Agitate for change and educate others about the current condition by all means but revolution is gonna have to be implimented by people on their own if it's gonna be worth having.

Food, shelter, clothing, education, etc. are wonderful but they arent what the end result should be about. The thing we're fighting for is a new way of living and being that requires innovation beyond the limitations of Leftism and ideology.

I cant explain it in my own words fully and I know I'll get no positive reception for this but crimethinc's Fighting for Our Lives sums it all up. We cant be trying to get ourselves ready for revolution, we gotta be getting revolution ready for us.

[ComradeOm]

It's not something that can be planned and organized into action..Where have you been for the past century? Off the top of my head I could name half a dozen major mass movements, that explicitly identified with socialist or class politics, that did organise and did take action. Of course they weren't always successful but that's no reason to question their existence


...we've gotta wipe these non-sense ideas of building a new society out of our heads and get to revolution at it's most basic which is living.Ah, I should have read on. No doubt you're too busy having your own personal revolution to worry about anyone else. But hey, as long as you enjoy yourself that's okay. Peace

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Their lingo is even interchangable:

Class War / Race War

Bourgeois / Jew

Proletariat / Aryan

Working Class / Master Race
You can interchange the lingo of any two political ideologies based on that logic.

For example, libertarians and Nazis:

Anti-state Rebellion / Race War
Bureaucrat / Jew
Self-made millionaire / Aryan
Capitalists / Master Race

Communists and the religious right:

Class War / Holy War
Bourgeois / Liberal secularist
Proletariat / Born-again Christians
Working Class / The Body of Christ

Every political ideology believes in some kind of struggle between some kind of good side and some kind of evil side.

[#FF0000]

When I say "Fuck the Revolution", I'm talking about the ideology that you guys have stamped onto it. This idea that it can only be acheived through class warfare; this idea that, at it's core, class is the main focus; the use of a vanguard; etc. I always hear about "the Revolution" this and "the Revolution" that and, quite frankly... fuck it.

It's not something that can be planned and organized into action, we've gotta wipe these non-sense ideas of building a new society out of our heads and get to revolution at it's most basic which is living.

Parties and vanguards have failed, we must turn to the individual to be the maker of his own freedom. Agitate for change and educate others about the current condition by all means but revolution is gonna have to be implimented by people on their own if it's gonna be worth having.

Food, shelter, clothing, education, etc. are wonderful but they arent what the end result should be about.The thing we're fighting for is a new way of living and being that requires innovation beyond the limitations of Leftism and ideology. you don't read history books do you?


I cant explain it in my own words fully and I know I'll get no positive reception for this but crimethinc's Fighting for Our Lives sums it all up. We cant be trying to get ourselves ready for revolution, we gotta be getting revolution ready for us.

I didn't think so.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Where have you been for the past century? Off the top of my head I could name half a dozen major mass movements, that explicitly identified with socialist or class politics, that did organise and did take action. Of course they weren't always successful but that's no reason to question their existence

Ah, I should have read on. No doubt you're too busy having your own personal revolution to worry about anyone else. But hey, as long as you enjoy yourself that's okay. Peace

I dont question their existence, I question the results they got which more-or-less has been either failure or totalitarianism. Any method that relies on totalitarianism to succeed is anti-revolutionary. We change and adapt our thinking away from our predecessors and build models for the 21st century that work.

It's not just about me; you, mykittyhasaboner, Loveschach, etc. should all do a little to radicalize your surroundings and put the idea of revolution into daily action. Monkeywrench in the machine if you will.

[Rosa Provokateur]

You can interchange the lingo of any two political ideologies based on that logic.

For example, libertarians and Nazis:

Anti-state Rebellion / Race War
Bureaucrat / Jew
Self-made millionaire / Aryan
Capitalists / Master Race

Communists and the religious right:

Class War / Holy War
Bourgeois / Liberal secularist
Proletariat / Born-again Christians
Working Class / The Body of Christ

Every political ideology believes in some kind of struggle between some kind of good side and some kind of evil side.

Hmmm, very good. Well done Kwisatz :)

[#FF0000]

It's not just about me; you, mykittyhasaboner, Loveschach, etc. should all do a little to radicalize your surroundings and put the idea of revolution into daily action. Monkeywrench in the machine if you will.

Yeah like culture-jamming or dumpster diving. And don't forget how guerrilla theater stopped Nixon from bombing the shit out of Laos!

[mykittyhasaboner]

When I say "Fuck the Revolution", I'm talking about the ideology that you guys have stamped onto it.
The only one that's stamping any ideology here is yourself. You continuously propose that idealism and "new ways" of "putting the idea of revolution in our daily lives", and you have no historical evidence to prove any of it.



This idea that it can only be acheived through class warfare; this idea that, at it's core, class is the main focus; the use of a vanguard; etc.When one class over throws another and establishes a new form of rule in society, that's called a revolution. The only way to transform society is by revolution, which is driven by class conflict. You haven't disproved this, despite all your criticism of this simple fact. Why not giving it some thought?


I always hear about "the Revolution" this and "the Revolution" that and, quite frankly... fuck it.
Yeah! Fuck revolution! Its useless right?


It's not something that can be planned and organized into action, we've gotta wipe these non-sense ideas of building a new society out of our heads and get to revolution at it's most basic which is living.
No actually it is something that has to be organized and planned. If you don't have organization and planning within your mass movement of workers, you have little more than a riot.


Parties and vanguards have failed,Wrong, many revolutions have been successful with a vanguard party leading it.


we must turn to the individual to be the maker of his own freedom. Here we go again.

"We can all be free guys!!! Just believe!!! Just believe!~!!"


Agitate for change and educate others about the current condition by all means but revolution is gonna have to be implimented by people on their own if it's gonna be worth having.
You again fail to understand the slightest bit of what it means to have a revolution. You simply write off historical events for your own petty idealist perspectives like they took places on pages in a fiction book.


Food, shelter, clothing, education, etc. are wonderful but they arent what the end result should be about. You truly are a reactionary prick. You think the end result should not be to provide people with these basic necessities as obligations? Just what the hell is your goal? To run prance around in some utopia that is built overnight by ideas?


The thing we're fighting for is a new way of living and being that requires innovation beyond the limitations of Leftism and ideology.
What a bold, unwarranted, and completely stupid claim. Revolutionary ideologies have played a significant role in every revolution the world has seen in like the last 200+ years? Stop living in your dream world.

I cant explain it in my own words fully and I know I'll get no positive reception for this but crimethinc's Fighting for Our Lives sums it all up. We cant be trying to get ourselves ready for revolution, we gotta be getting revolution ready for us.Hahahahahahah

[revolution inaction]

I think he is a post-left anarcho-pacifist.

I think he's a troll like the majority of OI

[ComradeOm]

I dont question their existence, I question the results they got which more-or-less has been either failure or totalitarianism. Any method that relies on totalitarianism to succeed is anti-revolutionaryI'm guessing that we should give up the 8hr day, minimum wage, unemployment benefits, and old age pension then? After all these were all products of the labour movement whose methods you reject so. Like you say, what good can come from organising?

And, yes you did explicitly reject the idea that class warfare, or revolutionary movements in general, were something that "can be planned and organized into action". Unlike some 'totalitarians' I don't care for rewriting history

Another postscript: I'm not going to bother with that nonsense about "relying on totalitarianism". Its just so horribly incorrect on so many levels


It's not just about me; you, mykittyhasaboner, Loveschach, etc. should all do a little to radicalize your surroundings and put the idea of revolution into daily action. Monkeywrench in the machine if you will.See the difference here is that my ego allows for the acknowledgement that there is a world beyond myself. I can accept that my individual efforts, with regards lifestylism, will benefit no one but myself. Individual action is always limited so

Of course if you got lots of people throwing a "monkeywrench in the machine"... well then you might have an organised mass movement with a political agenda :rolleyes:

[Bitter Ashes]

Well, Facists are individuals who have found a path to leadership. Normaly, a party will show off its credentials in administration in public services and taxes and such and that path is a very hard one as there's usualy a 2 party monoply on it and the system itself is extreamly complex. So, facists attempt to bypass that by finding something else to win thier way into Westminister/the Rechistag/The senate and that something is basicly via voter narcassim and scapegoating.

They will pin every problem on things like multiculturism, equality legisitlation, political correctness and pitch to the majority that they are superior and that all the problems in the world can be solved by going for a scapegoat. Now, if they chose as thier scapegoat a bunch of middle aged white people they'd have a problem as a large portion of the voters they hope to pitch to are also middle aged and white, or at least have friends or family that they think well of that fall into that catagory. So, they choose the least represented members of society to pin the blame on. The Jews, the Muslims, the lgbt community, etc.

There's a problem though. There's another group of people going around, saying that the majority are just like thier own group and that everything can be solved by pretty much the same tactic. Unfortuantly for the facists, our target not based on ethnic lines, but class lines and even worse, we can actualy back up our claims with examples that our target is the real problem. The icing on the cake of course is that we attempt to unite all people's, rather than divide and segregate them, which works totaly against the tactics of the Facists.

"Uh, oh." The facists say, "These commies have also noticed that there's major problems in the world and people are cottoning on that they've found the real root cause of the issues. If this gets out we'll never become the ruling elite!!!"

So, the rivalry is born. Two groups working to tell people that they've got the solution to all thier problems, working totaly against each other.

As time's gone on, I am sure that the facist anti-communist attitude has developed into more of an irrational hatred that has become thier status quo, rather than a strategic descion to oppose us.

The principles of both ideoligy are remarkably similar if you think of it in this way, especially when you take into account reformists and Stalinists that also want those positions of the new ruling elite and the only real difference is that one group unites by class, the other unites by ethnicity/sexuality/etc.

... of course, we do have good reason to unite by class though, as unlike the facists, we can actualy back up our claims that the bourgeois are the root of all evil :p

[9]

crimethinc lifestylists = 'the virtue of selfishness' reborn, but dumbed down even further, with an Orwellian undertone and some music by Enya playing in the background.
"the revolution starts when we stop caring about the exploitation of others!":closedeyes:

[Ol' Dirty]

From a class perspective, fascistic movements promote class collaboration and believe in a strong nation-state, while socialistic movements promote class struggle and inter/transnationalism. They exist in mutual emnity.

[Rosa Provokateur]

The only one that's stamping any ideology here is yourself. You continuously propose that idealism and "new ways" of "putting the idea of revolution in our daily lives", and you have no historical evidence to prove any of it.


When one class over throws another and establishes a new form of rule in society, that's called a revolution. The only way to transform society is by revolution, which is driven by class conflict. You haven't disproved this, despite all your criticism of this simple fact. Why not giving it some thought?

Yeah! Fuck revolution! Its useless right?
No actually it is something that has to be organized and planned. If you don't have organization and planning within your mass movement of workers, you have little more than a riot.

Wrong, many revolutions have been successful with a vanguard party leading it.


You again fail to understand the slightest bit of what it means to have a revolution. You simply write off historical events for your own petty idealist perspectives like they took places on pages in a fiction book.

You truly are a reactionary prick. You think the end result should not be to provide people with these basic necessities as obligations? Just what the hell is your goal? To run prance around in some utopia that is built overnight by ideas?

What a bold, unwarranted, and completely stupid claim. Revolutionary ideologies have played a significant role in every revolution the world has seen in like the last 200+ years? Stop living in your dream world.
Hahahahahahah

So; the past is dead and the future is un-written. We need to act not according to fear of what MAY happen but because of what IS happening.

No, it's called replacing one State with another: same shit with a different and maybe less obvious smell. A true revolution is the overthrowing of the State with no replacement, abolishing power without creating a new one.

Says who? Leninist vanguardianism makes this assumption that people cant plan for themselves but need some higher-up instead to direct them. If you dont trust people in THEIR revolution then you wont trust them to live freely as they please, a State will be established, and we're back in the same shit-hole again.

If you call totalitarian States like the USSR, China, Cuba, and North Korea success than I'd rather have failure.

I dont care about history; all history has proven is that Leftist so-called "revolutions" result in dictatorship and one-Party statism. The past is dead and we need a new way of doing things without capitalist exploitation OR communist dictatorship.

My goal is fuckin freedom. Un-ordered, un-organized, possibly chaotic, freedom. I dont mess around with economics since I think material equalibrium is impossible to plan so I aim for anarchy, everything else... let the chips fall where they may.

I think my dream world is more realistic than Marxism ever was.

[JimmyJazz]

I always click on a thread when Green Apostle has made the most recent reply because I enjoy following the ongoing rollercoaster saga that is Green Apostle's ideology

[mykittyhasaboner]

So; the past is dead and the future is un-written. We need to act not according to fear of what MAY happen but because of what IS happening.
The past may be "dead" but your un-restricted tendency to toss it aside like trash is despicable. History is a guide for the future, we see how we've progressed and where were going. Why waste time reading the bible if you didn't think this? The last bit about fear or whatever just doesn't make sense, but I'll forget you wrote it, as I have most of your other 'posts'.


No, it's called replacing one State with another: same shit with a different and maybe less obvious smell. No the new one smells much better.



A true revolution is the overthrowing of the State with no replacement, abolishing power without creating a new one.A "true revolution" will only happen when jesus comes down and brings us all dognuts or something, that's probably what your "true revolution" is.

On a more serious note, "true revolutions" (like you know all of the ones in the past) have been the process of one class overthrowing another and establishing a new form of rule. Accept it.


Says who? Leninist vanguardianism makes this assumption that people cant plan for themselves but need some higher-up instead to direct them. If you dont trust people in THEIR revolution then you wont trust them to live freely as they please, a State will be established, and we're back in the same shit-hole again.http://crackthecode.us/images/straw-man2.jpg


If you call totalitarian States like the USSR, China, Cuba, and North Korea success than I'd rather have failure.
I'm not surprised you want failure, you want revolutions to fail so capitalism can remain as the status quo.



I dont care about history; all history has proven is that Leftist so-called "revolutions" result in dictatorship and one-Party statism. The past is dead and we need a new way of doing things without capitalist exploitation OR communist dictatorship.You don't care about history? Your a sad person in my opinion.



My goal is fuckin freedom.Not really.

Un-ordered, un-organized, possibly chaotic, freedom.Pathetic.


I dont mess around with economics since I think material equalibrium is impossible to plan so I aim for anarchy, everything else... let the chips fall where they may.
:lol:


I think my dream world is more realistic than Marxism ever was.Yeah I know.

[Dimentio]

Well, Facists are individuals who have found a path to leadership. Normaly, a party will show off its credentials in administration in public services and taxes and such and that path is a very hard one as there's usualy a 2 party monoply on it and the system itself is extreamly complex. So, facists attempt to bypass that by finding something else to win thier way into Westminister/the Rechistag/The senate and that something is basicly via voter narcassim and scapegoating.

They will pin every problem on things like multiculturism, equality legisitlation, political correctness and pitch to the majority that they are superior and that all the problems in the world can be solved by going for a scapegoat. Now, if they chose as thier scapegoat a bunch of middle aged white people they'd have a problem as a large portion of the voters they hope to pitch to are also middle aged and white, or at least have friends or family that they think well of that fall into that catagory. So, they choose the least represented members of society to pin the blame on. The Jews, the Muslims, the lgbt community, etc.

There's a problem though. There's another group of people going around, saying that the majority are just like thier own group and that everything can be solved by pretty much the same tactic. Unfortuantly for the facists, our target not based on ethnic lines, but class lines and even worse, we can actualy back up our claims with examples that our target is the real problem. The icing on the cake of course is that we attempt to unite all people's, rather than divide and segregate them, which works totaly against the tactics of the Facists.

"Uh, oh." The facists say, "These commies have also noticed that there's major problems in the world and people are cottoning on that they've found the real root cause of the issues. If this gets out we'll never become the ruling elite!!!"

So, the rivalry is born. Two groups working to tell people that they've got the solution to all thier problems, working totaly against each other.

As time's gone on, I am sure that the facist anti-communist attitude has developed into more of an irrational hatred that has become thier status quo, rather than a strategic descion to oppose us.

The principles of both ideoligy are remarkably similar if you think of it in this way, especially when you take into account reformists and Stalinists that also want those positions of the new ruling elite and the only real difference is that one group unites by class, the other unites by ethnicity/sexuality/etc.

... of course, we do have good reason to unite by class though, as unlike the facists, we can actualy back up our claims that the bourgeois are the root of all evil :p

To be fair, some socialist-populists has actually used class-agitation just to reach power. That is quite usual. You know the strong, broad-shouldered demagogue who rages and rants against the elite, pointing with the whole hand and proposing sweeping solutions. One such example is Robert Fico of Slovakia.

[Green Dragon]

Except the bourgeoisie does own the means of production, and establish their rule on society accordingly. "The Jew" is just a scapegoat.


The nazis argued that the Jews dominated the economic life of germany, and organised that life for their benefit against the majority of hard working Germans.




Except the proletariat is oppressed, and the "Aryan race" is another scapegoat like construct.

The nazis argued that the Germans were an unjustly oppressed "race."


Maybe you should just stop believing what Nazi's say?

It has nothing to do with believing the claims of the nazis were correct. It has to do with what those claims were.

[Green Dragon]

This notion that the Nazis must somehow have had any connection to previous parties calling themselves "National Socialist" is ridiculous. For instanc ethere was a party of that name that ran in the 1918 election in the UK as a sort of part of the Labour Party. Three candidates were elected, two as Labour candidates, one under the name National Socialist. The name was simply meant to invoke that they were operating across the whole country. Is anyone seriously going to claim they were related to the Nazis?


We do know that Hitler did not create the party from scratch. He joined an existing party, a party which used the program and ideals of the Austrian National Socialists as its basis.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Kwisatz Haderach;1490907]You mean they put national identity above all other forms of personal identity or affiliation. The Nazis said "we are all Germans, before we are anything else." But that has nothing to do with equality, and the Nazis never claimed it had anything to do with equality. They never said "all Germans are equal" - in fact they said the exact opposite, that some Germans are better than others and these elites need to be promoted.


They said not being a member of an "elite" is no impediment. Which considering the nazis themselves, makes sense.



You are confusing the notions of identity and loyalty with the notion of equality. The Nazis were very much into identity and loyalty. But to say "we must all follow the same leader, pursue the same goal and serve the same nation" is not to say "we are all equal." An army follows the same leader, pursues the same goal and serves the same nation - in fact, that comparison is particularly accurate, since the Nazis pretty much wanted to organize German society as an army. Yet an army is a strict hierarchy with a chain of command, and inferiors are supposed to obey the orders of their superiors without question - the very opposite of equality.


Something which is identical, is equal.

[Green Dragon]

Woah, you once again demonstrate how you fail to understand politics, class, socialism, or anything related. Do you honestly think class war, and "race war" are interchangeable terms? The two are about as different as the rest of your "analogies".


But does the greatest difference lie? Between the fellow who passionately believes in class war, the person who passionately believes in race war, or the fellow who believes BOTH ideas are wrong?

[mykittyhasaboner]

The nazis argued that the Jews dominated the economic life of germany, and organised that life for their benefit against the majority of hard working Germans.
What the fuck is it with you people here in OI? You honestly believe what Nazi's argued? The whole thing was a scape goat, get over yourselves.


The nazis argued that the Germans were an unjustly oppressed "race." Again, why should I give a damn about what the Nazi's argued?


It has nothing to do with believing the claims of the nazis were correct. It has to do with what those claims were.No, it absolutely does have to do with believing the claims of "the Nazis" were correct, otherwise there is no possible way to take them seriously. Obviously you believe them, or at least thats how you make it seem.


But does the greatest difference lie? Between the fellow who passionately believes in class war, the person who passionately believes in race war, or the fellow who believes BOTH ideas are wrong?

The difference lies between those who base their "beliefs" on factual and historical truth. Society is divided into classes=fact. Workers are one of these classes=fact. The bourgeoisie are also one of these classes=fact. The two have conflicting aims and interests=fact.

"Race war" (you people still have yet to define this term) has little but racial intolerance and hardcore xenophobia behind it.

The fellow who believes they are both wrong is at least half-way right.

[Dimentio]

What the fuck is it with you people here in OI? You honestly believe what Nazi's argued? The whole thing was a scape goat, get over yourselves.

Again, why should I give a damn about what the Nazi's argued?

No, it absolutely does have to do with believing the claims of "the Nazis" were correct, otherwise there is no possible way to take them seriously. Obviously you believe them, or at least thats how you make it seem.



The difference lies between those who base their "beliefs" on factual and historical truth. Society is divided into classes=fact. Workers are one of these classes=fact. The bourgeoisie are also one of these classes=fact. The two have conflicting aims and interests=fact.

"Race war" (you people still have yet to define this term) has little but racial intolerance and hardcore xenophobia behind it.

The fellow who believes they are both wrong is at least half-way right.

Actually, he doesn't believe the nazi claims. He is just saying that the nazis believed in them.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Actually, he doesn't believe the nazi claims. He is just saying that the nazis believed in them.
Well that still doesn't make very much of an argument.

[Octobox]

Nazi hate Communists because of the Anglo - Jewish supply chain (market advantage) War.

---The Jewish Communists (Lenin - Trotsky - Marx - Cappa Guard/Police) forced the Jewish supply chain equation all over Nothern and Norther-Eastern Europe
---The Communists (who historically kill more of their own then others) did use mass murder to get these feats accomplished.

Some say that the Nazi's themselves (being led primarily by jews or half-jews -- like Hitler) were just a tool to bring about Jewish Banking dominion and to create a Nation State (Israel). I cannot validate that.

Octobox

Ps...I have no dogs in this hunt -- just throwing out a possible answer

[NecroCommie]

---The Jewish Communists (Lenin - Trotsky - Marx - Cappa Guard/Police) forced the Jewish supply chain equation all over Nothern and Norther-Eastern Europe
---The Communists (who historically kill more of their own then others) did use mass murder to get these feats accomplished.

I am not going to validate such infantile post by bothering with a proper counter-post. I do, however, inform you of the fact that the part I quoted is propably the most unenlightened bullshit I have ever seen.

[Pogue]

Nazi hate Communists because of the Anglo - Jewish supply chain (market advantage) War.

---The Jewish Communists (Lenin - Trotsky - Marx - Cappa Guard/Police) forced the Jewish supply chain equation all over Nothern and Norther-Eastern Europe
---The Communists (who historically kill more of their own then others) did use mass murder to get these feats accomplished.

Some say that the Nazi's themselves (being led primarily by jews or half-jews -- like Hitler) were just a tool to bring about Jewish Banking dominion and to create a Nation State (Israel). I cannot validate that.

Octobox

Ps...I have no dogs in this hunt -- just throwing out a possible answer


ffffffffascist troll

[Dimentio]

Nazi hate Communists because of the Anglo - Jewish supply chain (market advantage) War.

---The Jewish Communists (Lenin - Trotsky - Marx - Cappa Guard/Police) forced the Jewish supply chain equation all over Nothern and Norther-Eastern Europe
---The Communists (who historically kill more of their own then others) did use mass murder to get these feats accomplished.

Some say that the Nazi's themselves (being led primarily by jews or half-jews -- like Hitler) were just a tool to bring about Jewish Banking dominion and to create a Nation State (Israel). I cannot validate that.

Octobox

Ps...I have no dogs in this hunt -- just throwing out a possible answer

Are you claiming that Jews somewhat are controlling the system?

[scarletghoul]

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

[9]

Nazi hate Communists because of the Anglo - Jewish supply chain (market advantage) War.

---The Jewish Communists (Lenin - Trotsky - Marx - Cappa Guard/Police) forced the Jewish supply chain equation all over Nothern and Norther-Eastern Europe
---The Communists (who historically kill more of their own then others) did use mass murder to get these feats accomplished.

Some say that the Nazi's themselves (being led primarily by jews or half-jews -- like Hitler) were just a tool to bring about Jewish Banking dominion and to create a Nation State (Israel). I cannot validate that.

Octobox

Ps...I have no dogs in this hunt -- just throwing out a possible answer


Could someone curbstomp this troll and get it over with?

[Octobox]

Drama Kings -- I thought this was "opposing ideologies" not "regulated opinions"

Are there a lot of Jews here?

I'm Black - Irish - and Cuban Sephardim (Jewish)

I'm definitely not a "fascist" -- read my posts.

You all are not calling me a fascist because I said the Nazis hated that the Communist owing to the laters rising Economic position in the region -- are you? right?

You are saying it because I pointed out that the Communist were always headed by powerful Jews or Jewish Scholars then, correct?

Marx
Lenin
Trotsky
80-90% of the Chekka Guard / Police

Were all Jewish (if not by religion then by socio-economics -- "supply-chain" - "network")

Wasn't Hitler partly Jewish (The Germans allowed men who were 1/4 and even 1/2 Jewish to be Nazi -- correct?)

What's wrong with saying that?

You guys are funny and hyper-sensitive.

Trust me I've delt with more racism in my life then most all of you Communist-Philosophy / Capitalist-Living Idealists have ever had to deal with.

My family survives in Cuba under Castro and formerly under the IRA in Iredland -- America has been good to us, but no picnic.

Try living in South Central and East Los Angeles in the '70's and early 80's.

"Not every victim was a Jew but every Jew was a victim." --Elie Wiesel speaking of World War Two.

"If there were Jews in (Hitler's) armed forces...who served knowing what was going on and made no attempt to save (lives), well then that is unacceptable and dishonorable." --Rabbi Marvin Hier, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Institute.

Cambridge University researcher Bryan Rigg has traced the Jewish ancestry of more than 1,200 of Hitler's soldiers, including two field marshals and fifteen generals (two full generals, eight lieutenant generals, five major generals), "men commanding up to 100,000 troops."

I guess you guys don't believe there ever was "Hitler's Jewish Army?"

I can't say because I wasn't there -- I've never heard of a massacre that didn't have at it's heart a few well placed "sell-outs."

Wow -- What an absurd over reaction.

Octobox

[robbo203]

Please identify the similarities in economic policies. The Nazi economic policy was based on cosy relationships with big business after all whereas the Communists wanted to destroy big business. That is why large businesses bankrolled the Nazis to such an extent.

Actually it appears that at least up until the second world war the state capitalist regime of the USSR wanted very much to attract big business to build up the industrial infrastrcuture of the Soviet Union. According to Professor Steven Kotkin of Princeton University: "The list of capitalist firms which built Stalin's industrialized Soviet Union is a who's who of the most famous and advanced capitalist firms of the 20th Century. It includes not only American ones, but Italians and Germans, etcetera. Later on they would be embarrassed by this collaboration and remove this episode from their company histories, which were produced in the Cold War period after 1945."(Cited in http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/the_soviet_model_and_the_economic_cold_war_01331.h tml)

[9]

Drama Kings -- I thought this was "opposing ideologies" not "regulated opinions"

Are there a lot of Jews here?

I'm Black - Irish - and Cuban Sephardim (Jewish)

I'm definitely not a "fascist" -- read my posts.

You all are not calling me a fascist because I said the Nazis hated that the Communist were rising Economically -- right?

You are saying it because I pointed out that the Communist were always heads by powerful Jews or Jewish Scholars then, correct?

Marx
Lenin
Trotsky
80-90% of the Chekka Guard / Police

Were all Jewish (if not by religion then by socio-economics -- "supply-chain" - "network")

What's wrong with saying that?

You guys are funny and hyper-sensitive.

Trust me I've delt with more racism in my life then most all of you Communist-Philosophy / Capitalist-Living Idealists have ever had to deal with.

My family survives in Cuba under Castro and formerly under the IRA in Iredland -- America has been good to us, but no picnic.

Try South Central and East Los Angeles in the '70's and early 80's.

Wow -- What an absurd over reaction.

Octobox

What the fuck does "Jewish by socio-economics" mean? And "Jewish supply-chain network"? Seriously. That sounds like something right out of Stormfront. And please provide a source for your claims of Communists "always being headed by Jews". "80-90% of the Chekka Guard / Police" Again, provide a source. And please don't try to justify ignorant comments by claiming that your family has been oppressed - it doesn't make your comments any less ignorant.:rolleyes:

[Octobox]

Are you claiming that Jews somewhat are controlling the system?

Not really -- I thought it was logical.

The Communist Leaders and Chekka Guard/Police were all mostly of Jewish Ancestry -- FACT

Had Anglo-Germany were wealthy would they have attacked Poland?

War is either fought for Food or Expansion (Greed).

I'm not a Historian on Nazi Logic.

The Communist were trying to expand their economic foot-print and the Jewish community was thriving -- I always figured it was Economic.

I'm Sephardim on my Grandmother's side.

Octobox

[Dimentio]

Not really -- I thought it was logical.

The Communist Leaders and Chekka Guard/Police were all mostly of Jewish Ancestry -- FACT

Had Anglo-Germany were wealthy would they have attacked Poland?

War is either fought for Food or Expansion (Greed).

I'm not a Historian on Nazi Logic.

The Communist were trying to expand their economic foot-print and the Jewish community was thriving -- I always figured it was Economic.

I'm Sephardim on my Grandmother's side.

Octobox

Germans were a lot wealthier than the Polish and Soviet peoples they tried to enslave.

As for the cheka. I agree that it did commit gruesome acts. I'm more with the anarchists there. But a lot of its personnel was actually composed of Latvians and Poles. While Jews were disproportionally overrepresented, it is a myth that they were a majority. The Bolshevik party had lots of members from all minorities, which is quite understandable given the repression of the tsarist regime.

[Octobox]

What the fuck does "Jewish by socio-economics" mean? And "Jewish supply-chain network"? Seriously. That sounds like something right out of Stormfront. And please provide a source for your claims of Communists "always being headed by Jews". "80-90% of the Chekka Guard / Police" Again, provide a source. And please don't try to justify ignorant comments by claiming that your family has been oppressed - it doesn't make your comments any less ignorant.:rolleyes:

Apikoros: Calm down little Nazi-Hater -- I'm not German -- My family was in Cuba and Ireland during this time ;-)

Google: "Jewish Cheka Guard" -- I remember studying this in college.

Marx was Jewish
Lenin was Jewish
Trotsky was Jewish

Why is this a problem for you?

I'm not suggesting anything "evil." Communist kill their own -- Jews killed Jesus -- Africans owned Slaves -- Mao killed his own -- People sell-out.

Maybe I'm wrong -- Maybe there were 0 Jews at the Leadership of Communist Russia -- Maybe Marx - Lenin - Trotsky were not Jewish -- and maybe there were 0 Jews in the Cheka Guard / Police.

I'm not an absolutist -- I thought it was common knowledge; my bad.

If I'm "absolutely wrong" then the Jewish Hollocaust was the first ever mass genocide with ZERO sell-outs -AND- of course none of the Kapo were Jewish either and they never killed their own (or led them to the gas chambers).

"Stormfront" - hahahaha

Like I said -- I'm Sephardim

[9]

Apikoros: Calm down little Nazi-Hater -- I'm not German -- My family was in Cuba and Ireland during this time ;-)

Google: "Jewish Cheka Guard" -- I remember studying this in college.

Marx was Jewish
Lenin was Jewish
Trotsky was Jewish

Why is this a problem for you?

I'm not suggesting anything "evil." Communist kill their own -- Jews killed Jesus -- Africans owned Slaves -- Mao killed his own -- People sell-out.

Maybe I'm wrong -- Maybe there were 0 Jews at the Leadership of Communist Russia -- Maybe Marx - Lenin - Trotsky were not Jewish -- and maybe there were 0 Jews in the Cheka Guard / Police.

I'm not an absolutist -- I thought it was common knowledge; my bad.

If I'm "absolutely wrong" then the Jewish Hollocaust was the first ever mass genocide with ZERO sell-outs -AND- of course none of the Kapo were Jewish either and they never killed their own (or led them to the gas chambers).

"Stormfront" - hahahaha

Like I said -- I'm Sephardim

How is Lenin Jewish? Having some obscure, far-removed Jewish heritage does not render one Jewish, unless we are living under the Nazis. As for Marx and Trotsky, they hardly account for the entirety of Communist leaders.

As for the Cheka.. "According to figures provided by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation ), there was a total of 49,991 Cheka operatives as of 1 October 1921: 38,648 Russians, 4,564 Jews, 1,770 Latvians, 1,559 Ukrainians, 886 Poles, 315 Germans, 186 Lithuanians, 152 Estonians, 102 Armenians, and 1,808 from other ethnic groups.[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism#cite_note-FSSRF-49)"

That's what, about 10%? Hardly the 80-90% you alleged.

And I will repeat my original questions, since you never addressed them: What does "Jewish by socio-economics" mean? And what is "Jewish supply-chain network"?

[Octobox]

How is Lenin Jewish? Having some obscure, far-removed Jewish heritage does not render one Jewish, unless we are living under the Nazis. As for Marx and Trotsky, they hardly account for the entirety of Communist leaders.

As for the Cheka.. "According to figures provided by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation ), there was a total of 49,991 Cheka operatives as of 1 October 1921: 38,648 Russians, 4,564 Jews, 1,770 Latvians, 1,559 Ukrainians, 886 Poles, 315 Germans, 186 Lithuanians, 152 Estonians, 102 Armenians, and 1,808 from other ethnic groups.[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism#cite_note-FSSRF-49)"

That's what, about 10%? Hardly the 80-90% you alleged.

And I will repeat my original questions, since you never addressed them: What does "Jewish by socio-economics" mean? And what is "Jewish supply-chain network"?

Hahahaha -- Marx and Trotsky hardly account for the entirety of Communist Leaders. They may have had some influence.

A Socio-Economic Jew is one who does not practice by faith but who organizes by ethnicity.

A supply chain is the system of organizations, people, technology, activities, information and resources involved in moving a product or service -- A Jewish Supply Chain is formed along ethnic/religious "Jewish" lines.

The latter was necessary since Jews in Russia and Norther Europe were treated hostily in many regions - in some instances only having each other to principally trade with. This developed strong networks and innovation. Whites began using them owing to quality of service and reliability. Seeing that Judaism is as much a political philosophy as it is a religion this gave the Jews a lot of clout and wealth.

Wasn't it Lenin (1/4 Jewish) who said, "An intelligent Russian," he once remarked, "is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins." -- From Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1990), p. 352.

I'll have to dig out my sources on how many Jewish Cheka / NKVD there were.

I don't trust "History" it is always written by the Winner or Loser -- The Middle Class is to busy supporting both to pick up pen and quill, hahahahaha.

I'll let you have the last word (well eventually).

Octobox

[mykittyhasaboner]

Drama Kings -- I thought this was "opposing ideologies" not "regulated opinions"
It may be OI, but we don't take kindly to the word "Jew" being tossed around here akin to the ways it is used at Stormfront.


Are there a lot of Jews here?
Why on Earth does it matter?

I'm Black - Irish - and Cuban Sephardim (Jewish)Thanks for sharing.


I'm definitely not a "fascist" -- read my posts.No your not a fascist, at least you can say that. :lol:


You all are not calling me a fascist because I said the Nazis hated that the Communist owing to the laters rising Economic position in the region -- are you? right?I'm not sure what your saying here.


You are saying it because I pointed out that the Communist were always headed by powerful Jews or Jewish Scholars then, correct?Hahah


Marx
Lenin
Trotsky
80-90% of the Chekka Guard / PoliceI'm sorry but you can't call Marx Lenin or Trotsky "Jews" unless they devoted to and practiced Judaism. Being born to a Jewish family doesn't automatically make you a "Jew", quite thinking like a Nazi. Besides, it is irrelevant whether or not they were jewish, and while it's irrelevant, I'd still like to see you substantiate that 80-90 percent of the Cheka were of Jewish faith.


Were all Jewish (if not by religion then by socio-economics -- "supply-chain" - "network")What?


Wasn't Hitler partly Jewish (The Germans allowed men who were 1/4 and even 1/2 Jewish to be Nazi -- correct?)Uh, maybe. Even if he was that would just make him a hypocrite.


What's wrong with saying that?It's not "wrong" just foolish.


You guys are funny and hyper-sensitiveOK whatever.


Trust me I've delt with more racism in my life then most all of you Communist-Philosophy / Capitalist-Living Idealists have ever had to deal with.Congratulations, would you like a medal?


My family survives in Cuba under Castro and formerly under the IRA in Iredland -- America has been good to us, but no picnic.Cool, but tell me how the fuck were you or your family a victim of racism in socialist Cuba?:blink::confused:


Try living in South Central and East Los Angeles in the '70's and early 80's.Sorry we can't go back in time. Most likely, all of us here live in countries where racism exists, so don't go patronizing people with such a condescending tone. Your not special, millions of other people deal with racism.


"Not every victim was a Jew but every Jew was a victim." --Elie Wiesel speaking of World War Two.Ok.


"If there were Jews in (Hitler's) armed forces...who served knowing what was going on and made no attempt to save (lives), well then that is unacceptable and dishonorable." --Rabbi Marvin Hier, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Institute.
OK, I don't see the point of these quotes.

Cambridge University researcher Bryan Rigg has traced the Jewish ancestry of more than 1,200 of Hitler's soldiers, including two field marshals and fifteen generals (two full generals, eight lieutenant generals, five major generals), "men commanding up to 100,000 troops."
Interesting, now the only question is why was part of Hitler's army "partly jewish".

I guess you guys don't believe there ever was "Hitler's Jewish Army?"
Maybe, it doesn't seem likely.

I can't say because I wasn't there -- I've never heard of a massacre that didn't have at it's heart a few well placed "sell-outs."OK?


Wow -- What an absurd over reaction.Maybe your the one over reacting.




Not really -- I thought it was logical.
How is it logical that "Jews control the system"?


The Communist Leaders and Chekka Guard/Police were all mostly of Jewish Ancestry -- FACTA 'fact' that you haven't attempted to prove yet.


Had Anglo-Germany were wealthy would they have attacked Poland?Well they would have to be wealthy enough to attack Poland now would they? It costs heaps of money to perform a blitzkrieg.


War is either fought for Food or Expansion (Greed). Wow, I've never even seen such idealist moralism on something like this. Not even from green apostle. :lol::lol:

"Greed" does not cause war, and food is obtainable in many other ways.


I'm not a Historian on Nazi Logic.
Seems like your trying.

The Communist were trying to expand their economic foot-print and the Jewish community was thriving -- I always figured it was Economic.What the fuck are you saying, really?


I'm Sephardim on my Grandmother's side.Thanks for sharing, again.




Apikoros: Calm down little Nazi-Hater -- I'm not German -- My family was in Cuba and Ireland during this time ;-)
Irrelevant.


Google: "Jewish Cheka Guard" -- I remember studying this in college.
No, why don't you prove your own claims?

Marx was Jewish
Lenin was Jewish
Trotsky was JewishWrong, wrong, and wrong.


Why is this a problem for you?BECAUSE SOMEONE'S RELIGION ISN'T DERIVED FROM THE FAMILY THEY WERE BORN IN?! FFS


I'm not suggesting anything "evil." Communist kill their own -- Jews killed Jesus -- Africans owned Slaves -- Mao killed his own -- People sell-out.
Shut up.

Maybe I'm wrong -- Maybe there were 0 Jews at the Leadership of Communist Russia -- Maybe Marx - Lenin - Trotsky were not Jewish -- and maybe there were 0 Jews in the Cheka Guard / Police................


I'm not an absolutist -- I thought it was common knowledge; my bad.Common knowledge for fucking psuedo-anti-semitists like you.


If I'm "absolutely wrong" then the Jewish Hollocaust was the first ever mass genocide with ZERO sell-outs -AND- of course none of the Kapo were Jewish either and they never killed their own (or led them to the gas chambers).Sellouts?


"Stormfront" - hahahahaYou probably belong there.


Like I said -- I'm Sephardimnobody cares


Hahahaha -- Marx and Trotsky hardly account for the entirety of Communist Leaders. They may have had some influence.
So, they were pretty well-known Marxists, and are still regarded as some of the most influential communists of all time.


A Socio-Economic Jew is one who does not practice by faith but who organizes by ethnicity.Socio-economic Jew? Wow, I didn't think you would come fully out of your fascist fucking closet but you did. "Socio-economic jews" don't exist, anyone who is a jew is a follower of Judaism. If people were ever murdered for being in a Jewish family or of "jewish decent" then thats just Nazi-esque ethnic cleansing.


A supply chain is the system of organizations, people, technology, activities, information and resources involved in moving a product or service -- A Jewish Supply Chain is formed along ethnic/religious "Jewish" lines. What are you on about?



The latter was necessary since Jews in Russia and Norther Europe were treated hostily in many regions - in some instances only having each other to principally trade with. This developed strong networks and innovation. Whites began using them owing to quality of service and reliability. Seeing that Judaism is as much a political philosophy as it is a religion this gave the Jews a lot of clout and wealth.Judaism is not a political philosophy relevant to today's world, nor in recent historical Europe. Jews are not a socio-economic class.


Wasn't it Lenin (1/4 Jewish)Your just pathetic.


who said, "An intelligent Russian," he once remarked, "is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins." -- From Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1990), p. 352.
First, this is from Pipes (who is a vigorous anti-communist and is stuck in cold-war logic, so your quote shows no signs of validity nor propsectable information), and it was a political book covering the october revolution. Second, Lenin didn't say this Pipes put it in his mouth (evidently, judging by the way it was written. Even if Lenin in fact did say this, then it doesn't seem like anything signifigant to begin with. Stop wasting your time troll.


I don't trust "History" it is always written by the Winner or Loser -- The Middle Class is to busy supporting both to pick up pen and quill, hahahahaha.Oh so you don't "trust "History"? Then you must only trust your thick headed ideas. Pitiful.


I'll let you have the last word (well eventually).Too bad you ever began with any words.

[NecroCommie]

Octobox: What is it with you and jews? It's just a religion, and a pretty small one at that.

[GPDP]

I swear, OI seems to be the foremost place on the net to find the weirdest kinds of idealism and nonsensical babble by people trying way too hard to comment on all sorts of ideological issues while still coming off as apolitical, condescending nuts.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I swear, OI seems to be the foremost place on the net to find the weirdest kinds of idealism and nonsensical babble by people trying way too hard to comment on all sorts of ideological issues while still coming off as apolitical, condescending nuts.

Foremost? I don't know if OI can compete with the Mises or Rand institute. :lol:

However OI does have it's overwhelming share of total fools.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=mykittyhasaboner;1493616]What the fuck is it with you people here in OI? You honestly believe what Nazi's argued? The whole thing was a scape goat, get over yourselves.

The OP was why the nazis hated the communists. The suggestion made was because the two were largely indistinguishable.




No, it absolutely does have to do with believing the claims of "the Nazis" were correct, otherwise there is no possible way to take them seriously. Obviously you believe them, or at least thats how you make it seem.


Considering what the nazis DID, one would think they should be treated seriously.




The difference lies between those who base their "beliefs" on factual and historical truth. Society is divided into classes=fact. Workers are one of these classes=fact. The bourgeoisie are also one of these classes=fact. The two have conflicting aims and interests=fact.

"Race war" (you people still have yet to define this term) has little but racial intolerance and hardcore xenophobia behind it.

The fellow who believes they are both wrong is at least half-way right.


You are simply seeking to define people based upon class. The browns sought to define people based upon race.
Opposite sides of the same coin.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You are simply seeking to define people based upon class. The browns sought to define people based upon race.
Opposite sides of the same coin.
So, anyone who seeks to define people based on... anything... is just another side of the same coin?

[Rosa Provokateur]

The nazis argued that the Jews dominated the economic life of germany, and organised that life for their benefit against the majority of hard working Germans.





The nazis argued that the Germans were an unjustly oppressed "race."



It has nothing to do with believing the claims of the nazis were correct. It has to do with what those claims were.


kudos.

[Bud Struggle]

However OI does have it's overwhelming share of total fools.

Ever visit "Philosophy?" :D

[mykittyhasaboner]

[QUOTE]

The OP was why the nazis hated the communists. The suggestion made was because the two were largely indistinguishable.

So communists are indistinguishable from jews?






You are simply seeking to define people based upon class.
No, classes exist, I'm not "seeking" to define anything.

The browns sought to define people based upon race.
Opposite sides of the same coin.
No they aren't this is a total logical fallacy.

[danyboy27]

I swear, OI seems to be the foremost place on the net to find the weirdest kinds of idealism and nonsensical babble by people trying way too hard to comment on all sorts of ideological issues while still coming off as apolitical, condescending nuts.

tanks you:rolleyes:

[SouthernBelle82]

very true.

Fascism relied on granting monopolies to big businesses and largely restricting competition

The theory of communism consists of abolishing money and to provide services "for free", without any businesses or owners whatsoever.

I guess the only similarity is that they both end up eliminating a free market.

Uh from my understanding you need money to pay for services. It's not about "free." Capitalism is an ideology like communism is. Communism puts people together to help one another where as capitalism puts people together to fight one another to see who can get more. Capitalism also cares more about making profit than the people (see Nigeria and Shell Oil).

[SouthernBelle82]

There is a fundamental ideological conflict between communists and fascists: Communists strongly uphold the idea of human equality, and fascists strongly uphold the idea of human inequality. In the case of the Nazis, this took the form of upholding the idea of extreme inequality between races.

So, basically, the short answer to your question is: Because communists say that we are all equal, and Nazis say that we are absolutely not equal.

There are also other reasons. Communism advocates international solidarity and class struggle ("workers of all countries unite and overthrow the capitalists!"), while Nazis advocate nationalism and class collaboration ("workers and capitalists of our country, stand together and fight other countries!")

And, of course, Nazis also believed that communism was an evil Jewish conspiracy for world domination.

Oh of course. Marx was a German Jew....

[SouthernBelle82]

This looks like that conspiracy to try and shift Fascism to the left. Goddammit

The economic policies of the Communists and the Fascist's were VERY different.

The Nazi's economy is what is known as corporatism. Essentially, you have a capitalist economy, but the government intervenes to help out big businesses. Which is exactly what the Nazi's did.

The Communist's expoused a Socialist economy. Socialism is were the economy is democratically controlled by the workers.

Nazism and Fascism is far-right for a reason, it emphasizes Nationalism and Racism instead of Internationalism and Class Struggle

Oh yes. You wouldn't believe how many times I've come across people like on Youtube who say Hitler was a socialist and a left winger. You can thank Jonah Golberg for that. He has a book out called "Liberal Fascism" which is hilarious (the title I mean). It also goes back to the whole thing that Obama is a socialist or a communist.

So Corporatism is what is sorta going on now.

[SouthernBelle82]

Actually, I just found this amusing post on Stormfront addressing this question

http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php?p=7088274




oh, and on the same thread



Fascists aren't so completely stupid after all :rolleyes:

Oh my gosh. There needs to be a news alert. However they're still stupid for being fascist.

[SouthernBelle82]

[QUOTE=Kwisatz Haderach;1489338]

This is not really true. The nazis supported GERMAN equality "All Germans were equal, all were comrades." They embraced a racial theory as opposed to the class theory.
But even that is not a "fundamental ideological conflict." Both developed in the same fashion. Indeed the first National Socialist Party in Europe formed as a result of a schism within a Social Democratic Party.





True, the nazis sought to unite all capitalists and all workers as one big mass. It would seem a broader objective of all socialists parties, as smashing the capitalists has the broader result of uniting all the people in one big mass.

However they got to choose who's worthy and who isn't.

[SouthernBelle82]

And of course, as it completely ignores the roots of the doctrine and class of the traditional advocates of the "Jewish conspiracy", I find this comparison particularly revolting. I don't think Ford hated Jews because he considered them bourgeois :rolleyes:
And when did acknowledging that in a capitalist society, the moneyed class inevitably owns the means of production become conspiratorial? Frankly, its common sense.

Do you mean Henry Ford of the car company? If you mean him he did accept a medal from the Nazi's.....

[GPDP]

I was of the understanding that Hitler believed there are two kinds of race struggles: struggles between races, and struggles within races. The second bit meaning that even within the Master Race, there is a strict hierarchy composed of a powerful leader at the top, followed by an elite group consisting of the best and most racially pure, then the ordinary people, and of course, the weakest or most undesirable members of society, such as invalids or homosexuals.

The Nazis modeled Germany after this belief, with Hitler as the all-powerful Fuhrer and the NSDAP and particularly the SS as his elite vanguard, while the rest of the people were to be led like sheep. And we needn't go into what happened with the sickly and with homosexuals.

[pastradamus]

I want the opinion of some self-identified communists on this, when studying for my history exam I asked my teacher why, when their economic policy seemed so similar, the NSDAP hated the communists so much, he said that it was in fact because they were so similar that it posed a thread to Hitler getting elected.

He said political parties don't like other parties that could take part of their vote, and this was the case with the communists & nazis in pre-war Germany.

I asked whether the racial policy of the NSDAP had anything to do with it and he said not really as the majority of Germans felt the same as the nazis about jews and gypsies etc.


Your History teacher Didnt know his arse from his elbow evidently.

Look at the Huge differences in Social Policies and sectors such as health Care and look at the economic differences such as Corporations and Private Contracts offfered by the state.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Kwisatz Haderach;1496002]So, anyone who seeks to define people based on... anything... is just another side of the same coin?



There is a fascinating argument over on the Learning page, of which I am restricted. The folks there are torturing themselves trying to explain to each other how the "Left" can support "national" movements while being good communists ect. One person actually said said that Castro is a nationalist, and it was a great way for Cuba to build socialism (but presumably not "National Socialism"). Another suggested (probably the most accurate) that national movements can be supported, as long as it is led by the workers themselves (to keep it germane, how then to deal with a fellow like Hitler, who was a "worker" and led a national movement?).

IOW, even the august pages of REVLEFT, even in 2009, is not exempt for that battle on the coin. It was only worse BEFORE the practical applications were realized.

[Luís Henrique]

Why did Nazis hate the communists? Because Nazism was a political organisation built to precise point of fighting against communism. In other words, if someone didn't hate communists, they would not be accepted as members of the Nazi party.

That's why.

Luís Henrique

[Green Dragon]

Why did Nazis hate the communists? Because Nazism was a political organisation built to precise point of fighting against communism. In other words, if someone didn't hate communists, they would not be accepted as members of the Nazi party.

That's why.

Luís Henrique

Joseph Goebbels thought (during the 20s) that the National Socialists and Communists should merge as there practically no distinction between the two. Ribbentrop always preferred the USSR, and thought the nazis anti-communist stance counterproductive and dissapointing. After Hitler was elected chancellor and banned the Communist Party, he specifically allowed that former party members could join the National Socialists.

[Luís Henrique]

Joseph Goebbels thought (during the 20s) that the National Socialists and Communists should merge as there practically no distinction between the two.

Source for this?


Ribbentrop always preferred the USSR, and thought the nazis anti-communist stance counterproductive and dissapointing.

Source? And "preferred the USSR" means ideologically, or strategically, in the context of Great Power politics?


After Hitler was elected chancellor and banned the Communist Party, he specifically allowed that former party members could join the National Socialists.

In fact, he dissolved the Communists and the Social-Democrats, and their militias, but merged the Stahlhelms (the German National Party's militia) into the SA.

Members of the Democratic Party or the Catholic Zentrum could also join the NSDAP; it doesn't mean that there was a particular proximity between Nazism and liberal centrism or Christian democracy...

The core of the Nazi party were the Freikorps of the 1918 revolution - anticommunist militias devouted to the "restoration of order".

Luís Henrique

[Pol Pot]

He is referring to some similiarities that nazi program contained in those 25. points.
But Hitler broke the promises amde in those programs and he also broke loads of other promises and he just left capitalism just like it was before nazis came, only thing he did was to "liberate" some businesses from being Jewish owned and that did make any difference upon capitalism.

But there was also a difference between ideological ideas of nazism and communism in that communism rejected racism and should have been directly-democratic and nazism even in theoriy advocated fuehrerprinzip with its ideals of "iron fisted leadership and strict disciplne".

[Luís Henrique]

Here are the famous 25 points of the Nazi Party program:



1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.


Not a communist demand, really.




2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

I suppose no political party in German actually supported those treaties.


3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

While communists would oppose colonialism.


4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

While communists would support citizenship to anyone living in Germany.


5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

Again directly contrary to the communist position.


6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen. We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.


More nationalist and exclusionary positions that aren't at all similar to communism. Plus a little bit of demagoguery that was easily dispelled when they came to power and started to [appoint] "men ... to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness".




7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.


Totally opposed to the communist position on immigration.



8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.


Totally opposed to the communist position on immigration.




9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.


All "citizens" within their peculiar notion of citizenship, ie, excluding Jews and immigrants and their descent.




10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.


Or, to put it bluntly, each "citizen" must be engaged in the reproduction of capital.




Therefore we demand:


11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.


But, of course, as they don't define "work", this means nothing: evidently, their concept of work included the "work" of CEOs...




12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.



So they didn't oppose war in itself (as communists do), but "war profits". One wonders why would weapons and ammo manufacturers produce weapons and ammo under the Nazi rule... but the fact that they did so shows that this point of the program was not intended to be actually implemented.



13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.


And not their socialisation.



14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.


Not the end to profits (and, consequently, wages), but a share of the profits. In large industries. This resembles more socialdemocracy than communism; but since (as opposed to socialdemocrats) they would suppress unions, the actual base for demanding profit-sharing would be removed.




15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

Well, who would be against that?


16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.


Not the abolition of classes (as communists propose), but strenghtening the "middle class" - which supposes the continuation of an "upper" and a "lower" classes...


Not socialisation or even nationalisation of "large stores", but merely their breaking into small stores rented to small tradespeople.



17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.


Well, this sounds radical... more like radical jacobinism than communism, but radical nonetheless. Particularly precious is the "abolition of ground rents" without the abolition of land private property. And, of course "the prohibition of all speculation in land"... without nationalisation of land.



The communist position is, of course, different: socialisation of land, abolition of private landed property, etc.



18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.


The usual "producerist" garbage. "Usurers" and "profiteers" are equated to traitors, and our common Sepp Doe would believe they were referring to banks and the weapons industry. But, in fact, as capitalism cannot work without credit, these are empty words, only useful to single out Jewish bankers and weapon traders as "usurers" and "profiteers" while assuring the position of "German" bankers and weapon traders.



The communist position is not the alliance between workers and "productive" capitalists against usury and "parasitic" capital, but working class struggle against capital in general.



19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

Wow, there is a resemblance between Nazism and the existing order in the Anglosphere... anyway, certainly not a communist position.


20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.


Not the social, economic or political control of the educational system by workers, but the ideologic control of the educational system by the State, including, of course, political indoctrination of children (State Idea).




21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.


A mix of common sence measures (public maternities - maternities but not general hospitals, which betrays their natalism - and prohibition of juvenile labour) with ill-disguised measures of ideologic control (compulsory games and gymnastics, encouragement of youth association).


In practice, as the Catholic youth associations would soon discover, "the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young" was limited to National Socialist associations concerned with the physical education of the young.


22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.


In other words, conscription instead of the reduced professional Reischsweher. In fact, the creation of a new, expanded, regular army, similar to those of the other European countries.



23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberatepolitical lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:
(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.
(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.
(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.
Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.



Press censorship and "nationalisation" of the press - nationalisation, here as elsewhere, meaning not State ownership, but ownership by "German citizens" as defined by the NSDAP, ie, to the exclusion of Jews and other "foreign" elements.




24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.
The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD


So the Nazi Party is "similar" not only to the communists, socialdemocrats, anglophone democrats, and libertarians, but also... to Christianity. Freedom of religion, for them, naturally, excludes Judaism (why? because Judaism is the incarnation of some "materialist spirit... who else would they describe as materialists? perhaps the communists, who in fact considered themselves "materialists"?)

Also, their "freedom of religion" does not mean in any way equalilty between the different religions: Christian denominations were still to be privileged over non-Christian religions, as the NSDAP "represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession"...

Freedom from religion isn't even considered, except in a clearly negative way: the party fights against materialism, which it believes is embodied in... Judaism.


25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.


Centralisation of the bourgeois State, not its abolition.




The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

Professional associations with executive powers (a bit of medieval guild nostalgia) instead of working class associations with a reivindicative character. In other words, statisation of unions.

If we take their program seriously, and decide to actually analyse it, it is very different from a communist or a socialdemocratic program. It may have some similar verbiage, but distorted to mean different things. In fact, one thing that they did consciously was to mimetise some of the external features of the left: the red colour, the word "socialism", the appeal to the poor, the street militia, the organised mass party (different from the older bourgeois parties that were more like private political clubs), etc.

On the other hand, we know very well that they themselves did not take the program in serious, and have not in fact pressed for its implementation, except in its nationalist and antisemitic aspects. The implementation of their ideas in the actual exercise of power, however, is even more distanced from communism than their program; it implied the strenghtening, not of the middle class (which was in fact harshly repressed and dispossessed by them), but of capitalist monopolies (Siemens, IG Farben, Krupp, Thyssen, Junkers, etc), banks (which were de-judaised, not nationalised), and even the traditional landed oligarchy of the Junkers.

Luís Henrique

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Luís Henrique;1507707]Source for this?


Shirer's Rise and Fall




Source? And "preferred the USSR" means ideologically, or strategically, in the context of Great Power politics?


As above.




In fact, he dissolved the Communists and the Social-Democrats, and their militias, but merged the Stahlhelms (the German National Party's militia) into the SA.


The KPD could join the browns after the former were abolished. Not so members of other parties.

As far as merging the Stahelms, Kershaw's recent biography of Hitler debunks that claim.





The core of the Nazi party were the Freikorps of the 1918 revolution - anticommunist militias devouted to the "restoration of order".


As above.

[Green Dragon]

Not a communist demand, really.


Karl Marx supported Bismark's efforts at german unification. He thought a unified Germany would be a step in the correct direction.





I suppose no political party in German actually supported those treaties.

Quite true. The governments of the 1920s were engaged largely in the attempt to ameliorate the treaty requirements. Hitler was popular in large part because he was successful.





While communists would oppose colonialism.


After WW II, the communists had no problem supporting expanding Poland westward, and driving out Germans from the lands newly going to Poland.




While communists would support citizenship to anyone living in Germany.


Including capitalists? But yes, the nazis were not communists, and vice versa.




Again directly contrary to the communist position.


As above





More nationalist and exclusionary positions that aren't at all similar to communism. Plus a little bit of demagoguery that was easily dispelled when they came to power and started to [appoint] "men ... to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness".


The communists would demand that the workers be the sole determiner of the laws. Different side, same coin.

The complaint about ending unqualified people being appointed to public office: It's a common complaint in modern society. The nazis did not understand that the modern political system almost demands such an outcome. Similiar comments are used by those who seek to explain away the communist nature of the USSR.







Totally opposed to the communist position on immigration.


It was not an opinion on immigration so much as a demand that people have to work to eat. One only need to recall the communist condemnation of capitalists, ceo's, advertisers ect. to see the lack of difference.






Totally opposed to the communist position on immigration.

probably.







All "citizens" within their peculiar notion of citizenship, ie, excluding Jews and immigrants and their descent.


Correct. The National Socialists were not Communists, after all.







Or, to put it bluntly, each "citizen" must be engaged in the reproduction of capital.


No, it means that everyone must work. But that work has to be for the benefit of "community."








But, of course, as they don't define "work", this means nothing: evidently, their concept of work included the "work" of CEOs...

The National Socialists recognised that somebody has to administer things, to run things. They argued it made no sense to dissposses those who had experience and knowledge. It was a critique Hitler made of the USSR. But as above, it had to be run in the best interest of the "community."









So they didn't oppose war in itself (as communists do), but "war profits". One wonders why would weapons and ammo manufacturers produce weapons and ammo under the Nazi rule... but the fact that they did so shows that this point of the program was not intended to be actually implemented.


Class war, anyone??? Why did weapons and ammo workers produce weapons and ammo under nazi rule? Becausue they were told to by the nazis, who determined such production was in the best interest of the community.






And not their socialisation.


No real distiction in practice.






Not the end to profits (and, consequently, wages), but a share of the profits. In large industries. This resembles more socialdemocracy than communism; but since (as opposed to socialdemocrats) they would suppress unions, the actual base for demanding profit-sharing would be removed.


As earlier, in times of war. The nazis did not care if an industry made a profit or not. Their only concern was that the industry produce what was needed for the "community."
And the nazis mandated union membership.









Not the abolition of classes (as communists propose), but strenghtening the "middle class" - which supposes the continuation of an "upper" and a "lower" classes...

The nazis viwed class a s irrlevent. Race is what mattered.









Well, this sounds radical... more like radical jacobinism than communism, but radical nonetheless. Particularly precious is the "abolition of ground rents" without the abolition of land private property. And, of course "the prohibition of all speculation in land"... without nationalisation of land.



The communist position is, of course, different: socialisation of land, abolition of private landed property, etc.


Different sides of the same coin.






The usual "producerist" garbage. "Usurers" and "profiteers" are equated to traitors, and our common Sepp Doe would believe they were referring to banks and the weapons industry. But, in fact, as capitalism cannot work without credit, these are empty words, only useful to single out Jewish bankers and weapon traders as "usurers" and "profiteers" while assuring the position of "German" bankers and weapon traders.



The communist position is not the alliance between workers and "productive" capitalists against usury and "parasitic" capital, but working class struggle against capital in general.


Different sides of the same coin.









Not the social, economic or political control of the educational system by workers, but the ideologic control of the educational system by the State, including, of course, political indoctrination of children (State Idea).


As if the communist version would not be ideological in nature.







A mix of common sence measures (public maternities - maternities but not general hospitals, which betrays their natalism - and prohibition of juvenile labour) with ill-disguised measures of ideologic control (compulsory games and gymnastics, encouragement of youth association).


In practice, as the Catholic youth associations would soon discover, "the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young" was limited to National Socialist associations concerned with the physical education of the young.


Well yes. The National Socialists had no interest in allowing their enemies a foothold.





In other words, conscription instead of the reduced professional Reischsweher. In fact, the creation of a new, expanded, regular army, similar to those of the other European countries.


The old National Socialist demand was to abolish the millitary (get rid of all those old conservative types). It was a major source of inter-party squabbling. The problem which faced the nazis is that such people knew how to run a millitary. So, again, keep 'em in check. Hitler in any event never trusted the army.







Press censorship and "nationalisation" of the press - nationalisation, here as elsewhere, meaning not State ownership, but ownership by "German citizens" as defined by the NSDAP, ie, to the exclusion of Jews and other "foreign" elements.


Yep, and the communists would bar capitalists such ownership.






So the Nazi Party is "similar" not only to the communists, socialdemocrats, anglophone democrats, and libertarians, but also... to Christianity. Freedom of religion, for them, naturally, excludes Judaism (why? because Judaism is the incarnation of some "materialist spirit... who else would they describe as materialists? perhaps the communists, who in fact considered themselves "materialists"?)


Freedom of religion, providing that the religion does not work against the community. The nazis believe the Catholic Churh and the Lutheran Church worked against that interest, and the browns worked to crush the theological differences etween them for a "german" church.



Also, their "freedom of religion" does not mean in any way equalilty between the different religions: Christian denominations were still to be privileged over non-Christian religions, as the NSDAP "represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession"...


All the religions were again suspect.

Of course, communism differs not a whit in that regard.







Centralisation of the bourgeois State, not its abolition.


Centralisantion of a socialist state.






Professional associations with executive powers (a bit of medieval guild nostalgia) instead of working class associations with a reivindicative character. In other words, statisation of unions.


Yep.

[Luís Henrique]

Shirer's Rise and Fall

Can you give us the page for it?


The KPD could join the browns after the former were abolished. Not so members of other parties.

Source for this?


As far as merging the Stahelms, Kershaw's recent biography of Hitler debunks that claim.

How exactly? The Stahlhelms (as well as the German National Party) were "co-ordinated" - the Nazi euphemism for forcible absorption.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Double (and mangled) post, sorry.

[Luís Henrique]

Karl Marx supported Bismark's efforts at german unification. He thought a unified Germany would be a step in the correct direction.

Erm, that's certainly debatable. Marx's opinion of Bismarck's police State aren't exactly a secret. Moreover, it was one thing to support the German (or Italian) unification, as opposed to the survival of dozens of unviable semi-feudal micro-States; completely different from supporting the Anschluss of Austria, Sudetenland, Memel, Dantzig, et coetera, in the context of an (already unified) German imperialism.


After WW II, the communists had no problem supporting expanding Poland westward, and driving out Germans from the lands newly going to Poland.

Maybe, but what does that have to do with colonialism?


Including capitalists? But yes, the nazis were not communists, and vice versa.

Not including capitalists, because capitalists would be eradicated (not by physical elimination, but by disapropriation of what makes them capitalists - property of means of production). But not to the exclusion of capitalists in the sence that they would remain capitalists but be discriminated as non-citizens.


The communists would demand that the workers be the sole determiner of the laws. Different side, same coin.

Nope, this is producerist demagoguery, not communism. Communists demand workers control over the means of production.

Evidently it is not the opposite side of the same coin, just like Jews and capitalists are not opposite sides of a same coin. Capitalists are defined by their relations to other human beings; nobody can be a capitalist if others aren't "their" workers. They are oppressors by definition. Jews are defined by their (admitedly preposterous) beliefs about the supernatural world. You cannot liberate workers from capitalist oppression without putting an end to the capitalists as a class; but the eventual extinction of Judaism as a form of organised superstition isn't necessary for the liberation of anyone (except of Jews themselves towards their superstitions).


The complaint about ending unqualified people being appointed to public office: It's a common complaint in modern society. The nazis did not understand that the modern political system almost demands such an outcome. Similiar comments are used by those who seek to explain away the communist nature of the USSR.

It is a common complaint, based on the inability to understand how a liberal democracy functions. As a party slogan, it is pandering to such common complaint and that inability to understand, ie: demagoguery.


It was not an opinion on immigration so much as a demand that people have to work to eat. One only need to recall the communist condemnation of capitalists, ceo's, advertisers ect. to see the lack of difference.

Nope. The difference is absolute here. Communists are opposed to immigration laws; Nazis not only favoured them but wanted them to be more harsh and punitive. You cant make the equation Nazis:immigrants::Communists:capitalists, because the relation between immigrants and non-imigrants (as discussed above about Jews and non-Jews) is of a totally different nature than that between capitalists and non-capitalists.


probably.

Certainly.


No, it means that everyone must work. But that work has to be for the benefit of "community."

But this is just demagoguery, for Nazis cannot explain how work would be compelled to benefit the "community".


The National Socialists recognised that somebody has to administer things, to run things. They argued it made no sense to dissposses those who had experience and knowledge. It was a critique Hitler made of the USSR. But as above, it had to be run in the best interest of the "community."

In that sence they are no different from liberals, who argue that the selfish behaviour of entrepreneurs ends up benefitting the "community" (private vices, public virtue, etc). But here they differ from Communists; communists argue that the only way the administration of things can benefit the collectivity is through collective ownership of the means of production. Nazis believed private property of the means of production was fully compatible with the "benefit of the community". They only differed from liberals in that they thought that the markets, by themselves, wouldn't result in "public virtue", which, to them, had to be enforced by a police State.


Class war, anyone??? Why did weapons and ammo workers produce weapons and ammo under nazi rule? Becausue they were told to by the nazis, who determined such production was in the best interest of the community.

No. They produced weapons and ammo because it was their job, and they earned a wage to do it. And the production was not determined by the Nazis, but by the owners of ammo and weapons factories.


(about the distinction between socialisation and nationalisation) No real distiction in practice.

Big distinction. Socialisation, at the very least, would imply statisation. Nazi "nationalization" meant stripping foreigners (among them, and especially, Jews) from their property, and redistribution of it to nationals ("Aryans").


As earlier, in times of war. The nazis did not care if an industry made a profit or not. Their only concern was that the industry produce what was needed for the "community."

Maybe they rationalised it like that, but in practice, the only reason that industries produce is to obtain profit. If industries were not achieving profits, they would not produce, regardless if it was needed by the "community" or not.


And the nazis mandated union membership.

False. They illegalised unions and replaced them by NSBOs (National Socialist Workplace Organisations). Those were not continuations of the former unions, but different organisations, subject to party control. And their role was not to represent workers against their employers (as real unions do), but to "co-ordinate" workers into Nazism.


The nazis viwed class a s irrlevent. Race is what mattered.

Which means, they had no problems with class society. Communists, on the other hand, oppose class society, and aim to put an end to it. And "race" isn't Nazi equivalent to Communists' 'class', because Nazis also did not intend to put an end to "race", but rather to reinforce it (to the exclusive benefit of the "Aryan race").


Different sides of the same coin.

Nonsence.


As if the communist version would not be ideological in nature.

Maybe, but it is based on democratic control of the educational system, not in State control.


The old National Socialist demand was to abolish the millitary (get rid of all those old conservative types). It was a major source of inter-party squabbling. The problem which faced the nazis is that such people knew how to run a millitary. So, again, keep 'em in check. Hitler in any event never trusted the army.

Not so. The Nazis may have been many things, but they were not idiot enough to believe that they could take revenge against France without a standing Army. What the opposed was, first, the limited Army (Reischswehr) of the Versailles treaty; and, second, the outdated caste of Junker noblemen-warriors that dominated the German military tradition. So they opposed the existence of a professional army (which much conflates both) and proposed (and in fact instated, whence they come to power) a conscript Army. Yes, they had to concede to the Junkers the control of such Army, and even sacrifice the SA in the process (putting an end to the "radical" or "leftist" wing of their party delusions that the SA would superced the Army).


Yep, and the communists would bar capitalists such ownership.

The communists aim to abolish such ownership, not to restrain a particular group of people from it.


Freedom of religion, providing that the religion does not work against the community. The nazis believe the Catholic Churh and the Lutheran Church worked against that interest, and the browns worked to crush the theological differences etween them for a "german" church.

No. They believed they could "coordinate" both, particularly the Lutherans. In this they failed, but they never instated, or even proposed, an actual separation between Church and State.


All the religions were again suspect. Of course, communism differs not a whit in that regard.

Maybe all religions were suspect, but some were more suspect than others, and Nazis recognised a privilege to the Christian denominations. Communists don't deem religions "suspect", they deem them reactionary, but their aim is to sever any ties between them and the State; once reduced to merely private matters, it is expected that they fade out.


Centralisantion of a socialist state.

Centralisation of a capitalist State.

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

^^^^ my only regret is that i have but one thank to give

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Luís Henrique;1511459]Erm, that's certainly debatable. Marx's opinion of Bismarck's police State aren't exactly a secret. Moreover, it was one thing to support the German (or Italian) unification, as opposed to the survival of dozens of unviable semi-feudal micro-States; completely different from supporting the Anschluss of Austria, Sudetenland, Memel, Dantzig, et coetera, in the context of an (already unified) German imperialism.

Not really. The drive was always to unify all Germans in a single state.





Not including capitalists, because capitalists would be eradicated (not by physical elimination, but by disapropriation of what makes them capitalists - property of means of production). But not to the exclusion of capitalists in the sence that they would remain capitalists but be discriminated as non-citizens.


In other words, the objective is to wipe out the capitalist as not being a fit person for the community.
Same coin, different side.




Nope, this is producerist demagoguery, not communism. Communists demand workers control over the means of production.

And of society.



Evidently it is not the opposite side of the same coin, just like Jews and capitalists are not opposite sides of a same coin. Capitalists are defined by their relations to other human beings; nobody can be a capitalist if others aren't "their" workers. They are oppressors by definition. Jews are defined by their (admitedly preposterous) beliefs about the supernatural world. You cannot liberate workers from capitalist oppression without putting an end to the capitalists as a class; but the eventual extinction of Judaism as a form of organised superstition isn't necessary for the liberation of anyone (except of Jews themselves towards their superstitions).


This is simply an analysis as to why the correct target was the capitalista rather than the Jews.
Same coin, different side.




Nope. The difference is absolute here. Communists are opposed to immigration laws;

The German Communists favored restrictions on immigration.









But this is just demagoguery, for Nazis cannot explain how work would be compelled to benefit the "community".


Again, this would be nothing more than a Communist critique of a National Socialist view. The nazi would say the same about the communist.




In that sence they are no different from liberals, who argue that the selfish behaviour of entrepreneurs ends up benefitting the "community" (private vices, public virtue, etc). But here they differ from Communists; communists argue that the only way the administration of things can benefit the collectivity is through collective ownership of the means of production. Nazis believed private property of the means of production was fully compatible with the "benefit of the community". They only differed from liberals in that they thought that the markets, by themselves, wouldn't result in "public virtue", which, to them, had to be enforced by a police State.


It is a great deal different than the liberal. The National Socialist determined what is the "benefit of the community" and directed production thus. The Communist said the organisation determined what is the "benefit for the community" and ordered production thus. The Liberal said whatever the individual thought would benefit himself first, that is how production should thus be ordered.
There is a much closer relationship between the red and the brown here than the liberal. For the formers, its a matter of detail.




No. They produced weapons and ammo because it was their job, and they earned a wage to do it. And the production was not determined by the Nazis, but by the owners of ammo and weapons factories.


One would think a worker in a communist factory would produce goods because it is his or her job.
And the nazis directed such production.




Big distinction. Socialisation, at the very least, would imply statisation. Nazi "nationalization" meant stripping foreigners (among them, and especially, Jews) from their property, and redistribution of it to nationals ("Aryans").


The demand by the socialist is to strip away the property of the capitalist and return it to control by members of the community. At this point, the dispute between the reds and the browns is over "who" are the proper members of the community. There is no dispute as to the justice of "stripping" the property.




Maybe they rationalised it like that, but in practice, the only reason that industries produce is to obtain profit. If industries were not achieving profits, they would not produce, regardless if it was needed by the "community" or not.


In a liberal community that would be true result
In the communist, as well as the nazi community, that would not be true.




False. They illegalised unions and replaced them by NSBOs (National Socialist Workplace Organisations). Those were not continuations of the former unions, but different organisations, subject to party control. And their role was not to represent workers against their employers (as real unions do), but to "co-ordinate" workers into Nazism.


In a socialist community, there is no "employer" and "employee." The role of a union thus has to change. In National Socialist germany, the unions were made up of both "employer" and "employee" which since its supposed to be a collaboration, makes sense.




Which means, they had no problems with class society. Communists, on the other hand, oppose class society, and aim to put an end to it. And "race" isn't Nazi equivalent to Communists' 'class', because Nazis also did not intend to put an end to "race", but rather to reinforce it (to the exclusive benefit of the "Aryan race").


The National Socialists had big problems with clas society. There remedy was to insist that it made no difference. Their social organisations stressed that all germans, regardless of background, were equal, were "comrades."







Maybe, but it is based on democratic control of the educational system, not in State control.


So states the theory...




Not so. The Nazis may have been many things, but they were not idiot enough to believe that they could take revenge against France without a standing Army. What the opposed was, first, the limited Army (Reischswehr) of the Versailles treaty; and, second, the outdated caste of Junker noblemen-warriors that dominated the German military tradition. So they opposed the existence of a professional army (which much conflates both) and proposed (and in fact instated, whence they come to power) a conscript Army. Yes, they had to concede to the Junkers the control of such Army, and even sacrifice the SA in the process (putting an end to the "radical" or "leftist" wing of their party delusions that the SA would superced the Army).


Correct. Just like in the economy, the National Socialists (Hitler's wing anyhow) thought it absurd that inexperienced people in charge could be expected to succeed in its objective. (as an aside, the Communists in the USSR DID NOT believe it so absurd. They paid the price for their grievous error ). The nazis NEVER trusted the professional millitary- and with good reason- it was a hotbed of treason.




The communists aim to abolish such ownership, not to restrain a particular group of people from it.


The latter follows the former.



No. They believed they could "coordinate" both, particularly the Lutherans. In this they failed, but they never instated, or even proposed, an actual separation between Church and State.

One of the first acts of the National Socialists were to remove the crucifixes and portraits of Luther from public buildings. Their objective was to crush Christianity.




Maybe all religions were suspect, but some were more suspect than others, and Nazis recognised a privilege to the Christian denominations. Communists don't deem religions "suspect", they deem them reactionary, but their aim is to sever any ties between them and the State; once reduced to merely private matters, it is expected that they fade out.


The above led to protests in southern Germany. The nazis also banned feasts, and walks and things like that. The approach was different, the objective the same.

[ev]

The nazis hated everyone, it was like one of the fundamental principles of their ideology. :lol:

[9]

In other words, the objective is to wipe out the capitalist as not being a fit person for the community.
Same coin, different side.Yes, that is the objective. Someone who engages in extremely socially and environmentally irresponsible behavior in which they endanger the wellbeing of others for the sole purpose of maximizing personal profit deserves to be treated like the sociopath they are. Granted, they would have the option in most cases to voluntarily give up their property and capital and be on equal footing with their fellow human being, but should they choose instead to fight to maintain their extravagant exploitive lifestyle and their excessive and unequal wealth, they rightly ought to be hunted down and dealt with, by whatever means necessary. What you seem to ignore is the fact that they, presumably, will have the option to voluntarily relinquish their wealth (and therefore power) and support equality and revolution, in which case they will not be persecuted or treated inhumanely at all.




This is simply an analysis as to why the correct target was the capitalista rather than the Jews.
Same coin, different side. The fact that you're still making this comparison is really very pathetic. And, being a Jew myself, I must say I find your opportunistic obfuscations and gross oversimplifications particularly offensive. Certainly you cannot be oblivious to the role of the capitalist class. Are you suggesting that the Jewish people exploit the working class, decimate the environment, and behave in a way which demonstrates a ruthless and singular interest in maximizing their own profit, regardless of the human cost? Because that is the implication of your refusal to acknowledge the total fundamental difference between communism and Nazism. You are pretending that persecuting someone based on their economic engagement in reckless, sociopathic, exploitive behavior is akin to persecuting someone based on their ethnicity. And seriously, that is such an absurd and offensive argument. Presumably you would also argue that a serial killer (a different kind of sociopath) who is endangering the lives of innocent people should not be persecuted, but rather, allowed to roam freely and kill as he wishes. And presumably, if you are consistent in your positions, you would make the case to members of the effected community that they should not pursue the serial killer and take him out because their behavior would be no different than the Nazis. And you'd conclude with the hollow remark, "different side, same coin". Because ultimately what it really comes down to is the fact that you don't think anyone should defend themselves from subjugation, exploitation, and abuse. You see no difference between rightful self-defense and malicious racially-motivated violence. Presumably you would agree with Gandhi's position in regard to the Shoah - that the Jews should not fight back, but rather, should "offer themselves to the butcher's knife". Which is demonstrative of the cowardice, if not also the inherent masochism and psychopathy, which characterizes pacifism.
Behavior is not the same as ethnicity. If you don't get it by now, you probably never will.

[Demogorgon]

In other words, the objective is to wipe out the capitalist as not being a fit person for the community.
Same coin, different side.

Sigh, the framers of the liberal Weimer constitution did their best to remove the aristocracy (not entirely successfully) but that is another story and at any rate got rid of the German monarchy and the various sub level monarchies too. They saw such feudal remnants as unfit for society. Same coin, different side?

After the war West Germany went to considerable lengths to make sure those involved in the nazi regime could hold no office unless or until they were fully rehabilitated. They regarded unrehabilitated Nazis as not fit for a democratic society. Same coin, different side?

After German reunification, Stasi collaborators could face criminal sanctions and at any rate those that they informed on had the right to know and hence they were hit with enormous social stigma. That kind of behaviour was also seen as unfit for democratic society. Same coin, different side?

You will say of course not, because that was dealing with behaviour not a group of people (though the aristocracy were as much an identifiable group as capitalists), but the case with capitalists is identical. The Nazis hated jews for who they were and sought to eliminate human beings. Communists have no time for capitalists not out of dislike for the individual humans but because of the economic role they play. We want rid of capitalists, but not the people that are the capitalists. We wish to change the system so that they cannot commit what we see as their crimes any more. We want to rehabilitate them, making them part of the community. That is rather different from saying they are subhuman and worthy of extermination.

[RGacky3]

In a socialist community, there is no "employer" and "employee." The role of a union thus has to change. In National Socialist germany, the unions were made up of both "employer" and "employee" which since its supposed to be a collaboration, makes sense.


Which is the absolute opposite of communism. THe fact is, there was employer and employee in fascism, so it was still capitalism, however both were subject to the state.

[Jonnydraft]

I want the opinion of some self-identified communists on this, when studying for my history exam I asked my teacher why, when their economic policy seemed so similar, the NSDAP hated the communists so much, he said that it was in fact because they were so similar that it posed a thread to Hitler getting elected.

He said political parties don't like other parties that could take part of their vote, and this was the case with the communists & nazis in pre-war Germany.

I asked whether the racial policy of the NSDAP had anything to do with it and he said not really as the majority of Germans felt the same as the nazis about jews and gypsies etc.

You must examine this question in its proper context. The Treaty of Versailles, the war-guilt clause, reparations and so on created, in part, a nationalist platform which, when properly crafted, Hitler, Goebbels et al. could exploit. Cue the KPD (German Communist Party).

The KPD were not an independent organization, but rather an arm of the Comintern. Granted, there were significant disagreements between the two leading up to the 1932 elections - but regardless, from the National Socialist's perspective, they were portrayed as a foreign threat that sought to influence and take over Germany.

It is partially within this context that the NDSAP were able to capitalize (no pun intended) on the percieved threat of Bolshevism, and exploit the KPD. By labelling the KPD as a grave threat whose ideology was grounded in Marxist ideology, the NDSAP were also able to paint the SDP as a Marxist party whose economic policies had failed. Essentially, conflict with the KPD allowed the National Socialists to kill two birds with one stone.

As for your prof's assertion that "they didn't like other parties that could take their vote" - I would suggest that this is a terribly inaccurate attempt at define why the two were in opposition.

The NDSAP's base was the middle-class - not the working-class. Though they consistently attempted to gain ground in working-class neighbourhoods - look up the Storm Troopers (SA) - they arguably were never able to gain a foothold. Instead, opposition to the KPD (and SDP) served a far greater purpose.

The opposition to the above mentioned served to solidify and broaden the NDSAP's middle-class and conservative base. The fear of Bolshevism was percieved a real in these demogrpahics. Hence, campaigning in communist strongholds by the SA - although resulting in some support - allowed the Nazis to portray themselves as the defenders of Germany. In this context, one could argue, as I do, that the subsequent violence between the SA and Red Front was beneficial to the NDSAP.

The conflict was less about taking Communist support (although propaganda would state that it was needed for the Volk) and more about a grand political strategy that used the KPD as a pawn in a national election strategy.

[Luís Henrique]

Same coin, different side.

Only if you believe that Jews and capitalists are different sides of the same coin.

A point which would require a rather contorted argument to make.

Luís Henrique

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE]Yes, that is the objective. Someone who engages in extremely socially and environmentally irresponsible behavior in which they endanger the wellbeing of others for the sole purpose of maximizing personal profit deserves to be treated like the sociopath they are.

And the National Socialists said this about the Jews.


Granted, they would have the option in most cases to voluntarily give up their property and capital and be on equal footing with their fellow human being, but should they choose instead to fight to maintain their extravagant exploitive lifestyle and their excessive and unequal wealth, they rightly ought to be hunted down and dealt with, by whatever means necessary.

The Communist believes it is perfectly acceptable to hunt down and liquidate capitalists as menaces to the community.

The National Socialist believes it is perfectly acceptable to hunt down and liquidate Jews as menaces to the community.

The reasons why it is okay to do so are the same.





Certainly you cannot be oblivious to the role of the capitalist class.

Well, certainly they are a beneficial and neccessary component of production.


Are you suggesting that the Jewish people exploit the working class, decimate the environment, and behave in a way which demonstrates a ruthless and singular interest in maximizing their own profit, regardless of the human cost? Because that is the implication of your refusal to acknowledge the total fundamental difference between communism and Nazism.

I am suggesting that the argument that the communist makes to justify targeting capitalists, is no difference in substance to the argument the national socialist makes to justify targeting Jews. The above quoted is simply your argument as to why it is ridiculous to persecute Jews. You have made other claims why the real persecution ought to be directed against the capitalist.

Persecuting groups of peoples (minorities in fact) because it is thought they harm, in some manner, the majority, is wrong. Yet the National Socialist and Communist dissagree with my opinion on the subject. The quarrel, as you have demonstrated, is over the identity of the villain.



You are pretending that persecuting someone based on their economic engagement in reckless, sociopathic, exploitive behavior is akin to persecuting someone based on their ethnicity.

As above, I am suggesting that there is no substantive difference in persecuting a person because of their "behavior" or because of their "race."


And seriously, that is such an absurd and offensive argument. Presumably you would also argue that a serial killer (a different kind of sociopath) who is endangering the lives of innocent people should not be persecuted, but rather, allowed to roam freely and kill as he wishes. And presumably, if you are consistent in your positions, you would make the case to members of the effected community that they should not pursue the serial killer and take him out because their behavior would be no different than the Nazis.

Again, you are simply arguing that the proper targets of persecution are the capitalists, and not the Jews. The Communists can slug it out with the National Socialists for control of the coin.

But both the National Socialist claims about the Jews, and the Communist claims about the capitalist, are wrong.


Because ultimately what it really comes down to is the fact that you don't think anyone should defend themselves from subjugation, exploitation, and abuse. You see no difference between rightful self-defense and malicious racially-motivated violence.

The National Socialists justified their persecution of the Jews because of their belief the Jews had persecuted, subjugated and exploited the Germans. Your counter-claim is simply that it was the capitalist doing all those evil things.


Behavior is not the same as ethnicity.

It is true that the Communist liquidators are somewhat more "liberal" than National Socialist liquidators. After all, a person cannot do much about their race or ethnic background. But I don't think there is a much of a difference in the quarrel over whether a Jewish capitalist should be persecuted because he is Jewish or because he is a capitalist. The quarrell itself is nauseating.

[Green Dragon]

Sigh, the framers of the liberal Weimer constitution did their best to remove the aristocracy (not entirely successfully) but that is another story and at any rate got rid of the German monarchy and the various sub level monarchies too. They saw such feudal remnants as unfit for society. Same coin, different side?

After the war West Germany went to considerable lengths to make sure those involved in the nazi regime could hold no office unless or until they were fully rehabilitated. They regarded unrehabilitated Nazis as not fit for a democratic society. Same coin, different side?

After German reunification, Stasi collaborators could face criminal sanctions and at any rate those that they informed on had the right to know and hence they were hit with enormous social stigma. That kind of behaviour was also seen as unfit for democratic society. Same coin, different side?

You will say of course not, because that was dealing with behaviour not a group of people (though the aristocracy were as much an identifiable group as capitalists), but the case with capitalists is identical. The Nazis hated jews for who they were and sought to eliminate human beings. Communists have no time for capitalists not out of dislike for the individual humans but because of the economic role they play. We want rid of capitalists, but not the people that are the capitalists. We wish to change the system so that they cannot commit what we see as their crimes any more. We want to rehabilitate them, making them part of the community. That is rather different from saying they are subhuman and worthy of extermination.


The National Socialists stated the Jews were a blight on the community and needed to be removed because of the crimes in which they were allegedly engaged.

The Communists stated the capitalists were a blight on the community and needed to be removed because of the crimes in which they were allegedly engaged.

The major distinction which you seek to make, suggests it lies in rehabilitating the villain as opposed to killing him (of course, the subquestion becomes the status of the villain should he resist rehabilitation. Another post suggests he will be hunted down).

In any event, I think the major distinction resides in dissagreeing over the nature of the problem, as opposed to quarrelling over who (which minority) is causing it (which is where the National Socialists and Communists quarrell).

[Robert]

(a different kind of sociopath)

Honestly, Demo ... capitalists are sociopaths now?

[9]

And the National Socialists said this about the Jews.

The Communist believes it is perfectly acceptable to hunt down and liquidate capitalists as menaces to the community.

The National Socialist believes it is perfectly acceptable to hunt down and liquidate Jews as menaces to the community.

The reasons why it is okay to do so are the same.

Well, certainly they are a beneficial and neccessary component of production.

I am suggesting that the argument that the communist makes to justify targeting capitalists, is no difference in substance to the argument the national socialist makes to justify targeting Jews. The above quoted is simply your argument as to why it is ridiculous to persecute Jews. You have made other claims why the real persecution ought to be directed against the capitalist.

Persecuting groups of peoples (minorities in fact) because it is thought they harm, in some manner, the majority, is wrong. Yet the National Socialist and Communist dissagree with my opinion on the subject. The quarrel, as you have demonstrated, is over the identity of the villain.


Oh, yes, I concede, you are correct. There is no proof that capitalism benefits a small minority of wealthy entrepreneurs at the expense of those who are actually carrying out the labor. In fact, the dangers of capitalism are entirely subjective. Good call. Spoken like a true ignoramus who is privileged enough to spend his entire life within the walls of some lavish condominium, never to venture beyond his property to see what is happening to the majority of people all over the fucking world at every second of every day. In fact, you have opened my eyes! Workers aren't victims of a system stacked against them at all! Nor are women who are raped really victims of rape! Nor were Native Americans really victims of colonialism! Nor were blacks really victims of slavery! Nor were Jews really victims of genocide! To suggest that any of these groups have ever been victimized by a class of elites has no more basis in fact than anti-Semitic conspiracy theories!

You are the sort of person who would sit around as your family was murdered and say, "I can't objectively say that my family is being murdered". Although, no, I am demonizing you. I am sure you are not a psychopath and that, were your family being attacked, you would jump to their physical defense without even a fleeting thought about bullshit moralism. But, because you've never had to see any of the very concrete and severe consequences of the present system for yourself, you can continue on, making hollow statements about the subjectivity of things. The truth is that capitalism has afforded you the luxury of being physically removed and thus completely ignorant of the every day real life struggles of the majority of people who weren't born into privilege. Which is why you can make such preposterous claims asserting that the detrimental consequences of capitalism are no more real than the detrimental consequences of Jews.



As above, I am suggesting that there is no substantive difference in persecuting a person because of their "behavior" or because of their "race."

Ah, right, shooting dead a sadistic psychopath who is about to detonate hundreds of tons of nuclear weapons would be as unjustifiable as shooting dead a Jew. Physically incapacitating a person who is engaged in the rape of a toddler would be just as unjustifiable as physically incapacitating a class of preschool students. Good point. And here you have it, ladies and gentleman, the product of moralism! :lol:

Where do you get off?

[9]

Honestly, Demo ... capitalists are sociopaths now?

Not in the personal psychological sense, no. But the structure of capitalism is such that it is socially-acceptable, encouraged, and - indeed - imperative that capitalists and entrepreneurs base their business decisions solely on the most effective means to maximizing profit for themselves and their shareholders, regardless of the human consequences, if they are to have any success. They may be loving, kind, compassionate people outside of the context of business, but because capitalism is driven solely on maximizing profit, their business decisions will mirror the behavior of the sociopath (who will do anything to fulfill his own desires, without the slightest concern for the consequences of his actions and the inability to empathize with any human being, let alone with those who suffer as a result of his behavior). The sort of 'sociopathy' which I am discussing is not a psychological defect of a peculiar kind of human, it is a defect of an economic/governmental system.

[Robert]

imperative that capitalists and entrepreneurs base their business decisions solely on the most effective means to maximizing profit for themselves and their shareholders, regardless of the human consequences, if they are to have any success.I understand what you mean, and there are indeed many heartless capitalists. But you are leaving something out: the "most effective means to maximize profit" does not include screwing over the employees or the consumer as much as possible. With regard to the consumer, the capitalist has to be sensitive to his desire, for example, to bring safe and genuinely useful products into his home. If the product is shoddy, useless, or dangerous, that is news, bad news.

With regard to the employees, the capitalist admittedly wants expenses, including wages, to remain low. But he can't make them any lower than what is prevailing in the market for that particular skill anyway, or he'll lose the employee.

I realize that we won't have that particular problem after markets are eliminated, but you cannot democratically eliminate markets IMO. People from Savannah to Shanghai love to shop. Don't you? Maybe not for stylish clothes, but for cars? Computers? Food?

[Luís Henrique]

The Communist believes it is perfectly acceptable to hunt down and liquidate capitalists as menaces to the community.

The National Socialist believes it is perfectly acceptable to hunt down and liquidate Jews as menaces to the community.

No, Green Dragon. We don't believe it is acceptable to hunt down and liquidate capitalists as a menace to the "community". We believe in expropriating them. And there is a logic relation here: we expropriate them because they are the proprietors; if they were not proprietors there would be no reason to expropriate them. Such logic is totally absent from the Nazi "thought": they can't formulate a single valid reason why Jews are a problem. In fact they have to rely on tales: ancient tales that the Jews drink human blood, modern tales that Jews seek to take sexual possession of Aryan damsels in order to "pollute" the race. And, of course, the central tale that Jews and only Jews are capitalists (which led to Jaurés memorably stating that "antisemitism is the socialism of the imbeciles). But here we are already back to the original question: why do Nazis hate communists? Because Nazism has always been, from its inception, an anti-communist movement. They don't hate communists because they dispute the same electorate; they dispute the electorate because it is their political program to fight against communism. To do that they may have to mimick some external characteristics of the communist movement (centralised party, red flags, slogans about nationalisation, etc). But the raison d'étre of Nazism is to fight against communism, not to compete with it.


Well, certainly they are a beneficial and neccessary component of production.

We don't think so, and neither do we think that you can back such assertion with any valid argument. In fact, we would ask, if capitalists are a necessary component of production, how did humanity managed to produce anything before capitalism?


The above quoted is simply your argument as to why it is ridiculous to persecute Jews. You have made other claims why the real persecution ought to be directed against the capitalist.This is just plain ridiculous. We don't propose to persecute capitalists; we propose to expropriate them (thus turning them into non-capitalists). Anti-semites, on the contrary, need Jews as an escapegoat.

Luís Henrique

[Green Dragon]

Which is why you can make such preposterous claims asserting that the detrimental consequences of capitalism are no more real than the detrimental consequences of Jews.


It is true I reject the claim that a small minority of a population are the sources of the "problems," be it they be Jews or capitalists.

But your insistence to blame the capitalists and ridicule a claim that the problem is caused by the Jews, simply demonstrates your argument is over the identity of the villain.
Because the National Socialist will absolutely agree with you that a small minority of the population causes the "problems." They simply dissagree over who that minority is.
Same coin, different sides.

[Green Dragon]

[
QUOTE=Luís Henrique;1513671]No, Green Dragon. We don't believe it is acceptable to hunt down and liquidate capitalists as a menace to the "community".

Fair enough; Demogorgon made much the same protest.
Apikoros said socialists would do so, providing the capitalist does not yield (I asked Demogorgon what then happens, if it is not acceptable to hunt down the capitalist).


We believe in expropriating them. And there is a logic relation here: we expropriate them because they are the proprietors; if they were not proprietors there would be no reason to expropriate them. Such logic is totally absent from the Nazi "thought": they can't formulate a single valid reason why Jews are a problem. In fact they have to rely on tales: ancient tales that the Jews drink human blood, modern tales that Jews seek to take sexual possession of Aryan damsels in order to "pollute" the race. And, of course, the central tale that Jews and only Jews are capitalists (which led to Jaurés memorably stating that "antisemitism is the socialism of the imbeciles).

I would dispute the logic of the Communist view.

But no matter. The logic of the National Socialist in targeting the Jews is no less inscrutable.


But here we are already back to the original question: why do Nazis hate communists? Because Nazism has always been, from its inception, an anti-communist movement. They don't hate communists because they dispute the same electorate; they dispute the electorate because it is their political program to fight against communism.

The problem here is that its says the appeal of National Socialism is simply negative in nature. It means in practice dismissing what they say. That Hamburg, the Communist Party bastion, became one of the strongest pro-nazi cities after Hitler's election cannot be credited to the "anticommunism" of the brown. In contemporary Europe, the crusade by the Left against the rise of the neo-nazis denounces their hatred. But that does not explain why it is from the Left, from their voters, from where the neo-nazis seem to be pulling their strength.


To do that they may have to mimick some external characteristics of the communist movement (centralised party, red flags, slogans about nationalisation, etc).

This is almost saying that the National Socialists were not serious in what they believed, Its all one big conspiracy; one big con.
But that approach failed before.


But the raison d'étre of Nazism is to fight against communism, not to compete with it.

The way to look at is this:
Shoemaker is the competitor of Shoemaker B. But the movement to abolish footwear is the enemy of both.




This is just plain ridiculous. We don't propose to persecute capitalists; we propose to expropriate them (thus turning them into non-capitalists).

Can't really do that without persecution. I mean, that is what is being done.



Anti-semites, on the contrary, need Jews as an escapegoat.


Yes. But that solves nothing. The revlefters after all blame the capitalist for the problem.

[revolution inaction]

It is true I reject the claim that a small minority of a population are the sources of the "problems," be it they be Jews or capitalists.

But your insistence to blame the capitalists and ridicule a claim that the problem is caused by the Jews, simply demonstrates your argument is over the identity of the villain.
Because the National Socialist will absolutely agree with you that a small minority of the population causes the "problems." They simply dissagree over who that minority is.
Same coin, different sides.

communist don't think that the problems are caused by a small minority, we think its caused by the structure of society.

[Luís Henrique]

It is true I reject the claim that a small minority of a population are the sources of the "problems," be it they be Jews or capitalists.

But your insistence to blame the capitalists and ridicule a claim that the problem is caused by the Jews, simply demonstrates your argument is over the identity of the villain.

Because the National Socialist will absolutely agree with you that a small minority of the population causes the "problems." They simply dissagree over who that minority is.
Same coin, different sides.

Since you are being so stubborn, let me propose you a better analogy:

The GOP, long ago, claimed that a 'minority of the population' were 'the sources of the "problems,"' namely slaveholders.

They then went on to dispossess such minority. When such minority reacted by open revolt, the GOP went on to "hunt them down", subjected them militarily, and further persecuted and oppressed them in a process named "reconstruction" (ie, reconstruction of the Southern United States in a way in which the poor, oppressed, hunted, persecuted, minority of slaveholders had no more place in society). Was that bad?

Same coin, different sides?

Same bullshit, different cows?

Luís Henrique

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Their only concern was that the industry produce what was needed for the "community."What's with this emphasis on them justifying things by saying it's for the good of the "community"? Would Pinochet have been a communist if he said he supported free markets "for the good of the community"? Are you going to attack freedom because Bush declared war on Iraq in the name of freedom?

The Nazis, at least in some of their propaganda, supported a meritocracy "for the good of the community." How that can be reconciled with communism I'm not sure.