View Full Version : Debate: - Twenty years after the wall
Hosakawa Tito
05-17-2009, 12:49
It's hard to believe that the 20th anniversary of the dismantling of the Berlin Wall is this month. A symbol of all that divided East & West, seemingly impregnable and permanent. And then the wall & barbed wire, and the barriers it stood for, was destroyed. It was certainly the most momentous event to occur in Europe since the collapse of the Nazi Empire.
By the end of May 1989 the Goddess of Democracy statue was unveiled a continent away in Tiananmen Square, Beijing.
Soviet troops withdraw from Afghanistan after a nine year occupation.
The Communist Party of Poland voted to legalize Solidarity, the independent trade union that spawned a huge social movement.
In 1989 it was possible to speak of a "peace dividend", when, according to the tenets of the New World Order, all the money that had gone into military spending could suddenly be invested in social spending or reducing the budget deficit. So much for that theory, eh?
Now, in a different era, we face the challenge of remembering and commemorating the demise of one of the great symbols of tyranny.
1989, freedom's spring.
Let me beat my Hungarian friends to it and mention that Hungary played a leadership role in making this possible for the rest of the world. Their shed blood earned them freedoms and loosened the power of the government enough that it made a decision to let thousands of East Germans out of the bloc, thus making the wall effectively useless as it could easily be circumvented. This led to the East German boss eventually having to resign and move to Chile.
:bow:
Hosakawa Tito
05-17-2009, 13:37
Yes, the wall's demise began with the removal of miles of barbed wire separating Hungary from Austria.
Yes, the wall's demise began with the removal of miles of barbed wire separating Hungary from Austria.
But after that at a 'PanEuropean picnic' several EGs escaped. When EGs still in East Germany heard about this they flocked to the West German embassy in Budapest and eventually camped out in Buda being fed by charity. The Hungarian government ended up opening the border for them and letting them leave without exit visas or any proper documentation. When EGs still in EG heard about this, even more came and there was a mass exodus.
EDIT: oh yeah, and not just barbed wire, but mines as well.
CountArach
05-17-2009, 14:00
This is yet another example of the triumph of the people over their governments who would wish to keep them in their place. We should not forget those in the East who risked everything to fight for their right to free movement and simple, basic human rights.
Incongruous
05-18-2009, 07:17
This is yet another example of the triumph of the people over their governments who would wish to keep them in their place. We should not forget those in the East who risked everything to fight for their right to free movement and simple, basic human rights.
Well, perhaps, but simple people power does not work, as those who were brave enough to pick up a gun in '56 know...
The entire world watched as the Hungarian people rose up against communism, did nothing and let them get crushed by the furious Russian response. People power can not ever do anything alone, people power had to wait decades before the idiocy of soviet communism became hard reality and the entire joke came tumbling down.
I had quote in my sig sometime time ago, went something like
"the first crack in the Berlin wall, began with a hole in a flag in Hungary"
Much good the end of communism has done, well there is no more torture I think, but the country is still nothing but a sink hole, pathetic how improvement seems to have left Hungary behind.:smash:
Well, perhaps, but simple people power does not work, as those who were brave enough to pick up a gun in '56 know...
The entire world watched as the Hungarian people rose up against communism, did nothing and let them get crushed by the furious Russian response. People power can not ever do anything alone, people power had to wait decades before the idiocy of soviet communism became hard reality and the entire joke came tumbling down.
I had quote in my sig sometime time ago, went something like
"the first crack in the Berlin wall, began with a hole in a flag in Hungary"
Much good the end of communism has done, well there is no more torture I think, but the country is still nothing but a sink hole, pathetic how improvement seems to have left Hungary behind.:smash:
The problem is that when Hungary transitioned it allowed direct foriegn investment and lost everything. They should have used indirect foriegn investment so that everything stayed in Hungarian hands. Also, there are so many socialist elements left over.
Incongruous
05-18-2009, 09:05
Indeed, commies are everywhere and the place is run by idotic scumbags...:dizzy2:
Sarmatian
05-18-2009, 17:53
The problem is that when Hungary transitioned it allowed direct foriegn investment and lost everything. They should have used indirect foriegn investment so that everything stayed in Hungarian hands. Also, there are so many socialist elements left over.
I don' think that's the problem. The problem is that Hungary doesn't have any industry to speak of and has a considerable debt...
You can't build economy on shopping malls and banks...
I don' think that's the problem. The problem is that Hungary doesn't have any industry to speak of and has a considerable debt...
You can't build economy on shopping malls and banks...
Sure, Szeged lost its industry with Trianon, but that does not mean that it could not make more. In fact, it started to develop industry under the socialist regime, but the socialism just was not sustainable and the country got into huge debt. The problem is then that it opened its assets to direct foriegn investment and a lot of investors bought the industry up just to close it down to make sure that it did not become competition. The country was hungry for its own industry and plenty of investors would have been willing to invest MONEY in Hungarian businesses through bonds and such (as no Hungarians had money of their own after years of socialism). Right now foriegn companies are not going to build industry to compete with their own and there are more profitable places for them to build branches, that is why industry is not developing. The mistake was using direct foriegn investment instead of indirect foriegn investment. The socialism elements left over in society now are making sure that no one has enough money to start their own up, which is why I mentioned them.
EDIT: and where did the debt come from BTW?
was opened on 9 November (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9) 1989.
It was in November or May?
Kinda funny that this hardly gets any attention here. Not very surprising though, people could get reservations about socialism.
CountArach
05-19-2009, 10:48
Kinda funny that this hardly gets any attention here. Not very surprising though, people could get reservations about socialism.
Errr, in the rather Conservative country of Australia we get no coverage either...
There is likely to be more coverage in November.
:2thumbsup:
Louis VI the Fat
05-19-2009, 11:01
I'm afraid the wall came down in November 1989. Hence the lack of coverage. No leftist conspiracy.
The cracks in the Iron Curtain started twenty years ago in spring and summer. In China, democratic demonstrations took place this month. In South Africa, the end of apartheid was announced.
The year is more important than exact months or dates. 1989 was a true Annus Mirabilis. The greatest year since 1789. The end of history, the end of that wretched short European century of 1914-1989.
Errr, in the rather Conservative country of Australia we get no coverage either...
This is a big thing for Europe, not for Australia. The greatest historical event I had to pleasure to see with my own eyes even if I was too young to understand it's significance, the end of an era, the victory of individual freedom over ABSOLUTE CONTROL. But our socialists still can't come to terms with the fact that the great leap forward and the cultural revolution aren't the best thing that ever happened to China and that it wasn't Gorbatjov who won the cold war.
These things need time.
I'm afraid the wall came down in November 1989.
The year is more important than exact months or dates.
ahum.
It's now time for the exams, kids are rolling from the assemblyline of the red machine as we speak to be further indoctrinated with leftist propaganda on universities, I bet there isn't a single question in the exams about the wall.
CountArach
05-19-2009, 11:21
The right-wing of this forum never ceases to amuse me :laugh4:
The right-wing of this forum never ceases to amuse me :laugh4:
Ask any dutchie on our forums if our educational system could just be little biased. You wouldn't believe it.
The right-wing of this forum never ceases to amuse me :laugh4:
Another stunningly brilliant and substantial post from the left. :no: Foreign idea, why don't you criticize his argument instead of him? If you are not going to criticize a relevant point in the thread, you should not just post for the sake of attacking someone and taking the thread off course. :bow:
ahum.
It's now time for the exams, kids are rolling from the assemblyline of the red machine as we speak to be further indoctrinated with leftist propaganda on universities, I bet there isn't a single question in the exams about the wall.
I don't know about elsewhere, but in the UK GCSE and A level both have options for the Cold War - most of which end in 1989, and the OCR GCSE certainly has a section on themes, including the Cold War and fall of the Wall (something like 1945-1997).
Children are of course properly taught of the evils of capitalism in other subjects.
As a side note, educational systems are always biased from any point of view - for example I was taught (as an example) that Stalinism was the natural consequence of Communism, something I now completely disagree with - it's just what my teacher thought. Especially in subjects with 'subjective' or opinion-related answers, bias is always present, but it can go either way.
:2thumbsup:
Another stunningly brilliant and substantial post from the left. :no: Foreign idea, why don't you criticize his argument instead of him? If you are not going to criticize a relevant point in the thread, you should not just post for the sake of attacking someone and taking the thread off course. :bow:
Thank you Vuk. Do you ever wonder why the euro youngsta's are so violently anti-american? You must think what did we do wrong! It's everything they know, it is everything that is taught to them. In Flemish schoolbooks for toddlers for example you have this villain that sounds exactly like 'Dow Jones' when you read it out loud, I don't know about you but that qualifies as sublimal messages to me. In history classes we are taught that, ah well a lot of vietnam veterans here I really don't want them to be disgusted to much by us euro's but think village burn kill them all. Brainwashing pure and simple, teach them to be ashamed and afraid when they are young and you can fit them right in into the collective.
CountArach
05-19-2009, 12:01
Another stunningly brilliant and substantial post from the left. :no: Foreign idea, why don't you criticize his argument instead of him? If you are not going to criticize a relevant point in the thread, you should not just post for the sake of attacking someone and taking the thread off course. :bow:
What is his argument? :inquisitive:
What is his argument? :inquisitive:
What you responded to
CountArach
05-19-2009, 12:14
ahum.
It's now time for the exams, kids are rolling from the assemblyline of the red machine as we speak to be further indoctrinated with leftist propaganda on universities, I bet there isn't a single question in the exams about the wall.
1) Teachers teach to a syllabus - why should they change the syllabus for just one year?
2) Why do you assume that the Left wished the wall stayed up. Most of the Left is socially liberal... and The Wall represents everything opposed to that idea.
3) You are basing your entire argument on conjecture and the experiences of yourself, not actual sources.
4) Why should I feel it necessary to actually pose these questions when you dismiss public education as "the red machine"? That shows a complete lack of commitment to serious discussion/debate.
Louis VI the Fat
05-19-2009, 12:30
I predict that by this November, the vast leftist ABSOLUTE CONTROL of Dutch society will have been defeated. :knight:
Freedom to the Netherlands will have been restored. And then, this November, at last, the Dutch media and education will finally be free to devote massive attention to the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Wall.
:yes:
I just had a vision. I predict that the vast leftist stranglehold on Dutch society will collapse exactly on the Ninth of November. Mark my words.
1) Teachers teach to a syllabus - why should they change the syllabus for just one year?
2) Why do you assume that the Left wished the wall stayed up. Most of the Left is socially liberal... and The Wall represents everything opposed to that idea.
3) You are basing your entire argument on conjecture and the experiences of yourself, not actual sources.
4) Why should I feel it necessary to actually pose these questions when you dismiss public education as "the red machine"? That shows a complete lack of commitment to serious discussion/debate.
Well I would be willing to explain why I detest socialism, any idealism kinda detests me. Why would you dislike socialism when everything goes right, perfect society, but so are all utopian theory's. But I wouldn't call it very realistic. Idealism went a bit too far though, a good smack around the head I just deserved at times. Too much. Lately saw about the Australian immigration policy, that is harsh even by my standards by the way.
CountArach
05-19-2009, 13:28
Well I would be willing to explain why I detest socialism, any idealism kinda detests me. Why would you dislike socialism when everything goes right, perfect society, but so are all utopian theory's. But I wouldn't call it very realistic. Idealism went a bit too far though, a good smack around the head I just deserved at times. Too much. Lately saw about the Australian immigration policy, that is harsh even by my standards by the way.
Way to address the points I was trying to make...
May I take that as permission to go on laughing at the Right?
Adrian II
05-19-2009, 13:34
I'm afraid the wall came down in November 1989. Hence the lack of coverage. No leftist conspiracy.
The cracks in the Iron Curtain started twenty years ago in spring and summer. In China, democratic demonstrations took place this month. In South Africa, the end of apartheid was announced.
The year is more important than exact months or dates. 1989 was a true Annus Mirabilis. The greatest year since 1789. The end of history, the end of that wretched short European century of 1914-1989.I wish we had teachers like you in The Neds. Sound knowledge goes a long way toward stimulating kids to think for themselves. Without it, you get the sort of conspiracy nonsense that abounds in this thread. Boring.
May I take that as permission to go on laughing at the Right?
If you must. It's like I have always said, the left needs a miracle the right needs patience. Laugh all you want.
Louis VI the Fat
05-19-2009, 13:47
:jumping: Adrian is back! :jumping:
~~-~~-~~<o0o>~~-~~-~~
1989 is such a vast subject, that only a big essay would do it any justice. I am not going to write one here, and I can't think of any of the top of my head.
Instead, I thought it would be great fun to check newspapers from the period. Fantastic! Articles written without the knowledge that in six months time, the world would be a different place.
Twenty years ago (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/15/business/east-germany-losing-its-edge.html?scp=1&sq=east+germany&st=nyt), to the date.
East Germany Losing Its Edge
By FERDINAND PROTZMAN, Special to The New York Times
Published: Monday, May 15, 1989
East Germany is the Communist world's vaunted economic success story, hailed as proof that traditional German values of hard work, discipline and thrift can translate Karl Marx's theories into reality.
[If ever Tribesy was called for, the above is it. What bollox. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:]
While other Communist economies are pursuing market-oriented reforms, Erich Honecker, East Germany's 76-year-old leader, and his colleagues on the ruling Politburo -average age of 67 - flatly reject them. The leaders say that the Soviet Union may need Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika, but that East Germany, with an economy shaped solely by the tenets of Marxist-Leninist ideology, is performing admirably.
[...]
But Western analysts and diplomatic officials say East German economic growth is grinding to a near halt, despite its past success. [...]''East Germany is the odd man out in Eastern Europe now,'' one official said. ''Many of the countries believe that East Germany's policies are weakening their attempts at reform.'' Several Problems
A Western diplomat in East Berlin said: ''They are caught by several dilemmas. One is the rising expectations in an era when Gorbachev's moves promise exciting developments. The populace here is seizing on the day-to-day economic frustrations they face and getting unhappy. The mood is worse than ever.''
CountArach
05-19-2009, 13:49
If you must. It's like I have always said, the left needs a miracle the right needs patience. Laugh all you want.
It's funny. I've always thought that the Right was the Left's miracle.
It's funny. I've always thought that the Right was the Left's miracle.
The left is perverted, now they defended someone who say women should keep their eyes peeled to the concrete at all times (Tariq Ramadan), the left can't chose between being sorry for muslims for whatever reason and being at least a little western.
CountArach
05-19-2009, 13:58
The left is perverted, now they defended someone who say women should keep their eyes peeled to the concrete at all times (Tariq Ramadan), the left can't chose between being sorry for muslims for whatever reason and being at least a little western.
Sigh... :rolleyes:
Sigh... :rolleyes:
Well mia muca, he said that women should have their eyes peeled to the concrete at al times, our green friends told us it wasn't translated properly, but I speak french and it was translated just fine.
Louis VI the Fat
05-19-2009, 14:07
March 1989, crack in the Wall! (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/06/world/west-berlin-journal-out-of-the-east-hordes-of-weekend-capitalists.html?scp=3&sq=berlin+wall&st=nyt):
West Berlin Journal; Out of the East, Hordes (of Weekend Capitalists)
Published: Monday, March 6, 1989
Though long prepared to stand fast against a military onslaught from the East, West Berlin authorities have been caught off-guard by new weekend invasions of thousands of Polish flea marketeers lured to this island of capitalism by the chance for a quick mark.
They began sometime before Christmas, when several dozen Poles, taking advantage of loosened exit formalities in Poland, appeared at the Krempelmarkt, the muddy weekend flea market near the Berlin wall, with some vodka, clothing and other wares for sale at rock-bottom prices.
June, Gorbachev puts the fate of East Germany in the hands of East Germany itself. It is from here on up to Honecker (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/16/world/a-gorbachev-hint-for-berlin-wall.html?scp=1&sq=berlin+wall&st=nyt)
A GORBACHEV HINT FOR BERLIN WALL
Published: Friday, June 16, 1989
Wrapping up a triumphant visit to West Germany, President Mikhail S. Gorbachev said today that the Berlin wall was not necessarily permanent, but would be taken down only when conditions that created it fell away.
Though Mr. Gorbachev's visit produced no concessions on Berlin's status, his willingness to address the emotionally charged issue in practical terms was taken by West Germans as evidence of the ''new chapter'' that the Soviet leader proclaimed in Soviet-West German relations.
''The wall was raised in a concrete situation and was not dictated only by evil intentions,'' he said at his concluding news conference. East Germany ''decided this as its sovereign right, and the wall can disappear when those conditions that created it fall away,'' he continued. ''I don't see a major problem here.''
Adrian II
05-19-2009, 14:08
:jumping: Adrian is back! :jumping:Don't I know it? But we have to stop meeting his way, mon vieux, already people are looking at us.
The left is perverted [..] ... and the Right is blind. Nice couple, picture them in the dark room on a Friday night.
N'en doutons plus, Olympe, ils se vont égorger. :drama2:
CountArach
05-19-2009, 14:09
Well mia muca, he said that women should have their eyes peeled to the concrete at al times, our green friends told us it wasn't translated properly, but I speak french and it was translated just fine.
Am I defending anyone here? No. I think that it is deplorable. But what I have a problem with is that you lay down all these accusations about the left controlling the education system, yet you then proceed to answer absolutely none of the questions I asked. You have not substantiated a single claim you have made about the education system with anything concrete. If you would care to do so, that would please me greatly.
Louis VI the Fat
05-19-2009, 14:16
In February, Honecker vowed that the Wall would not come down (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/05/weekinreview/the-world-the-east-west-flow-of-people-and-ideas.html?scp=5&sq=berlin+wall&st=nyt)
THE WORLD; The East-West Flow of People and Ideas
Published: Sunday, February 5, 1989
RATHER like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike, East Germany's leader, Erich Honecker, vowed recently that the Berlin wall would remain standing for 50 or 100 years since it was needed ''to protect our Republic from thieves, not to speak of those who are ready to disturb stability and peace in Europe.''
By August, it was clear the tide could not be turned... (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/22/world/westward-tide-of-east-germans-is-a-popular-no-confidence-vote.html?scp=11&sq=berlin+wall&st=nyt)
Westward Tide of East Germans Is a Popular No-Confidence Vote
Published: Tuesday, August 22, 1989
Sitting on a bench in the sunny main courtyard of the central reception camp for East German immigrants in this quiet town north of Frankfurt, the East German did not look like someone about to begin a new life.
But like thousands of other East Germans, the 39-year-old tool-and-die maker and a friend ended their summer vacations in Hungary by escaping across the border into Austria, leaving almost everything they owned behind.
The current trend is accelerating. In July, 11,707 East German emigrated to West Germany, according to Bonn Government figures. Government spokesman said Monday that 1,400 East Germans arrived in the West over the weekend. Of those, 980 crossed the border between Austria and Hungary, Austrian officials said.
Western analysts and recent emigres say the rising number of East Germans trying to escape to the West in recent weeks reflects a deepening loss of faith in the Communist system and the nation's leaders, a loss bound to have a profound effect on East Germany's future.
Am I defending anyone here? No.
Well I haven't offended anybody yet.
Relax lefties, it isn't your idea that's dead, just the one that have it dying.
Adrian II
05-19-2009, 14:22
You have not substantiated a single claim you have made about the education system with anything concrete.Even his claim about Tariq Ramadan and Rotterdam is erroneous. Both the Left and the Right were divided over his appointment. By the way, what the heck has all this to do with the topic of this thread? :wall:
Even his claim about Tariq Ramadan and Rotterdam is erroneous. Both the Left and the Right were divided over his appointment. By the way, what the heck has all this to do with the topic of this thread? :wall:
The end of your post, I am not the one who posted it.
And creepy indeed. Why would the greens agree with a woman having to peel her eyes at the concrete at all times.
In Flemish schoolbooks for toddlers for example you have this villain that sounds exactly like 'Dow Jones' when you read it out loud, I don't know about you but that qualifies as sublimal messages to me.
Brilliant stuff :2thumbsup:
I predict that by this November, the vast leftist ABSOLUTE CONTROL of Dutch society will have been defeated. :knight:
Freedom to the Netherlands will have been restored. And then, this November, at last, the Dutch media and education will finally be free to devote massive attention to the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Wall.
:yes:
I just had a vision. I predict that the vast leftist stranglehold on Dutch society will collapse exactly on the Ninth of November. Mark my words.
You are clearly part of the leftist conspiracy, mocking those who detected it and all :no:
Brilliant stuff :2thumbsup:
Well sorry
Adrian II
05-19-2009, 15:05
The end of your post, I am not the one who posted it.Yes you did. It's in #33.
Yes you did. It's in #33.
:wall:
nah, 2009
Adrian II
05-19-2009, 15:12
Why would the greens agree with a woman having to peel her eyes at the concrete at all times.Because the greens are cryptofascists, and have been all along. Anti-liberal, anti-progress, anti-rational, anti-human. Fortuyn's murderer was only the first full-blown killer that this cabal has produced. Forget Osama. Ecoterrorism will be a top security threat within ten years from now, mark my words. Few lessons have been learned form the Wall and its demise, on that at least we can (supposedly) agree.
Because the greens are cryptofascists, and have been all along..
Suggestion? It's going to hurt anyway.
Rhyfelwyr
05-19-2009, 15:37
I wouldn't say the education system is left-wing biased, not here in the UK at least. At school I had a geography teacher that said Margaret Thatchet was one of the 5 most evil people of all time, and I had a history teacher who called her the "blessed Margaret".
At Uni there is a slight left-wing bias, but I don't think thats a problem since it doesn't affect most of the students I've seen who are obsessed with their "civil liberties". I doubt this slight left-leaning bias is due to a conspiracy rooted in Belgium, instead its probably just because the more idealist liberal types are more likely to want to be involved in the education progress. In any case, I've never found they brainwash people and they make it clear when they are giving a personal opinion.
Vladimir
05-19-2009, 16:44
This thread is bi-polar. One side is the joy and elation of remembering that horrible symbol fall and remembering names like Honecker, Wolf, et al. The other is a dark and twisted world of conspiracy. Or maybe my sense of humor is off. :shrug:
Strike For The South
05-19-2009, 17:46
Intresting. Apparently there was a "cold war" and we beat the "Soviets"
Sounds like a good movie:yes:
LittleGrizzly
05-19-2009, 18:21
Some brilliant conspiracy stuff in here, thanks frag needed a laugh.
Great anniversery (though apparently as a lefty im gutted, must say i haven't noticed) a victory for personal freedoms everywhere and a timely reminder to look after our civil liberties in our current nations as well!
Ironside
05-19-2009, 18:46
I'm afraid the wall came down in November 1989. Hence the lack of coverage. No leftist conspiracy.
The cracks in the Iron Curtain started twenty years ago in spring and summer. In China, democratic demonstrations took place this month. In South Africa, the end of apartheid was announced.
The year is more important than exact months or dates. 1989 was a true Annus Mirabilis. The greatest year since 1789. The end of history, the end of that wretched short European century of 1914-1989.
Well said. :bow:
BTW when do you think the new political century started, judged by the historians 2150 (added some margins there)? 1989 or later, like 2001?
Can be worth noticing that the largest Swedish newspaper did have a large article about the picknic and the opening of the Hungarian border.
ahum.
It's now time for the exams, kids are rolling from the assemblyline of the red machine as we speak to be further indoctrinated with leftist propaganda on universities, I bet there isn't a single question in the exams about the wall.
Of course not, only one subject should actually cover it and that's modern history (possibly some politics courses, but I'm quite poor on the knowledge or thier existance). That course should on the other hand always have questions about the wall, or being a horrible course, by missing the greatest event in modern history.
Intresting. Apparently there was a "cold war" and we beat the "Soviets"
Sounds like a good movie:yes:
Depends on what you like, lots of scare and thrilling stuff, very little action and then the bad guys goes on and self-defeat themself with a whisper to the surprice (and joy) to almost everyone.
“Great anniversery (though apparently as a lefty I am gutted, must say I haven't noticed) a victory for personal freedoms everywhere”
Yeap. I remember. Freedom was flooding the world. :sweatdrop:
Then the Right Wing Nationalists started to Ethnic cleansing in Europe. Communism became bad and Nazism good….
The pretty villages went in flames in some areas, some minorities forced to change their ancestors names or/and some countries built wall to separate them from down towns, or have their children ban from schools because too dirty.
The Religious movements started to be preached with bombs and the freedom become slavery from women and “unfaithful”. It took some time from the freedom fighters to become unlawful combatants but it happened…
Genocides happened in a wonderful indifference / indulgences when suited and International Laws became no more than a piece of paper.
Cynicism became the main value, except greed.:2thumbsup:
At least, they were able to die of starvation but FREE.
Er, a lot of difference...
LittleGrizzly
05-19-2009, 19:17
Well im not saying it worked out great for everyone... but certainly East Germany for one... they may have not been able to enjoy the west's financial success but they could enjoy thier democracy... Poland would be another one i assume...
How widespread was most of what you talk about... are you mainly thinking of countries in the balkans....?
I would say on the whole it was a step in the right direction... maybe we (the west) could have done a bit more to help make it a more successful transition...
“Great anniversery (though apparently as a lefty I am gutted, must say I haven't noticed) a victory for personal freedoms everywhere”
Yeap. I remember. Freedom was flooding the world. :sweatdrop:
Then the Right Wing Nationalists started to Ethnic cleansing in Europe. Communism became bad and Nazism good….
The pretty villages went in flames in some areas, some minorities forced to change their ancestors names or/and some countries built wall to separate them from down towns, or have their children ban from schools because too dirty.
The Religious movements started to be preached with bombs and the freedom become slavery from women and “unfaithful”. It took some time from the freedom fighters to become unlawful combatants but it happened…
Genocides happened in a wonderful indifference / indulgences when suited and International Laws became no more than a piece of paper.
Cynicism became the main value, except greed.:2thumbsup:
At least, they were able to die of starvation but FREE.
Er, a lot of difference...
Both Nazi Germany and the USSR were socialist countries. It is the left that is supporting socialism today.
Rhyfelwyr
05-19-2009, 20:13
Both Nazi Germany and the USSR were socialist countries. It is the left that is supporting socialism today.
Are you comparing today's liberal left with Hitler/Stalin?
LittleGrizzly
05-19-2009, 20:20
Are you comparing today's liberal left with Hitler/Stalin?
I think it would be more of a shock if he wasn't... vuk i realise its your favourite pet debate but you don't need to bring every single thread off topic with it...
Start a thread where people can rubbish your silly comparisons instead of continually dragging others off topic...
Are you comparing today's liberal left with Hitler/Stalin?
No, not at all. He was comparing the right to Nazis, and I pointed out that his comparison did not work, because the Nazis politics were actually almost identical with today's left, not today's right. He is the one who made the insinuations, not me.
LittleGrizzly
05-19-2009, 20:38
So where he said right wing nationalists started ethnic cleansing after the wall came down, you took this as him calling right wingers nazis ?!
because im sorry to tell you the nazi regime fell some 45 years prior...
So where he said right wing nationalists started ethnic cleansing after the wall came down, you took this as him calling right wingers nazis ?!
because im sorry to tell you the nazi regime fell some 45 years prior...
First of all, I misread his post and I apologize. Second of all, it does not matter when the regime went down, because a Nazi is a Nazi is a Nazi, whether they are in power or not.
LittleGrizzly
05-19-2009, 20:46
Ok, but he didn't mention nazis whatsoever, you seem to be the only person mentioning nazis and assigning them to one paticular brand of politics or another... anyway drifting a little off topic here...
Adrian II
05-19-2009, 21:08
OK, I'll be this thread's loser and say 'Godwin'.
Now can we get back on track, sweethearts? :idea2:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-19-2009, 21:46
Don't I know it? But we have to stop meeting his way, mon vieux, already people are looking at us. ... and the Right is blind. Nice couple, picture them in the dark room on a Friday night.
If it is a dark room, it doesn't matter that the right is blind but it matters very much that the left is perverted. ~;)
Rhyfelwyr
05-19-2009, 21:48
If it is a dark room, it doesn't matter that the right is blind but it matters very much that the left is perverted. ~;)
Only if you're the right. :wink:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-19-2009, 21:50
For my contribution to the debate, where I went to school the schooling was without a doubt biased towards the left (in the subjects you notice it in, namely the humanities) simply because those teachers tended to be left-wing. The only question was whether you got a teacher who was tolerant of right-wing viewpoints and respected them or if you got a teacher who wasn't. Fortunately, few teachers were in the former category.
Only if you're the right. :wink:
Well, yes and no... :eeeek:
Adrian II
05-19-2009, 21:57
If it is a dark room, it doesn't matter that the right is blind but it matters very much that the left is perverted. ~;)Blind people are usually very tactile.
CountArach
05-20-2009, 01:52
Both Nazi Germany and the USSR were socialist countries. It is the left that is supporting socialism today.
Would you care to support that argument or is it simply fact because you stated it as such?
Incongruous
05-20-2009, 03:02
Would you care to support that argument or is it simply fact because you stated it as such?
Would you care to disprove it?
LittleGrizzly
05-20-2009, 03:06
Would you care to disprove it?
Well for starters the left doesn't support socialism and the USSR isn't a country, thats the complicated part out the way the rest is obviously wrong too... though deserving of a different topic!
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-20-2009, 03:11
Well for starters the left doesn't support socialism
:inquisitive:
This is new...
In contemporary political discourse, the term the Left usually means either social liberal or socialist. The term is also used to describe social democracy and most forms of anarchism.
LittleGrizzly
05-20-2009, 03:18
Probably for another topic but i wouldn't really say we have a major socialist party, that used to be the domain of the labour party, but they shifted, and the general consesus is the centre ground did shift to the right, so that would mean the left is now partly the old centre, which wasn't really socialist... and generally among partys considered left wing they don't seem very socialist to me... but i may just be thinking to much into my own interpretation of the labels...
anyway all very off topic...
Some brilliant conspiracy stuff in here, thanks frag needed a laugh.
No conspiracy, just people unsure of what their opinion should be and playing it safe just to be sure. Despite the wall comming down being one of the most important events in history it does not, and will not, get the coverage it deserves because of the suffocating social control within the leftist church and the terrible fate that is being excommunicated.
CountArach
05-20-2009, 09:24
Would you care to disprove it?
Ahem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof)
the left is now partly the old centre, which wasn't really socialist... and generally among partys considered left wing they don't seem very socialist to me... but i may just be thinking to much into my own interpretation of the labels...
anyway all very off topic...
Yeah that's your interpretation. I, for one, consider myself something of a more Orthodox, old-style Socialist. Then again, as you say this is all off topic.
Incongruous
05-20-2009, 10:49
Ahem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof)
...
I don't care about "the burden of proof", I care about your disproval and his (Vuk's) defence.
CountArach
05-20-2009, 10:54
...
I don't care about "the burden of proof", I care about your disproval and his (Vuk's) defence.
Hence the need for Burden of Proof. I can't be asked to affirm a negative position - he must provide the positive position and then I shall attempt to provide the counter-reasoning.
Incongruous
05-20-2009, 11:02
Oh come off it, he said that Nazis and Commies were socialists, that was enough for you to decide that a one liner was needed, so you clearly think he's talking bollox, so have at it.
You can confirm your position which is clearly at odds with his, if not then say so. say "yes I CA agree with Vuk", I will be on hand with tissues.
CountArach
05-20-2009, 11:06
Oh come off it, he said that Nazis and Commies were socialists, that was enough for you to decide that a one liner was needed, so you clearly think he's talking bollox, so have at it.
But what is there to refute? Just a statement without sources - he clearly is not/has never been willing to engage in some sort of intellectual debate on ideology; so what would be the point in me doing so? As soon as I see a single source come from him, I will be open to discussion.
That is why Pim Fortuyn was excommunicated by the leftist church, it was a big NEIN to point out that the blessings of the social democracy were actually introduced by the german occupiers, even to fellow historians. Some things are just best left unspoken.
Economically Nazi Germany had some Socialist influences - government had high control over industry, price and wage controls, and following 1929, much government invesment in public infrastructure...
but Socilaism essentially aims to eliminate inequality, something Nazism cleary was not aiming to do.
The fact that the Nazi's were widely opposed to Marxists in Germany pre-election - maybe the most clear demonstration that they opposed socialism.
Both were authoritarian.
:2thumbsup:
Economically Nazi Germany had some Socialist influences - government had high control over industry, price and wage controls, and following 1929, much government invesment in public infrastructure...
but Socilaism essentially aims to eliminate inequality, something Nazism cleary was not aiming to do.
The fact that the Nazi's were widely opposed to Marxists in Germany pre-election - maybe the most clear demonstration that they opposed socialism.
Both were authoritarian.
:2thumbsup:
So if they do the same thing, but claim to be doing different things, then they are different things? Ok, I see how that works...not
CountArach
05-20-2009, 11:45
So if they do the same thing, but claim to be doing different things, then they are different things? Ok, I see how that works...not
Are you going to post a source for your earlier claim soon?
Economically Nazi Germany had some Socialist influences - government had high control over industry, price and wage controls, and following 1929, much government invesment in public infrastructure...
but Socilaism essentially aims to eliminate inequality, something Nazism cleary was not aiming to do.
The fact that the Nazi's were widely opposed to Marxists in Germany pre-election - maybe the most clear demonstration that they opposed socialism.
Both were authoritarian.
:2thumbsup:
You just made this less fun I hope you realise that
Are you going to post a source for your earlier claim soon?
Not a chance. ~;)
I am packing up and getting ready to leave, and am far too busy for a big debate. Don't worry, I will be back in the States on Sunday. ~;)
Rhyfelwyr
05-20-2009, 12:44
The Nazi's were economically left-wing. They were socially right-wing. Which one of those is it that we remember them for?
The Nazi's were economically left-wing. They were socially right-wing. Which one of those is it that we remember them for?
I would argue that with you.
CountArach
05-20-2009, 12:50
I would argue that with you.
:laugh4:
:laugh4:
Well I will do it then, what is socially rightwing about the nazi's?
Well I will do it then, what is socially rightwing about the nazi's?
It was their welfare...erm...no.
It must have been their authoritarian control...erm...no.
It MUST have been the concentration camps and the mass murder! ... erm...no!
What exactly about it WAS right wing? That I would love to hear!
EDIT: I FIGURED IT OUT! It was their support of abortion and gun control and their insistence on equality of condition rather than equality of opportunity! Oh wait, gosh darnnit, those are actually leftist social policies.
CountArach
05-20-2009, 13:05
It must have been their authoritarian control...erm...no.
It MUST have been the concentration camps and the mass murder! ... erm...no!
Allow me to channel Tribsey for a moment...
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You DON'T consider those right-wing...?
I am afraid there clearly isn't any point in arguing with you...
EDIT: I'm still bemused/amused by this... Could you care to explain what your ideas of a right-wing Social policy are?
EDIT: I'm still bemused/amused by this... Could you care to explain what your ideas of a right-wing Social policy are?
No social policy, naturally.
CountArach
05-20-2009, 13:10
No social policy, naturally.
Wait... Anarchism?
Rhyfelwyr
05-20-2009, 13:13
Vuk I often agree with you in the Backroom but this is insane. Nationalism (hence National Socialists) is a classic feature of any right-wing state. The Nazi's believed in a particularly brutal form of ethnic nationalism, and that is why they attempted to exterminate all the 'inferior' races. The left wing, from Leninists to modern liberal lefties, is international in its nature, and believes in a global revolution, because people from all races are not divided by nationality, but by class. Of course, this class divide led to some brutal treatment in certain communist states. I am not defending that, I'm just showing the difference between left and right wing ideologies.
You can be right-wing and violent by exterminating inferior races/cultures. You can be right-wing and peaceful by believing in independence for all nationalities (this sort of utopian nationalism was seen a lot around 1848). You can be left-wing and violent by exterminating the bourgeoisie. You can be left-wing and peaceful by attempting to reform through gradual social change.
Both sides need to stop trying to make the other seem to be monstrous murderers.
Wait... Anarchism?
Nope, state minimalisation. Anarchism sounds great really see you when I get there.
CountArach
05-20-2009, 13:18
Nope, state minimalisation. Anarchism sounds great really see you when I get there.
Alright I think I get what you mean. Here we have something of a labelling difference because I see the state staying out of people's lives as being a left-wing ideal when it comes to social policy (and I think that, intellectually speaking, that is where it stems from in the modern political discourse). I'm interested in what Vuk thinks.
Alright I think I get what you mean. Here we have something of a labelling difference because I see the state staying out of people's lives as being a left-wing ideal when it comes to social policy (and I think that, intellectually speaking, that is where it stems from in the modern political discourse). I'm interested in what Vuk thinks.
Things are fine, lefties are perfectionists desperate for a cause.
C'est bon.
Allow me to channel Tribsey for a moment...
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You DON'T consider those right-wing...?
I am afraid there clearly isn't any point in arguing with you...
EDIT: I'm still bemused/amused by this... Could you care to explain what your ideas of a right-wing Social policy are?
You consider mass murder a right wing policy? Boy, that education system must be sooo unbiased!
These things are part and parcel of state control, something the right tries to minimize. The right thinks that government should stay out of people's affairs and be as small and safe as possible. It is the left that ops for huge government control over people's lives that can eventually lead to things like the holocaust or Stalins purges. I would not be arrogant enough to claim that Stalin's purges were left wing policies (as you have labelled the holocaust as a right wing policy), it is the work of an ambitious and ruthless person. It IS however made POSSIBLE in BOTH cases by leftwing social and economic (esp where the two are intertwined) policies. If it were not for the government control that Hitler and Stalin had, neither would have been able to do what they did. Socialist economic policies that made people powerless, and gun control (something very left wing) to make sure they could not resist. Sure, purges and holocausts are not part of the left's agenda, but stupid leftist policies make them possible.
The holocaust is NOT rightwing nor is it leftwing, it is the work of an evil person. What is important though is that that evil person was able to accomplish what he did because of LEFTIST policies. I mean come on! Did you really think that the :daisy: HOLOCAUST is something conservatives support?! Conservatives support rightwing policies, the Holocaust is not a rightwing policy.
Vuk I often agree with you in the Backroom but this is insane. Nationalism (hence National Socialists) is a classic feature of any right-wing state. The Nazi's believed in a particularly brutal form of ethnic nationalism, and that is why they attempted to exterminate all the 'inferior' races. The left wing, from Leninists to modern liberal lefties, is international in its nature, and believes in a global revolution, because people from all races are not divided by nationality, but by class. Of course, this class divide led to some brutal treatment in certain communist states. I am not defending that, I'm just showing the difference between left and right wing ideologies.
You can be right-wing and violent by exterminating inferior races/cultures. You can be right-wing and peaceful by believing in independence for all nationalities (this sort of utopian nationalism was seen a lot around 1848). You can be left-wing and violent by exterminating the bourgeoisie. You can be left-wing and peaceful by attempting to reform through gradual social change.
Both sides need to stop trying to make the other seem to be monstrous murderers.
Ok, right...so it is not about freedom, it is about racism? You really believe that racism is part of rightwing policy? You have been talking to CA for too long I believe. Look at rightwing revolutions: The American Revolution, The Hungarian Revolution of 1848-49, etc. They are revolutions against oppressor states, not races or cultures. In both cases, the revolutionaries were of mixed race and culture, and were battling an oppressive government, NOT a people. By your own line of reasoning I could say that religious persecution is a leftist policy. Heck, Stalin did it, as did many of the 'communist' countries in the bloc, and minimization of religion is a large part of leftist doctrine in Western states today. You know what? I could make a MUCH better case for that then you could for racism being part of rightwing ideology.
EDIT: And nationalism is a thing of the right, correct? Ok...right. Tell that to all the bloc countries and the USSR. Sure, there was ideology there just as there was in rightwing places, but Nationalism played a BIG part.
Kralizec
05-20-2009, 13:52
@ Adrian:
I recall from my history lessons that Kruschev exposed several of Stalin's crimes in the early 50'ties, but it's my impression that it took decades before he was universally recognised for what he was in the Netherlands. If I'm right, why was that?
Somewhat related, a lot of people seem to have despised NATO because it included military regimes like Greece and Portugal. Now I know I have the benefit of hindsight but it seems to me that the events in Hungary and Chzechoslovakia in '56 and '68 should have made it fairly clear that while NATO might have had a few rotten apples the opposing side was terrible across the board...
Ironside
05-20-2009, 14:10
Vuk, you're mixing up classical liberalism (the classic center) with the right wing. That messes up the scale quite a bit.
As an example, that would split up the socialistic movement into two branches, one radical leftwing (old school communists) and one radical rightwing (anarchists).
Louis VI the Fat
05-20-2009, 14:18
BTW when do you think the new political century started, judged by the historians of 2150 (added some margins there)? 1989 or later, like 2001? It is not possible to say where future historians will place historical fault lines. Not that this will deter me...
Hobsbawm is a famous British historian. (He's a Marxist!!1!! And thus responsible for Treblinka!!1!) He wrote two books: 'Europe's long nineteenth century: 1789 - 1914'. And the book whose title I tucked into an earlier post here: 'Europe's short twentieth century: 1914 - 1989'.
The latter century is the wretched century. Europe's most bitter. ~:mecry:
Not really Hobsbawm, but my own thoughts, say that in the long century, progressive modernism fought reactionarism. And won. Liberal democracy triumphed, destroying the old.
In the second, short, century, liberal democracy in turn was under siege. Somewhat irrelevantly, still from reactionary anti-modernism (for example Franco). More dangerously, from revolutionary conservatism (f.e. Mussolini, Hitler), and from the peoples that missed out on modernism in the nineteenth century (f.e. Lenin, Stalin, petty East European dictators). These currents each sought to destroy the old too. Fortunately, liberal democracy triumphed again.
The other title I tucked in the post was of course Fukuyama's 'The end of History'.
He saw the final triumph of liberal democracy in 1989. Quod non. As witness, for example, below under Brenus. Or as witness 2001. Next to two skyscapers, Osama blew up Fukuyama on 9-11. The West had overlooked other anti-liberal currents. With the benefit of hindsight, Islamofascism was a storm that had been brewing for decades. The Cold War made us blind to it. From 1945-1989, the Cold War monopolised Western thought. Third World developments were only regarded in light of the ideological struggle between the First and the Second World. It made sense back then, it looks like breathtaking arrogance now. In the Third World, there was economic development, truly astounding demographic changes, and simmering strife that was fully autonomous of the West-East division. All this came to the fore with globalisation - which, contrary to what the anti-globalists of the nineties thought, was not the imposition of the West upon the rest of the world, but rather the reverse.
In this sense, I would say 1989-2001 was either a short, jubilant spring* of liberal democracy. Or the 'Indian Summer' of liberal democracy. A brief coda that disguided the end of summer.
The choice will all depent on the future fortune of liberal democracy throughout the world.
*To which Brenus has violently objected already, which I shall adress below.
Or, perhaps non-Western narratives might become dominant.
And so perhaps the entire period of 1600-1950 will be deemed a brief interlude during which a few petty states managed to seize upon Chinese internal strife to briefly surpass China for a brief interlude of China's five thousand years old dominance.
Or perhaps 1926 will be deemed the turning point. The Turks, gone and the West not paying attention, it was the year in which Wahabism took over Saudi Arabia. The year which started their quest for world dominance. Through a massive breeding program, through Arab human and cultural colonialism into Africa, Asia and Europe.
Louis VI the Fat
05-20-2009, 14:20
Freedom was flooding the world in 1989.
Then the Right Wing Nationalists started Ethnic cleansing in Europe.
Very well to point out that 1989 was not the end of history. I do, as always, disagree with your take on Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was always the most liberal, economically most developed part of European communism. Their system wasn't a card house that could fall down one moment from the next. However, 1989 did show the Yugo communists that their time was up. Simmerring subcurrents in Yugoslavia re-surfaced, and took over. Nationalism, regionalism, ancient strife. The narrative changed. 1989 marked the six hundred anniversary of Serbian struggle against the 'Turks'. This led to 'Bosnia'.
For all the faults you can point out in other countries, Serbian aggressive nationalism had a clear autonomous cause.
~~-~~-~~<oi0io>~~-~~-~~
Socialism is nazism is communism.This shows a lack of precision of historical and political terminology.
It is also not very relevant.
~~-~~-~~<oi0io>~~-~~-~~
Because the greens are cryptofascists, and have been all along. Anti-liberal, anti-progress, anti-rational, anti-human. Fortuyn's murderer was only the first full-blown killer that this cabal has produced. I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more, Adrian. :sweatdrop:
The killer thought it was 1933 and that he had to stop Hitler. See, for example, the 'Irish theocracy' thread, where Brenus argues that nazis must be prevented from gaining power, and I myself went so far as to say that there must a standing order to shoot nazis at sight. This is the mindset of the killer. Prevent nazism by force.
The second ingredient is the left's sabre-rattling and demonisation of Fortuyn, This caused many people to see Fortuyn as a nazi. Thus the obligation the killer felt to murder Fortuyn.
Fragony understands Dutch society better than you. ( ~;p ) Fortuyn was murdered by the left.
The killer just happened to be an animal rights activist. An ecoterrorist indeed, but environmental concerns were not an issue to Fortuyn. Nor to the killer's decision to shoot Fortuyn.
To say otherwise is nothing but cluelessness by a left that refuses to see its responsibility, a left that simply can not conceive of itself as sometimes anti-liberal, anti-progress, anti-rational, anti-human.
When a Nascar-loving American shoots a doctor at an abortion clinic, is he better described as a Nascar-terrorist or is it the result of Christian extremist agitation? When an animal loving Dutchman shoots a rightwing politician, is he better described as an ecoterrorist or as the result of leftist extremist agitation?
Vuk, you're mixing up classical liberalism (the classic center) with the right wing. That messes up the scale quite a bit.
As an example, that would split up the socialistic movement into two branches, one radical leftwing (old school communists) and one radical rightwing (anarchists).
Not at all, I talking about rightwing as in American rightwing. Anarchism is NOT a far right policy, it is a utopian fantasy of the leftwing. Both anarchy and communism are supposedly the ends to which the means of total government ownership and control will lead to. Some of you have more money and power than others, give me all your money and power (or I will kill you and take it anyway) and once everyone has nothing, and I am controlling everything that was yours, then I will spread it equally to you all and cease to exist...sure...
Anarchy and communism are the stupid dreams of the left. We on the right believe that a government is absolutely necassary to protect the basic rights of the citizens, but it has to be a government of the people, for the people. It has to be a government that is lean and trim and can accomplish its purpose exactly, but not do more than it is meant to do. Defense of the country is part of protecting basic rights. If you want to make up another definition for rightwing, feel free to do so, but if so, then stop calling the American right rightwing, because that is what they believe in.
Very well to point out that 1989 was not the end of history. I do, as always, disagree with your take on Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was always the most liberal, economically most developed part of European communism. Their system wasn't a card house that could fall down one moment from the next. However, 1989 did show the Yugo communists that their time was up. Simmerring subcurrents in Yugoslavia re-surfaced, and took over. Nationalism, regionalism, ancient strife. The narrative changed. 1989 marked the six hundred anniversary of Serbian struggle against the 'Turks'. This led to 'Bosnia'.
For all the faults you can point out in other countries, Serbian aggressive nationalism had a clear autonomous cause.
Quite wrong, Yugoslavian socialism did not work. They survived because of loans from the west (as many communist countries including Hungary and even the USSR did). There is only so long that something like that can last though. Yugoslavia is actually a pretty bad example for you to pick as a succes story for a controlled economy. They were plagued by old technology, and the socialism system prevented new techonology from developing rapidly enough. They were having regions with rich natural resources manufacture tank optics for which there was no market at all. It did not make sense and it did not work. Main reason for the Cold War coming to an end IMHO? They were just so deep in debt and nothing they could do would make them get out of debt. They were spending enormous amounts of money on espionage and the arms race, fighting disasterous wars in the middle east, had troops stationed in most of the Bloc countries. Socialism truely did fail.
It is not possible to say where future historians will place historical fault lines. Not that this will deter me...
Hobsbawm is a famous British historian. (He's a Marxist!!1!! And thus responsible for Treblinka!!1!) He wrote two books: 'Europe's long nineteenth century: 1789 - 1914'. And the book whose title I tucked into an earlier post here: 'Europe's short twentieth century: 1914 - 1989'.
The latter century is the wretched century. Europe's most bitter. ~:mecry:
Not really Hobsbawm, but my own thoughts, say that in the long century, progressive modernism fought reactionarism. And won. Liberal democracy triumphed, destroying the old.
In the second, short, century, liberal democracy in turn was under siege. Somewhat irrelevantly, still from reactionary anti-modernism (for example Franco). More dangerously, from revolutionary conservatism (f.e. Mussolini, Hitler), and from the peoples that missed out on modernism in the nineteenth century (f.e. Lenin, Stalin, petty East European dictators). These currents each sought to destroy the old too. Fortunately, liberal democracy triumphed again.
Think of it, that is an oxymoron. :P Hitler was the farthest possible thing from conservative.
Rhyfelwyr
05-20-2009, 14:36
Ok, right...so it is not about freedom, it is about racism? You really believe that racism is part of rightwing policy? You have been talking to CA for too long I believe. Look at rightwing revolutions: The American Revolution, The Hungarian Revolution of 1848-49, etc. They are revolutions against oppressor states, not races or cultures. In both cases, the revolutionaries were of mixed race and culture, and were battling an oppressive government, NOT a people.
You ignored a big part of my post... look how I said that both the right and left wing ideologies can be violent/peaceful. Hungarian Revolution of 1848-9... isn't that the year I gave of my example of a peaceful form of nationalism? The different nationalities worked together in order to estbalish independece for their own states. You see this still today in places, like with the Scottish National Party and its support for Welsh independence. Heck even fascists like Oswald Mosley had elements of this utopian nationalism... he was a British nationalist who supported Irish independence.
By your own line of reasoning I could say that religious persecution is a leftist policy. Heck, Stalin did it, as did many of the 'communist' countries in the bloc, and minimization of religion is a large part of leftist doctrine in Western states today. You know what? I could make a MUCH better case for that then you could for racism being part of rightwing ideology.
EDIT: And nationalism is a thing of the right, correct? Ok...right. Tell that to all the bloc countries and the USSR. Sure, there was ideology there just as there was in rightwing places, but Nationalism played a BIG part.
Religious persecuation is a policy of the authoritarian Marxist, I have never argued the left is perfect. Stalin turned communism into an abomination (I'm not saying communism is great but he made his form extra nasty), the nationalism etc is nothing to do with Mr. Marx. "Socialism in one country" seems socially right-wing to me. :wink:
You ignored a big part of my post... look how I said that both the right and left wing ideologies can be violent/peaceful. Hungarian Revolution of 1848-9... isn't that the year I gave of my example of a peaceful form of nationalism? The different nationalities worked together in order to estbalish independece for their own states. You see this still today in places, like with the Scottish National Party and its support for Welsh independence. Heck even fascists like Oswald Mosley had elements of this utopian nationalism... he was a British nationalist who supported Irish independence.
Religious persecuation is a policy of the authoritarian Marxist, I have never argued the left is perfect. Stalin turned communism into an abomination (I'm not saying communism is great but he made his form extra nasty), the nationalism etc is nothing to do with Mr. Marx. "Socialism in one country" seems socially right-wing to me. :wink:
No, I did not. Rightwing revolutions (such as the Hungarian and American revolutions) were revolutions against governments, NOT people. You are trying to say that Hitler's attack against Jews, Slavs, etc was characteristic of the rightwing...it was not. Leftwing ideology, both today and in the recent past is inherently anti-religious, so what Stalin did you could say IS characteristic of the left, simply a more extreme form of it. There is nothing about rightwing ideology that is anti-race/culture/etc. Nationalism is NOT the same as racism or culturalism (two things that the Nazis were). And Nationalism is something that exists in the left and the right. It is more a thing of people than of a political affiliation.
EDIT: I will debate with you kiddies when I get back home. This is taking too much time out of my packing. :P
Rhyfelwyr
05-20-2009, 14:54
No, I did not. Rightwing revolutions (such as the Hungarian and American revolutions) were revolutions against governments, NOT people. You are trying to say that Hitler's attack against Jews, Slavs, etc was characteristic of the rightwing...it was not. Leftwing ideology, both today and in the recent past is inherently anti-religious, so what Stalin did you could say IS characteristic of the left, simply a more extreme form of it. There is nothing about rightwing ideology that is anti-race/culture/etc. Nationalism is NOT the same as racism or culturalism (two things that the Nazis were). And Nationalism is something that exists in the left and the right. It is more a thing of people than of a political affiliation.
If you are left-wing then you view nationalism as one of those "opium of the people", something that distracts people from the real issue of class struggle. The right does not have this international focus, but instead believes that nation states should be sovereign and independent, as people are united by cultural, ethnic, whatever ties.
The lefts flings with nationalism are due to the fact that the left never came about the way Marx expected. It's no coincidence that Marxism went down well with the nations that had suffered under colonialism, to them it explained the west's dominance over them. They were never ready for the international version of Marxism, they never even had a real bourgeoisie. And so communism was conflated with several other issues, and racial divides obviously got sucked into the mix.
Often, right-wing social outlooks lead to left-wing economic policies. If you are a Nazi that believes Aryans are the master race, then obviously you want to ensure every Aryan has a job, a good house, and decent standard of living etc.. and there you go you have a welfare state. That's why there is a point at which the more right-wing a government's social outlook becomes, the more left-wing its economy becomes.
To say otherwise is nothing but cluelessness by a left that refuses to see its responsibility, a left that simply can not conceive of itself as sometimes anti-liberal, anti-progress, anti-rational, anti-human.
wow, Louis for president
Louis VI the Fat
05-20-2009, 15:04
EDIT: I will debate with you kiddies when I get back home. This is taking too much time out of my packing. :PMight I suggest you pack, for example, Darius Gawin (http://www.omp.org.pl/g_tot_ang.php)? Below in italic an excerpt from 'Totalitarianism and Modernity'.
revolutionary conservatism (f.e. Mussolini, Hitler), Think of it, that is an oxymoron. :P Hitler was the farthest possible thing from conservative. 'Revolutionary conservatism' is an aptly chosen term, because of the seeming contradiction. It perfectly captures the tension in German conservatism of sixty years ago. Fascism wasn't anti-modern, like most reactionary political ideologies. Fascism had a different attitude altogether.
Gawin:
'the attitude of the radical right, that gave rise to fascism, towards modernity was much more complex. They criticised modernity for the sake of the upcoming future - the best illustrative example of such an attitude were the so-called German revolutionary conservatives. What they felt was not a melancholy for elapsing time but a great enthusiasm, with which they welcomed a new age of history approaching from the future'.
For the revolutionary conservatives a key term was "modernity" - understood as a system of capitalistic, industrial society. Although the left declared against capitalism, yet - according to the revolutionary conservatives - it was still in the centre of modernity. Thus a leftist revolution was basically "reactionary". Only revolutionary conservatism - that is fascism - offered truly radical criticism of modernity and proposed a real vision of overcoming it. So, revolutionary conservatism wanted to be - to use modern terminology - "post-modern", while communism wanted to solidify and radicalise "modernity" in a revolutionary way.
Does it mean that we can put fascism and Nazism on the one plane with communism, explaining at the same time - as Ernst Nolte - that it was a wrong answer to the right question? It seems, however, that in this dispute right was rather Francois Furet who in classification of evil awarded primacy to Nazism. Communism and Nazism could be put on the one plane because they had the common roots in the crisis of liberal world of the 19th century. Thus, Nazism was not a mere "reaction" to the emergence of Communism (as Nolte claims) but there was rather a symbiotic interdependence between them. It is true that in chronological order Lenin rose to power before Mussolini, as Stalin was ahead of Hitler. In order of ideas, however, both trends derived from one another - and already from the end of the 19th century, from the moment of anti-Positivistic breakthrough in European culture when both the radical left and radical right were born.
Dear Gawin even manages to return the discussion about the nature of the two totalitarianisms to the subject of 1989:
Today, after the year of 1989, it is evident that it is America that turned out to be the victor who defeated both totalitarianisms; moreover, it was America that was the winner at every turning point in the history of the 20th century, both in 1918, in 1945 and in 1989. And it was the Atlantic Enlightenment that originated a new post-modernism, although very different to the one of which the revolutionary conservatives wanted to be the self-proclaimed prophets.
If you are left-wing then you view nationalism as one of those "opium of the people", something that distracts people from the real issue of class struggle. The right does not have this international focus, but instead believes that nation states should be sovereign and independent, as people are united by cultural, ethnic, whatever ties.
The lefts flings with nationalism are due to the fact that the left never came about the way Marx expected. It's no coincidence that Marxism went down well with the nations that had suffered under colonialism, to them it explained the west's dominance over them. They were never ready for the international version of Marxism, they never even had a real bourgeoisie. And so communism was conflated with several other issues, and racial divides obviously got sucked into the mix.
Often, right-wing social outlooks lead to left-wing economic policies. If you are a Nazi that believes Aryans are the master race, then obviously you want to ensure every Aryan has a job, a good house, and decent standard of living etc.. and there you go you have a welfare state. That's why there is a point at which the more right-wing a government's social outlook becomes, the more left-wing its economy becomes.
lol, you are wrong again. Nationalism is something that plagues both sides. The right cares about individual freedoms, and a nation that protects them is necassary. The left cares about social welfare, and a nation that will take and distribute wealth is necassary. Nationalism is not a thing of the right, and is not a thing of the left. It is simply a thing of humans.
As far as your argument about rightwing social policies leading to leftwing economic policies, it makes me laugh. :laugh4: It looks to me like you are trying to place the blame of a leftwing government on 'rightwing social policies' (in fact, you are). Here is news for you, rightwing social policies drive rightwing governments, and leftwing social policies drive leftwing governments. Great for you to brand Nazi ideology of a superrace as rightwing. As I said before, it is neither right nor left, it is simply madness. What IS leftwing though is the government and society that these nuts believed in (which is nut to say that it reflects on other leftists, simply that they chose the leftwing policies because it gave them control). Nazis are not proof that the left hates Jews, but it is proof that leftist policies can lead to dangerous government control. When you concentrate power like that, you are at the mercy of whoever is at the wheel. (Bad luck for Germany and Russia, they got Hitler and Stalin)
Might I suggest you pack, for example, Darius Gawin (http://www.omp.org.pl/g_tot_ang.php)? Below in italic an excerpt from 'Totalitarianism and Modernity'.
'Revolutionary conservatism' is an aptly chosen term, because of the seeming contradiction. It perfectly captures the tension in German conservatism of sixty years ago. Fascism wasn't anti-modern, like most reactionary political ideologies. Fascism had a different attitude altogether.
Gawin:
'the attitude of the radical right, that gave rise to fascism, towards modernity was much more complex. They criticised modernity for the sake of the upcoming future - the best illustrative example of such an attitude were the so-called German revolutionary conservatives. What they felt was not a melancholy for elapsing time but a great enthusiasm, with which they welcomed a new age of history approaching from the future'.
For the revolutionary conservatives a key term was "modernity" - understood as a system of capitalistic, industrial society. Although the left declared against capitalism, yet - according to the revolutionary conservatives - it was still in the centre of modernity. Thus a leftist revolution was basically "reactionary". Only revolutionary conservatism - that is fascism - offered truly radical criticism of modernity and proposed a real vision of overcoming it. So, revolutionary conservatism wanted to be - to use modern terminology - "post-modern", while communism wanted to solidify and radicalise "modernity" in a revolutionary way.
Does it mean that we can put fascism and Nazism on the one plane with communism, explaining at the same time - as Ernst Nolte - that it was a wrong answer to the right question? It seems, however, that in this dispute right was rather Francois Furet who in classification of evil awarded primacy to Nazism. Communism and Nazism could be put on the one plane because they had the common roots in the crisis of liberal world of the 19th century. Thus, Nazism was not a mere "reaction" to the emergence of Communism (as Nolte claims) but there was rather a symbiotic interdependence between them. It is true that in chronological order Lenin rose to power before Mussolini, as Stalin was ahead of Hitler. In order of ideas, however, both trends derived from one another - and already from the end of the 19th century, from the moment of anti-Positivistic breakthrough in European culture when both the radical left and radical right were born.
Dear Gawin even manages to return the discussion about the nature of the two totalitarianisms to the subject of 1989:
Today, after the year of 1989, it is evident that it is America that turned out to be the victor who defeated both totalitarianisms; moreover, it was America that was the winner at every turning point in the history of the 20th century, both in 1918, in 1945 and in 1989. And it was the Atlantic Enlightenment that originated a new post-modernism, although very different to the one of which the revolutionary conservatives wanted to be the self-proclaimed prophets.
Communism and Nazism (both socialist ideologies) were simply two lions fighting for dominance. They were both lions however. You know what Hitler ran his popularity campaign on? Change. Nothing conservative about that, he was a future looking progressive who was going to take advantage of the modern ideas of socialism and use them for the good of the master race. All the time battling those who would use them for evil. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were totalitarian, socialist regimes. They were just competing ones.
Rhyfelwyr
05-20-2009, 15:32
I get the feeling we might be suffering from one of those differences in definitions which so often plagues people debating across the Atlantic. This is what I am thinking of when using the terms:
Social left-wing - internationalism, people's of the world unite, class difference over national differences, one-world government etc
Social right-wing - countries should rule themselves, national pride, national differences over class differences, protectionism, country first etc
Economic left-wing - big government, welfare state etc
Economic right-wing - minimal government, free trade, capitalism etc
If you disagree with that, then we can try to come to an understanding. But by those definitions, the Nazi's were no doubt socially right-wing but economically left-wing.
Adrian II
05-20-2009, 15:45
I see that whilst I was away working and defending the interests of this constitutional monarchy with my sweat, my brain and my lifeblood, you jobless tourists, hippie scum and virtual trashcan scavengers managed to move this discussion into round 476 of the Hitler/Stalin controversy. Let me tell you what happens in round 477: someone wil mention that Hitler was a vegetarian and someone else will remark that this has nothing to do with Alexander's cavalry break-through at Gaugamela. As if! So I think I'll pass and concentrate on a topic I actually know really well.
The killer thought it was 1933 and that he had to stop Hitler.Right. If that is so, can you please explain the letter Volkert wrote from prison to his girlfriend? You know, the one that was read in extenso during his trial?
Louis VI the Fat
05-20-2009, 15:52
can you please explain the letter Volkert wrote from prison to his girlfriend? You know, the one that was read in extenso during his trial?Uh...I could if you linked me the letter?
Meanwhile: (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/pim_fortuyn.htm)
The assassin, Volkert van der Graaf, finally made his confession in court this last week. And—what do you know! – he says he killed Fortuyn largely for opposing Muslim immigration.
The London Daily Telegraph reported:
"Facing a raucous court on the first day of his murder trial, he said his goal was to stop Mr. Fortuyn exploiting Muslims as 'scapegoats' and targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" to try to gain political power. He said: 'I confess to the shooting. He was an ever growing danger who would affect many people in society. I saw it as a danger. I hoped that I could solve it myself.'"
And:
"Van der Graaf claimed, according to the Algemeen Dagblad, he was greatly influenced by politicians who compared Fortuyn with Austrian far-right leader Jorg Haider and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini."
Adrian II
05-20-2009, 16:07
Uh...I could if you linked me the letter?The letter where he explains his strategy vis-a-vis the prosecution, public opinion, the press. Don't tell me you haven't seen it. You were in that court room together with me, three days in a row, or weren't you?
EDIT
Ah, how clumsy of me. That wasn't you. You were the guy who accompanied me when I made that off the record interview with the top sleuth on the police team that worked on Volkert's case, mr Doelman. I'm sure you'll remember what he told us that afternoon about Volkert's true motif.
2nd EDIT
Wrong again. That wasn't you either. You were the guy who came along when I interviewed Volkert's closest partner over many years, the one who admitted they used poison and animal traps against mink farmers.
3rd EDIT
I feel such a jerk. Of course that wasn't you. You are the teamleader of the Dutch intelligence service AIVD who made this year's report to parliament, where they write that animal activism is now a major threat and that The Neds is the organisational hub for radical animal rights acitivists throughout Europe. I am so glad I finally pinned you down.
4th EDIT
Or were you the guy who wrote the handbook for eco-activism, where it says that in case of arrest you have to motivate your actions with anything but animal rights activism: keep the authorities guessing and don't give away your antecedents or comrades. Yeah, I'm sure that was you.
5th EDIT
Got it! You're the French Texan who writes admirably about all sorts of historical and political issues and is generally twice as clever as the rest of us, but who is slightly out of his depth when it comes to an intricate Dutch court case and its ties to eco-activism in the town of Ede-Wageningen.
The town of what?
The letter where he explains his strategy vis-a-vis the prosecution, public opinion, the press.
Is there some sort of explanation we should consider to be something of an explanation? I think we have put up with a lot so far. Haven't learned anything, doing the exact same thing to Wilders, just as dirty.
KukriKhan
05-20-2009, 16:36
And so perhaps the entire period of 1600-1950 will be deemed a brief interlude during which a few petty states managed to seize upon Chinese internal strife to briefly surpass China for a brief interlude of China's five thousand years old dominance.
Perhaps the most interesting contextual comment I think I've seen in this seemingly eternal right v. left argument.
Can we say that when a broad swathe of population thinks it is in crisis/survival mode, a strongman emerges, to put things right? And that those strongmen usually outstay their welcome?
Vladimir
05-20-2009, 16:45
...
3rd EDIT
I feel such a jerk. Of course that wasn't you. You are the teamleader of the Dutch intelligence service AIVD who made this year's report to parliament, where they write that animal activism is now a major threat and that The Neds is the organisational hub for radical animal rights acitivists throughout Europe. I am so glad I finally pinned you down.
...
:laugh4:
Louis outed as a Dutch intelligence officer!
Adrian II
05-20-2009, 16:53
Louis outed as a Dutch intelligence officer!No, Louis was the eco-activist who rang the alarm when Pim Fortuyn announced that, as future prime minister, he would scrap all government subsidies for ecological 'awareness groups', relentlessly prosecute their lunatic fringes AND publicly wear mink to signal that he couldn't care less about their cause. Can you guess who was at the center of that lunatic fringe, boys and girls?
Final EDIT
I'll give you a clue. He wudn't a friend of our ritualistic-animal-slaughtering Muslim compatriots.
Vladimir
05-20-2009, 16:59
No, Louis was the eco-activist who rang the alarm when Pim Fortuyn announced that, as future prime minister, he would scrap all government subsidies for ecological 'awareness groups', relentlessly prosecute their lunatic fringes AND publicly wear mink to signal that he couldn't care less about their cause. Can you guess who was at the center of that lunatic fringe, boys and girls?
Final EDIT
I'll give you a clue. He wudn't a friend of our ritualistic-animal-slaughtering Muslim compatriots.
Well, I'm mostly impressed by the way you established your bonafides on this matter. :2thumbsup:
Adrian II
05-20-2009, 17:02
:daisy:I'm a journalist, not a daisy.
Adrian II
05-20-2009, 17:05
Perhaps the most interesting contextual comment I think I've seen in this seemingly eternal right v. left argument.Aye, Louis is right about China. Just look at what the childrens' books in Chinese schools say about you and me and our part of the world, and you can deduce what we (or our children) are going to have to deal with.
Kralizec
05-20-2009, 17:22
'Revolutionary conservatism' is an aptly chosen term, because of the seeming contradiction. It perfectly captures the tension in German conservatism of sixty years ago. Fascism wasn't anti-modern, like most reactionary political ideologies. Fascism had a different attitude altogether.
Gawin:
'the attitude of the radical right, that gave rise to fascism, towards modernity was much more complex. They criticised modernity for the sake of the upcoming future - the best illustrative example of such an attitude were the so-called German revolutionary conservatives. What they felt was not a melancholy for elapsing time but a great enthusiasm, with which they welcomed a new age of history approaching from the future'.
For the revolutionary conservatives a key term was "modernity" - understood as a system of capitalistic, industrial society. Although the left declared against capitalism, yet - according to the revolutionary conservatives - it was still in the centre of modernity. Thus a leftist revolution was basically "reactionary". Only revolutionary conservatism - that is fascism - offered truly radical criticism of modernity and proposed a real vision of overcoming it. So, revolutionary conservatism wanted to be - to use modern terminology - "post-modern", while communism wanted to solidify and radicalise "modernity" in a revolutionary way.
Does it mean that we can put fascism and Nazism on the one plane with communism, explaining at the same time - as Ernst Nolte - that it was a wrong answer to the right question? It seems, however, that in this dispute right was rather Francois Furet who in classification of evil awarded primacy to Nazism. Communism and Nazism could be put on the one plane because they had the common roots in the crisis of liberal world of the 19th century. Thus, Nazism was not a mere "reaction" to the emergence of Communism (as Nolte claims) but there was rather a symbiotic interdependence between them. It is true that in chronological order Lenin rose to power before Mussolini, as Stalin was ahead of Hitler. In order of ideas, however, both trends derived from one another - and already from the end of the 19th century, from the moment of anti-Positivistic breakthrough in European culture when both the radical left and radical right were born.
Dear Gawin even manages to return the discussion about the nature of the two totalitarianisms to the subject of 1989:
Today, after the year of 1989, it is evident that it is America that turned out to be the victor who defeated both totalitarianisms; moreover, it was America that was the winner at every turning point in the history of the 20th century, both in 1918, in 1945 and in 1989. And it was the Atlantic Enlightenment that originated a new post-modernism, although very different to the one of which the revolutionary conservatives wanted to be the self-proclaimed prophets.
I think that this author (and others) read to much in fascism as an ideology. To me Mussolini was just a vile opportunist and his "ideology" was little more than pragmatic authoritarianism. He did not put much value in the right of property (what could you expect from a former socialist) but he thought it was more expedient to coerce industrialists into doing his bidding than to strip them of their possessions, for example.
I suppose you could compare the rise of fascism with the rise of populist parties and movements in Europe in the last few decades.* In 1920, few people would describe themselves as hard core capitalists but at the same time socialism was discredited because the socialist leaders didn't lift a finger to prevent the outbreak of WW1 and because of the violent revolutions in eastern Europe. The time was ripe for demagogues who promised a third way. Today's populists are not dogmatic either, they get their votes by distancing themselves from old parties wich do have ideological frameworks - be it liberal or socialist. And it's not just on the right side of the spectrum, many self-described socialist parties have disowned Karl Marx and just say whatever they think the working man likes to hear.
As for the nazis, pretty much the same applies. The party line was little more than a patchwork of slogans wich may not have much to do with eachother, but wich can catch a lot of support when put together. One of the explanations why Hitler trashed the SA after he got installed was because its followers put to much emphasis on the more socialistic undertones of the nazi party. Hitler himself had a pretty clear vision of what he wanted to do but it obviously was too insane and absurd to sell to the masses.
*I am not trying to imply that today's populists are Hitler incarnates, just that they are taking advantage of disillusionment with politics in a similar way
Louis VI the Fat
05-20-2009, 17:23
The letter where he explains his strategy vis-a-vis the prosecution, public opinion, the press. Don't tell me you haven't seen it. You were in that court room together with me, three days in a row, or weren't you?
EDIT
Ah, how clumsy of me. That wasn't you. You were the guy who accompanied me when I made that off the record interview with the top sleuth on the police team that worked on Volkert's case,
EDIT etc1 - The killer faced a long imprisonment. His statements from that period need to be considered in light of his legal defense. Nothing he said or wrote can be taken at face value. (Including the citations I quoted)
2 - Care to show me Fortuyn's stance on the environment? Or will you concede that 'Fortuyn' was not about environmental issues?
3 - Ecoterrorism is a big problem. I shall gladly accept all your statements on the subject. However, I think the militancy of the ecoterrorist movement only served as a radicalisation institute for the killer, not as an ideological incentive. The line between ecofascism and the murder of Fortuyn is more indirect than you describe. It takes another step.
4 - That police sleuth is thinking like all police sleuths: 'everybody is guilty. Nobody is working alone. We need more power to unravel these massive networks. Terrorists are everywhere. They are all ganging up'.
A bit like the US intelligence services in recent years. Much ado, few smart results.
5 - If Volkert killed out of environmental concerns, he would've said so. He would've made the statement in court. 'Hands off of the environment!'. IRA, ETA, Rote Armee terrorists, and also ecoterrorists, use the courtroom for a political show.
Volkert did not. Because it doesn't make sense. His motive wasn't the environment. His motive was 'it is 1933. I must act now'. This is what he said in court.
6 - Lastly, this is an important subject. Europe must resist fascism and nazism. I argumented as such in another thread. Yet, this has also made Europe vulnerable to unwanted immigration. Powerless before undesireable developments. (See, for example, the pityful alliance between the French left and Islamofascism and anti-Semitism)
This tension needs to be resolved. Assertive immigration policies of a democratic nature need to be developed in Europe.
Tentatively, assertive immigration and immigrant assimilation policies that are democratic in nature are being developed. In France, Sarkozy tried this, to a left chorus of 'Sarko facho'. In Belgium, the cordon sanitaire against the Bloc flamand is being questioned. Maybe it worked. Maybe it also has stifled debate and prevented a democratic right from developing.
In Italy, the line between fascism and rightwing is thin. It is not clear who is dragging who into which direction - rightwing towards fascism, or fascism towards democratic parties.
In the Netherlands, Fortuyn adopted some of the themes of the hard-right. Fortuyn was the most interesting of all of Europe's populist movements. Openly gay, pro-Israel, socially liberal. He could've been an example to Europe. Haider lied about his pederasm until the end. Fortuyn flaunted with it. Here was something new.
Oh, and all your edits are wrong. I think I can make myself known now: I am writing this from prison. I am Volkert, the killer.
:creep:
Edit: disclaimer: I was acting alone. I had no outside help. The CIA was not involved. The single bullet struck his head from behind. :yes:
Edit: just read the post above, Kralizec. Thanks for some thoughtful remarks about the period and the ideologies.
Ironside
05-20-2009, 17:31
Not at all, I talking about rightwing as in American rightwing. Anarchism is NOT a far right policy, it is a utopian fantasy of the leftwing. Both anarchy and communism are supposedly the ends to which the means of total government ownership and control will lead to. Some of you have more money and power than others, give me all your money and power (or I will kill you and take it anyway) and once everyone has nothing, and I am controlling everything that was yours, then I will spread it equally to you all and cease to exist...sure...
Anarchy and communism are the stupid dreams of the left.
Anarchism does have that stage of concentration of power and doesn't want one either. That's in practice, not theory.
We on the right believe that a government is absolutely necassary to protect the basic rights of the citizens, but it has to be a government of the people, for the people. It has to be a government that is lean and trim and can accomplish its purpose exactly, but not do more than it is meant to do. Defense of the country is part of protecting basic rights.
US republicans are center right, social concervative on the right and the libertarians in the center.
If you want to make up another definition for rightwing, feel free to do so, but if so, then stop calling the American right rightwing, because that is what they believe in.
The thing is that in a historical context, your definition is the made up one, the European left-right goes back to the French revolution. And if you're going to view history through that scale, you need the old one that understand what you're talking about.
lol, you are wrong again. Nationalism is something that plagues both sides. The right cares about individual freedoms, and a nation that protects them is necassary. The left cares about social welfare, and a nation that will take and distribute wealth is necassary. Nationalism is not a thing of the right, and is not a thing of the left. It is simply a thing of humans.
And here's the thing you misunderstand. The right isn't about individual freedoms (that's classical liberalism), but comes from conservatism, that has clear communal thinking (not as far as the left though). Nationalism and it's national state is to the old right, by thier own retorical definition.
Communism and Nazism (both socialist ideologies) were simply two lions fighting for dominance. They were both lions however. You know what Hitler ran his popularity campaign on? Change. Nothing conservative about that, he was a future looking progressive who was going to take advantage of the modern ideas of socialism and use them for the good of the master race. All the time battling those who would use them for evil. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were totalitarian, socialist regimes. They were just competing ones.
Some points of differences that shows of different origin. Some point s look very simular on the surface
The leader. In Fascism (I'll use the general word, when it applies to Nazism as well) the leader and the ruling class is part of it's very essence. The personal cults in the communistic states are a way to keep power, but are ideologically not part of socialism.
Read 1984, Animal farm Atlas shrugged or Anthem whom all here agree are critical towards socialism I presume?
The leader is either fooling the rest or an evil mass, more like the borg than a single induvidual.
Nationalism and rasism. Rasism ends up there as a part of a ideological chain, but are not a neccissery part. Nationalism is a pillar in Facism and has taken a second step, namely thier own superiority (and the neccissity to prove it somehow) compared to other countries. Culture superiority combined with a strong concept of the national state can easily lead to offical rasism.
The left is on the other hand focused on class internationally (retorically at least), a worker in Mogolia and the US is the same. That's part of why it can easily work as a fifth column, unlike fascism.
The state. While both talk of serving the state, there are some differences. The state in communism are supposed to be run by the people who are all equal (obviously have failed, making some people more equal than others), thus this comrade thingy. And female soldiers.
Fascism is still run by traditions and that different people have different purposes, making a female soldier an abomination (she's not doing what she's supposed to do).
Traditions comes into another point, Fascism is obsessed about reviewing a persieved golden age into this new era (this contradiction a sign of that radical/(counter-)revolutionary conservatism). Third Reich, Teutons, the Romans, Isabella's Spain. Socialism doesn't have this past, but are the new future, were being new is the point.
I can dig up a few more points if someone wants to. BTW I think this thread would feel well, by being split.
Louis VI the Fat
05-20-2009, 17:34
BTW I think this thread would feel well, by being split.Yeah, and with Big Walls separating them all.
LittleGrizzly
05-20-2009, 17:41
Yeah, and with Big Walls separating them all.
Facist! Communist! Lefty!
split is a good idea...
Edit: I have no idea what that Dutch guy is saying... im sensing a little anger though... (frags vid)
Adrian II
05-20-2009, 17:52
2 - Care to show me Fortuyn's stance on the environment? Or will you concede that 'Fortuyn' was not about environmental issues?I see... I shouldn't have tried to be funny. I should have remembered Aesop's fable about the monkey and the camel.
At least Vladimir read my posts and understood.
Put your reading glasses on, Louis, here comes the straight version.
1. Fortuyn wanted to put an end to all subsidies for and all tolerance of radical eco-activism, particularly in and around the agricultural university town of Ede-Wageningen, the oldest and most radical center of animal rights activists in The Neds.
2. Volkert was such a subsidized radical pivotal to same, and had been all his adult life.
3. After arrest, V. adopted standard eco-activist procedure (conform handbook) by directing attention away from the movement and confusing the authorities about motifs and organisations.
You can try to Baader-Meinhof your way out of your lack of data and insight, good luck. But I am disappointed that you won't read my posts.
Oh, and your periodization about China was wrong as well: it should have been 1800-1910. Why 1910 and not 1911, I hear you ask? Because of Korea. Put that in your Cartesian pipe and smoke it.
US republicans are center right, social concervative on the right and the libertarians in the center.
The thing is that in a historical context, your definition is the made up one, the European left-right goes back to the French revolution. And if you're going to view history through that scale, you need the old one that understand what you're talking about.
Then if we are going to use a definition different than that of the US rightwing, then please stop calling the US rightwing 'rightwing', because you are associating them with something that they are not.
I am arguing about the AMERICAN right, whatever you want to call them, tell me now. It is called 'rightwing' in the States AND by Europeans. If it is different from what you refer to as 'rightwing', then start calling it something different or surrender the term, don't associate it with something that it is not. Europeans talk about the two as if they are the same, maybe that is where the problem is.
And here's the thing you misunderstand. The right isn't about individual freedoms (that's classical liberalism), but comes from conservatism, that has clear communal thinking (not as far as the left though). Nationalism and it's national state is to the old right, by thier own retorical definition.
umm..wrong (at least not the American right). The (American) right is very much about perserving individual liberties, while the (American) left is more about spreading wealth, even if that means walking on those liberties. The (American) left believes that equality of circumstances (which cannot be achieved without taking something from someone (ei, violating their right to what they earned)) is more important than equality of opportunity. The right believes that the most important thing is to protect the basic rights of the people so that they will have equal opportunitty and not worry about an entity (whether that is an individual, a corporation, or the government) taking what is theirs from them. For the American right, Nationalism really cannot exist (at least in the sense of how it does in Europe), and certainly cannot entail racism, culturalism, etc. All across the states there are people of all different races, there are all different types of food, ways of living, etc. There really is no 'American' race or culture to cling too. (unless you are going to argue that McDonalds and Walmart makes a culture, and even there, they are all around the world) Thus America cannot have Nationalism in the sense that you use the word. The 'American dream' is what really unites us. The belief that you CAN work and make something out of yourself without some one taking it away. The belief that no matter what social class you come from you are going to have equal opportunitty and your rights will be protected. The fact that people of so many races, so many religions, so many cultures and customs can live together. The fact that is something is not right it can be fixed. The fact that you can speak your mind without censorship. THAT is America. How could Nationalism (in the sense that you defined the word) be part of the American right's ideology? As I said earlier, I am arguing about the American right. If you do not consider that 'rightwing', then please do not refer to the American right as 'rightwing'. :bow:
EDIT: And if I was not clear about what I said about Nationalism, what I meant is that the US does not have one dominant race, or culture, or way of life, so we cannot define ourselves as a nation based on those things. We define our nation based on ideas of equality and freedom. Therefore Nationalism for us does NOT entail racism, culturalism, etc. That is a thing of the hellhole we call Europe ~;). Seriously though, must Americans are shocked to find out that in Europe Nationalism has negative connotations, because for us it is just good ideals, not race or culture. Doesn't matter to (most of) us what your skin colour is or what you eat, all that really matters is how well you believe in and uphold those ideals. THAT is what makes someone an American.
Rhyfelwyr
05-20-2009, 18:07
Vuk why would you now tell us you are using specifically American modern definitions when we are talking about totalitarian regimes of 20th Century Europe? :dizzy2:
Vuk why would you now tell us you are using specifically American modern definitions when we are talking about totalitarian regimes of 20th Century Europe? :dizzy2:
When people talk about the left or right now adays, it is current definitons unless stated otherwise. I thought THAT was pretty obvious. We are not talking about what they were classified as then, we were talking about what they were (which we understand with our definitions).
EDIT: Also, American definitions of right and left have come to dominate media AND scholarly discussion. America is seen as the embodiment of the right in many way, so of course when you talk about the right, it is usually assumed that you are talking about the American right (the most 'rightwing' in the world).
Rhyfelwyr
05-20-2009, 18:22
Contrary to opinion across the ocean, American views are not reflective of those of the entire world, not today and not at any time in the past either. If we really used US definitions, nobody would ever call the BNP right-wing.
Contrary to opinion across the ocean, American views are not reflective of those of the entire world, not today and not at any time in the past either. If we really used US definitions, nobody would ever call the BNP right-wing.
My point is though that America has become the most Rightwing country in the world (in the sense that it is farther from the left than other countries), and really did redefine the term. If you do not want the American right referred to as right, then please do not call us 'rightwing'. Call us gods. :beam: (or another term of your choice)
Ironside
05-20-2009, 18:52
When people talk about the left or right now adays, it is current definitons unless stated otherwise. I thought THAT was pretty obvious. We are not talking about what they were classified as then, we were talking about what they were (which we understand with our definitions).
EDIT: Also, American definitions of right and left have come to dominate media AND scholarly discussion. America is seen as the embodiment of the right in many way, so of course when you talk about the right, it is usually assumed that you are talking about the American right (the most 'rightwing' in the world).
It works fine and dandy when talking about today. But there's a problem when you put it in a historical context, as the meanings has changed but still lingers. For example, the social freedoms that are a highlight on the current left was quite missing in both Soviet and Nazi-Germany, making the modern left quite differently from the authorian movements seen in those countries.
As I mentioned, the left gets divided into two different movements by using that definition, where one is quite simular to libertarianism (the branches that allows private ownership that is).
EDIT: Also, American definitions of right and left have come to dominate media AND scholarly discussion. America is seen as the embodiment of the right in many way, so of course when you talk about the right, it is usually assumed that you are talking about the American right (the most 'rightwing' in the world).
That's today when some of the old movements have withered a bit. But as I mentioned Republicans are quite clearly center right, even by the old definitions, even though there's the religous right that's the right part, not the libertarians. That makes the shift not to induvidual freedom, but the party as a whole. So the right is economic freedom, but social restriction, not freedom on both.
The use of classical liberal and libertarian is only to not confuse our American friends when talking about liberalism btw, we have'nt wrecked the word liberal here yet.
Banquo's Ghost
05-20-2009, 18:56
Moderator's note: I take the hint about splitting this thread, but I fear there are actually four or five branching threads herein, and I am not minded to read right through again to try and track them.
Yes, I'm lazy, but when I took this job they promised me minions.
:wink:
Right, back to... er... topics.
“What exactly about it WAS left wing? That I would love to hear!”
Was it their massive programme of Nationalisation? Erm…No.
Was it the collectivisation of Lands? Erm… No.
Was it the huge advance in Equal Rights for Women? Erm… No.
Was it the wide spread of freedom in all Germany? Erm… No.
So, What exactly about it WAS left wing? That I would love to hear!
“gun control (something very left wing) to make sure they could not resist”: Pinochet and Franco were Commies…
“It was their support of abortion and gun control and their insistence on equality of condition rather than equality of opportunity! Oh wait, gosh darnnit, those are actually leftist social policies.”
Did you really read (or at least have vague clue) the programme of Nazi? The 3 K programme (kids, kitchen and Church)? The huge birth programme, women and men selected to have blond and blue eyes, marriage arranged between SS and specific females?
About gun control, do you know why the Soviets had so many Snipers against the Nazis? Guess… It is because all the Russian youth went for shooting training… Strange way for a gun control…
Equality? When your OFFICIAL political platform insists on GENETIC inequality as base of your ideology?
“I could say that religious persecution is a leftist policy” Hoops, Robespierre was a Commie…
The III French Republic was a Communist State (law separating Church and State: 1904)…
“You are trying to say that Hitler's attack against Jews, Slavs, etc was characteristic of the rightwing...it was not”: Dreyfus Affair, some one? Were not all the rightwing newspaper full of Anti-Semitism?
“both socialist ideologies”: Yeap. Hitler was a great reader of Marx and Engel and positively loved Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnich… And fought alongside the Spanish Republic against Franco… Guernica is just a lie…
Repeating a mistake doesn’t make it true, sorry…
“when I get back home” Have a good trip…
“Very well to point out that 1989 was not the end of history. I do, as always, disagree with your take on Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was always the most liberal, economically most developed part of European communism. Their system wasn't a card house that could fall down one moment from the next. However, 1989 did show the Yugo communists that their time was up. Simmerring subcurrents in Yugoslavia re-surfaced, and took over. Nationalism, regionalism, ancient strife. The narrative changed.
1989 marked the six hundred anniversary of Serbian struggle against the 'Turks'. This led to 'Bosnia'.
For all the faults you can point out in other countries, Serbian aggressive nationalism had a clear autonomous cause.”
I would agree to disagree.
Nationalism wasn’t the first Milosevic tool. When he started the play for power he did it as a real communist, with the Communist Party and within the Governmental Institution. Just watch his first speech in Kosovo…
No, the first to play Nationalism was the Slovenian President (well, if you write off the Croatian Spring and Alija Izetbegovic “Muslim Declaration”.
Serbian Nationalism came as an answer to the Croatian Nationalism.
Because what I describe in my answer about freedom of speech for Nazi is exactly what happened the Serbs in Croatia: Utasa Coat of Arm (Sehovnica) (ok, they inverse the Colours), Ustasa money (Kuna), Ustas rhetoric, etc.
Vukovar didn’t start when the JNA intervened (November) but when Boro Paravac launched rockets on the Village of Borovo Selo in May.
To be continued:beam:
Im not sure if it is going to be continuated.
Pinochet and Franco were Commies…
Pinochet was a commie? Sure, he was as commie as Stalin capitalist! Pinochet was the dictator of Chile that derrocated Salvador Allende one 11th of September thirthy-two(?) years ago. Salvador Allende was the one to put Chile to a socialist country, yet The Us did not want that and they gave money and guns to force a military coup to ensure that all the socialist rebels dissapeared.
“Pinochet was a commie?” According to Vuk’s definition, yes he was…:beam:
Im not sure if it is going to be continuated.
Pinochet was a commie? Sure, he was as commie as Stalin capitalist! Pinochet was the dictator of Chile that derrocated Salvador Allende one 11th of September thirthy-two(?) years ago. Salvador Allende was the one to put Chile to a socialist country, yet The Us did not want that and they gave money and guns to force a military coup to ensure that all the socialist rebels dissapeared.
I'm sorry Caius, but I do not know anything about Pinochet. :P I do know this though, communist countries are countries who pursue communism, but the first step in that (which no communist country has ever gotten past) is first taking control of all the wealth and power in the country, so that it can then later distribute it. Of course once it has the power it won't give it up. It takes the power by the means of a socialist government. In reality, a communist country (no matter what it wanted to be) is only a socialist country. So if Pinochet wanted a socialist country, then he would have wanted the same system that communist use (even if not to the same extent). I make the difference in my mind though between those who pretend to eventually want to reach communism and those who wish to create a permenant socialist state. I do not know which Pinochet is, but unless he actively pursued communism, no, I would not call him a communist. I would call him a socialist though if he pursued socialism. It was Brenus who called him a communist, not me.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-20-2009, 21:11
You DON'T consider those right-wing...?
Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. Authoritarianism and death camps are...right-wing?
Whatever drugs you're on, tell me so I can avoid them. :dizzy2:
“For the American right, Nationalism really cannot exist (at least in the sense of how it does in Europe), and certainly cannot entail racism, culturalism, etc.”
So when exactly segregation was over in USA? 1956?
You know what amazed me when I went in USA: Flags every where, in front of houses, graveyards, protective clothing of the San Francisco Bridge painters, poster in US post Office (this is our flag, we are proud of it)…
“All across the states there are people of all different races, there are all different types of food, ways of living, etc. There really is no 'American' race or culture to cling too. (Unless you are going to argue that McDonalds and Walmart makes a culture, and even there, they are all around the world) Thus America cannot have Nationalism in the sense that you use the word.”
You can probably say the same things about all European Countries today…
So no movement think that burning US is an offence and that America is too much open to immigration?
“The 'American dream' is what really unites us. The belief that you CAN work and make something out of yourself without some one taking it away. The belief that no matter what social class you come from you are going to have equal opportunity and your rights will be protected. The fact that people of so many races, so many religions, so many cultures and customs can live together. The fact that is something is not right it can be fixed.”
I will give you this. The American dream is still operational…
“The fact that you can speak your mind without censorship”. Except if you are a Commie. Or anti-war few years ago…
“THAT is America.” That is a representation of America.:beam:
Rhyfelwyr
05-20-2009, 21:15
Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. Authoritarianism and death camps are...right-wing?
Whatever drugs you're on, tell me so I can avoid them. :dizzy2:
They are the nasty side of the right-wing. They can also be a result of the nasty side of the left-wing. Both the right and left wings can also be peaceful.
Hmm, if feels pretty comfy up here on the fence. I could get used to this, if I wasn't having to constantly beat so many Frenchmen away...
“It was Brenus who called him a communist, not me.” Last time I try irony, I swear to God.:embarassed:
I am atheist anyway…:sweatdrop:
“For the American right, Nationalism really cannot exist (at least in the sense of how it does in Europe), and certainly cannot entail racism, culturalism, etc.”
So when exactly segregation was over in USA? 1956?
You know what amazed me when I went in USA: Flags every where, in front of houses, graveyards, protective clothing of the San Francisco Bridge painters, poster in US post Office (this is our flag, we are proud of it)…
I never said that race wasn't associated with nationality in the past, but it is not anymore. As a matter of fact, when people think of American, it is often an African American that jumps to mind. As for the flags, yes, we are proud of our nation, but as I said, we do not define our nation in the same way that you do. It is not nationalist by your meaning of the word...more idealist.
“All across the states there are people of all different races, there are all different types of food, ways of living, etc. There really is no 'American' race or culture to cling too. (Unless you are going to argue that McDonalds and Walmart makes a culture, and even there, they are all around the world) Thus America cannot have Nationalism in the sense that you use the word.”
You can probably say the same things about all European Countries today…
So no movement think that burning US is an offence and that America is too much open to immigration?
No, not really, not any of the ones that I have been too. Definately not Hungary or Italy, and without a doubt not Serbia. Germany is really the closest and that is not saying much for your argument.
“The fact that you can speak your mind without censorship”. Except if you are a Commie. Or anti-war few years ago…
No, commies can speak their minds, and so can anti-war people. In fact, they speak louder, longer, and more frequently than most other people. You cannot do away with social stigmatization. I will still be thought lowly of if I tell a class I am in that I am a Republican, but that is their right not to like me. I am not censored for being a Republican. (though technically, I am not even a Republican, just say that I am :P)
“THAT is America.” That is a representation of America.:beam:
America IS an idea, not people, not food, not land. THAT is America. That is why we do not like it when our government acts un-American and does not live up to that dream.
Rhyfelwyr
05-20-2009, 21:28
As a matter of fact, when people think of American, it is often an African American that jumps to mind.
That's just because of all the gangsta' movies. :smash:
Adrian II
05-20-2009, 21:29
Last time I try irony, I swear to God.:embarassed:I feel your pain. Irony seems to be out of vogue suddenly. Did they put something in the .org water since I took my temporary leave?
“and without a doubt not Serbia”
Serbia is actually to most multi-cultural/ethnic state in the Balkan.
You had few forced expulsion of minorities in Serbia during the war, but they were not due the State/Milosevic. I vaguely remember one village of Croats expelled by the paramilitaries of Seselj, but that was it.
I know, it is not what medias transmitted but…
Always doubt...:2thumbsup:
“and without a doubt not Serbia”
Serbia is actually to most multi-cultural/ethnic state in the Balkan.
You had few forced expulsion of minorities in Serbia during the war, but they were not due the State/Milosevic. I vaguely remember one village of Croats expelled by the paramilitaries of Seselj, but that was it.
I know, it is not what medias transmitted but…
Always doubt...:2thumbsup:
You misunderstand me. I was not saying that it is not ethnically diverse or that it treats people within its borders poorly. I was not saying anything bad about Serbia, simply that the Serbs I know and have read about place a very high importance on being 'Serbian', speaking Serbian, and Serbian culture. (with the exception of Sarmatian whose views on that I do not know)
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, a government is needed to protect peoples' rights, and there needs to be something that makes the people feel united. There is nothing wrong with that being language, culture, ethnicity, etc. (sure, problems can stem from it, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it) Korea is a great example of that. To be Korean is to be of Korean blood, speak Korean, and live like a Korean. That does not mean there is anything at all wrong with Korea.
I was simply saying though that it is not like that in the US. It is something else that makes us support the government and feel like a nation, and that is the ideal of America.
Rhyfelwyr
05-20-2009, 21:49
American patriotism is a very different kettle of fish from the nationalism we know in Europe, and so I wouldn't really compare them.
“You misunderstand me” Yes I did.:shame:
Ok, I will crash on the next US aircraft carrier I see…:shame::shame::shame:
American patriotism is a very different kettle of fish from the nationalism we know in Europe, and so I wouldn't really compare them.
My point exactly. :bow:
And as such, American rightwing ideology is really devoid of nationalism (unlike the left and right wings of some European countries), so it is not fair to say that nationalism is part of the rightwing when we are talking about American rightwing (the ONLY true righwing ~;))
Ok, I will crash on the next US aircraft carrier I see…:shame::shame::shame:
lol, WTH!? :P
Rhyfelwyr
05-20-2009, 22:06
My point exactly. :bow:
And as such, American rightwing ideology is really devoid of nationalism (unlike the left and right wings of some European countries), so it is not fair to say that nationalism is part of the rightwing when we are talking about American rightwing (the ONLY true righwing ~;))
That's fair enough, but the USA is a unique case. Nationalism was very much present in Nazi Germany as we were discussing. And it wasn't just an undercurrent like in the USSR, it was a central part of the ideology (though I know Stalin practically made it official, it wasn't part of the original Marxist take).
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-20-2009, 22:11
They are the nasty side of the right-wing. They can also be a result of the nasty side of the left-wing. Both the right and left wings can also be peaceful.
My point being that it isn't inherently right-wing any more than it is inherently left-wing. :bow:
Louis VI the Fat
05-20-2009, 22:15
I see... I shouldn't have tried to be funny. I should have remembered Aesop's fable about the monkey and the camel.
At least Vladimir read my posts and understood.
Put your reading glasses on, Louis, here comes the straight version. Sorry, I simply completely missed that post. I opened a window to reply to your other post, the one before. By the time I submitted my post, you had squeezed in a post about Fortuyn's environmental policy. :shame:
Oh, and your periodization about China was wrong as well: it should have been 1800-1910. Why 1910 and not 1911, I hear you ask? Because of Korea. Put that in your Cartesian pipe and smoke it.Eh, I write my posts from memory. ~:smoking:
Then only afterwards I add links to give posts gravity. The downside is that even I one can get some facts wrong...
...albeit not about Volkert. :smash:
Where are the other political murders by the mighty Dutch ecofascists you speak of? This enormous IRA-ETA-RAF organisation that apparantly murders Dutch political and business leaders at will?
That's fair enough, but the USA is a unique case. Nationalism was very much present in Nazi Germany as we were discussing. And it wasn't just an undercurrent like in the USSR, it was a central part of the ideology (though I know Stalin practically made it official, it wasn't part of the original Marxist take).
My point was that often when discussing the AMERICAN rightwing and the dangers of socialism in America people will bring up Hitler (you know who you are) as an example of how bad conservatism can be also. If they are really two entirely different things, this is very unfair, as by American standards, the Nazis were VERY leftist. Socialism and Nazism are Socialism and Nazis though, regardless of place or time. (unlike right and left which changed over place and time) Thus you CAN make a fair argument for the dangers of socialsim in America. I am going really off track though...I had better get to bed. :P Goodnight dear Orgahs, please don't give me 20 massive pages to read through tomorrow. :P
Rhyfelwyr
05-20-2009, 22:43
My point was that often when discussing the AMERICAN rightwing and the dangers of socialism in America people will bring up Hitler (you know who you are) as an example of how bad conservatism can be also.
Kind of like when people keep comparing a certain black President to Mr. Schicklgruber. :tongue2:
If they are really two entirely different things, this is very unfair, as by American standards, the Nazis were VERY leftist.
Economically, yes.
I had better get to bed. :P Goodnight dear Orgahs, please don't give me 20 massive pages to read through tomorrow. :P
Well when I'm on a roll...
Adrian II
05-20-2009, 22:47
Where are the other political murders by the mighty Dutch ecofascists you speak of? This enormous IRA-ETA-RAF organisation that apparantly murders Dutch political and business leaders at will?Ah, sarcasm - the rattle of the Cartesian machine when it starts catching sand.
Well, the green cohorts have been marching for more then twenty years, manifesting themselves through burglary, arson, planned explosions, hostage-taking and death threats. A police team that was formed around 2000 to track them and start solving cases was disbanded because the activists published the detectives' names, addresses and pictures of them, their wives and their children, accompanied by calls to harm them. An agriculture inspector who threatened animal rights interest, named Chris van de Werken, was indeed killed in 1996. The murder was never solved. Indeed, it was never properly investigated. That's a recurrent theme when it comes to ecoterrorists: somehow the police are often called back once they trace acts or perpetrators to some of the major environmental awareness organisations.
In Volkert's case, a Green alderman tipped off his close partner Sjoerd van der Wouw before the police got to Volkert's home. Sjoerd deleted the hard disc on Volkerts' computer and removed any compromising stuff from his abode. Only he overlooked some plans of mink farms that had written instructions on them for illegal entry. The police took these and they were later used during Volkert's trial to prove that he didn't shy away from illegal action even before the murder of Fortuyn.
Crazed Rabbit
05-20-2009, 23:18
Wow, it sounds like you guys have some serious eco-terrorists. Over here the worst tend to light construction sites on fire or break into animal research labs.
You know what amazed me when I went in USA: Flags every where, in front of houses, graveyards, protective clothing of the San Francisco Bridge painters, poster in US post Office (this is our flag, we are proud of it)…
I don't think you understand. People aren't proud of the flag, they are proud of America. It isn't a right or left wing issue, or like the type of nationalism you find in Europe.
You saw something outside of your experience, and tried to fit it into what you knew, which lead to your misunderstanding.
Except if you are a Commie. Or anti-war few years ago…
Gah! Really, please. No-one was stopped from speaking against the Iraq war. Did you not hear of any of the large protests?
As to the original topic (known about only by researching ancient stone tablets), I just make one observation. Funny how the Soviet Union and other states, the supposed 'worker's paradise', had to exert great control over their citizens to prevent them from leaving, and fleeing to the capitalist countries that had better living standards and so many more freedoms.
CR
Adrian II
05-20-2009, 23:22
As to the original topic (known about only by researching ancient stone tablets), I just make one observation. Funny how the Soviet Union and other states, the supposed 'worker's paradise', had to exert great control over their citizens to prevent them from leaving, and fleeing to the capitalist countries that had better living standards and so many more freedoms.
CRThat reminds me of something the missus once said to me: if a country needs a wall to keep in its citizens, even its propagandists are bound to be ashamed of themselves.
Kind of like when people keep comparing a certain black President to Mr. Schicklgruber. :tongue2:
Economically, yes.
Well when I'm on a roll...
ummm..no, because by AMERICAN standards they were socially very leftist as well.
As to the President thing, you must not be talking about our half and half (technically more white blood than black) President, unless you mean that it only takes one drop of black blood to pollute someone and make them black. Sorry to be hard on you about it, but it smacks racism to me. I don't blame you, because everyone calls him black, but I cannot help but think it is racism when people who are half and half and even people who are 80-90% of white heritage are called black, like because they have SOME black blood in them they are polluted and it over-rides all their other blood. It is kind of talking about black heritage like it is some kind of disease. Anyway, rant over, I know you did not mean to be racist, but I just wanted to point out to you that there ARE racist undertones there. As far as comparing him to Hitler, yeah, it is ridiculous, BUT, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that politicians (him included) enacting social policies makes something like a Nazi repeat more possible because it strengthens the government and disenfranchises the people, making it easier for a dictator to take full control. I do not think there is anything wrong with pointing out what that can lead to. (which is not at all the same as calling someone Hitler) I personally think that the Nazi regime should stay with us as a lesson to WHY we have our checks and balances and the importance of keeping government small and efficient, and not letting it intrude into places where it shouldn't. That said, I agree with you, it is greatly overused.
CountArach
05-21-2009, 12:40
As to the President thing, you must not be talking about our half and half (technically more white blood than black) President, unless you mean that it only takes one drop of black blood to pollute someone and make them black.
Enjoy your locked thread.
Enjoy your locked thread.
Boy, and you were talking about being misunderstood earlier? :P My entire point was to draw attention to just that hateful attitude.
CountArach
05-21-2009, 13:51
Boy, and you were talking about being misunderstood earlier? :P My entire point was to draw attention to just that hateful attitude.
Oh come off it - you were putting words in Rhy's mouth.
Ironside
05-21-2009, 14:13
ummm..no, because by AMERICAN standards they were socially very leftist as well.
Eh, very few people define full libertarianism as the most right-wing position on social issues. You're the second on this forum that done this claim (Gawain was the first), so I wouldn't say it's particullary common.
You know why? Political Leanings of Members (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1862869&postcount=1). True libertarians are the lower right corner.
De facto libertarians want the society to be in the lower right, even when they are not always agreeing with the ideas there.
Rhyfelwyr
05-21-2009, 14:20
Well Vuk you got me. As soon as there's one drop of black blood in there, you're no longer one of the pure white master race. Generally I use the word 'black' interchangeably with 'deviant', because he's just a corrupted white man, that's all black people are really.
Oh yeah and if it was needed... :clown:
Vladimir
05-21-2009, 16:37
Hey baby, we're all from Africa. :afro:
Rhyfelwyr
05-21-2009, 16:40
Yeah I'm a Rastafarian, I'm going back to Zion! (which is Ethiopia for them isn't it?) :hippy:
Well Vuk you got me. As soon as there's one drop of black blood in there, you're no longer one of the pure white master race. Generally I use the word 'black' interchangeably with 'deviant', because he's just a corrupted white man, that's all black people are really.
Oh yeah and if it was needed... :clown:
I know you did not mean to be racist, but I just wanted to point out to you that there ARE racist undertones there.
I know that you were not meaning to be racist (and said so), I just wanted to point out that there ARE definate racist undertones to it, whether you realized it or not. Why is it that someone with a small percentage of African ancestory is a 'black man'? Likewise with asians and other races. The ones that a small amount of blood doesn't make you that race is white people. It is a very racist attitude. I just wanted you to know that so that you could reconsider your thought process. The media pounds it into us, so I know that it can be hard.
LittleGrizzly
05-21-2009, 17:13
Maybe some people would say your tight definition of the labels has some racist undertones to it... im not arguing that myself mind...
The label is simply an easy one to use, the same way we mangle political definitions all over the place in the backroom, it just makes things easier...
Of course if you really wanted to get into it properly things could get a little messy, what about those with 1 white grandparent and 3 black grandparents, or the other way around... would it also have racist undertones to call them half cast rather than quater or three qaurter cast ?
Similarly with someone half asain, quarter white and a quarter black. If they looked more asian than anything else couldn't we simply refer to them as asian rather than go through a complicated routine of mentioning thier exact ethinticity ?
If anything its more lazyness than racist undertones... and im all for lazyness and shortcuts ~;)
Maybe some people would say your tight definition of the labels has some racist undertones to it... im not arguing that myself mind...
The label is simply an easy one to use, the same way we mangle political definitions all over the place in the backroom, it just makes things easier...
Of course if you really wanted to get into it properly things could get a little messy, what about those with 1 white grandparent and 3 black grandparents, or the other way around... would it also have racist undertones to call them half cast rather than quater or three qaurter cast ?
Similarly with someone half asain, quarter white and a quarter black. If they looked more asian than anything else couldn't we simply refer to them as asian rather than go through a complicated routine of mentioning thier exact ethinticity ?
If anything its more lazyness than racist undertones... and im all for lazyness and shortcuts ~;)
If so, then why isn't someone who is 3/4 white and 1/4 black called white just to be lazy? That is my point, they make it like black is a stigma. A guy who is 3/4 black is black. Ok, I can agree with that, it makes things easy. But why is someone who is 3/4 white also called black? It is because it only takes one drop of poisonous black blood to taint someone's whiteness. Like it or not, that is where the classification came from, and it is very racist. I understand that when people use it nowadays they do not mean to be racist, but I also think that people should make an effort not to say racist things when they know that they are racist.
Take the word polock FI. I always used to call Polish that because I had no idea that it was an insulting term (it is what they call themselves after all). When I learned that it was used as an insult though, I broke my long ingrained habit and stopped saying it. (same with Jap)
LittleGrizzly
05-21-2009, 17:47
TBH i think it is just down to appearances, firstly i don't now any 3/4 white 1/4 black people, but i am assuming that people who do refer those people as black, are maybe just genuinely mistaken, i mean you can get light skinned blacks and dark skinned whites, i have a friend who has a kind of natural tan and people occasionally call him black, hes not that dark so its probably just a wind up (as in spelling pever with a P is a wind up whilst not paticularly insulting) but he has a friend (i have been told) who is a very dark skinned white and apparently many people think he's black as he has a dark skin tone...
So i wouldn't really put it down to racism, maybe some people do put it that way for some racist purpose, but i think most just use it as an easy labelling system... this is one case where im going to settle with majority rules ~;)
I have to be honest though when i was a little un i was rather confused by the whole calling them blacks when many of them have far lighter skin than what you would think of as black skin... i think a little later i realised the whole white thing was a little off as well...
I think the main problem is where we identified races as colours, so anyone with quite dark skin that doesn't go into any of the other groups gets easily misidentified as black... though i suppose even if we had a fancy name instead of black if would be the distinguishing feature people would use to identify blacks anyway...
TBH i think it is just down to appearances, firstly i don't now any 3/4 white 1/4 black people, but i am assuming that people who do refer those people as black, are maybe just genuinely mistaken, i mean you can get light skinned blacks and dark skinned whites, i have a friend who has a kind of natural tan and people occasionally call him black, hes not that dark so its probably just a wind up (as in spelling pever with a P is a wind up whilst not paticularly insulting) but he has a friend (i have been told) who is a very dark skinned white and apparently many people think he's black as he has a dark skin tone...
So i wouldn't really put it down to racism, maybe some people do put it that way for some racist purpose, but i think most just use it as an easy labelling system... this is one case where im going to settle with majority rules ~;)
I have to be honest though when i was a little un i was rather confused by the whole calling them blacks when many of them have far lighter skin than what you would think of as black skin... i think a little later i realised the whole white thing was a little off as well...
I think the main problem is where we identified races as colours, so anyone with quite dark skin that doesn't go into any of the other groups gets easily misidentified as black... though i suppose even if we had a fancy name instead of black if would be the distinguishing feature people would use to identify blacks anyway...
You do see what I mean though? You get confused because they are a little darker...than what? Than white people? Are they the standard? Why is it not that when you see someone like Obama you get confused because he is so white and call him a white person? Because he does not look like he is fully white? Guess what? He doesn't look like he is fully black either. I understand the ease of the terms, but it is very racist to hold whites as the standard and everything else as a deviant of that standard.
LittleGrizzly
05-21-2009, 18:46
You do see what I mean though? You get confused because they are a little darker...than what? Than white people?
Well TBH i would say there are 'tipping points' from very pale to a slightly darkish tan is white, from a slight tan to a dark tan is half cast and anywhere from a meduimish tan to a very dark tan is black. As you can see they overlap quite a bit so a half cast can look as dark as a black man (or the other way around) and some white people can tan very well and look black...
It doesn't nessecarily involve holding whites as the standard, i say more like a pale white is the standard for white a dark black is the standard for black and we make judgement calls about everything in between based on what colour it looks closer to...
I do understand your point, and can see why you think its a problem but i think its overstated...
Rhyfelwyr
05-21-2009, 19:02
TBH I am just going with the flow, everyone I've seen on the media, whether white or black, has called Obama black. I don't see why it's negative to call him black either.
Banquo's Ghost
05-21-2009, 20:48
One tangent too far.
:closed:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.