View Full Version : 10 Most Harmful books of the 19th and 20th century....
rasoforos
08-09-2005, 22:17
A friend sent me this link:
Aparently its from one of those websites that do the thinking for american conservatives, so they dont make any communist mistakes...:
link (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591)
Ok we find more or less expected books...
Marx and Mao put together with Hitler and of course everyone who doesnt want a Christian 'Taliban state' US, people who dare say that women are not made to just obey and give babies and people who discuss sex are there. Nothing unexpected... but...look at number 10....
....Kaynes....???
Kaynes is an economist. He is up there with Marx as the people who influenced economic policies the most. Being a capitalist its initially surprising that he is there...
...but thats not enough...
...Keynes is the father of 'Keynesian Economics'. He advocated that governments should run deficits in order to boost government spending and growth , his logic being that the growth will more than make up for the deficits later.
Keynesian theory works well when a nation is underdeveloped and it worked wonders post WW2 when the american Marshall plans rejuvenated Europe. However it doesnt work too well on developed economies but thats up for dispute.
Now [b] the US government now is practicing Keynesian Economics ( to a suicidical level that makes the country bankrupt without providing enough growth and will make the US owe money to every other bloody country in the planet...but thats not of the essence ). They Love Keynesian Economics, They Are Keynesian Economics, running deficits and increasing spending...
...so...
...if Dubya and his thugs swear by Keynes, and the conservatives support Dubya...then how is a book from Keynes harmful?
I m really puzzled...
Anyone to explain or discuss this?
Don Corleone
08-09-2005, 22:22
First off, I can't think, as I haven't been to the requisite website to do my thinking for me. ~D
Second, you're over simplifying Keynes' views. Keynes was a demand-sider, in that government should tax the shit out of its people, because the government knows better how to spend the money then the people do. Putting the right amount of money on the demand side of the equation, in the form of governmental demand, could solve any equation.
Supply-siders aren't opposed to deficits per se. Reagen ran some huge ones and he was the epitome of supply side economics.
Finally, not all of us knuckle-dragging neanderthal conservatives are particularly happy with "W's" 'sailor on shore leave' approach to federal spending.
ha! yeah right, its not like Marx and Engels are the only once that wrote communist books and such, they where the only one that managed to spread it in a good way. If they hadnt spread the communism, someone ells would have.
I think its harmfull to start and label books and texts as harmfull.
Don Corleone
08-09-2005, 22:25
If Dubya supports Keynes, and if Keynes supports taxing the crap out of people, then the Republican party truly has dissapeared from right under my feet. What happened to the ideals? The States Rights? the Small Government? The low taxes?
This is my point! Dubya is no Keynesian. Rasafaros is having some fun with exaggerating his views. He does need to learn to put the wallet back in his pocket though.
Kagemusha
08-09-2005, 22:26
In the list,there are good books and bad ones,but think what kind of world we would be living without these books?
Don Corleone
08-09-2005, 22:31
I find it humorous that Betty Friedan terrified these guys enough that "Feminine Mystique" made it in there. Yeah, those damn bra-burners are some of the most dangerous people in the past 200 years... I mean I'll grant she was a whackjob, but one of the most 10 dangerous books? This is policital correctness, from the right and I oppose that every bit as much as I do when it comes from the left.
rasoforos
08-09-2005, 22:40
This is my point! Dubya is no Keynesian. Rasafaros is having some fun with exaggerating his views. He does need to learn to put the wallet back in his pocket though.
Ok, Something not as Rasoforos but as an economist:
Keynes didnt advocate taxing the crap out of people. There are MANY keynesian and Neo-Keynesian theories based on his work with various supply side or demand side variables....
...You can have Keynesian economics by having a government tax people less so they invest more ( running deficits but keeping government spending low ) and getting growth from the private sector and consumer demand...
...Basically a significant point of Keynes is that you run deficits so you dont have to tax people who are allready pissed off and demoralised...
What Keynes said in a few words: ....Run deficits, throw money in the market like there is no tomorrow and thus improves people's expectations so they spend/invest.
There is practically no other developed government that practices Keynesian Economics more than the U.S who clearly use deficits to promote growth. Its as simple as that. In fact to other OECD country promotes keynesian growth as a major strategy atm.
The US run deficits, they tax less, they throw money in the market. Its Keynesian pure and simple...
...so why is Keynes evil? Is this some offshoot of conservatives that doesnt like Dubya somehow?
Louis VI the Fat
08-09-2005, 23:10
Comte, the product of a royalist Catholic family that survived the French Revolution, turned his back on his political and cultural heritage, announcing as a teenager, “I have naturally ceased to believe in God.” Later, in the six volumes of The Course of Positive Philosophy, he coined the term “sociology.” He did so while theorizing that the human mind had developed beyond “theology” (a belief that there is a God who governs the universe), through “metaphysics” (in this case defined as the French revolutionaries’ reliance on abstract assertions of “rights” without a God), to “positivism,” in which man alone, through scientific observation, could determine the way things ought to be.Oh dear, this monument to that typical French inclination to prefer scientific observation over superstition made it to that list of dangerous books to.
Excellent.
Louis VI the Fat
08-09-2005, 23:12
Oh, and won't somebody finally teach me when to write to and when too?
Still confused about it. :wall:
Finally, not all of us knuckle-dragging neanderthal conservatives are particularly happy with "W's" 'sailor on shore leave' approach to federal spending.Huh? Someone say my name? ~D
Azi Tohak
08-09-2005, 23:34
(Pssst... Louis... only use too when you can also say, 'as well'. Your English is great, so if you can remember that, I think you will be fine. For example:
Oh dear, this monument to that typical French inclination to prefer scientific observation over superstition made it to that list of dangerous books to.
Should be
Oh dear, this monument to that typical French inclination to prefer scientific observation over superstition made it to that list of dangerous books too.
Or
Oh dear, this monument to that typical French inclination to prefer scientific observation over superstition made it to that list of dangerous books as well.
I hope that helps.)
Anyway, back to topic...
I'm confused about the Clinton generation:
Summary: John Dewey, who lived from 1859 until 1952, was a “progressive” philosopher and leading advocate for secular humanism in American life, who taught at the University of Chicago and at Columbia. He signed the Humanist Manifesto and rejected traditional religion and moral absolutes. In Democracy and Education, in pompous and opaque prose, he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged the teaching of thinking “skills” instead. His views had great influence on the direction of American education--particularly in public schools--and helped nurture the Clinton generation.
That was the babyboomers right? I'm confused ~:confused:
Azi
Communist Mannifesto, yeah. Mein Kampf, yeah. Quotes of Mao, yeah. Feminine Mystique? Positivism? On Liberty? I think a few books have done worse things than those. Try anythin by L. Ron Hubbard
Big_John
08-10-2005, 00:21
wow.. hilarious. thanks for posting it. :2thumbsup:
Louis VI the Fat
08-10-2005, 01:02
Thanks, Azi. :bow:
Byzantine Prince
08-10-2005, 01:09
What's this about the Nazis loving Nietzsche. As far as I have been informed Nietzsche wasn't exactly required reading at even philosophy school until after WWII.
What's harmful about Keynsian theories, they've basically protected the US economy from going into another depression!
What so bad about Introduction to Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud. It's the basis for modern psychiatry! What harm could come from helping people become sane?
Sasaki Kojiro
08-10-2005, 01:34
Some really funny books in there.
I don't see how mein kampf did much harm, seems like that was hitler.
PanzerJaeger
08-10-2005, 01:54
Communist Mannifesto, yeah. Mein Kampf, yeah. Quotes of Mao, yeah. Feminine Mystique? Positivism? On Liberty? I think a few books have done worse things than those. Try anythin by L. Ron Hubbard
Try reading the books, not just the titles. ~;)
Sasaki Kojiro
08-10-2005, 01:56
Try reading the books, not just the titles. ~;)
That could be dangerous, the are harmful books after all.
A friend sent me this link:
Aparently its from one of those websites that do the thinking for american conservatives, so they dont make any communist mistakes...:
link (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591)
Ok we find more or less expected books...
Marx and Mao put together with Hitler and of course everyone who doesnt want a Christian 'Taliban state' US, people who dare say that women are not made to just obey and give babies and people who discuss sex are there. Nothing unexpected... but...look at number 10....
....Kaynes....???
Kaynes is an economist. He is up there with Marx as the people who influenced economic policies the most. Being a capitalist its initially surprising that he is there...
...but thats not enough...
...Keynes is the father of 'Keynesian Economics'. He advocated that governments should run deficits in order to boost government spending and growth , his logic being that the growth will more than make up for the deficits later.
Keynesian theory works well when a nation is underdeveloped and it worked wonders post WW2 when the american Marshall plans rejuvenated Europe. However it doesnt work too well on developed economies but thats up for dispute.
Now [b] the US government now is practicing Keynesian Economics ( to a suicidical level that makes the country bankrupt without providing enough growth and will make the US owe money to every other bloody country in the planet...but thats not of the essence ). They Love Keynesian Economics, They Are Keynesian Economics, running deficits and increasing spending...
...so...
...if Dubya and his thugs swear by Keynes, and the conservatives support Dubya...then how is a book from Keynes harmful?
I m really puzzled...
Anyone to explain or discuss this?
LOL ! Some of those are some of the most infleuntial works ever written.
KafirChobee
08-10-2005, 05:54
First, go back to the site where these ten damnable books was posted. Then, look around. Ann Coulter, the queen of heaven, is there - and so are all her little friends. None of these books are "damnable", except that in one manner or another they encouraged people to act upon their instincts. Mein Kampf, included - though it demonstrates the damnability of peoples instincts and that we can all be fooled.
Nearly thirty years ago, I had a stand-up for "persuasive speach" for University competition (started novice, went to junior level, and then I expanded it when I reached senior level - for those not in the know, that is where the real competitors reign - and the future leaders. 'Cept me of course)about the banning of books and the affect on a society that allows it. Quite simply, it is the denial of ideas, concepts and philosophies - though offensive to the "brilliant mind", they must be allowed to keep us honest in the endevour of truth (how ever one finds it, believes in it, or denies it).
Mein Kampf, is one of the worst written political books in history. The propogation of its merit to sell its ideals to a nation? Increadible! One must stand in awe of the ability of a national organization to sell its beliefs to the populace that later denied any association with them - amazing. Even more so that anyone could actually finish the damned thing - BORING. Even more than "The Essential Works of Lenin" (not John btw), which took me a year (and i still read 500 to 1,000 pages of crap; mostly, a day - especially here any more).
Mao? Actually, if you haven't read his little "Red book" - why not? Do you accept things presented to you at face value? Or, do you challenge them? It's poetry. It's about the common folk - for us outta the 50's we remember being told "There are starving children in China that would eat it - NOW EAT IT!" Mao was a great man, that took a starving nation and began its rise to superpower. His naiveity of how to do it, almost lost it for them - shame is our own leadership never grasped how use him against himself. Except, Kissenger, fo course - and even he was simply looking to attain simple economic and political goals (his imagination was limited).
Fact is, as far as the top 10 most hated books for the religious right - if they were honest (because, I'm pretty sure Mein Kampf is on Annies night stand, along with "The Prince", and the Kama Sutra), Huckleberry Fin has to be amongst them. After all, it is banned in no less than 6 (maybe 10) Red states. Imagine, a book written a hundred years ago being seen by people as being a threat?
I was taught, know thy enemy. The only way to do that is to read what he does, to understand why he believes as he does. Simple? No, not if you already accept that your beliefs are the only true blue thoughts that should be allowed.
Now, I know there will be those that take what I say out of context and attempt to sway those with weaker minds than they. Try not to let them.
BTW, I am the one that said "Only a moron" that Redix likes to quote - out of context of course. It is one of the cute tricks anyone that can't really support their ideals with uses. It is just one of those easy things. Like changing the subject when someone asks you a direct question about something you have done wrong.
:book:
Kaiser of Arabia
08-10-2005, 06:22
Ok reality time.
The ten most harmful are:
1. Communist Manifesto
2. Das Kapital
3. Quotations from Chairman Mao
4. The German Ideology
5. Value, Price, and Profit
6. The State and Revolution
7. The Revolution Betrayed
8. Left Wing Communism, an Infintile Disorder
9. Their Morals and Ours
10. Stupid White Men, or (tied with) Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them (Al Franken).
Hurin_Rules
08-10-2005, 17:37
On Nietzsche and the Nazis: anyone who thinks that Nietzsche and the Nazis were intellectual cousins has not read any Nietzsche. Yes, the Nazis (mis)read him and used him; they also read and used the Bible. I don't hold Jesus responsible for Auschwitz.
Comte? Betty Freidan? Keynes? Dewey? These are the most harmful?
How about the Kinsey Report? Apparently, ultra-conservatives feel its harmful to know that people like sex. A rather sad comment on how much they're getting.
Note also that Darwin's Origin of Species is on the list of (dis)hounourable mentions. One gets the impression that if the list were extended back into previous centuries, Galileo would probably be on it as well. I guess anything that contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible--even when it is one of the most profound scientific discoveries made by humanity--is bad.
I find it hard to believe that Comte, Freidan, Keynes, Dewey, Kinsey and Darwin all together did more harm than the Protocols of the Elders of Sion.
That site was pretty hilarious. Thanks for the laughs. Good on you Don Corleone for not buying into that crap.
Clearly Dr Seuss is worse than any of these
Hop on Pop, or Yertle the Turtle, or I'm not going to get up today, or Green Eggs and Ham, and of course, the Cat in the Hat, all of these are subservise, mind-numbing books that are leading the decline of Western Civilization and could eventually cause a Muslim, or even worse, Hindu dominated world government.
Wake up people, before the Grinch steals your Christmas!
ichi ~:cheers:
Clearly Dr Seuss is worse than any of these
Hop on Pop, or Yertle the Turtle, or I'm not going to get up today, or Green Eggs and Ham, and of course, the Cat in the Hat, all of these are subservise, mind-numbing books that are leading the decline of Western Civilization and could eventually cause a Muslim, or even worse, Hindu dominated world government.
Wake up people, before the Grinch steals your Christmas!
ichi ~:cheers:
And to think I always liked Green Eggs and Ham but then I spent to many years in the Army eating just that in the field.
Those MKT warming tins left a meal slightly green.
~D
What's this about the Nazis loving Nietzsche. As far as I have been informed Nietzsche wasn't exactly required reading at even philosophy school until after WWII.
What's harmful about Keynsian theories, they've basically protected the US economy from going into another depression!
What so bad about Introduction to Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud. It's the basis for modern psychiatry! What harm could come from helping people become sane?
Nietzsche either invented or embelished the term Ubermensh - ' super race' or 'super being'
He believed such people shouldn't be confined to 'normal' people's laws and morals.
Serial killers love Nietsch ~:eek:
Don Corleone
08-10-2005, 19:48
How about the Kinsey Report? Apparently, ultra-conservatives feel its harmful to know that people like sex. A rather sad comment on how much they're getting.
Didn't Kinsey advocate sex between adults and children as possibly 'mutually beneficial'?
Byzantine Prince
08-10-2005, 19:48
Ubermensch means superman, not super race. There can only be one superman, and he will be the next step in our evolution from human to God. It has nothing to do with racism. People who say that either A)have never read the books, or B)Just aren't smart enough to comprehend language.
Serial killer love his eh? Care to say why? I haven't seen anywhere him saying that killing other is good.
Adrian II
08-10-2005, 20:05
Second, you're over simplifying Keynes' views. Keynes was a demand-sider, in that government should tax the shit out of its people, because the government knows better how to spend the money then the people do.Who's simplifying now, Consigliere? The Baron of Tilton advocated government spending (at the cost of running a deficit, if need be) only as an anti-cyclical measure, that is: a remedy against recessions that came in cycles of about four years in those days (we're talking about the 'twenties and 'thirties). If recessions cause people to sit on their savings and industry to stop investing, the government must spend its way our of the recession for them. Keynes never advocated government spending or taxation fo their own sake, or anything remotely similar.
Supply-siders aren't opposed to deficits per se. Reagen ran some huge ones and he was the epitome of supply side economics.Much of that consisted of military spending and resulted from political considerations, not from economic policy decisions.
Don Corleone
08-10-2005, 20:14
Who's simplifying now, Consigliere? The Baron of Tilton advocated government spending (at the cost of running a deficit, if need be) only as an anti-cyclical measure, that is: a remedy against recessions that came in cycles of about four years in those days (we're talking about the 'twenties and 'thirties). If recessions cause people to sit on their savings and industry to stop investing, the government must spend its way our of the recession for them. Keynes never advocated government spending or taxation fo their own sake, or anything remotely similar.Much of that consisted of military spending and resulted from political considerations, not from economic policy decisions.
Ever heard the term 'Voo-doo economics?' What exactly was George H.W. Bush referring to with this pejorative?
And unless you want to find yourself in some cement overshoes, please refrain from referring to me as consigliare. That is a lesser office and I find it derogatory. Should you care to be MY consigliare, I will consider your merits.
I shall make sure my children read all of them.
The most harmful thing to modern civilisation is the 15 doddering old farts who dreamt up that list. Reactionary twaddle.
Adrian II
08-10-2005, 20:24
Ever heard the term 'Voo-doo economics?' What exactly what George H.W. Bush referring to with this pejorative?
And unless you want to find yourself in some cement overshoes, please refrain from referring to me as consigliare. That is a lesser office and I find it derogatory. Should you care to be MY consigliare, I will consider your merits.Respect, Don! And woe to all whom that concrete overshoe fits...
Yes, George W. Bush referred to so-called trickle-down economics, a concept embraced by Ronald Reagan after a voodoo economist explained it to him on the back of a paper napkin, if we are to believe the memoirs of his erstwhile budget director David Stockman.
Stockman also described how they ran up that monster deficit. One day Cap Weinberger showed Reagan two flapover cartoons, one of a long-haired slob with a peace sign around his neck and one of GI Joe proudly holding up a laser gun, and asked him: 'What kind of army do we want, Mr President?' Reagan gave Weinberger a blanc cheque that would eventually total 1 trillion dollars. That is what I call a power point presentation, Signore Corleone.
And you gotta admire Reagan's sense of humour when he later said that 'the budget deficit is now big enough to take care of itself'. It was, in a sense; it's still growing.
Don Corleone
08-10-2005, 20:29
That's signore. I'm not Spanish.
Adrian II
08-10-2005, 20:33
That's signore. I'm not Spanish.Scusi, Don! Dee matter issa taken care off, I promeesse.
(*cuts losses*)
Sasaki Kojiro
08-10-2005, 21:22
Didn't Kinsey advocate sex between adults and children as possibly 'mutually beneficial'?
Did more adults have sex with children? I doubt it. So it wouldn't be harmful.
To make this list accurate you would have to know not the content of the books but the effect they had. What effect did the kinsey report have in harming people?
Zalmoxis
08-10-2005, 22:56
Why do you guys even care what those guys have to say. One of the article authors is Ann Coulter.
Azi Tohak
08-10-2005, 23:57
For the some reason some people care if the author is Fat-ass Moore or Al Franken. I did not even pay attention to the list of authors who came up with the list. Suddenly, a list made up by someone who you don't agree with is anathema?
Everybody sing with me!
"I love tolerance! I love tolerance!
Except when you don't agree!
Then I'll scream and you'll be ruined!
I love tolerance! I love tolerance!"
Azi
rasoforos
08-11-2005, 00:03
Lets keep people who are not in the list, out of the topic please. Else i feel that it will degenerate and the mods will lock in and they ll be right abt it ~:)
Although I was also interested in the people's oppinion about the books stated my main enquiry was not answered.
Are there Cons out there who object to Dubya's Keynesian economic policy?
Azi Tohak
08-11-2005, 00:18
...You might want to use a different term for Conservatives than Cons... Here that means convicted, as in Felon... FYI. (No, that is not a bad F. This F means for.)
Anyway, I don't know enough about Keynes to comment on that. Sorry!
But for my vote as the most harmful book of the 19th or 20th centuries, how about "The Scarlet Letter"? Most dreadful piece of crap I've ever read. Put me off reading anything for a couple of months. I love to read so that was devestating to me!
Anyway, back to "Caribbean" :book:
Azi
Tribesman
08-11-2005, 00:34
One of the article authors is Ann Coulter.
Not quite Zalmoxis, she does write for the site , and the site does advertise her literary endeavours for sale , but she is not listed amongst the distinguished panel who compiled that particular article .
I was surprised , considering the current debates about creationism and intelligent design , that they didn't move Darwins books further up the list .
Byzantine Prince
08-11-2005, 01:15
Are there Cons out there who object to Dubya's Keynesian economic policy?
I think it's obvious that conservatives aren't aware of how economics works and how it affects people. This guys theories are the basis of stability in world economies.
Oh pardon was that a jab at cons?
Shame on me! :embarassed:
Papewaio
08-11-2005, 01:19
I was surprised , considering the current debates about creationism and intelligent design , that they didn't move Darwins books further up the list .
I thought you were joking until I looked further down:
The Origin of Species
by Charles Darwin
Score: 17
These guys are a diet coke version of the Taliban. If they don't agree with something it must be bad.
The thing about science books is that they stimulate debate and understanding. They can be wrong but at least they take us a step further towards understanding, and it is the very act of testing the ideas that is progress. To smite a book because it is against ones religion is rather barbaric.
sharrukin
08-11-2005, 02:56
I don't think most conservative or religious individuals would agree with this list. I suppose it could be argued that some of the books such as "Mein Kampf" or "The Communist Manifesto" should be listed. I personally fail to see the point of such a list in any case. Its not as if we shouldn't read about nutjob theories, if only to reject them.
Just a question. What would the liberals here have on their list? Other than the bible of course.
Hurin_Rules
08-11-2005, 03:35
Just a question. What would the liberals here have on their list? Other than the bible of course.
I think liberals would have some of the same books, such as the ultra-conservative fascist ones like Mein Kampf.
Probably racist ones too; I suggested protocols of the Elders of Sion, but was just pulling it off the top of my hat.
sharrukin
08-11-2005, 03:52
I think liberals would have some of the same books, such as the ultra-conservative fascist ones like Mein Kampf.
Fascism wasn't conservative. It was the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) and many of the members were former socialists and communists. Its closest to being a strange variant of communism is some ways.
Probably racist ones too; I suggested protocols of the Elders of Sion, but was just pulling it off the top of my hat.
That would be a good one to put on there.
Papewaio
08-11-2005, 05:40
The Nazi powerbase changed hands over time (Night of the Long Knives was a more dramatic change) so that its orginal name is more ironic then accurate. The Nazis ended up working far more with the capitalists then the workers over time...
sharrukin
08-11-2005, 05:53
The Nazi powerbase changed hands over time (Night of the Long Knives was a more dramatic change) so that its orginal name is more ironic then accurate. The Nazis ended up working far more with the capitalists then the workers over time...
So did Stalin!
Hurin_Rules
08-11-2005, 06:08
Franco, Mussolini and Hitler's power rested heavily on fear of socialism and communism. The ideology of fascism is far closer to modern right wing ideologies than to those on the left. Take a look at Franco: fighting against anarchists, communists and socialists. Mussolini did the same in Italy and Hitler in Germany. The ideology of racism is similarly attributed (whether correctly or not) to right wing groups, from neo-nazis to the Klu Klux Klan. I think its fair to say that the ideology of fascism is to the political right what the ideology of Marxism/communism is to the political left: the bad end of the extreme. (Reminds me of some of the other current threads on multiculturalism, actually: note it is the right wing posters that are critiquing multiculturalism, for the most part).
sharrukin
08-11-2005, 06:30
Franco, Mussolini and Hitler's power rested heavily on fear of socialism and communism. The ideology of fascism is far closer to modern right wing ideologies than to those on the left. Take a look at Franco: fighting against anarchists, communists and socialists. Mussolini did the same in Italy and Hitler in Germany. The ideology of racism is similarly attributed (whether correctly or not) to right wing groups, from neo-nazis to the Klu Klux Klan. I think its fair to say that the ideology of fascism is to the political right what the ideology of Marxism/communism is to the political left: the bad end of the extreme. (Reminds me of some of the other current threads on multiculturalism, actually: note it is the right wing posters that are critiquing multiculturalism, for the most part).
Communist China and the Soviet Union had several border skirmishs. Albanian Communists hated The Soviet Union and Communist Yugoslavia got expelled from the Cominform. Trotskyists are not friendly to Stalinists! So what! Does this make then right wing ideologies?
And racism is not exclusive to the right wing. The Italian Fascists were not anti-semitic and the Soviet regime was in many ways anti-Jewish if not anti-Semitic.
Nazi pervasive supervision of German industry, public work schemes, the idea that the economy should be under state control, anti-gun laws, etc.
What was so conservative about anything they did?
It is against every tenent of right wing conservative beliefs that exist. They are in some ways more like Neo-Cons I suppose, but Neo-Cons are liberals in ideology but more willing to use military force.
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions" Adolf Hitler Speech of May 1, 1927
"The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of pay, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day-though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform-but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the Fatherland" Joseph Goebbels
"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia.... I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will.
I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun.... I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order." Adolf Hitler
Conservative???
The Nazi powerbase changed hands over time (Night of the Long Knives was a more dramatic change) so that its orginal name is more ironic then accurate. The Nazis ended up working far more with the capitalists then the workers over time...
Since the US came out of WW2 five times richer than when it entered the war, it can be said that the Nazis unintentionally did a HUGE service for the US capitalist structure as well. So much so that Harvard Ecconomist John Kenneth Galbraith once commented "the US Congress should erect a statue of Hitler on Wall Street!"
Papewaio
08-11-2005, 06:42
Well I wouldn't call Hitler and co open minded, multicultural liberals either.
This is one of the key problems when using simple terms like left & right, liberal and conservative.
sharrukin
08-11-2005, 06:47
Well I wouldn't call Hitler and co open minded, multicultural liberals either.
This is one of the key problems when using simple terms like left & right, liberal and conservative.
Well the point is that not all socialist groups are the same, nor are all liberals. Some of either group are a long way from being open minded. Conservatives of course have always been fair and unbiased in all things...why are you laughing?
I agree, the Left-Right spectrum is more than a little inadequate.
_Martyr_
08-11-2005, 09:35
(Pssst... Louis... only use too when you can also say, 'as well'. Your English is great, so if you can remember that, I think you will be fine.
Azi
Sorry Azi, but that's leaving out part of it. We use 'too' as well (too? ~;) )when you want to say 'in excess'. As in, "I ate too much chocolate cake". And as Azi said, when you want to say 'as well'.
For everything else just use 'to'. Except of course the number which is 'two'.
Dont you just love the english language. ~D
Byzantine Prince
08-11-2005, 09:51
Sorry Azi, but that's leaving out part of it. We use 'too' as well (too? ~;) )when you want to say 'in excess'. As in, "I ate too much chocolate cake". And as Azi said, when you want to say 'as well'.
For everything else just use 'to'. Except of course the number which is 'two'.
Dont you just love the english language. ~D
Why are you bashing English for not being coherant when you yourself make mistakes such as that sentence with the bold words.
Also the NSDAP did indeed persecute communists just like jews, so how can they be linked to them? That's preposterous.
sharrukin
08-11-2005, 10:19
Why are you bashing English for not being coherant when you yourself make mistakes such as that sentence with the bold words.
Also the NSDAP did indeed persecute communists just like jews, so how can they be linked to them? That's preposterous.
They are NOT Communists! They are Nationalist Socialists! Communists persecuted their own party members for any number of things. It doesn't mean the Communists were not Communists, so why would it mean the NSDAP couldn't be linked to them through a shared ideology? The SA (Sturmabteilung) under Rohm were persecuted in The Night of the Long Knives. Does that mean they were not Nationalist Socialists? Things like that are an old tradition among extreme socialist groups.
Communist China and the Soviet Union had several border skirmishs. Albanian Communists hated The Soviet Union and Communist Yugoslavia got expelled from the Cominform. Trotskyists are not friendly to Stalinists! So what! Does this make then right wing ideologies?
.......... blah blah blah
Conservative???
One suggestion. Stop referring to libarel (sic) and conservative!
It's a bu**sh*t dichotomy that does everything to advance ignorance and hamper understanding. Trying to apply what is in itself a mistaken view of contemporary US politics into a grand theory of politics and history would be laughable if it wasn't so predominant and all pervading on this board.
You need to start off with a basic grasp of political theory and history before even beginning to label the Nazi's political beliefs.
Generally scholars have described the manifestation of facism in the early 20th century as a 'black bolshevism'. The idea being that the growing communist movements were in places taken over by capitalists for their own ends. Mussolini in Italy and Moseley in Britain wree both originally socialists (of wealthy backgrounds) but switched to facism.
One of the key differences between socialism and facism is it's treatment of the means of production. Socialists see trade unions and workers committees as the natural place to distribute control of the means of production. Facists do the opposite. They make such groups illegal and give greater powers to the bosses. Some of your quotes from Hitler seem to contradict this - but judge a tree by it's fruit - most of what he said as well as the word 'socialist' in National Socialist was merely a bit of window dressing. At no point in Nazi Germany was the place of non-jewish capitalist ever under threat.
As for Stalin working with capitalists.. I don't quite know where you plucked that from - your imagination?
Now when you have understood the basics. And I suggest you do some further reading. Barrington Moore - the Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship is a good starting point. Only then can you look at some similarities and cross overs between the nazis and the KDP in 1930's Germany.
rasoforos
08-11-2005, 10:31
One suggestion. :snip: about libarel (sic) and conservative!
It's a bu**sh*t dichotomy that does everything to advance ignorance and hamper understanding. Trying to apply what is in itself a mistaken view of contemporary US politics into a grand theory of politics and history would be laughable if it wasn't so predominant and all pervading on this board.
I sencond that...
...Without the language...
...all this 'liberal' , 'conserative' thing is nonsensical. It is a very narrow minded choice of terms and can only , and barely, apply for the US. It certainly doesnt apply on a global scale. We have been coninuously falling into the trap of using these terms and its just plain wrong.
Louis VI the Fat
08-11-2005, 14:27
We use 'too' as well (too? ~;) )when you want to say 'in excess'. As in, "I ate too much chocolate cake". And as Azi said, when you want to say 'as well'.Thanks for the expansion, Martyr. :balloon2:
(Hooray! I'm one step closer again to my secret goal of kicking Anglo butt in any debate here by writing better English than them :deal2: )
Don Corleone
08-11-2005, 14:35
I sencond that...
...Without the language...
...all this 'liberal' , 'conserative' thing is nonsensical. It is a very narrow minded choice of terms and can only , and barely, apply for the US. It certainly doesnt apply on a global scale. We have been coninuously falling into the trap of using these terms and its just plain wrong.
It doesn't apply to the US. Look at the breadth of opinion in the Conservative Club alone.
There's a world of difference between 'Yellow Dog Democrats' and the MoveOn.org crowd.
It's just American media love contests, and it's always easier to have one side fighting another instead of a wide array of contestants.
Don Corleone
08-11-2005, 14:36
Thanks for the expansion, Martyr. :balloon2:
(Hooray! I'm one step closer again to my secret goal of kicking Anglo butt in any debate here by writing better English than them :deal2: )
Beating somebody from the British Isles will be tough. If you cannot already beat an American on grammar, I'd get my money back from the company from which you bought the tapes. ~D
I had no idea how bad we were until my wife got pregnant. I am receiving grammar lessons all over again. :dizzy2:
sharrukin
08-11-2005, 21:30
One suggestion. Stop referring to libarel (sic) and conservative!
It's a bu**sh*t dichotomy that does everything to advance ignorance and hamper understanding. Trying to apply what is in itself a mistaken view of contemporary US politics into a grand theory of politics and history would be laughable if it wasn't so predominant and all pervading on this board.
You need to start off with a basic grasp of political theory and history before even beginning to label the Nazi's political beliefs.
Generally scholars have described the manifestation of facism in the early 20th century as a 'black bolshevism'. The idea being that the growing communist movements were in places taken over by capitalists for their own ends. Mussolini in Italy and Moseley in Britain wree both originally socialists (of wealthy backgrounds) but switched to facism.
One of the key differences between socialism and facism is it's treatment of the means of production. Socialists see trade unions and workers committees as the natural place to distribute control of the means of production. Facists do the opposite. They make such groups illegal and give greater powers to the bosses. Some of your quotes from Hitler seem to contradict this - but judge a tree by it's fruit - most of what he said as well as the word 'socialist' in National Socialist was merely a bit of window dressing. At no point in Nazi Germany was the place of non-jewish capitalist ever under threat.
As for Stalin working with capitalists.. I don't quite know where you plucked that from - your imagination?
Now when you have understood the basics. And I suggest you do some further reading. Barrington Moore - the Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship is a good starting point. Only then can you look at some similarities and cross overs between the nazis and the KDP in 1930's Germany.
Well the point is that not all socialist groups are the same, nor are all liberals. Some of either group are a long way from being open minded.
I agree, the Left-Right spectrum is more than a little inadequate.
This is a rather good example of what I meant!
Tribesman
08-11-2005, 21:38
As for Stalin working with capitalists.. I don't quite know where you plucked that from - your imagination?
Off topic , but Ford motors springs to mind, then I suppose Krupp aswell.
Azi Tohak
08-11-2005, 21:40
Beating somebody from the British Isles will be tough. If you cannot already beat an American on grammar, I'd get my money back from the company from which you bought the tapes. ~D
I had no idea how bad we were until my wife got pregnant. I am receiving grammar lessons all over again. :dizzy2:
What does pregnancy have to do with grammar?
No, I can't spell, but I'd like to think I have well grammer. Wouldn't you agreed?
~D
There is a Family Guy (did I just shoot myself in the foot?) where they make a crack about Brits superior English skills. I love that scene.
Azi
sharrukin
08-11-2005, 21:44
As for Stalin working with capitalists.. I don't quite know where you plucked that from - your imagination?
Off topic , but Ford motors springs to mind, then I suppose Krupp aswell.
You are correct. Armand Hammer is another.
There are a lot more than that as well, but there is little point to arguing with someone like that as they have absolutely no intention of listening to anyone elses point of view. He opens with vulgarity and personal insults. What exactly would be the point of such a discussion?
Don Corleone
08-11-2005, 21:45
She corrects me on every slight little offense, on the grounds she does not (see, doesn't shouldn't be used in writing, except in quotes) want our little bundle of joy to pick up my frequently incorrect speech patterns. The :furious3: is another issue I need to be working on.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.