On 26 May, 02:52, Aardvark <zen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 25, 6:38=A0pm, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "skepticl1" <skepti...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>news:349935b9-788a-41c4-96a3-fc0d537ba469@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On 24 May, 23:36, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > "Red Cloud" <mmdir2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> > > Indiana Jones was set 20 years after the last movie. Who else do you
t=
hink
> > > would make a realistic enemy for Indy? to me this is just a great
movi=
e.
> > > Its
> > > a shame people have to let politics ruin the best movie of 2008.-
Hide=
> > > quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Your sites are set in the dirt. Have you noticed the movie posters
> > with Harrison Ford? His face is aging and he's begining to look like
>
> > >Adolph Hitler. Ford made a movie about what a 'great victory' the
> > >Imperialist had at a city named Falluja. **** him.
>
> > So what if he's old? oh and btw he faught the Nazi's. He even said he
ha=
tes
> > Nazi's. Have you watched any Indiana Jones movies? Have you even seen
th=
is
> > one?
>
> nazis are socialists. the name "socialist" is in their party monniker.
> all socialist leaders such as stalin, lenin, etc. eventually mass
> murder their own people "for the greater good". =A0they even goosestep
> kinda the same way.
>
> i think that your average socialist or even your garden variety
> communist gets a warm fuzzy feeling deep inside their soulless beings
> when they fondly (and secretly, of course) dredge up the disgustingly
> ugly image of a nazi inside their equally empty heads. =A0there's not a
> dime's worth of difference between the two types of sick philosophy,
> anyway.
>
> aardvark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Subj: Differences between "Hitler's Germany" and "Stalinist Russia"
In Bob Avakian's book "Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That?" he
writes:
speaking to the profound differences between "Hitler's Germany" and
"Stalinist
Russia":
"[T]hroughout this period, Germany was and remained nothing other than
a
bourgeois imperialist state, though it ruled at home not in the
"classical"
form of bourgeois democracy but through a fascist--an openly
terroristic--form
of bourgeois dictator****p. (As opposed to the phony voting form of
bourgeois
dictator****p like we have in the U.S.--Skeptic) And, on the other
hand,
throughout this period the Soviet Union was and remained a socialist
state, a
dictator****p of the proletariat, although serious errors--it is not
an
exaggeration (or gratuitous) to say grievous errors--were made in how
this
dictator****p was carried out and the socialist system defended and
extended."
"This takes us back to the fundamental point underscored earlier: with
all the
peculiariteis of Nazi Germany (including the "deviations" from
"classical"
capitalist economic policies), the underlying production relations,
the
division of labor, and the dynamics of ac***ulation were all those of
capitalism, particuarly capitalism in its imperialist stage; whereas
in the
Soviet Union in the same period, with all the difficulties encountered
and
mistakes made in carrying out and carrying forward the socialist
transformation
of society, the underlying production relations, the division of
labor, and the
ac***ulation process were those of socialism..."
Next, the article goes into fundamental criticism of Stalinist
Russia,
"...certain real errors committed in "the Stalin period": a too
extensive
reliance on the secret police, rather than primary reliance on the
conscious
activism of the m*****, to identify and suppress
counterrevolutionaries; the
mixing up of two fundamentally different types of contradictions
(those between
the people and the enemy and those among the people themselves), so
that the
target of repression became too broad and a certain "chill" set in
among the
people, actually undermining their ability to carry forward the class
struggle
against the old, and particularly against newborn, exploiters; some
excesses in
the struggle for the collectivization of agriculture; and along with
this--and
particularly as part of the inner-part struggles that were a crucial
aspect of
the overall struggle in society--some rather crude rewriting of
history..."
In the west there has been attempts to deny the fact that there were
fundamental antagonism between "Stalinist Russia" and "Nazi Germany"
or between
the Soviet communists and the Nazis. When in fact the roots of the
Second World
War lay in the redivision of the world in 1918. The interwar period
was just
that--a truce which would, of necessity, be broken. Avaikian goes on
to write,
"...The British strategy for dealing with Germany found initial
expression in
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlains "appeasement" policy. The purpose
of
Chamberlain's 1938 Munich agreement to give the Sudetenland to Germany
was, in
fact, to push the Germans to the east and into confrontation with the
Soviet
Union...There was, however, never any question, either on the part of
Britain
or the U.S., of lettng the German imperialists swallow the Soviet
Union: they
wanted the Germans to choke on it." Roosevelt proclaimed that he
wanted Germany
to bleed Soviet Russia white.
Subj: Michael Parenti: Fascism the False Revolution
In his speech 'Fascism the False Revolution', Michael Parenti looks at
some of
the neglected aspects of Fascism and he talks about the relevance to
what is
happening today. He talks about how the history of Fascism has been
sanitized
and distorted by Western theorists. Parenti mentions how the wealthy
cl***** in
Italy sup****ted Benito Mussolini and how he was able to project
himself on the
national scene as the acknowledged leader of Fascism in Italy. He was
the head
of ex-Army officers and other 'toughs' who were used as a kind of anti-
labor
militia.
"They specialized in attacking unions, peasant farm cooperatives,
Socialists,
Communists and Anarchists. The large indusrtials and land owners were
set on
maintaining profit levels, by sla****ng wages and raising prices. The
State in
turn provided big owners with massive subsidies and tax exemptions. To
finance
this cor****ate welfarism the populous would have to be taxed more
heavily, and
social welfare expenditures would have to be drastically cut. Does all
of this
sound familiar (to what is currently going on in the U.S.?)
"But the government weren't completely free to apply these harsh
measures
because many Italian workers and peasants had organized in a
communistic ways
with their own unions and fairly strong political organizations, with
demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, factory take overs, the forcible
occupation
of farm lands. They won substantial concessions in wages, work
conditions and
in the right to organize. The workers and peasants were able to mount
a defense
of their standard of living. To roll back that standard of living and
to get
the economic changes that the Plutocrats and tycoons wanted the
ruling
interests had to abolish the democratic rights that helped workers and
peasants
defend that standard. The solution was to smash their organizations
and
political liberaties with Fascism.
In Germany there was a very similar pattern of complicity between
Fascists and
Capitalists. German workers and farm laborers had won the eight hour
day,
unemployment insurance, the right to organize. But heavy industry and
big
finance were in a state of nearly total collapse. Business wanted to
cut wages,
business wanted tax cuts and massive state subsidies to revive profit
levels.
During the 1920s the Nazi storm troopers were subsidized by business
and were
used to terrorize workers and farm laborers. By 1930 a decision was
made by the
German tycoons. That decision was that the Vimar Republic no longer
served
their needs and was too accommodating to the working class. The
tycoons greatly
increased their subsidies to Hitler, propelling the Nazi party onto
the
national stage.
"You can read book after book about Fascism and Nazism and find almost
nothing
said about the economic policies of these regime, of the things I just
told you
about. There is also a vast literature about who sup****ted the
Nazis...very
little is ever written about who the Nazi sup****ted when they came in,
who the
Fascists sup****ted when they came in. Because that would be much more
revealing...Who did Mussolini and Hitler sup****t once they seized
State power?
In both countries a strikingly similar agenda was pursued. Labor
unions and
strikes were outlawed, union property and publications were
confiscated. Farm
cooperatives were handed over to rich private owners. Big agri-
business farming
was heavily subsidized. In Italy child labor was re-introduced. In
both Germany
and Italy the already modest wages of the workers were cut
drastically. In
Germany from 25% to 40% in cuts. In Italy 50% wages were cut. In both
countries
minimum wage laws, over time pay and factory safety regulations were
abolished.
Taxes were increased for the general populous but lowered or
eliminated for the
rich and big business. Inheritance taxes for the wealthy were greatly
reduced
or abolished. Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to
their
business patrons by handing over to them, publicly owned and perfectly
solvent
steel mills, power plants, and steam****p companies. Privatization its
called.
Privatization. Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to
refloat
or subsidize heavy industry. Cooperate welfarsim we would call it
today...As in
all reactionary regimes public capital was raided by private capital.
The
result of all of this? In Italy during the 1930s, the economy was
gripped by
recession, a staggering public debt, widespread corruption, but
industrial
profits rose...In Germany unemployment was eased somewhat, because of
the
massive arms program. But generally poverty increased. If you cut
wages 25% to
40% poverty is going to increase no matter how many jobs you create.
But from
1935 to 1943 the net income of German cooperate leaders rose 46%. In
both
countries, the conditions of labor deteriorated greatly. Speed ups,
dismissals,
imprisonment for workers who complained about unsafe or inhumane work
conditions. Longer hours for less wages.
"You know looking at this years ago, I used to say the Fascism never
really
succeeded in solving the irrational contradictions of Capitalism.
Today I
believe it was never intended to solve the irrational contradictions
of
Capitalism, at least not for the populous or for the people. Now I'm
of the
opinion that it actually in a way did succeed in solving the problems
of
Capitalism, but only for the Capitalists. Fascists offer a
reactionary
solution, not a social solution to the contradictions of Capitalism.
It forces
all the burdens and losses onto the working public.
"Well come on Parenti is that all Fascism is, a conspiracy to save
Capitalism?
Well that might not be all that it is, but that's quite an im****tant
part of
it. So can we talk about that once in awhile? Its the part that Hitler
himself
kept referring to when he talked about saving the industrialists and
bankers
from Bolshevism. Mussolini also designated himself Italy's savior from
the red
tide.
"Communism was and the left in general was never strong enough to take
State
power in either country. But they were strong enough to interfere with
profit
rates, and the capital ac***ulation process. This was threatening
enough for
the moneyed interests."
"Fascist doctrines stress monistic values, oneness, ein folk, ein
riech, ein
furher, one people, one state, one leader. The people are no longer to
be
concerned with class divisions. The must see themselves as part of a
harmonious
authoritarian whole. A view that is very sup****ted by the socio-
economic status
quo. This very much in contrast to a left agenda. Which advocates a
sharpened
awareness of class injustice and class struggle. The articulation of
popular
demands and the self generated participation of popular forces.
Aardvark, the Soviet Union was Hilter's greatest enemy, the Red Army
Defeated
Hitler's Armies. Leonard 27 million Communist died ridding the world
of
Fascism in WWII it was the greatest sacrific in human history. While
the U.S.
involvement in Europe was NOT a fight to the death, it was just a
scramble to
get a seat at the table in order to divide up the spoils of war. The
USA's
Armies could NEVER have fought the battles that the Red Army fought
against
Hitler. They didn't have the will, they U.S. didn't have the political
ideology
to get their troops to fight battles like the Battle of Berlin with a
million
causalities on (both sides all together.) The Red Army defeated
Hitler, all
other involvement from the other allies was tertiary.
"In May of 1940 Hitler struck West, wiped out France and much of the
British
Army at Dunkirk. Then he attacked the Soviet Union in 1941. Stalin had
expected
it sooner or later. In 1939 Stalin had said, "We have 10 years. In 10
years we
have to do what Britian did in 100 years." And there came the forced
industrialization. Soviet Russia built a whole new industrial base
east of the
Urals. An industrial base which eventually out produced Hitler in
tanks, planes
and artillery. 80% of the German casualties were on the Eastern front.
The
scale and ferocity of the fighting was unparalled in the West, or in
any modern
warfare ever. There was nothing in the Western front that could
compare with
the battle of Stalingrad, involving millions of troops. The battle of
Leningrad, with two and half million Soviets died. The battle of
Kirsk
involving tens of thousands of tanks. The battle of Warsaw which took
two
months. The battle of Berlin, with three million Soviets troops were
arrayed
against one and one half million German troops, with almost a million
casualities by both sides." Most discussions in the west about World
War II
focus on the Western war which is about one fifth of the actual war
and ignore,
the scale and horror and heroism of the Eastern front. Most
dicusssions in the
West about the eve of World War II, give us the usual blather about
the
Hitler/Stalin pact and say little about the active collaboration of
the right
wing Tory Government, about the Hitler/Chamberlian pact. Just as
little today
is said about the active collaboration of a right wing US government
with
Fascists throughout the third world and with Nazis in the Republican
Party and
in Bush's own campaign. The Fascists are O.K. because they defend
private
property and cor****ate investment. It's the Communists that are the
menace,
according to those who own the world. Those of us who want Democracy
might want
to think about this a little more seriously."
"...As it turned out, the main way the U.S. and British allies worked
to defeat
Germany was through the Soviet Red Army. Military history here is very
clear.
Even Whiston Churchill admitted in March 1943 that for the next six
months
Great Britain and the United States would be "playing about" with half
a dozen
German divisions while Stalin was facing 185 divisions. Overall the
Soviet
Union suffered 20 million war-related deaths, including 7.5 million
who died
directly in battle. By contrast, the combined British, French and U.S.
battle
deaths totalled under 750,000--less than 10 percent of the Soviet
figure.
Simply put, the Soviet Union was responsible for the defeat of
Germany."
Aardvark The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany. The Germans were
Capitalist.
The USSR was socialist. It was a fight to the death. Socialism beat
Capitalism
in this one.
49ERS: BOSS OF THE BAY
Next 49er/Raiders match up: 2010
|
