- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Nazis and Communists
Posted on 8/4/18 at 9:59 pm to memphis tiger
Posted on 8/4/18 at 9:59 pm to memphis tiger
quote:
May be a dumb question but in WWII, why were Germany and Russia on opposing sides?
Naziism and Communism are not very different ideologies both a variation of left wing socialist totalitarianism.
1) Hitler perceived communism as being a Jewish movement. He was opposed to them because they were trying to get a foot in German politics (there was a large communist movement in Germany prior to Hitler's rise). He also didn't much care about communism's internationalist ideas as Hitler was a nationalist.
2) Germany and Russia had just fought a massive war (WWI) and there would have been little chance of them becoming allies at that point in time.
3) Communists aren't necessarily racists. Hitler's ideology was based on German identity and to a lesser extent "Aryan racial superiority" (though Hitler wasn't as fanatical about the latter as some of his lieutenants like Himmler and Rosenberg).
0
Posted on 8/4/18 at 10:30 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Most “Conservatives” are too ill-informed to know/grasp this fact.
Mainly because the modern leftists are all about : "rabble rabble frick America, rabble rabble burn the flag, rabble rabble we hate this country, rabble rabble the founding fathers were racists and their monuments should be torn down rabble rabble.
Posted on 8/5/18 at 6:47 am to memphis tiger
Jesus man. Try learning some history.
Posted on 8/5/18 at 6:53 am to HempHead
quote:
The social and economic structures of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were incredibly different, beyond the consolidation of a single-party state and an autocrat.
The economy was still centrally planned with private ownership but national interests. It was sort of socialism lite.
Posted on 8/5/18 at 7:40 am to memphis tiger
Hitler didn’t consider Russians white.
Posted on 8/5/18 at 9:40 am to AggieHank86
quote:
the American Revolution was leftist in character Most “Conservatives” are too ill-informed to know/grasp this fact.
Totally wrong. The founders were very skeptical of govt power and were fans of Locke and Hobbes. Your idea that status quo = conservative and change = liberal is something you should have gotten past by age 8.
Posted on 8/5/18 at 9:52 am to Zach
He isn't wrong at all. You are attributing modern ideas to people 250 years ago.
Posted on 8/5/18 at 10:06 am to TGFN57
quote:
He isn't wrong at all. You are attributing modern ideas to people 250 years ago.
The concept of tyranny is the exact same today as it was 250 years ago. It is the nature of govt to grow itself and it does so by controlling the behaviors of individuals.
Have you ever read the founders' letters? They constantly use the term 'liberty'. It means the same thing today. They constantly use the word 'God.' It means the same thing today.
And if you believe in his definition of liberal/conservative then anyone who calls for abolishing the right for women and blacks to vote would be a liberal. And anyone defending their right to vote would be a conservative.
This post was edited on 8/5/18 at 10:08 am
Posted on 8/5/18 at 11:41 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Socialism yes, but Marxism is explicitly authoritarian.
You’re confused.
Marxist-Socialism, by definition, is totalitarian.
Marxist-Communism, by definition, lacks any central authority.
Posted on 8/5/18 at 11:59 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Marxist-Socialism, by definition, is totalitarian.
Marxist-Communism, by definition, lacks any central authority.
Right, but Marxists also believe that in order to reach the communist phase, it must be under the dictatorship of the proletariat in socialism. Engels in particular was quite explicit about the socialist view of authoritarianism, and both Marx and Engels viewed socialism as the necessary state before full communism. The anarchist factions disagreed and this is where the main split in communist ideology occurs, at the First International.
This post was edited on 8/5/18 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 8/5/18 at 12:04 pm to memphis tiger
quote:
May be a dumb question
It is, but go on.
quote:
but in WWII, why were Germany and Russia on opposing sides?
Because they were archenemies and Hitler wanted to wipe them all out.
quote:
Naziism and Communism are not very different ideologies both a variation of left wing socialist totalitarianism.
They may be Left wing, but their ideologies aren't that similar. Nazism is focused on racial purity and a fricking dictator. Communism in principal isn't that, it's just always doomed to devolve into authoritarianism. It's about redistributing property among the people. Nazism isn't that.
quote:
Was it just ego that would not let them work together as both wanted total control. Or is there some underlying political difference between the 2 that I am missing?
Like literally everything. The Communists and the Nazis are pretty much the biggest archenemies in world history. In Hitler's first month in power, the first thing he did was take out the Communists, long before he took out the Jews.
Posted on 8/5/18 at 12:06 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Right, but Marxists also believe that in order to reach the communist phase, it must be under the dictatorship of the proletariat in socialism. Engels in particular was quite explicit about the socialist view of authoritarianism, and both Marx and Engels viewed socialism as the necessary state before full communism.
So basically just what I said
Posted on 8/5/18 at 12:15 pm to Antonio Moss
You did say I was confused, as though I didn't know the difference between the socialist and communist phases. In the common parlance, Marxism generally refers to the socialist phase, and not the communist one. I could have been specific and made distinctions between Marxist-Leninists, Left Communists or any of the other varieties, but Marxist-Socialism describes all of them. The only distinction that should be made, in my view, is the one between the anarchist and Marxist factions, as the former was explicitly anti-authoritarian.
Posted on 8/5/18 at 12:19 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
You did say I was confused, as though I didn't know the difference between the socialist and communist phases.
You stated that Socialism was not totalitarian. That’s objectively wrong.
quote:
In the common parlance, Marxism generally refers to the socialist phase, and not the communist one.
I disagree.
Posted on 8/5/18 at 12:39 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
You stated that Socialism was not totalitarian. That’s objectively wrong.
No, I said Marxism was authoritarian, which it is in its socialist phase, and explicitly so. You said it was totalitarian. I've never used the word in this thread.
quote:
I disagree.
For many Marxist thinkers like Gramsci, Negri, the various French philosophers who have written about Marxism, and the numerous Marxist Feminists, nearly all of them speak of Marxism in its socialist phase, and not the communist (and also utopian) version. Even Structural Marxists and Humanistic Marxists were obsessed with the state power, and the conditions of revolution, rather than the post-revolutionary world. Because the socialist phase is focused on revolutions, it was the primary concern of Leninists and Left-Communists as well. In general, modern Marxists are concerned with the socialist phase.
Posted on 8/5/18 at 12:41 pm to memphis tiger
quote:
Naziism and Communism are not very different ideologies both a variation of left wing socialist totalitarianism.
lmfao are you retarded
Posted on 8/5/18 at 12:42 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
In general, modern Marxists are concerned with the socialist phase.
Only because it’s first.
“Marxism,” in political circles refers to the entire system, collision, and resolution of class warfare.
Socialism gets the most attention because it’s never progressed and it’s the primary step past capitalism.
Posted on 8/5/18 at 12:56 pm to Antonio Moss
Which is why in the common parlance, in academic circles, by the people who write about Marxism, that the communist phase is almost never mentioned, and the term Marxism is most commonly used as a stand-in for the socialist phase. The Marxist literature overwhelmingly is obsessed with the socialist phase and not the communist phase. If the Marxist literature, written by self-professed Marxists, is obsessed with the socialist phase, sometimes making distinctions that they aren't referring to the communist phase, that much of Marxist dialogue occurs as though there isn't a communist phase at all, and that the important phase is the socialist phase, then my use of Marxism to describe the socialistic phase is pretty much in keeping with how Marxists use the term itself. I've read plenty of Marxists, and the communist phase is so rarely mentioned that it might as well be ignored. Part of the reason for this is the obsession with revolution, both potential and actual revolution. It's rare to find a major work in the Marxist philosophy that does consider the communist phase, which also makes it different from Anarcho-Communists, who have much more literature about what their communist phase (their only phase) would look like.
Posted on 8/5/18 at 1:16 pm to memphis tiger
quote:
Was it just ego that would not let them work together as both wanted total control. Or is there some underlying political difference between the 2 that I am missing?
The Nationalist, racial component is the difference. Communism was based on class struggle whereas National Socialism was a nation, racial based movement. The Nazis were not against industry, the mercantile class, and respected private property. They were not overtly hostile to the old aristocracy and tolerated the Church. Communism was a viewed as a worldwide movement of the proletariate against the old order.
Posted on 8/5/18 at 1:20 pm to memphis tiger
Actually, it was not so much about different political ideology as it was expansionism goals by both countries. Hitler wanted access and control of Russia's natural resources. He knew he had to have oil, coal and iron ore to feed his war effort.
Russia wanted all Eastern Europe's people and manpower.
Hitler could have cared less about the people and the manpower ... he just wanted the resources.
They were notsomuch different, politically, in the overall scheme of things.
Russia wanted all Eastern Europe's people and manpower.
Hitler could have cared less about the people and the manpower ... he just wanted the resources.
They were notsomuch different, politically, in the overall scheme of things.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News