[RD] Why y'all always trying to defend Nazis?

[Kyriakos]

This is going nowhere.

And personally i wish there were less threads on US politics. OT is probably not even half USian, and isn't supposed to be so political.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Welcome to a RD thread, everyone. This is not a playground and this is not the House of Commons. Strict moderation will now be applied from this point on. Anyone who doesn't know what that entails yet is welcome to find out by continuing with the persistently low-quality posting.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[innonimatu]

The problem is, I think, that you are perceived as trying to deny the consequences of more recent slavery in the way you routinely counter with examples that have long since been redressed or are at least beyond any means of redress. Slavery in the US led directly to segregation in the US, which created repressed communities that still exist today that have never been able to catch up.

So, yeah, we get it. The poor picked on Europeans only got the good end of the stick over the last few centuries and they did some time in the barrel too. What of it?

Then let's talk about more recent slavery, shall we? Tell me, what do you think of the contemporary reintroduction of slave markets in Libya, courtesy of the intervention there by the US, french and UK governments along with their minor NATO lackeys?
Libya actually offered employment to these people - before it was destroyed for the offense of getting too developed and possibly getting other african countries to escape neo-colonial domination. And lots of people in "the west" cheered the destruction of Libya as a victory for "human rights". Yeah...

SC described being 'bought' and then being brought to his first 'prison', a private home where more than 100 migrants were held as hostages.

He said the kidnappers made the migrants call their families back home, and often suffered beatings while on the phone so that their family members could hear them being tortured. In order to be released from this first house, SC was asked to pay 300,000 CFA (about USD 480), which he couldn’t raise. He was then 'bought' by another Libyan, who brought him to a bigger house – where a new price was set for his release: 600,000 CFA (about USD 970), to be paid via Western Union or Money Gram to someone called 'Alhadji Balde', said to be in Ghana.

SC managed to get some money from his family via mobile phone and then agreed to work as an interpreter for the kidnappers, to avoid further beatings. He described dreadful sanitary conditions, and food offered only once per day. Some migrants who couldn’t pay were reportedly killed, or left to starve to death.

And now a few hard questions:
- to those who decry the way the lands of america were taken by immigrants as a past wrong: how can you at the same time defend the entrance of "illegal immigrants" into a territory?? Or the moral obligation of, say Europe to take in any and all immigrants that attempt to reach it? Did not the american natives resist immigration by settlers, who would compete with them for resources? If that was legitimate, and the settlers were in the wrong morally, how is it illegitimate that "natives" of Europe or the US now resist the entrance of immigrants, or even want them deported? Either natives have primacy, or immigrants have: you cannot have one be intrinsically morally right in one situation (the conquest of america by european settlers, crushing any opposition by natives), and intrinsically morally wrong on another (the contemporary political demands by natives - citizens - of the US or whatever countries block the influx of immigrants).
- to all, how do you stand on this: are you comfortable with opening the borders to any and everyone, or do you prefer to place blocks on the way of those people, including paying off warlords and nasty governments in the territories on their path, or looking the other way when they drown or starve in the way?

Don't try to evade the issue: other solutions can be found in the long term, like trying to help their home countries to develop instead of periodically wrecking them (the Balkans, Libya Iraq, Syria...). But the issue in the present is one of blocking migrant flows by whatever means are effective (otherwise you're not actually blocking them), or letting them in.

I'm tired to stinking heaven of the hypocrisy I find in opinion pieces, public discussions, and political positions about these issues! And this is relevant, because the so-called "nazis" now are mostly made up of people opposed to immigrations, who then get dragged down into silly right-wing ideologies because they are pushed into the arms of the peddlers of such ideologies as those are the ones who appear most vocal about "doing something about immigrations". And the reality of this issue (hence the hypocrisy), as far as I can see, is that everyone seems to be opposed to the kind of immigrations that is personally disadvantageous to him/herself.
Generally speaking (each person is different, of course) in poor countries the population mostly does not care about immigrants, except if the come from an even poorer country (see Haiti and the Dominican Republic), of if they are professionals and traders who take up the top jobs and push the natives around (see pretty much every colonial rebellion).
In wealthy countries the dirty poor don't have any reason to care. The poor and middle class don't want unqualified immigrants coming in and competing for their jobs. The professional upper-middle class want "freedom of movement" (open borders) to chase the highest wages in whatever country, and to be able to hire servants even while not being dirty rich. And the dirty rich don't need to care also.
I live in a country that doesn't got get much immigrations, and also has a fair share of emigrants. Most people here don't care. But I have no illusions that they would care, if the country was wealthier and attracting more immigrants. And I actually respect the motives of those that oppose "illegal immigrations", and even those who oppose certain forms of legal one like job visas.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you are looking for a USA#1 rah rah rah apologist you'll need to look elsewhere. On the flip side, the whole "we need a guard dog to keep us from killing each other, and whenever we and our guard dog make a mistake we get to take no responsibility and look down our 'true' European noses at them" leaves me really wondering why I bothered with that whole cold war thing. Europe might not have been happy as a bunch of Soviet satellites, but Europeans may have been a bit less insufferable.

 

[aelf]

I've said this in this thread over and over again. Words are not violence. Violence is violence. Nazi Germany was engaging in violence. I've never been 100% pacifist, I do approve violence in legitimate self-defence or defence of others

As I mentioned earlier, I did a little thought experiment here about the creation of a de-militarised fascist state. Few people thought that such a thing is even theoretically possible, or that fascists would remain peaceful for long.

So violence against fascists is quite reasonably in legitimate defence of others, if not self-defence.

 

[Lexicus]

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make. If you think I'm justifying the holocaust, say it to my face like a man.

It's not that you're actively justifying it, more that you aren't demonstrating to anyone else in the thread that you have a thought process that would enable you to live through a current event like the Holocaust, stop and say "hold on, this is wrong, we need to fight this!" This is troubling, to say the least, but it's something I've noticed about right-wingers and conservatives for many years now.

Moderator Action: Using blanket condemnations of any political hemisphere is corrosive to good discussion and is not acceptable at CFC. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[luiz]

It's not that you're actively justifying it, more that you aren't demonstrating to anyone else in the thread that you have a thought process that would enable you to live through a current event like the Holocaust, stop and say "hold on, this is wrong, we need to fight this!" This is troubling, to say the least, but it's something I've noticed about right-wingers and conservatives for many years now.

I don't see how that's a valid conclusion. I said (many times) that I don't condone or justify any atrocity, enslavement, what have you. I just pointed out how wrong and cartoonish the narrative of history = "evil Europeans enslaving and oppressing everyone else" is. I mean, clearly many posters here had never heard of Barbary or Ottoman slavery, which were massive and contemporary of the transatlantic one. I don't see how informing them of this fact constitutes a mindset that would be OK with the holocaust. It just reveals the cartoonish and uber-simplified verision of history that is peddled nowadays.

 

[Senethro]

There are lots of slaveries to choose from but you always politely remind people of that one. I'm not sure you're providing useful historical context or actually interested in doing so.

 

[luiz]

There are lots of slaveries to choose from but you always politely remind people of that one. I'm not sure you're providing useful historical context or actually interested in doing so.

I actually pointed to two different ones. They are instructive because Europeans were big victims of those slaveries, and indeed their scale and time-frame are entirely comparable to the transatlantic slave trade. So if my goal is to demonstrate that a view of history that places Europeans as oppressors and everyone else as victims is wrong, they are perfect examples. The "agenda" is quite transparent here. But note that it does not constitue a justification of anything, far from it.

Note that reminding people that until the 19th century Europeans were still routinely enslaved by non-Europeans also serves to demolish the white supremacist narrative of history.

 

[Senethro]

Note that reminding people that until the 19th century Europeans were still routinely enslaved by non-Europeans also serves to demolish the white supremacist narrative of history.

How so?

 

[luiz]

How so?

The fact that millions of members of the "master race" were enslaved by Africans and turks as late as the 19th Century would poke some holes on their theories, no?

 

[Senethro]

Again, how so? White supremacy is obviously false, but as an ideology it has endured. The ideology doesn't stop existing or being acted upon just because it is false.

Purely as an tangent, I'm curious as to how the existence of european slaves means that white supremacy doesn't exist. As in, the exact string of reasoning you're following.

 

[luiz]

Again, how so? White supremacy is obviously false, but as an ideology it has endured. The ideology doesn't stop existing or being acted upon just because it is false.

Purely as an tangent, I'm curious as to how the existence of european slaves means that white supremacy doesn't exist. As in, the exact string of reasoning you're following.

Eh?
I didn't say white supremacy doesn't exist as an ideology. I said white supremacists do not like to talk about how whites were in the past defeated and even enslaved by non-whites. This is the sort of stuff that would not be taught in Nazi schools. This fact is clearly against the ideology of white supremacy, so talking about it is also against white supremacy, not for it.

 

[Senethro]

Cool. My apologies then I read too much into this line earlier.

So if my goal is to demonstrate that a view of history that places Europeans as oppressors and everyone else as victims is wrong, they are perfect examples.

 

[inthesomeday]

I had certainly heard of the Barbary and Ottoman slave trades. I just wasn't aware of their apparent scale. I still think, however, that the modern analysis of society unshakably arrives at the conclusion that global white supremacy is an institutional problem, in a way no other racism is.

 

[Красный Комиссар]

It's true that they claim a de jure statehood, but from what I've read the Leftists there are highly decentralized and are managing to fight based on disorganized urban guerilla tactics, with an essentially insurrectionist strategy. This may not be the case, however, you surely would be more able to describe it than I. How is it like in reality?

Sorry comrade, I could not answer earlier.


The leftists in the Donbass are scattered, but the reason is that they were not united in Ukraine before. It's a long story.

Military detachments were formed on the basis of the principle of attitude towards a coup d'état (Maydan). Supporters of the coup are on one side, opponents on the other. At the same time, attitudes toward political preferences were less significant. For example, the hero of Novorossia Igor Strelkov is a monarchist, his ideology is even closer to fascism. But he fought against the Maidan-fascists, then it was more important. Now in one unit you can meet atheists and very religious people, right and left. They are united by hatred for the Maidan and the junta.


Concerning tactics. Dombas is very specific. 95% of the population live in cities (there is essentially a huge urban agglomeration). But the terrain where the fighting is going consists mainly of low-rise brick and concrete buildings in the cities. Partly countryside (the village on the Donbass is a small brick house and many small household buildings on a small piece of fenced territory) are partly fighting in the field.

The fields also have specific features - rectangular areas about 1 mile wide are separated by narrow forest belts along which the road goes. The rest is steppe.

We have had a Civil War once before, and it was fought without much infrastructural damage because the victorious side had a massive economic and logistical advantage. Should Civil War happen again, we shall be careful not to damage our infrastructure, as we have been quite conscious of throughout our history.

The civil war in the United States was very, very long time ago. Now they do not fight like that. In the civil war on the Donbas (this comes back to the question of tactics) ~ 85% of the loss falls on artillery fire. Such are the realities of modern warfare. The soldier has more chances to perish than to see the enemy. The destruction of infrastructure at the same time is enormous.

Given that according to the latest data in the United States, the largest number of barrel artillery and most buildings are very fragile - theoretically your civil war will lead to the shooting of cities by artillery. (it's not because I think your military is bloodthirsty, it's because this type of combat for the military is the simplest and minimizes losses among the military themselves, and civilian casualties are not a problem for the state, they can be called terrorists, separatists, enemy agents. .. Anyone ... The Ukrainian government has been doing this for 3.5 years without problems.)

So I would not in your place have hoped for the preservation of infrastructure and historical monuments.

Maybe in a very, very small way. I should certainly say that economic collapse and political instability were more significant factors.

Еconomic collapse and political instability were before the coup, but the Donbas from Ukraine did not separate (unlike the Crimea, the Crimeans tried to separate in the early 1990s). in western Ukraine there is almost no industry, unemployment there is even higher, but they also do not separate.The main reason is political. In the Donbass most people differed from the inhabitants of the rest of Ukraine.
1. These are industrial workers.
2 Russians by nationality.
3 Many Communists.
Propaganda of the Maidanovites drew these three factors as an absolute evil (including industry!) Residents of the Donbass were portrayed as second-class people, they did not want to be untermens, so they separated. Similarly, in the United States they want to show the Confederates (in any case, it looks like it from the outside).

Yes but in those days the Soviet meant something very different from what it eventually became in the 60s-80s. They were workers councils that more closely resembled a commune than a state, no?

In Russia there was a community in the pre-revolutionary era. It was a very archaic system, the tsarist government and the Soviet government fought against it. The community you are writing about is a more forthcoming phenomenon, a collective of collective and state farms. There, too, everything was not perfect, I saw it live.
But these communities were part of the state, supported by the state and the state supported them. (the capitalist state, for example, supports the big companies) The collective farm is a cooperative integrated into the agricultural system. The state gave the collective farm a plan - what and how much to grow. Guaranteed bought products. Sold at a bargain price equipment, fuel, trained specialists. Without a state and a plan (one for the whole country) this is immaterial. After the destruction of the USSR, the collective farms plundered the former members of these collective farms for 10 years.
By itself, such a self-organized community can plow the field, build a farm. But it can not self-reproduce doctors, scientists, build large factories, factories, etc. Not the scale.

The state is not necessarily the only way to organize leadership in human society. In fact I disagree that leadership should be organized at all.

If you need an example of self-organization - try to organize a community with a group of like-minded people. There are many such examples throughout the world. The results are very different. If it does not work, there will be experience. If possible, there will be a base for meetings of like-minded people, conducting exercises, etc.

Another option is to educate compatriots. If what they show about America - you have a ghetto in your country where low-educated citizens live. In tsarist Russia, this also happened. Even worse. Known revolutionaries go to these people, dressed like them, lived with them and taught them.

ps:
If you can, tell about the ghetto in America. We have no such phenomenon in our country. The fact that they show on TV does not cause confidence.
- How do people get there?
- Why do not they organize themselves and do not induce order there?
- How does the government fight this?

 

[Traitorfish]

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make. If you think I'm justifying the holocaust, say it to my face like a man.

I don't think that you're justifying the Holocaust, but I think you're making dangerous moves towards normalising it.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: This discussion about whether someone or other is justifying, normalizing, or otherwise accepting of the holocaust will stop here and now.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Yeekim]

Not really. The aristocracy had been abolished before the Terror, and the Assembly had already provided for the appropriation of seigneurial and church lands. The Great Terror was about protecting the Revolution from real and imagined "counter-revolutionaries", it wasn't supposed to effect social change in and of itself. Nobody actually believes that you can bring about democracy just by guillotining viscounts.


In 1848, when he wrote the Manifesto, sure. But Jacobinism was already in decline as a political philosophy by the Revolutions of 1848, and irrelevant by the 1870s. His audience could no longer be assumed to be familiar with the tenants of a political current that was last relevant in their grandfather's day, any more than we'd expect the average Occupy Wall Street-attendee to be familiar with the tenants of the the Communist Party c.1950. "Terror" just isn't something that mid-to-late nineteenth century socialists spent a lot of time talking about, outside of a few fringe anarchist circles and, again, Russia.

I gave up answering back then, but this fits just too perfectly.

 

[Traitorfish]

I gave up answering back then, but this fits just too perfectly.

It's not really an issue of semantics. Marx meant more or less the same thing as the Jacobins or Bolsheviks when he talked about terror and dictatorship (even if he might have imagined a different set of political mechanisms.) My point is just that he didn't spend a lot of time talking about them, and that he didn't give them a central place in his political thought. If he had, it would have difficult if not impossible for the mild-mannered trade union bureaucrats of the German social democratic movement to adopt him as their official theorist.