 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
The big corps thought they bought a puppet and got something they couldn't control. It's as simple as that. |
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Bingo (LC's post)!
Big business was backing the Nazis, but Hitler got into power and decided to go for the entire pie on his own. Of course the leaders of business decided quickly to become full fledged members in the Nazi Party so they could continue to function as they had. |
Except, for quite a while, they did control the Nazis. Obviously my "How high" comment should be taken as the hyperbole it was, but once in power, the Nazis prostrated themselves before big capital, using the state to give big capital whatever it wanted.
Of course, there was a quid pro quo. Leading Nazis got to associate with the ruling class and style themselves as members of it (which was exceedingly distasteful to the ruling class, but it was something with which they had to put up), and become members of it by seizing the property of leading Jews and other undesireables. Had the Nazis atually tried to carry out their "Second Revolution," the Wermacht would have stepped in and removed the Nazis from power.
Of course, with the power of the state under their control, the Nazis did have recourse to ultimate power (no, not Ninjas  ) as long as the military remained loyal at any rate, so in that sense, big capital was subordinate to the state, just as it is in the United States. The state, however, chooses not to excercize that power and instead subordinates itself to the capitalist class (for a number of reasons we won't go into).
Individual capitalists may find themselves on the wrong side of the state, if they are undesirable (Jews, etc) or if they engage in behavior which is harmful to the capitalist class as a whole (Enron, Worldcom, etc). When they threaten to bring down the whole system with their greed, the state reluctantly steps in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
techumseh
|
 |
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999
time: 22:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wycoff
Hitler purged the SA for a variety of reasons. One of the foremost was to assuage concerns held by the Wehrmacht that the SA would absorb the Wehrmacht and Röhm would take control of them. To avert a military coup, Hitler showed his devotion to the Wehrmacht by killing some problematic SA leaders.
Another reason for the purge was to rid the party of possible rivals. Hitler feared that Röhm, with the support of the SA, could overthrow Hitler and assume the role of Führer. Hitler thus weakened the SA, both through the purge and through the creation of the SS.
Yet another reason was because Röhm and other high profile SA men were homosexuals. This was extremely distasteful to many leading Nazis, and provided another useful excuse for killing these men. |
One of the best sources on this period is William Shirer, who is not particularly a left winger. His book, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" does indicate that the Wehrmacht was unhappy about Roehms' plan to merge the SA and the army and that Hitler wanted to ensure the support of the Wehrmacht. So that part is correct.
However, he goes on to say that there was no real threat to Hitler from Roehm or the SA. This was fabricated as a justification. Ditto the "homeosexual" rationale.
"These things Hitler had not only tolerated, but defended. ... Now on June 30, 1934, he professed to be shocked by the moral degeneration of some of his oldest lieutenants." (R&FTR - p.225)
Most importantly, Shirer quotes Hitler's account to the Reichstag of his last confrontation with Roehm: "I informed him that I had the impression from countless rumors and numerous declarations of faithful old party members and S.A. leaders that conscienceless elements wre preparing a national Bolshevist action that could bring nothing but untold misfortune to Germany. ... I implored him for the last time to voluntarily abandon this madness and instead to lend his authority to prevent a development that, in any event, could only end in disaster." (R&FTR - p.216)
quote:
Yeah, but those features aren't what made Germany and Italy Fascist. Those traits that you listed are also traits of conservative, non-Fascist movements. Fascism is not conservatism. There are key traits that Fascists have that conservatives don't. Here are some general examples: the promise of a utopian future, the goal of creating an idealized "new man," a dedication to scientific development, the subordination (and eventual destruction) of religion, exhalting war for war's sake, emphazizing the collective above the individual, and coming to power because of a broad based mass movement. |
The traits that I listed are decidedly NOT characteristic of conservative, non-fascist movements. Conservatives to not routinely eliminate trade unions and left wing parties by force - fascists do. Conservatives do not use state control of the economy to benefit big business - fascists do. Conservatives do not take direct control of media and educational systems in order to propagandize the population - fascists do. Conservatives do not resort to systematic terror in order to silence critics and persecute scapegoats - fascists do.
I must say I am stunned by the passive silence of the conservatives on this forum in the face of Wycoff's slander of conservatives. I don't think you resemble his description at all. Do you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
My criticism of marxism is the whole concept of historical determinism based on economics. First, culture is ofter a major driving force in history, and is not necissarily associated with economics, second, Marx, using this deterministic Hegelian hypothesis, makes a prediction of what is going to happen in the future (the triumph of Communism). |
What I find interesting is that what you think you know about Marxism is so very wrong, and yet, as an aspiring biologist, you see in reality the same things Marxism attmepts to describe. You know that you cannot understand an animal by taking a snapshot of it and examining it only at that point in its life. You need to learn about its conception, birth, rearing, adult life, and how it dies.
Marxism examines society in the same way. You could no more point at an adult lion and say, "That's all there is to being a lion," than you could point at the writings of Adam Smith and say, "that's all there is to capitalism." Understanding the development is the dialectical method, not some rediculous tripe invented by a professor jealous of Hegel's popularity about traids. 
When you examine an animal, of key importance is how the animal is produced, how it feeds itself and what it eats, and how it reproduces. An animal that fails to do any of these things dies and becomes extinct. No matter what quirks or peculiarities it may have, no matter what new behavior it may have learned, it must still do those three key things.
Human society is the same way. We have to eat. We have to have shelter. We have to produce and raise new humans. That is what economics is about at its most fundimental. The particulars of each culture may differ in substantial ways, but we are animals, and we have to fulfil our animals needs before we can start worrying about invisible friends, what color to wear, etc. A society which fails to consider its economic base does so at its peril. The case of the Aztecs is instructive.
Aztec religion required human sacrifice, lots of it. As the Aztecs conquored Mexico, they required the conquest to provide tribute, human and material. Like Rome, Tenochtitlan was built upon slavery. It required the tribute of conquored provinces to feed its gorwing population. As they sacrificed more of their subjects, however, less and less food reached the capital, because there were less and less producers. Obviously, the gods were punishing them, so the sacrifices increased, and if the Spaniards are to be believed, tens of thousands were slaughtered to try and appease the gods and make the city prosper again. Of course it did just the opposite. The lesson, of course, is when culture undermines the economy, the whole society collapses. This isn't the only example. We could look to the Maya, the Ottomans, the Romans, etc.
This does not mean that crude monetary decisions determin every aspect of life in a society, despite what crude critics of Marxism might say we claim. When Ottoman Sultans built free hostels across their empire for travelors to stay in because God commanded it it had an economic effect. It enabled trade within the empire to expand and flow more easily. Was that the reason it was done? No. It was a religious duty to take care of travelors. But it's still economic.
The interweaving of religion, culture, nationality, ideology, economics, etc. is very complex, and neither Marx nor Engels ever insisted that society was like a great machine with economics controling all the cogs. Economics is the foundation upon which society is built. If it's weak, society crumbles; if it's strong, society flourishes.
I think Engels says it best, so I'll let the old man speak for himself and his comrade.
quote:
[T]here is only one other point lacking, which, however, Marx and I always failed to stress enough in our writings and in regard to which we are all equally guilty. That is to say, we all laid, and were bound to lay, the main emphasis, in the first place, on the derivation of political, juridical and other ideological notions, and of actions arising through the medium of these notions, from basic economic facts. But in so doing we neglected the formal side—the ways and means by which these notions, etc., come about—for the sake of the content. This has given our adversaries a welcome opportunity for misunderstandings. . . . |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The interweaving of religion, culture, nationality, ideology, economics, etc. is very complex, and neither Marx nor Engels ever insisted that society was like a great machine with economics controling all the cogs. |
quote:
The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness |
From Marx's "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:24
|
|
Ramo - it's your own fault if you let random people search your bags.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
What are you doing, looking for a signle word which validates your misconceptions?
quote:
It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness. |
Where does this say that economics controls everything else?
And your quote from Wage, Labor, and Capital only says that it is how society organizes production that determines what type of society it is. That is sociology 101.
quote:
Let's see some quotes which support the idea that Marx held a subtle or nuanced view on the role of culture. For what it's worth, I think you're trying to bootstrap modern views onto him. |
I already quoted Engels.
quote:
[T]here is only one other point lacking, which, however, Marx and I always failed to stress enough in our writings and in regard to which we are all equally guilty. That is to say, we all laid, and were bound to lay, the main emphasis, in the first place, on the derivation of political, juridical and other ideological notions, and of actions arising through the medium of these notions, from basic economic facts. But in so doing we neglected the formal side—the ways and means by which these notions, etc., come about—for the sake of the content. This has given our adversaries a welcome opportunity for misunderstandings. . . . |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by techumseh
The traits that I listed are decidedly NOT characteristic of conservative, non-fascist movements. Conservatives to not routinely eliminate trade unions and left wing parties by force - fascists do. Conservatives do not use state control of the economy to benefit big business - fascists do. Conservatives do not take direct control of media and educational systems in order to propagandize the population - fascists do. Conservatives do not resort to systematic terror in order to silence critics and persecute scapegoats - fascists do.
I must say I am stunned by the passive silence of the conservatives on this forum in the face of Wycoff's slander of conservatives. I don't think you resemble his description at all. Do you? |
Modern conservatives in liberal democratic systems don't do this. However, pre-war, interwar, and post war authoritarian conservatives did and still do all these things. Look at Central American history.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by techumseh
You are just reclassifying regimes according to your own subjective definition. We need a definition based on how a government sits in relation to various classes and groups in society, in whose interests it acts and how it behaves.
The problem with your and Imran's subjective definition, is that fascism has changed. The features of fascism you use to define it no longer exist - they were temporary and secondary. So according to your definition, fascism itself has ceased to exist - a very convenient conclusion for some, a very dangerous conclusion for the rest of us. |
No, we're using the definition that's accepted by most historians/ politcal philosophers. While there's not 100% consensus, the majority of academics agree with Imran and myself.
That conclusion doesn't mean that Fascism is permanently locked in the past. The Ba'ath party was pretty Fascist, and it is often argued that the various Talibanesque regimes are modern offshoots of clerical fascism. There are small groups, such as the American Nation of Islam, that are surviving Fascist parties (even if they don't admit it). Fascism isn't prevalent now, but it's not dead. A new Fascism could rise up if the right conditions are met.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
|
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Where does this say that economics controls everything else? |
It's a clarification of the preceding sentence. If you take the two together, it's clear what he means. I doubt Marx has ever said that economics controls everything else - that implies a controller, and he considered history to be impersonal.
quote:
And your quote from Wage, Labor, and Capital only says that it is how society organizes production that determines what type of society it is. That is sociology 101. |
It also says that means of production are what defines societies throughout history. You could just as easily define them along political lines, if you wished.
As for the Engels quote, whilst you see subtlety, I see backtracking in the face of criticism. They were political activists as well as theorists, so it's no surprise they modified the harsh stance expressed by the Communist Manifesto as needs required. Marx, in a speech in Amsterdam:
"You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries - such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps add Holland - where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means."
Here he explicitly admits that revolution is unnecessary (!) and also isn't exactly dripping with historical materialism either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
techumseh
|
|
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999
time: 22:24
|
|
Wycoff:
Whether or not your claim that "the majority of academics agree with Imran and myself", is true or not, it's not a valid argument.
Let's take a few of the characteristics you use to define fascism:
the promise of a utopian future,
the goal of creating an idealized "new man,"
emphazizing the collective above the individual,
And let's ask how this might affect someone's actual conditions of life. They might be fooled into believing some or all of these, thereby giving some support to the regime. Placing the collective above the individual will only apply to the lower classes, in actual practice the very rich get even wealthier under fascist regimes. None of these things really tell us much about how someone's life will be affected, in a practical way, by fascism.
The thing these things have in common is that they are idealogical. They merely serve to legitimize what is going on under the regime. They don't explain what is actually going on.
On the other hand, if we define a type of government by the following things:
elimination of trade unions and left wing parties by force,
using state control of the economy to benefit big business,
taking direct control of media and educational systems in order to propagandize the population,
resorting to systematic terror in order to silence critics and persecute scapegoats,
- we get a very good idea what's going on in the society and how people might be affected by it.
quote:
Enriching big business wasn't a goal on the Nazi agenda ... any big business enrichment was a side effect |
This just strikes me as incredibly naive. Such a huge transfer of wealth to the rich and powerful - a side effect, an unintended consequence. Really.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
It's a clarification of the preceding sentence. If you take the two together, it's clear what he means. |
Yes, he means that the way people get food, shelter, and make the next generation is the real basis of society. Only a great idiot would ignore that. That this foundation is what ultimately underlies everything else in society. As in the example of the Aztecs, a culture which undermines its economic basis fails.
Anthropology also shows us that the way peoples think about the world has a great deal to do with the way they produce their means of life. Ancient religion was organized around hunting and agriculture. It's no accident that all of the major religions in the Northern hemisphere have holidays at almost the exact same time. For example, Easter / Passover / etc. is the planting holiday. Nearly all the ancient religions structures were developed in order to chart the stars and sun.
quote:
It also says that means of production are what defines societies throughout history. You could just as easily define them along political lines, if you wished. |
If you wished, but in order to understand capitalism you wouldn't do that. It would be like saying, well you can classify dogs by color when someone says that there are certain catagories of dogs defined by their functions. Why terriers, hounds, etc. when we can say yellow, black, etc. It's a meaningless distinction for a particular conversation.
quote:
As for the Engels quote, whilst you see subtlety, I see backtracking in the face of criticism. |
It was in a private letter to a follower, Franz Mehring. Engels wouldn't need to backtrack for him. There are more letters which say the same thing, but I can't find them yet, because it's been over a decade since I'm had to drag them out. I think I've likely read substantially more Marx & Engels than you, so it's a lot easier for me to understand his overall body of work, while you just look for choice quotes to support your theory.
quote:
They were political activists as well as theorists, so it's no surprise they modified the harsh stance expressed by the Communist Manifesto as needs required. |
The Manifesto was a political tract produced on the eve of a continent wide coming revolution. You need to learn to distinguish between Marx's political rhetoric and his acutal scientific and philosophical writings.
quote:
Marx, in a speech in Amsterdam:
"You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries - such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps add Holland - where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means."
Here he explicitly admits that revolution is unnecessary (!) and also isn't exactly dripping with historical materialism either. |
No, he doesn't do that. In the full text, Marx is saying that where the state is not fully developed, America, England, etc., i.e., it might be possible for workers to take power be electoral means. At that time, these countries had no secret police, no large standing armies, etc. There was no means by which an electoral victory could be suppressed. That day passed long ago.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-09-2005 05:44
:ghippie:
|