babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » "students still see hitler..."

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: "students still see hitler..."
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 16 June 2002 09:53 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was just looking through specs and reports to prepare myself for my history rewrite, and i read in the report that was sent to teachers "students still see hitler as a communist". My first thought is the association between stalin and hitler, but then i kinda realised that it's probably because kids are still taught that communism=evil, and hitler=evil. any thoughts?
From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 17 June 2002 03:11 AM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ummm...communism is evil! Ever met anybody who lived in Eastern Europe?
From: Kingston, Jamaica.....oh alright....Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 17 June 2002 09:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you mean that this is something that is sent to teachers NOW - that they should teach children that Hitler was a communist? Or do you mean you found historical documents where teachers in the past were instructed to tell their students that Hitler is a communist?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 17 June 2002 09:22 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It simply means that they're not learning History.
Anything that happened 'before I was born' = 'the olden days'. In the 'olden days', they had bad stuff like communism, Hitler and slavery, and cool stuff, like long dresses, Abe Lincoln and Elvis.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 17 June 2002 09:47 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
spindoctor: Ummm...communism is evil! Ever met anybody who lived in Eastern Europe?
Yes, myself. I lived in Hungary for 27 years before moving to Canada. For a *realistic* evaluation, see here.

Before making meaningless blanket statements such as the one I quoted, it helps to define the word 'communism' and understand the difference between theory and slogans.

It also helps to define what 'evil' is and then see how much of it is shared between countries of different political pretenses

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: Zatamon ]


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 17 June 2002 09:59 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uh, i should have made that clearer. What I meant was that there was a report given to teachers last this semester saying, under "problem areas" is that in their essays, students think that Hitler had something to do with "communist" Germany. What I was asking was if other people have ideas about why that is. My theory is that people have been taught (not so much in school anymore) that communism and Hitler are both evil, and so, people (esp. people raised in the US during the cold war) think that they are directly related.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: wizkid ]


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 18 June 2002 06:47 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's a fairly subtle difference really so it's not surprising students (or anyone else) get confused about it because the difference is more in the ideas behind the real Third Reich and "communist" states than between the actual states themselves. There's not much difference to be found between people being whisked off the street and disappeared by the NKVD or being whisked off the street and disappeared by the Gestapo. There are commonalities between totalitarian states that make it hard to superficially distinguish among them.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 18 June 2002 10:23 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's not as subtle as all that. And i don't for a second believe that American high-school students think in terms of people being disappeared (yet). They just haven't been taught which means what and where it happened, and if any effort was made to teach them, they weren't paying attention, 'cose it didn't involve basketball or sex.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 19 June 2002 10:59 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Very, very few high-school students understand the fundamentals of politics ANYWHERE (so, uh... so who is the President of Canada? ) and even fewer care about it enough to worry about learning it.

I can't wait to get to university...


From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 20 June 2002 09:57 AM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 20 June 2002 10:00 AM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
What's wrong with basketball or sex?

Are you implying that those students that are more athletic are somehow less important that sparts itself is less important?

As far as sex goes, I think if a few more people here had a bit more sex they's be less inclined to support radical ideas like communism, and just imagine if Palestinians and Israelis started having sex.


I have posted numerous times the fact that fascism/Nazism and communism/Stalinism are very similar, in fact a lot of the ideologies are identical.

Which is why for the life of me I cannot figure out how anyone could support either.


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 20 June 2002 10:43 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As far as sex goes, I think if a few more people here had a bit more sex they's be less inclined to support radical ideas like communism, and just imagine if Palestinians and Israelis started having sex.

SCOTN, today's posts from you have convinced me to put you in my /IGNORE box. Thank you for the needed push.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 20 June 2002 12:04 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How does that IGNORE thingy work? If I use it does it mean that posts from the person in question won't show up when I open any given thread?
From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 June 2002 12:08 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unfortunately, no, Arch. There's no twit filter on babble. All the "ignore" function does is stop that person from being able to send you private messages.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 20 June 2002 12:52 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Back to the thread topic...

Communism=evil
Hitler=evil
Islamism=evil
Orientals=evil
anti-WTO demonstrators=evil

...and the other side of the equation?

The propaganda system creates a two-valued logic in which anything opposed to "Good" (ie. "our side" however defined) is by nature "evil."

Compound the propaganda with an indifferent (or is it deliberate?) approach to educating the populace about history, and the resulting ignorance is to be expected.


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ValleyGirl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2315

posted 20 June 2002 12:55 PM      Profile for ValleyGirl        Edit/Delete Post
Too bad..No Twit control...Anyone who equates socialism with Nazism needs to buy a good dictionary...and maybe a sociology course?
From: Slocan;British Columbia | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 20 June 2002 12:57 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well' I *did* have a sort of boring and pedantic response to whizkids issue, sort of along the lines of the dumbing down of the humanities in general, "kids today,..." yadda yadda. Nothing new or original really.

Then I got to Sir Canucks post. Glad I didn't have coffee in my mouth, or I'd be cleaning off this screen right now.

Now just because I for one have never seen this particular cure for radicalism suggested, doesn't mean we should dimiss it out of hand. That would seem unfair.

Here's my suggestion. Those of us such as myself, who have taken the political compass test thus providing a measurable baseline, should engage in a highly accelerated level of sexual activity for ...oh say a year. The test would then be taken again to measure any movement to the right.

Wait a minute, we'll need a control group. Uh oh.
Volunteers?


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 20 June 2002 12:57 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm going to try some edu-ma-cation here...

SCOTN, check out this site. It explains a bit about communist/fascist ideology and lets you take a quiz to determine your politics (which you can skip and go straight to...) The analysis analyzes you and famous world leaders along a 2-axis system, one "Left-Right" axis for economic left/right (communism and neo-liberalism respectively) and a vertical axis for authoritarianism (fascism and anarchy). It lets you better compare/contrast people like Stalin and Hitler.
The other thing is that no matter how evil they are, SCOTN, it is just intolerably ignorant for a high-schooler to say that they are identical. Hell, they even fought against each other in WWII, which should make it easier for a country where most students have their favourite weapons in every category! (I speak from 1st hand experience here. )

[Edited because Oldgoat's simultaneous post required some editing of the first sentence. ]

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: SamL ]


From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 20 June 2002 01:13 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have just finished reading "Hitler's Pope" by John Cornwell. The thesis of the book, abundantly documented, is that Pope Pius the 12th supported the Nazi "pacification" of Germany, and Europe, by entering into a treaty, or a "Concordat" with
Hitler. The Concordat liquidated the Catholic Center Party of Germany on the basis that religion and politics don't mix. Hitler agreed not to interfere in actual church services as long as "politics" wasn't mentioned.

At the same time, Pope Pius XII threatened to excommunicate anyone who supported, or even voted for, the Communist Party.

Presumably, if they were "the same", there would be no basis for such different treatment.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 20 June 2002 01:49 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Na, that just means Pius didn't have enough sports and sex to educate him.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 20 June 2002 01:58 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
The sex comment was a joke but maybe most here are just to thick to see that, as for sports it is an important part of society and socialisation, Canada is obese maybe I just touched a nerve {probably hit one concerning sex too} and the comments I have seen about sports certainly smaks of elitism, my o' my more hypocrites.

And again, amd I have taken numerous Sociology and poli sci courses, and you can deny it all you want, the similarities between fascism and socialism far outweigh the differences, just look it up or better yet actually put your money were your mouth is and prove me wrong.

You can't.


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 20 June 2002 02:03 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are you sure about all those courses and did you finish them?
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 June 2002 02:11 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...the similarities between fascism and socialism far outweigh the differences...

Eureka!


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 20 June 2002 02:15 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 20 June 2002 02:42 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
Communism and Fascism are very similar in their political and economic approaches, with Communism you must give your cows to the government and they give you milk back. With fascism, you got to keep your cows and gave the milk to the government.
Both systems were command economies and state controlled.
Contingency plans were constantly drawn up and updated to fit new circumstances.
Communism means a scheme of equalising the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all. The means to achieve this is by collectivisation of all private property. Although meant to indicate the means of production, to be consistent communism requires that no individual may own anything exclusively, privately. Not the product of his work (thus his mind), nor any personal material benefit he may achieve as a result of it. All material is centralised and distributed by legislators, the intention being to achieve equal utility (of material) by all. Freedom of expression tends also to be mediated by the state for the same reasons and to maintain the 'integrity' of the collective.
In practice communism fails dismally. The only way it can be achieved is if every single member of a communist society is in absolute agreement with the above arrangement - and that the legislators are not open to corruption in the form of personal acquisition or favour.

Fascism is characterised by elements of pride in the nation, anti-Marxism, the complete rejection of parliamentary democracy, the cultivation of military virtues, strong government, and loyalty to a strong leader. Whereas in communism the individual is second to the society, in fascism the individual is second to the state or race. It is not 'right wing' per-se, but is virtually the same as national socialism (Nazism), it therefore shares much with Marxism in its view of mankind as a collective. We all know what can happen when sufficient people in a state are in eager support of national socialism, hence its widespread repulsion.

The resulting governments evolving from the two different systems of thought were very similar.

Sharing the same collective view of mankind as communism socialism is a political system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are mostly owned by the state, and used, at least in theory, on behalf of the people (whose 'good' is decided by the legislator). The idea behind socialism is that the capitalist system is intrinsically unfair, because it concentrates wealth in a few hands and does nothing to safeguard the overall welfare of the majority, this is fallacious. Under socialism, the state redistributes the wealth of society in a more equitable way, according to the judgement of the legislator.

Socialism is a system of expropriation of private property (regardless of how this was earned) in order to distribute it to various groups considered (by the legislator) to warrant it, usually the unemployed, ill, young and old and significantly, those with political pull. Since all property must be created before being distributed modern socialists allow some free market enterprise to exist in order to 'feed' from its production. This seems to admit that the free market is the best way to produce wealth.

Many people appear to have a very different idea about what is meant by capitalism. It is not a system of force imposed by people. It is a lack of such a system. It is what happens when people are free from the force of other people. In order to have people 'free' of the force of natural conditions something must be done to make those conditions better for mankind. That is exactly what people have been doing with the invention of the wheel, of machines, the production of energy and everything that followed. All of this is the product of mans mind, without it mankind is returned unprotected to nature. Capitalism itself forces nothing.

I see you are all as confused as these poor students.


As to this site http://www.politicalcompass.org/

It says:

We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left.

the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

Where do I stand?

Almost dead centre:

Economic Left/Right: 1.38
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -0.97


On the scale I am one down to the right and one to the right,IE: on a cartesian plane I am {1,-1} how many here can say that they fall nearly dead centre in all the political spectrums?


I'm quite proud to say that I am open to all points of view according to this test.
How many here can say they are that tolerant?
I can, can you?

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
MJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 441

posted 20 June 2002 02:58 PM      Profile for MJ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tolerance towards points of view without an ability to show simple respect to the people behind those views is as meaningful as owning a great book and never once opening the cover.

Taking the test results as objective fact, of course.


From: Around. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 20 June 2002 03:13 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
Tolerance for people whom espouse totaltarianism and communism? Whom also mix up the two former with fascism?

No one should be tolerant of such ideas and ideologies.

You would tolerate people whom back such authoritarian concepts?

These very ideolgies fly in the face of equality, freedom, and democracy.

I guess I am a "real" Liberal Social Democrat afterall according to this little test.

I wouldn't shake Stalin's hand anymore than I would Hitler's.

Speaking of which, as I have pointed out yet again the two ideologies are very similar, I'll take that appology now.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 20 June 2002 03:16 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's a question for the fascism=communism crowd.

Why do people of profascist views tend to end up in the Canadian Alliance rather than on the left?

I am thinking of Rob Anders, for example, who, while in high school, supported a "Fourth Reich" in Canada, complete with a near-swastika emblem.

Any sitting NDP member with a pro-nazi past? Or any person in Canada, at all, who has moved to the far left from the far right? Or vice versa?

If not, why not? What does it say about fascists that they tend to evolve into Alliance members?
And what does it say about the Alliance?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 20 June 2002 03:22 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
Probably the same thing it says about communists, the reason that one person is attracted to either party is due to economics.

In Canada we haven't had this drastic swing but in Europe we have seen once farleft political parties get wiped out almost over night by the far right, Pym Fortuyn was a left wing politician whom "jumped ship" and ended up in an ultra right wing party he was murdered by a left wing vegetarian.

Ralph Klein was a member of the Liberal party, but changed allegiances when he realised he couldn't win in Alberta as one, now he claims that he is more of an Alliance supporter, I am sure there are many others that have flip flopped for one reason or another.


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 20 June 2002 03:38 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SCOTN, being in the centre doesn't necessarily make you open-minded. I'd say that on the contrary, you are immune to ideas other than your own little world of thought located at (1, -1)

You quote the line about Hitler and Stalin being able to agree on anything but economics. That is the basis of your 'argument' that facism and communism (or socialism, same thing, right? ). Tell me, how important is a country's economy to its government? Which are the most influential Cabinet ministers? What is always talked about, and debated, and argued over in government, and amongst the rest of us? What "makes the world go 'round ?
Difference in economic policy is a big difference indeed.


From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 20 June 2002 03:47 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Arch, sorry for the misconception. I was referring to my mental /IGNORE box, which is quite effective.

I forgot to add the *plonk* at the end of my last post!

Edited to add: See, I learn something new everyday! I didn't figure SCOTN was capable of humour, so his attempt at it went right over my head. Silly me.

*plonk*

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 20 June 2002 03:49 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
Again you miss the boat.

Communism; you don't own your product and what you produce you give it to the gov.

In fascism you own the product but must give what you produce to the gov.

The differences are semantics.

There are a myriad of political websites that prove me right and you wrong, again about that appology.

Even the one I was told to look at proves me right, I am growing tired of provign you wrong so often, I don't enjoy it anymore than you must enjoy being proved so.

What is talked about all depends on whom you are, as for not being opened minded that is your opinion, but which is more opened minded a liberal social democrat or an authoritarian totaltarian, your argument is spurious.

To use another qoute:
"Just the facts and only the facts".

Try it. You might win an argument.


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 June 2002 03:58 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tell me, SCOTN. You've described yourself as a "liberal social democrat."

Now, if socialism is akin to fascism, to what is social democracy akin? Fascism Lite, perhaps? Stern conservatism?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 20 June 2002 04:05 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
Centrist.

Balance.

Non authoritarian.

Non totalitarian.

Democratic.

I suggest you go take the little 5 minute test yourself.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North ]


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 20 June 2002 04:32 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Finally we have an actual example of a Stalinist who became a nazi: Pim Fortuyn!

Of course, he was never a Stalinist, or even a member of any communist party.

Nor was he ever a nazi, or a fascist. While his party was anti-immigration, which is a right-wing stance, it was also a gay-positive party. Presumably you are aware of Hitler's denunciations of Roehm, et al. as being "perverted homosexuals" whom it was necessary to annihilate.

So, this isn't an example of this remarkable similarity you claim exists.

Here's a test: Is there one single North American of the last 100 years who was a Fascist, and then a Communist, or vice versa?

Because I can name twenty Alliance members who were nazis.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 June 2002 06:28 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I do this only in the name of honesty ... But I believe that Tommy Douglas's first campaign manager had some years before been the head of the Ku Klux Klan in Saskatchewan.

Canadian prairie populism has seldom been extreme enough to qualify as either fascist or communist, but it has to be admitted that it has swung both right and left in odd ways, particularly during the 1920s and especially the 1930s. The people affected were, of course, during the 1930s, truly desperate, as in broke and starving.

I think it is true to say that open anti-semitism in western Canada appeared only in right-wing movements -- its history in the Social Credit League of all three prairie provinces, Ontario, and Quebec is well documented.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 20 June 2002 07:54 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[Message edited because idiot younger brother typed in his own load of crap during 2 minutes of absence. ]

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: SamL ]


From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 20 June 2002 08:04 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good one, Sam.

Remind me to forget about you when I need a babysitter.

quote:
Here's a test: Is there one single North American of the last 100 years who was a Fascist, and then a Communist, or vice versa?

Benito Mussolini was a Socialist before discovering Fascism. (oh yeah, North American...)

uh, does David Horowitz count?


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 20 June 2002 08:13 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But I believe that Tommy Douglas's first campaign manager had some years before been the head of the Ku Klux Klan in Saskatchewan.

Tommy Douglas also became friends with former PM Bennett, who also moved to the left after the Great Depression and leaving office.

The Dirty Thirties did that to a lot of people.

The KKK was pretty prevalent in Sask in the 1920s. I'm not sure why that was, but even with left-leaners out here, there is still often a streak of racism. Incongruous, but true.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 20 June 2002 08:22 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about Ross Thatcher joining , and then leading, the Saskatchewan Liberal Party after having been a CCF MLA?

I don't know about "fascist," but my dad, who was a provincial government employee during the 60s, called the Liberal gov't in Saskatchewan a "Reich."


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 20 June 2002 08:29 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But did his true sentiments change? I think you have to acknowledge that there are a certain number of people with political aspirations that join whatever party is in power simply to tap into that power.

Let's face it, there's a goodly number of NDP politicians in Saskatchewan, current and recent, who are definitely centrist or right of centre. Wouldn't you agree?


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 20 June 2002 08:33 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because I was dumb enough to leave my computer unlocked during a 2 minute absence, and because my brother still enjoys playing harsh pranks on me, I offer my sincere apologies for what my younger brother posted. I hope that nobody took grave offence to it, and I would like to reassure you that he has been yelled at by me and my parents sufficently.

Back to what I was about to say: the point of this thread isn't about how different communism and fascism are. It is based on the premise that there are differences, and in terms of economics some big differences as well, and that high-schoolers don't understand this. That high-schoolers don't understand basic politics is the issue that I think needs to be resolved the most with the education system now.

And SNOT, er... I mean SCOTN, the political compass website does prove you wrong. It lists fascism and communism on 2 different axes with some overlap and some non-overlap.


From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 20 June 2002 09:39 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Let's face it, there's a goodly number of NDP politicians in Saskatchewan, current and recent, who are definitely centrist or right of centre. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes I would, which is one reason why I didn't vote for them.


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 20 June 2002 10:11 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That high-schoolers don't understand basic politics is the issue that I think needs to be resolved the most with the education system now.

It's not just high school students. There's an incredible amount of ignorance in North America when it comes to understanding basic political concepts.

For example, on one message board that I go on, a lot of people bitch a lot about reds and liberals ("commie fag" is a common insult). Most of those people are American Republican voters who associate leftism with hippies and weakness (either that or with Stalinist dictatorships). Yet when they took that political compass test, some of them were surprised to end up in the left/libertarian quarter near Ghandi and Tony Benn. I know that it isn't a perfect scientific test, but it goes to show how some people don't even understand their own political opinions. They just follow what the media, their parents and their friends tell them to believe.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 June 2002 11:59 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
uh, does David Horowitz count?

A long time ago, when the earth was green (i.e., last August), we had this thread about Comrade Buffoon Horowitz. It kind of fizzled, but anyway, there are still some good links there.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 23 June 2002 02:43 AM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SamL:
Thanks for the link. I've seen something similar before but I thought the test was a neat idea. I think the 2-axis system is a great improvement over the 'left-right' model but all of these systems have their limits. I sort of like to be treated as an individual rather than be tagged with the baggage of views I don't agree with.

In terms of why people mistakenly lump Stalin with Hitler, I think this has a lot to do with cold war propaganda which split the world into two camps. Us vs them, freedom vs tyranny, democracy vs dictatorship, etc. Clearly, Hitler wasn't one of us so he had to be one of them. Note that a lot of those on the economic right equate free markets with personal freedoms.


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tribute To Our Times
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2602

posted 23 June 2002 05:35 AM      Profile for Tribute To Our Times   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Many people appear to have a very different idea about what is meant by capitalism. It is not a system of force imposed by people. It is a lack of such a system. It is what happens when people are free from the force of other people. In order to have people 'free' of the force of natural conditions something must be done to make those conditions better for mankind. That is exactly what people have been doing with the invention of the wheel, of machines, the production of energy and everything that followed. All of this is the product of mans mind, without it mankind is returned unprotected to nature. Capitalism itself forces nothing.

Will we ever see this type of Capitalism then? I know I haven't seen it, when it wasn't failing. Freedom. Freedom from the evils of regulation, right? Well I think we all know that this kind of absolute freedom results in boom and bust cycles in the economy. We saw that in the depressions of the past two centuries, and many other times throughout history. This freedom does, and will fail itself over and over again. 'Capitalism' does not work.

Perhaps you should define what this 'capitalism' is to you SCOTN. When I am reading you, I get the distinct impression that you are an economic rationalist.


From: The Left | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 June 2002 12:30 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Because I can name twenty Alliance members who were nazis.

No way. Seriously? I'll take you up on that.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2702

posted 23 June 2002 03:50 PM      Profile for Sir-Canuck-Of-The-North        Edit/Delete Post
Tribute To Our Times


Capitalism does work, take a look out your window.

Let's see you claim capitalism dosen't work, we all know communism doesn't, socialism by your very definitions of capitalism cannot even exist due to it's interdependence on said capitalism, I guess that leaves anarchy.

Your concepts are about as whimsical and based in fantasy as the person whom claims there are some 20 members of the nazi party in the Alliance.


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 23 June 2002 04:02 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Capitalism does work, take a look out your window.


It's not capitalism in the pure sense of the word. It's a mixed economy. Pure capitalism wouldn't last long at all. It would cause too much poverty, inequality, crime and conflict. It would eventually self-destruct. There needs to be balance. Unfortunately these days the balance has been tilting too much to the right. The question is how much further can it go before the pendulum swings back?

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tribute To Our Times
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2602

posted 23 June 2002 04:51 PM      Profile for Tribute To Our Times   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Indeed.

As well, can we do a ratio of failed instances of Capitalism to failed instances of Communism?

Wouldn't it be something like 20:1; perhaps greater.

And I wouldn't call what we see out our windows 'successful'.

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Tribute To Our Times ]

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Tribute To Our Times ]


From: The Left | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
David Kyle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1530

posted 23 June 2002 05:46 PM      Profile for David Kyle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Spindoctor: Ummm...communism is evil! Ever met anybody who lived in Eastern Europe?

Yes, I have met many while working in the Czech Republic.

What is your point? Are you saying that Eastern European citizens are communists?


From: canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 23 June 2002 08:52 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think he was emplying more along the lines that almost every Eastern European would testify that life under the communist regimes was a living hell.
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 23 June 2002 09:38 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
'living hell' is a dramatic exaggeration as I tried to point it out in my post above (June 17, 2002 09:47 AM). Sorry to contradict you meades but I like to set the record straight on this one.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 23 June 2002 09:46 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, no problem- that wasn't my interpretation, I was just trying to clarify what spindoctor was trying to get across I know (or I should say, I've suspected) that it wasn't quite as bad as many of the propagandists would have liked everyone to believe.
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 June 2002 09:49 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would tend to agree, given my limited knowledge of the Eastern European situation, that life was not entirely sucky.

The secret police deal would tend to put a damper on things, though.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 23 June 2002 09:50 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
thanks for the clarification, meades, I am happy you are realistic about it.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 24 June 2002 02:38 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the overall development of this thread supports my position. The initial position of one Babbler was that "communism"="fascism".

This idea makes the last century unintelligible, and so does not recommend itself to me. By that I mean that one cannot account for why millions of people sacrificed their lives, if the two competing systems of thought/action were "the same".

Skdadl makes the point about racism in the CCF. No doubt that existed, but that does not make its
exponents into fascists or nazis. I think they were bad or incomplete socialists, that's all.

The argument becomes meaningless if we are just saying that people change political positions from time to time, or do not agree with the entire spectrum of party ideology.

My original point was this: if nazism and communism are "the same", why do nazis tend to become Alliance types, and communists social democrats?

(The twenty Reform-Nazis can be found in Warren Kinsellas book on the Canadian right. As I have mentioned before, Alliance MP Rob Anders was an out-and-out Nazi, and Paul Fromm was a member, as well as several other Hitlerites. In fact, I beleive Fromm's group joined the Reform Party "en masse" and were eventuually expelled when exposed.)


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smoov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2802

posted 24 June 2002 07:55 PM      Profile for Smoov     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Anyone who equates socialism with Nazism needs to buy a good dictionary...and maybe a sociology course?

"Nazi" means National Socialist German Workers Party. Hitler hated Stalin, but he was absolutely a socialist. Virtually every Nazi policy (nationalization of industry, worker's rights legislation, deep suspicion of corporations) was taken directly from the socialist playbook.

One might be tempted to say, Yes but socialists would never allow the Holocaust to occur... Except that many leftists today are ardent supporters of Islamism--especially Palestinian Islamism--which has goals practically identical to those of the Third Reich vis a vis the Jews.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Smoov ]


From: Halifax | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 24 June 2002 08:02 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since nobody started a new 'Israeli' thread, as I requested in "The nature of money", smoove turned an existing one into 'it'

Archimedes2000 -- does it ring a bell?


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 24 June 2002 08:09 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Except that many leftists today are ardent supporters of Islamism--especially Palestinian Islamism--which has goals practically identical to those of the Third Reich vis a vis the Jews.

PLONK!... PLONK... plonk... plonk... plonk...


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 24 June 2002 08:10 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"Nazi" means National Socialist German Workers Party. Hitler hated Stalin, but he was absolutely a socialist. Virtually every one of the Nazi Parties policies (nationalization of industry, worker's rights legislation, deep suspicion of corporations) are taken directly from the socialist playbook.

Right. And Hitler could always be counted on to be completely honest about his intentions. Please.

This is a tired old argument and I'm surprised to see it surface here. Hitler would have co-opted any ideology that would help him gain power. There were some socialist voices in the Nazi party and many of them were "purged" during Kristallnacht.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 24 June 2002 08:24 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where has Archimedes 2000 gone? He and Smoov have a rather similar twist on the Nazi/Socialist question.

Can anyone refer our new visitor to the thread that had that discussion?


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 24 June 2002 08:43 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Archimede2000 was eventually 'kicked out' from Babble (I forgot why) after a long long time of trolling.

There were many threads where he argued for the Nazi=Socialist idiocy. A good one that comes to mind is called "Waiting for the Next Reichstag Fire"

That is when I TOTL-ly gave up on him


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 25 June 2002 01:16 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the differences between socialism and fascism, as ideologies, can be seen in the role of the state.

Communism in particular assumes a consensus of purpose amongst the workers, and in classical Marxist theory this consensus becomes so strong that the state "withers away" to result in worker's anarchist paradise.

Fascism gives the state total pre-eminence and absolute power, not as a means to an end but as an ideological virtue. It is almost inseperable from military sociey, since violent coersion is the only way to sustain such tyranny.

Of course, as we have all seen, many attempts at communist revolutions end up becoming fascist. Not as fascist as Hitler's germany but pretty darn fascist nonetheless. Some individuals with a poor understanding of history (in good company with the under-educated high school students that prompted this discussion) seem to think this is intrinsic to socialism, that it can't be sustained except by force.

I don't think so. While communist revolutions do have the unfortunate tendency to create their "dictatorships of the proletariate" the difference between this and a plain old dictatorship can be significant. Even in dictatorships, people still dissent and still cause social change through unrest. The likelyhood of succeeding in this is proportional to the amount of people you can get to support you. If your dictatorship is, ideologically, a worker's dictatorship then this ideology will go a long way towards making the people believe that they should control it's direction. If the ideology is just fascist, then it's much harder, because the concept of public involvement doesn't exist.

Well, if this is the case, you might be saying, then why didn't Cuba, just to tke one example, evolve into a kinder, more just country. I think the answer should be obvious. All countries who try to determine their future in a communist fashion are not left to their own devices to create their "worker's paradise". They are instead immediately made the target of military and economic aggression by the capitalist world. This weakens the people's resolve and entrenches the power (illegitimate, by it's own ideology) of autocratic elites. Given that the people of Cuba are under constant threat of foreign invasion by the world's largest military, it is unlikely that they can risk conflict with their own government and it's fascist ways.

My point is that not only is the theoretical difference between fascism and socialism very clear, but the practical difference between them would be equally clear if not for the violent opposition of the global order to any government that does not make the rights of capital foremost, even when such governments are the clear preference of the people. Any society in a state of siege tends towards dictatorship.

If it sounds like I'm making excuses, I am. I think the excuse is valid. But I am not excusing the elites of these countries, whose autocratic ways are no better than Hitler's, or much better than our own elites, who certainly do everything in their power to prevent citizen involvement but are just stuck in a much fairer system (too bad for them). I am excusing the people of these countries for not managing to evolve their socialism in the face of foreign aggression. There's only so much they can do.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
frandroid_atreides
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2569

posted 25 June 2002 07:49 PM      Profile for frandroid_atreides   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Given that the people of Cuba are under constant threat of foreign invasion by the world's largest military, it is unlikely that they can risk conflict with their own government and it's fascist ways.

I think that the people of Cuba are under constant threat of ideological and economic invasion... However I think that the "constant military threat" is hype.


From: Toronto, Arrakis | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 27 June 2002 12:34 AM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
to some degree, yes it is hype... but there is the guantanamo bay marine base in cuba, so... it can't be all that far off
From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 27 June 2002 02:17 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Besides, whether it's hype or not doesn't really matter as long as the Cubans believe it.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca