What about Russia?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Feb 23 2005, 09:58 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Feb 23 2005, 09:58 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]The Saint, antisemitism is overpresent in almost every single culture until, say...1945.  When you consider Marx's view on atheism (that religion is just another way to keep the proletariat down), combined with the general antisemitism of the time = extreme Jew hatred.

Not saying it's excusable...I'm saying you have to look at history through the context of the time it occured...not through the context of 2005.
[snapback]98494[/snapback]​
[/quote]

I totally agree with you, but why do people say this about Marx and not about Hitler ?

Empathy is necessary to understand the context of history, so all facts should be known and not, as youngsters members of ATTAC for instance, just wear Che Guevara T-Shirts by eluding part of his personal history.

What I am saying is that we cannot excuse one system and not another, or, on the contrary, indict one system and not doing this to the other.

Both the national-socialism and marxism bear a lot of joining points, whatever today's politicians want people to believe. I will search through my documents to find these (I have too many books [!--emo&:)--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/smile.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'smile.gif\' /][!--endemo--] )

Cheers



Cheers
 
What? I've never said Hitler's antisemitism wasn't understandable. It's not excusable, though, because he spearheaded a program to carry through on the most extreme tenants of his hatred. And I agree - people who wear Che shirts and whatnot are just as guilty as ignorance as people who wear white hoods.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Feb 23 2005, 09:53 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Feb 23 2005, 09:53 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]The basic tenant of true Communism is that it would come from a mature industrial society.  Mature industrial society.  Every nation that has been held by a Communist regime has been a developing nation - with the exception of East Germany, and there really wasn't much left of that nation when it fell under Soviet control!
[snapback]98493[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Come on, LooseCannon, have you read the Capital ? Elitism as a way to help the labor force is everywhere. How can this work, whatever the maturity of the industrial society ?

So, let's start again and see if political dictatorship and economic demise don't happen again.

Excluding all praxis of communist countries and judging a theory that, then, never existed, is just too easy.

Let's be realistic.

Cheers
 
The Saint, Russia didn't even HAVE an industrial society. It was still FEUDAL. There was absolutely no proletariat - there were serfs and essential slaves.

I do agree with you, though - it'll always lead to dictatorship. People are too corrupt to create the Communist utopia.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Feb 23 2005, 10:07 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Feb 23 2005, 10:07 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]What?  I've never said Hitler's antisemitism wasn't understandable.  It's not excusable, though, because he spearheaded a program to carry through on the most extreme tenants of his hatred.  And I agree - people who wear Che shirts and whatnot are just as guilty as ignorance as people who wear white hoods.
[snapback]98497[/snapback]​
[/quote]

I never accused you of saying that ! [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]

It's just that I don't understand double-standards.

Kofi Annan comes to the UN special session on Auschwitz and says we haven't learned our lesson by giving examples of other genocide that happened trough the 20th century (funny, while you consider where he was during the Rwanda crisis...). Where's the mention of the Vietcong regime, of the Maoist regime, of the Soviet regime ?

In a world where people mix everything, do compare Bush or Sharon to Hitler, while hailing Ben Laden or Yasser Arafat, I'm not too surprised. But people should learn history.

Again, it's not about political choices, it's about facts. And facts are stubborn.

Cheers
 
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Feb 23 2005, 10:12 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Feb 23 2005, 10:12 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]The Saint, Russia didn't even HAVE an industrial society.  It was still FEUDAL.  There was absolutely no proletariat - there were serfs and essential slaves.

I do agree with you, though - it'll always lead to dictatorship.  People are two corrupt to create the Communist utopia.
[snapback]98499[/snapback]​
[/quote]

That's the problem with any kind of utopia, whatever its goals are. That's where democracy and liberalism differ, they are not theories or utopia for they intrisically deal with failure and progress.

Cheers
 
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Feb 23 2005, 02:20 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Feb 23 2005, 02:20 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]And Onhell?  You don't know a damn thing about Soviet history [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
[snapback]98423[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Yes I do, and I still stand by my above statement. I know things got progressively worse from day one, I know intellectuals were persecuted, I know Jews were hunted down (not to the extent Hitler did obviously, but they were still blamed for many social ills). But, just because MEN abused and twisted a system doesn't mean trying it wasn't brave and opposing the US was ballsy. I still hang my USSR flag in my room because i believe in the Ideals of Communism (Socialism etc) even if goverments have fucked it up so far.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Feb 23 2005, 02:20 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Feb 23 2005, 02:20 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]What do I think about Russia?

I think Russia's the fucking scariest place on earth right now.  Yes, that includes Bosnia and Iraq.  Russia is a place where you NEVER KNOW WHO IS GONNA KILL YOU TODAY.  Russia is dominated by the Mob.  Police may or may not go along with the law.  Russia is also dominated by the government.  Putin is consolodating his hold over Russia.  He controls a superpresidency that he is making even more super.

The last time someone spoke out against Putin, he confiscated their assets and arrested them for tax evasion (Mikhail Khordorkovsky, CEO of Yukos, world's largest oil company).  He'll never see the light of day again.  It is not uncommon for Russians to start a business and show up one day to see a Mafia man behind their desk.

Oh.  And then let's talk about Chechnya.  All Russian men are eligable to be drafted at age 18, and sent to that hellhole.  Chechnya is probably more dangerous than Iraq.  Many more Russians are killed their per day than coalition forces in Iraq.
[snapback]98422[/snapback]​
[/quote]
Hmmm, Doesn't sound so different from here in the US where any nut with a gun can kill you, the goverment listens more to Special interest groups AND the mob more than "the people" and the FBI hunts you down if you say anything or act "un-american". I agree with duke, if you focus on the negatives of every nation, gees, don't leave your house.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-The Saint+Feb 23 2005, 09:15 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(The Saint @ Feb 23 2005, 09:15 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]That's the problem with any kind of utopia, whatever its goals are. That's where democracy and liberalism differ, they are not theories or utopia for they intrisically deal with failure and progress.

Cheers
[snapback]98502[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Sorry Saint but when Locke dreamed up his wonderful seperation of powers and so on he created an ideal, so even democracy has it's utopian feel about it and I can say not a single democracy lives up to that ideal. Also the dealing with failure and progress deals more with it's economy (a capitalist economy) which NATURALLY falls and rises (bear and bull markets). People blame tax cuts and bad Presidents for the rise and falls of the market when in reality the Economy has a life of it's own and what a president does really has little to almost no effect on it. Communism is really an economic system which apperantly everybody (russia, china, cuba etc) had decided to impose it through a dictatorship why? because they were all born through revolution and imposed by force.

Communism (as mentioned by some of you) was aimed at industrial nations, NOT third world countries. However Industrial nations, mainly the capitalist fat cats, did not want to follow suit because they thought communism was going to make everybody poor when its ideal was to make everybody economically stable. The reason it was taken up by third world nations (All of latin america though not communist has very socialist IDEAS and some governmental structures like a centralized government), is because of the shitty situatiion they are in and equality or economic stability is something they really long for.

Marx was Jew and another famous Communist Jew was Leon Trotsky. He became a fervent Communist because Jews were persecuted for the simple fact that they were Jewish, yet here comes this ideal where everyone is a comrade, a human, Trotsky used the term "universalist". However once the revolution was over, the reality was Jews were persecuted more than before.

EDIT: Sorry for posting 3 posts back to back, but I really had to adress each seperately [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Feb 24 2005, 02:05 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Feb 24 2005, 02:05 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Sorry Saint but when Locke dreamed up his wonderful seperation of powers and so on he created an ideal, so even democracy has it's utopian feel about it and I can say not a single democracy lives up to that ideal.
[snapback]98516[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Yes and no. Liberal Democracy doesn't offer a whole vision of society, it only gives a set of rules that, if respected, should bring voice to every human.

So yes, it can be taken as a utopia if you consider that it should bring freedom of expression to everybody, but no, it doesn't give more than that, it doesn't offer any "end of history" like so many utopias: there's no final goal, it's a forever on-going process.

In that way, I don't see it as


[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Feb 24 2005, 02:05 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Feb 24 2005, 02:05 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Also the dealing with failure and progress deals more with it's economy (a capitalist economy) which NATURALLY falls and rises (bear and bull markets).
[snapback]98516[/snapback]​
[/quote]

A liberalist economy, which doesn't exist in the world today. Again, a set of rules. Again, not an utopia, but a set of pragmatic rules that were added through time, after experiencing their successes or total failure.

The more honest system there is, for it doesn't promise greater goals by idealistic means.

[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Feb 24 2005, 02:05 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Feb 24 2005, 02:05 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Communism (as mentioned by some of you) was aimed at industrial nations, NOT third world countries.
[snapback]98516[/snapback]​
[/quote]

What was seen as an industrial nation back when Marx wrote his theory isn't the same as what is seen as an industrial nation today. So, if Communist was undertaken by any industrialized nation today and failed, other excuses could be found.

Communism can only happen through revolution and strong leadership. Tell me how it could happen otherwise.

As for the Jewish question, Marx's stance against Jews came early on in his writings. He hated them not because they were persecuted, but because they were egoistic in their beliefs and money was their God.

Read excerpts from 'Zur Judenfrage' or 'Die Heilige Familie' if you can (very hard to come by, as if they were buried to hide the facts).

Cheers
 
"Karl Marx was born into a progressive Jewish family in Prussian Trier (now in Germany). His father Herschel, descending from a long line of rabbis, was a lawyer; Herschel's brother Samuel was—like many of his ancestors—chief rabbi of Trier. The family name was originally "Marx Levi", which derives from the old Jewish surname Mardochai. In 1817 Heinrich Marx converted to the Prussian state religion of Lutheranism, in order to keep his position as a lawyer, which he had gained under the Napoleonic regime. The Marx family was very liberal and the Marx household hosted many visiting intellectuals and artists through Karl's early life."

From www.wikipedia.org
 
Thanks LooseCannon. He was baptised, like I said. Should have been more clear when I said it.

Cheers
 
Jews are Jews because their MOTHER, not their father, are jewish, and Jews are not only a religion but an ethnic group (yes they are both, ask any orthodox, atheist, or reformed Jew) So a Jew can become a mormon and the Jewish community considers him a "bad Jew". A Jew can be Atheist and simply be considered a "bad Jew". Once a Jew always a Jew whether baptized, converted by force or trying to rid himself as his heritage, the Jewish community will always see him as a Jew, either bad or good.

[!--QuoteBegin-The Saint+Feb 24 2005, 07:33 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(The Saint @ Feb 24 2005, 07:33 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]What was seen as an industrial nation back when Marx wrote his theory isn't the same as what is seen as an industrial nation today. So, if Communist was undertaken by any industrialized nation today and failed, other excuses could be found.

Communism can only happen through revolution and strong leadership. Tell me how it could happen otherwise.



Cheers
[snapback]98524[/snapback]​
[/quote]
True that "industrialized" was different then BUT, it still meant "countries with enough capital to undertake such a change" Which at that time It was Germany along with a few other western European countries and the United States.

Communism can only happen through revolution because people wouldn't undertake it otherwise, they've been bought. They are to COMFORTABLE, in their "lazy chairs" watching their 300 channels on Direct TV in their airconditioned enviornments. People are blind, to blind to care. With 10% of the food the US produces you can Feed Africa, and maybe more.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Feb 24 2005, 06:25 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Feb 24 2005, 06:25 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Jews are Jews because their MOTHER, not their father, are jewish, and Jews are not only a religion but an ethnic group (yes they are both, ask any orthodox, atheist, or reformed Jew) So a Jew can become a mormon and the Jewish community considers him a "bad Jew". A Jew can be Atheist and simply be considered a "bad Jew". Once a Jew always a Jew whether baptized, converted by force or trying to rid himself as his heritage, the Jewish community will always see him as a Jew, either bad or good.
[snapback]98580[/snapback]​
[/quote]

I never said that the Jewish community would change their mind. As you said, they rightly said that he was still jew.

But it is against indivual freedom to be qualified for eternity as your ethnic ground. It is exactly what liberal democracy is about. If, for bad or good, he decided to change his religion, he's a Christian in my eyes, not because I'm told so, but because I respect his choice.

That is partially what he wanted: emancipation from religion. Not to be considered from your religion but from your personal strentgh.


[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Feb 24 2005, 06:25 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Feb 24 2005, 06:25 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Communism can only happen through revolution because people wouldn't undertake it otherwise, they've been bought. They are to COMFORTABLE, in their "lazy chairs" watching their 300 channels on Direct TV in their airconditioned enviornments. People are blind, to blind to care. With 10% of the food the US produces you can Feed Africa, and maybe more.
[snapback]98580[/snapback]​
[/quote]

By definition, any mass movement has to be led and that is where the utopia of communism simply doesn't work. It's not pragmatic, it's just a wrong dream.

Cheers
 
Actually, that's one of the big debates surrounding Judaism - is it an ethnicity or a religion?

I have an older book on this called "The Thirteenth Tribe" which is an attempt to write the history of the Khazars, a people who formed an empire around 800 AD. (mostly between the Black and Caspian Seas) They were followers of the Jewish religion, but not ethnic Jews in the sense we use the term.

Their descendants formed the bulk of Russian Jewery, and there was a debate about whether the Israeli Right of Return applies to them, because they aren't biologically descendants of the Israelites.

All very fascinating, actually. If I remember who the author is, I'll post it.
 
I don't have the pacience to read all of this "historic equivalent of spam" as Dog igniter put it. But i did read your last statement, Saint. That's partly why Communism can't work. Another reason seems more obvious to me: people are egocentric by nature, even if they act humanitarian and all. If they can't have more, if they can't be stimulated, they won't work. And that's what communism promised: communal propriety, close wages for all, etc. what you guys called economic stability. Think about it, if for example, you were a college profesor and you would know that a janitor would have the same wage and the same possesions as you 9that's almost nothing), could you embrace communism? People lose their motivation, and economy stagnates and then it goes in collapse.

Hopefully i didn't make a dumb-arse out of myself with my statements
 
OH OH! Time for a little history lesson! Like many "primitive" peoples Jews lived in close knit communities and like all acient civilazation there was no seperation between church and state or between religious life (for christians sunday, Jews MAINLY the Sabbath) and civil life. Your life was incompased by your religion. It wasn't until the enlightment that people began to pay attention to the natural sciences and questioning religion and it's "outdated views" seriously. MODERNITY brought forth secular government, economy and so on and relegated Religion to the private sector.

This affected the Jews as well. A movement in Germany called the Haskala (Jewish Enlightment) did away with Halakha (Jewish law), the old societal structure and they too relegated religion to the private sectore or did away with it all together. This Jews were branded Maskilim. They converted to Christianity (some actually not all) they dressed more European, they learned other languages aside from Hebrew and Yiddish and delved in Natural sciences. This was the birth of Reform Judism THE RELIGION. But they are also an ethnic group. For example, I'm Mexican and catholic, if I convert to Lutheranism I'm just a Mexican Lutheran. So If I'm a Jew and renounce Halakha and convert to christianity or reform judism I'm simply a jewish christian or a "bad" jew. Those in Eastern Europe (mainly poland and russia (though they did not live in russia proper, rather a small territory called The Pale of Settlement) did the opposite of what their western brethern did. They became more rooted in "orthodox" (what used to be simple judism) Judism, denounced modernity and any change and insisted in being a nation within a nation (they use nation meaning "people" not "state".

So since then you have the following "denominations" Orthodox: those who still live their lives ruled by their religion, Reformed Jews, Conservative Jews, liberal Jews and cultural Jews (Folks that fall under "cultural jews" are Spinoza [Dutch philosopher], Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, I'm not too sure but I think Nietzche [pronounced Neecha] among others) these are folks that either renounced judism the religion, are athiests, or converted to christianity, but ethnically remain jewish.

conclusion it is both, ethnicity and religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top