Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 3
 [ 51 posts ] 
The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).
Author Message
Blog of ReasonHelperUser avatarPosts: 240Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:28 pmLocation: League of Reason

Post The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:35 pm
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

According to Roy Medvedev's book, "Let History Judge", the death toll from famine was around 8 million. Also according to Medvedev, Stalin prohibited anyone from mentioning famine. Military blockades were put up to keep the starving from leaving and no aide was sent. All in all the victims under Stalin's rule was about 40 million and that does not include the causalities of WWII.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:05 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

tuxbox wrote:According to Roy Medvedev's book, "Let History Judge", the death toll from famine was around 8 million. Also according to Medvedev, Stalin prohibited anyone from mentioning famine. Military blockades were put up to keep the starving from leaving and no aide was sent. All in all the victims under Stalin's rule was about 40 million and that does not include the causalities of WWII.


8 million in the Ukraine alone or 8 million total from all the regions do you know?

And the rest of the post is perfectly valid :) . I think one of the great ironies of the film is they give right at the end of it the total number of deaths in all the Soviet Union as only being "20 million". For one, i think that's too suspiciously low and Second it would make Hitler as the answer to the question of who's the bloodier between him and Stalin! Stalin not only put into practice the first instance of the "Big lie propaganda technique" as regards to his actions in Ukraine. So you are correct on that one but also he had his entourage of useful idiots in the west who sucked his propaganda line quite well. Walter Duranty perhaps being the most famous example. The guy who wrote reports in the New York Times suggesting that there was no famine whatsoever and he said about those who were dying from Stalin's crimes anyway "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs"
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:43 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

theyounghistorian77 wrote:8 million in the Ukraine alone or 8 million total from all the regions do you know?


The Ukraine and surrounding areas.

theyounghistorian77 wrote:And the rest of the post is perfectly valid :) . I think one of the great ironies of the film is they give right at the end of it the total number of deaths in all the Soviet Union as only being "20 million". For one, i think that's too suspiciously low and Second it would make Hitler as the answer to the question of who's the bloodier between him and Stalin! Stalin not only put into practice the first instance of the "Big lie propaganda technique" as regards to his actions in Ukraine. So you are correct on that one but also he had his entourage of useful idiots in the west who sucked his propaganda line quite well. Walter Duranty perhaps being the most famous example. The guy who wrote reports in the New York Times suggesting that there was no famine whatsoever and he said about those who were dying from Stalin's crimes anyway "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs"


George Bernard Shaw traveled to the Soviet Union in 1931 also said that famine was made up. He was a Marxist and evil one at that, and did not want to put Marxism in a negative light.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:17 am
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

tuxbox wrote:
theyounghistorian77 wrote:8 million in the Ukraine alone or 8 million total from all the regions do you know?


The Ukraine and surrounding areas.



Oh I see. I ask because the book doesn't appear to be available online. Of course with that in mind i think a turning back to the document i linked written by "Oleh Wolowyna" may be reflective here. If you read it you will see that it does allow some flexibility with regards to higher estimates, going up to 6.8 -7.0 million. Although this is treated as an "absolute maximum" adding that, it is "practically impossible for the total losses in the Ukraine to exceed 7 millions". Im happy to accept a larger number of famine victims and to change my perspective in light of solid demographic evidence of course but perhaps i can infer Wolowyna would disagree with Medvedev's numbers based on the following:

Wolowyna writes that there have [traditionaly] been large intervals in estimates due to several factors:

a) initial subjective estimates by journalists, politicians and diplomats,with little empirical foundation;
b) estimates made by historians and other experts before key data became available;
c) use of faulty methodologies;
d) estimates influenced by ideological biases towards upper or lower values.

(he also notes one key factor is a "lack of a clear operational definition of Holodomor losses")

I infer Wolowyna potentially saying Medvedev's numbers fall fowl of factor "b" due to him writing that book in 1971, maybe "d" due to him reflecting a dissident analysis in light of Soviet propagandists attempts to rehabilitating stalin at the time when he wrote that book and possibly "c" too (although my inference stops here due to me not having current acsess to the book)!


tuxbox wrote:
theyounghistorian77 wrote: And the rest of the post is perfectly valid :) . I think one of the great ironies of the film is they give right at the end of it the total number of deaths in all the Soviet Union as only being "20 million". For one, i think that's too suspiciously low and Second it would make Hitler as the answer to the question of who's the bloodier between him and Stalin! Stalin not only put into practice the first instance of the "Big lie propaganda technique" as regards to his actions in Ukraine. So you are correct on that one but also he had his entourage of useful idiots in the west who sucked his propaganda line quite well. Walter Duranty perhaps being the most famous example. The guy who wrote reports in the New York Times suggesting that there was no famine whatsoever and he said about those who were dying from Stalin's crimes anyway "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs"


George Bernard Shaw traveled to the Soviet Union in 1931 also said that famine was made up. He was a Marxist and evil one at that, and did not want to put Marxism in a negative light.


Agreed about Shaw being evil, and there were plenty of others that also had some very evil ideas!


----

btw if anyone wants me go further with a critique of the film, i would be more than happy to do so!
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:28 pm
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

I use Medvedev's book because he is a Georgian, a Russian historian, and a Libertarian Socialist. So he does not have an ax to grind when it comes to Socialism. Anyway, you can read some of his book here: http://books.google.com/books?id=91fB88t2_zwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=let+history+judge+roy+Medvedev&hl=en&ei=G5S2TpeND4TMtgfzsfHIAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:04 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

tuxbox wrote:I use Medvedev's book because he is a Georgian, a Russian historian, and a Libertarian Socialist. So he does not have an ax to grind when it comes to Socialism. Anyway, you can read some of his book here:


Well the link offers snippet previews which are always i find to be more frustrating than useful. You're right in that he didn't have an axe to grind against socialism per-se, but he did on the other hand have an ideological axe to grind against Stalin, the bias that generates has to be factored in when analysing him to an extent. Im not saying you should discard him, but instead he should be carefully read.


--

Also this thread page has become elongated sideways, can we fix that?
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:01 pm
Ev1612Posts: 20Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:48 am Gender: Female

Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

I do not see that you have debunked what you claim you have.
EXAMPLE:
FILM SAYS: In the Nazi Germany, these groups [victims] were also defined by ethnicity, the Jews, for example, and in the soviet union, they defined them by social origin.
YOU SAY: As we shall see, that is not the case.
....
After reading your VERY long review I am afraid I did not hear: Why exactly this is not the case?
Are you saying the Soviet regime did not define its victims by their social origin/class? Have you heard of "классовые враги"?
Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:07 pm
Ev1612Posts: 20Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:48 am Gender: Female

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

You say in your film review: "...it is, as should be expected from these types of films, a lie! Both Marx and Engels were very much in favour of an independant Poland."

Before making such bold statemets, I suggest you read some works of Engless.

ENGELS to MARX (1851/5/23): "The more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes to me that the Poles are une nation foutue [a finished nation] who can only continue to serve a purpose until such time as Russia herself becomes caught up into the agrarian revolution. From that moment Poland will have absolutely no raison d'étre any more."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... _05_23.htm
Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:02 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

Ev1612 wrote:You say in your film review: "...it is, as should be expected from these types of films, a lie! Both Marx and Engels were very much in favour of an independant Poland."

Before making such bold statemets, I suggest you read some works of Engless.

ENGELS to MARX (1851/5/23): "The more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes to me that the Poles are une nation foutue [a finished nation] who can only continue to serve a purpose until such time as Russia herself becomes caught up into the agrarian revolution. From that moment Poland will have absolutely no raison d'étre any more."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... _05_23.htm


You are so lucky i haven't had too much time on the internet to respond to you this week! Yea just ignore the speech i quoted from wherby Engels commemerates the Polish Uprising of 1830 why don't you? Just like i bet you would like to ignore Marx's commemeration of the Krakow Uprising in which he concludes:

"Again it is Poland that has seized the initiative, and no longer a feudal Poland but a democratic Poland; and from this point on its liberation has become a matter of honor for all the democrats of Europe."


Or how about this which reads:

"In the present changed state of central Europe, and especially Germany, it is more than ever necessary to have a democratic Poland. Without it, Germany will become the outwork of the Holy Alliance, with it, the co-operator with republican France. The working-class movement will continuously be interrupted, checked, and retarded, until this great European question be set at rest."


Or how about Engels' 1875 speech titled "For Poland" which concluded "Long live Poland!"?

'First of all, of course, sympathy for a subjugated people which, with its incessant and heroic struggle against its oppressors, has proven its historic right to national autonomy and self-determination. It is not in the least a contradiction that the international workers' party strives for the creation of the Polish nation. On the contrary; only after Poland has won its independence again, only after it is able to govern itself again as a free people, only then can its inner development begin again and can it cooperate as an independent force in the social transformation of Europe. As long as the independent life of a nation is suppressed by a foreign conqueror it inevitably directs all its strength, all its efforts and all its energy against the external enemy; during this time, therefore, its inner life remains paralysed; it is incapable of working for social emancipation. Ireland, and Russia under Mongol rule, provide striking proof of this.

'Another reason for the sympathy felt by the workers' party for the Polish uprising is its particular geographic, military and historical position. The partition of Poland is the cement which holds together the three great military despots: Russia, Prussia and Austria. Only the rebirth of Poland can tear these bonds apart and thereby remove the greatest obstacle in the way to the social emancipation of the European peoples.

'The main reason for the sympathy felt by the working class for Poland is, however, this: Poland is not only the only Slav race which has fought and is fighting as a cosmopolitan soldier of the revolution. Poland spilt its blood in the American War of Independence; its legions fought under the banner of the first French republic; with its revolution of 1830 it prevented the invasion of France, which had been decided upon by the partitioners of Poland; in 1846 in Cracow it was the first to plant the banner of revolution in Europe, in 1848 it had a glorious share in the revolutionary struggles in Hungary, Germany and Italy; finally, in 1871 it provided the Paris Commune with the best generals and the most heroic soldiers.

'In the brief moments when the popular masses in Europe have been able to move freely they have remembered what they owe to Poland. After the victorious March revolution of 1848 in Berlin the first act of the people was to set free the Polish prisoners, Mieroslawski and his fellow sufferers, and to proclaim the restoration of Poland; in Paris in May 1848 Blanqui marched at the head of the workers against the reactionary National Assembly to force it into armed intervention on behalf of Poland; finally in 1871, when the French workers had constituted themselves as a government, they honoured Poland by giving its sons the leadership of its armed forces.

'And at this moment, too, the German workers' party will not in the least be misled by the reactionary behaviour of the Polish deputies in the German Reichstag; it knows that these gentlemen are not acting for Poland but in their private interests; it knows that the Polish peasant, worker, in short, every Pole not blinded by the interests of social status, is bound to recognize that Poland has and can only have one ally in Europe , the workers' party.

'Long live Poland!'


A cry he repeated in a letter to Polish socialists:

Let that struggle extend itself today within the Polish nation itself, let her be upheld by the emigrant press and propaganda, let her go arm in arm with her Russian brethren with their unequalled efforts, and then will be found one more reason for the repetition of the old cry: "Long live Poland."


Yea you just ignore all of that and instead cherry-pick and quote-mine instead why don't you? It's pretty clear that Marx and Engels Did support polish independance and if they thought otherwise then well they didn't hold onto such ideas for very long! As to the letter you cherry-picked? Well for a start; this is a personal letter, it is a response to a previous letter and so forth, there is clearly meanings behind his words that the casual reader, looking at this one piece and presenting it as an overall view of Poland, ignores. We know that Marx, to whom he was writing, supported an independent Poland. So why would Engels antagonize Marx by disagreeing with him on this? Or did he? I don't think he did, and I think that only looking at the statement in isolation lends us to not reading ENOUNGH into the passage for a change. Later in the letter he does say that he basically does support an independent Poland "one of restoration combined with a suitable frontier." It would be nice to be able to read all the letters leading up to and after this particular one so I as could confirm what I'm about to state, but many of them are not posted on Marxists.org and I'm not convinced that this is really that much of an issue. After all, I'm sure historians have already dissected all his views, and any opportunistic disingenuousness as the passage might suggest would certainly have long been jumped on by his detractors. I think that the entire statement must be taken in reference to the previous paragraph where it says "... provided that a peasants' revolution had taken place there." There are clearly larger issues and ideas at play here than just nation states. "The more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes to me that the Poles are une nation foutue [a finished nation] who can only continue to serve a purpose until such time as Russia herself becomes caught up into the agrarian revolution." While I think that there is some distinct animosity he his displaying in response to Poland's failure to accomplish anything in the 1848 revolutions; I think he's also looking at the bigger picture. Does Poland have a future to play in bringing about a socialist world? As part of the perceived political revolutions? Is Polish identity strong enough to form the basis of change or even independence after its recent failure? If we say that Poland is a 'finished nation' as far as progressing the revolution, that gives the passage different and less ominous meaning than at first purported, and in short this is how I think he meant it. Not that Poland shouldn't exist or that Poland in the general sense was 'finished,' but as far as progressing socialism the issue is finished in Poland. They later changed this view, as the notes (#16) on this version of the letter makes clear and gives basically the same analysis that I have.


"Below Engels analyses German policy towards Poland not in an abstract way but from a definite perspective which might have opened up if a revolutionary democratic movement had taken shape and prevailed in Germany, and a people's revolution against tsarism had simultaneously developed in Russia. It is clear from the letter that Engels considered the political line he recommends here to be appropriate only on condition that the national movement in Poland proper did not go beyond the limits of landowners' (szlachta) demands and, as had often happened in the past, ignored the task of emancipating the peasantry from the feudal yoke. This letter therefore reflects the striving of Marx and Engels to consider the nationalities question from the concrete historical standpoint and to link its solution with the general interests of the revolutionary movement.

When, some years later, Marx and Engels realised that the situation in Central and Eastern Europe had not changed and that counter-revolutionary regimes continued to reign supreme in Germany and Russia, whereas in the Polish national movement there was a continual strengthening of the influence of the revolutionary-democratic elements which had played a prominent part in the 1863-64 uprising, they were as Lenin put it `treating the Polish movement with the most profound and ardent sympathy' (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 436).


Ev1612 wrote:I do not see that you have debunked what you claim you have.
EXAMPLE:
FILM SAYS: In the Nazi Germany, these groups [victims] were also defined by ethnicity, the Jews, for example, and in the soviet union, they defined them by social origin.
YOU SAY: As we shall see, that is not the case.
....
After reading your VERY long review I am afraid I did not hear: Why exactly this is not the case?
Are you saying the Soviet regime did not define its victims by their social origin/class? Have you heard of "классовые враги"?


I have and perhaps i should have clarified, im taking care of the relativistic aspect of it, as is evident when i quoted Burleigh in response to one of their claims.


I guess because of this i really should go on with this critique
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Sat Nov 12, 2011 4:50 am
Ev1612Posts: 20Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:48 am Gender: Female

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

I agree Marx & Engels might have looked upon Poland with sympathy, but I do not agree with you when you say that a quote "They thought that Poland had no reason to exist" is a lie. It is not a lie, it is what Engels wrote. So, if that expert in the film decided to take you to court, I am afraid you would lose.

Talking about Poland, is it true that Marx had said this: "The Jews of Poland are the dirtiest of all races"?
http://tinyurl.com/polish-jews
Sun Nov 13, 2011 7:08 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

Ev1612 wrote: I agree Marx & Engels might have looked upon Poland with sympathy, but I do not agree with you when you say that a quote "They thought that Poland had no reason to exist" is a lie. It is not a lie, it is what Engels wrote. So, if that expert in the film decided to take you to court, I am afraid you would lose.


I wouldn't lose anything because i've already blown away your extremely selective and stupid quote[mine] and in the process shown that you and the film do indeed misrepresent/misconstrue Marx and Engels on Poland, in their case it is deliberate, Ergo "lie".

Ev1612 wrote:Talking about Poland, is it true that Marx had said this: "The Jews of Poland are the dirtiest of all races"?
http://tinyurl.com/polish-jews


OK another complicated historical issue that you absolutely fail to put in context and you ignore the contemporary use of language of the times. Remember what i've already said about Race in the 19th century? Does the year 1848 ring a bell for you? Then you should know that that Marx is here supporting the Polish freedom movement :lol: . The area around Posen rose in revolt at the time and as Marx saw it the people had a greater chance of freedom than under, Prussian or even German rule.

"A compromise was reached on 11 April in Jarosławiec, when Karl Wilhelm von Willisen permitted Poles to have four military camps counting 720 people each (In the end the number of people in the camps was around 4,000) Willisen himself left Poznań on 20 April blamed for treason and having "betrayed the German cause" and as a contemporary eyewitness wrote "Willisen was exposed to personal insults or even danger from the infuriated German and Jewish mobs of Posen"

The position taken by the Jewish population requires a separate discussion. According to the majority of publication], Jews decisively supported the German side and resisted Polish national goals ["This picture (in reality), however, is only partially accurate" as the article im quoting from here goes on to explain]." - Krzysztof Makowski, "Poles, Germans And Jews In The Grand Duchy Of Poznan In 1848: From Coexistence To Conflict"


And it was these "majority of publications" which contained the information which Marx fed of, hence his language and his indictment is not meant to denigrate any particular people but the actions of political groups. When he calls the Germans national simpletons and money-grubbers, when he calls the Hohenzollern family "crowned thieves" is he now supposed to be a complete German hater too? No, you need to understand the arguments, the issues, and the type of language the was common in the rather tabloid press of the time.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Sun Nov 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Ev1612Posts: 20Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:48 am Gender: Female

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

As I understand your answer to my previous question: is it true that Marx have called Polish Jews the dirtiest of all races, is yes. Ok. Could you please clarify why exactly he believed so? Just interested. So, if you can, please try not get emotional.

There is yet another historical issue, which I would like you to put into appropriate context. I read that Marx have said the following: ""The Spanish are already degenerate. But a degenerate Spaniard, a Mexican, is an ideal." Why is that?

p.s. You refered to the type of language that was common in the rather tabloid press of the time. All these quotes are from personal letters between Marx and Engels, not from the press.
Sun Nov 13, 2011 9:19 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

Ev1612 wrote: As I understand your answer to my previous question: is it true that Marx have called Polish Jews the dirtiest of all races, is yes. Ok. Could you please clarify why exactly he believed so? Just interested. So, if you can, please try not get emotional.


How about Polish independance for a start? Oh and he also believed in Jewish emancipation so don't try that trick, i've pre-empted it already.

Ev1612 wrote:There is yet another historical issue, which I would like you to put into appropriate context. I read that Marx have said the following: ""The Spanish are already degenerate. But a degenerate Spaniard, a Mexican, is an ideal." Why is that?


Actually the full quotation, quote-miner is as follows:

"The Spanish are already degenerate, but a degenerate Spaniard, a Mexican is an ideal. All the Spanish vices, braggadocio, swagger and Don Quixotry, raised to the third power, but little or nothing of the steadiness which the Spaniards possess. The Mexican Guerrilla war was a caricature of the Spanish, and even the 'sauve qui peut' of the regular armies infinitely surpassed. But the Spaniards have produced no talent comparable to that of Santa Anna"


First off, how exactly is the Marx quote racist? The mistake I think you are making is to put the modern connotation of what it means to be 'Mexican' and transpose that onto Marx's meaning. Mexico was, and still is, comprised of various populations that occupy the social strata. On the top were the Europeans, those from Spain who moved to Mexico, very closely next would be those of direct European decent. These two groups were the ruling elite of Mexico, and it is to these to whom Marx is referring when he uses the term 'Mexicans'. He is not referring to the mixed race people or native Mexicans, or the Mexicans as a whole, as we would think of the term now. Of course he didn't need to specify this to Engels because they knew each other's thinking and it would have been clear to them that the reference was to the ruling class. And it is not a racist remark to call the Spanish ruling class "Swaggering" and such, because they certainly were in their relations to the lower social strata, European or not. The history of Mexico, and the various revolutions that were fought, not only for independence, but because of this social strata bear this out. Mexico was long a battleground between those of European descent and those of the mixed and native peoples, but Marx was referring to none of that, he was only referring to the upper crust. They were essentially the same group only separated by location. So perhaps to put it in a more contemporary and exacting language one could say the quote says:

The counter-revolutionary Spanish elites are bad enough, but the counter-revolutionary Spanish elites who have the people of Mexico under their thumb are worse. The Guerrilla war was not fought with the same intensity or effort as is was in Spain against Napoleon by these elites, and their armies were mainly lead by men that looked only to themselves. ('sauve qui peut')


So I think to see the quote as racist is entirely missing the real context. He was nowhere referring to 'Mexicans; as we think of them today, but only the ruling European Spaniards. And they are 'degenerate' not because of any inherent personal or 'racial' qualities, but because of their counter-revolutionary positions. So he's comparing the elite European Spaniards in Mexico, to the elite Spaniards in Europe during the resistance against Napoleon. So again where's the racism?

Ev1612 wrote: p.s. You refered to the type of language that was common in the rather tabloid press of the time. All these quotes are from personal letters between Marx and Engels, not from the press.


Look Marx was using the type of language that was common in the rather tabloid press of the time, and these are not honest quotations, these are poorly selected, internet gleaned Quote-mines [and un-original ones at that too, because believe me i've heard them all before] you are presenting!
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Sun Nov 13, 2011 9:55 pm
Ev1612Posts: 20Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:48 am Gender: Female

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

I agree with you, Marx supported Polish independence.
I am not so sure though about him being as politically-correct as you describe it here.
How do you know he was not a racist?

As you are aware he supported direct slavery of the Blacks (as opposed to inderect slavery of proletariat). Have an explanation to that?
Regarding Marx's quote about Polish Jews being the dirtiest of all races. You said Marx supported Jewish emancipation. So what? Hitler supported Ukrainian emancipation (from Russia). How does that chage the fact that he considered the Ukrainians (just as Russians) a lower race?
Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:38 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

Ev1612 wrote: I agree with you, Marx supported Polish independence.


Ha! I win. Case closed.

Ev1612 wrote:I am not so sure though about him being as politically-correct as you describe it here.
How do you know he was not a racist?


And lets see, do you know what was conventional wisdom and language in the 19th century, and what was not? As is evident from your last posts, you clearly don't! Marx and Engels were Racist only to the extent society at large was and no amount of Quote-mining on your part can change this. They were not the extreme racists by 19th century standards you foolishly make them out to be!

Ev1612 wrote:As you are aware he supported direct slavery of the Blacks (as opposed to inderect slavery of proletariat). Have an explanation to that?


Yea more nonsense gleaned from your stupid quote-mines. Marx supported the abolition of slavery and in fact he sent a very well known congratulations letter to Abe Lincoln stating...

"We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery."


So do you have an explaination for that letter?

Ev1612 wrote:Regarding Marx's quote about Polish Jews being the dirtiest of all races. You said Marx supported Jewish emancipation. So what? Hitler supported Ukrainian emancipation (from Russia). How does that chage the fact that he considered the Ukrainians (just as Russians) a lower race?


Wow you've never heard of the Generalplan-ost, The plan which stipulated that the West Ukraine, Crimea, and the Dnepr bend for example would be germanised if suitable, meaning those who had traditionaly farmed there to be destroyed? Yea some emancipation you think that is!

"As Hitler knew, in late 1940 and early 1941 ninety percent of the food shipments from the Soviet Union came from Soviet Ukraine. Like Stalin, Hitler tended to see Ukraine itself as a geopolitical asset, and its people as instruments who tilled the soil, tools that could be exchanged with others or discarded. For Stalin. mastery of Ukraine was the precondition and proof of the triumph of his version of socialism. Purged, starved, collectivized, and terrorized, it fed and defended Soviet Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union. Hitler dreamed of the endlessly fertile Ukrainian soil, assuming that Germans would extract more from the terrain than the Soviets.

Food from Ukraine was as important to the Nazi vision of an eastern empire as it was to Stalin's defense of the integrity of the Soviet Union. Stalin's Ukrainian "fortress" was Hitlers Ukrainian "breadbasket"" - Timothy Snyder, "Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin", p161.


So Hitler didn't want to truly emancipate the Ukrainians and bring them into society, but rather colonise the area and make it directly under his control for specific geopolitical reasons.

"Hitler wanted Ukraine "So that no one is able to starve us again, like in the last war." The conquest of Ukraine would first insulate Germans from the British blockade, and then the colonization of Ukraine would allow Germany to become a global power on the model of the United States" - Snyder, "Ibid", p161


So surprise surprise your analogy falls totally flat on it's face.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:50 pm
Ev1612Posts: 20Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:48 am Gender: Female

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

So do you have an explaination for that letter?


Yes, I have. Marx congratulated anti-slavery campaign in the US because according to him the black-white segregation was an obstacle to the emancipation of the proletariat there (his English-Irish parallel) . If it was not for this purpose, he had no problem with the Blacks being slaves.

About Hitler and Ukraine. I know of the General Plan Ost. I also know that in the mid 1930s Hitler supported Ukrainian independence movement in the USSR. He despised Ukrainians, but at that stage supported their independence because it served his interests at the time. Just like Marx - despised the Blacks, but congratulated Lincoln. By the way the chief-abolitionists Lincoln's motives are also disputed. Being abolitionist and a racist was not necessarily mutually excluding:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-boo ... ial-views/

Finaly, what about the Jewish issue? You have avoided it the third time. Why in Marx's view Polish Jews were the dirtiest of all races?
p.s. I agree that Marx lived in the 19th century, used the language of that time and shared the views of that time. As you know, many intellectuals at that time were racists or Anti-Semites, it was nothing uncommon.
Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:59 am
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1224Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

Ev1612 wrote: Hitler supported Ukrainian emancipation (from Russia).


Could you provide source for this, please?
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:21 pm
Ev1612Posts: 20Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:48 am Gender: Female

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

> Could you provide source for this, please?


The Russian Roots of Nazism by Kellogg:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521845122
Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:18 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: The Soviet Story, A critique (the first 20 mins).

Ev1612 wrote: Yes, I have. Marx congratulated anti-slavery campaign in the US because according to him the black-white segregation was an obstacle to the emancipation of the proletariat there (his English-Irish parallel) . If it was not for this purpose, he had no problem with the Blacks being slaves.


Wow you really like to quote-mine and twist philosophy for your own purposes don't you? No sorry Marx opposed slavery, Period! And in Des Kapital he described slavery as being a "barbaric horror", clearly not very much of an endorsement is it? And him saying that "black-white segregation was an OBSTACLE [emphasis addded] to the emancipation of the proletariat there" is NOT him endorsing slavery but rather it's opposite. It is an argument AGAINST segregation and slavery, so there goes your analogy with Lincoln!

Oh and btw, Isn't it interesting that there are Right-wingers stating today that the American Civil War was about 'freedom' or the 'overreaching power of the Northern gov't'? Well then, that lot would really have to admit their supposed libertarian 'freedom' includes the right to own slaves and protection of this 'right' from gov't interference :lol:. When that lot say it was about economics, then they have to admit it was about the economics of slavery (Yea and plugging things from a Glenn Beck Website makes me suspect what your political affiliation's are). I find it no accident that virtually everybody who vehemently takes the Southern side me and my friends come across are so-called Right wing "libertarians" and they're not on my side. Frankly I don't see how the Confederacy and it's slavery can be defended on any level, yet they find that they must do so, and always try to minimize the issue of slavery in the process.

Ev1612 wrote: About Hitler and Ukraine. I know of the General Plan Ost...


Then you should know that in the end Hitler wanted Ukraine as German Lebensraum and under his control, not independant. And to compare this in the way you do to Marx is extreme superficial nonsense to say the least, It's asinine and all you prove by making this analogy and with your internet gleaned quote-mines is that you haven't read a single bit of Marx have you?

As to this "Hitler supporting Ukrainian independence (which would be the more exacting way of putting it)" it was a temporary thing so you would be correct only to that extent, because an independant Ukraine was not part of Hitler's long term plans, Nazi Control of it was.

Oh and perhaps one could mention that in a speech at the annual meeting of the German Labor Front on September 12th 1936, he was already envisioning that the eastern lands ([Russia] here he mentions the Ukraine by name), being an appendix to the Third Reich:

"If the Urals with their vast wealth of raw materials, Siberia with its rich forests, and the Ukraine with its vast fields of grain were in Germany, it would be swimming in surplus under National Socialist leadership. We would produce,and every single German would have more than enough to live on." - Quoted from Max Doramus, "The Complete Hitler: A Digital Desktop Reference to His Speeches & Proclamations, 1932-1945. Volume II: 1935-1938", p835.


And maybe you should be aware about the following, just as a filler ;) :

"As a result of a secret pact, Hitler agreed to a Hungarian occupation of all of Transcarpathia. And on 14 March 1939, The Hungarian Army moved into the region. Hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned, the Carpathian Sich rendered brave but futile resistance. On 15 March, in a symbolic gesture, the Voloshyn government proclaimed the independent Republic of Carpatho-Ukraine. Only hours later it was forced to flee from it's homeland. [...] The episode served as a graphic illustration of how little Ukrainians could depend on Hitler" - Orest Subtelny, "Ukraine: A History", p451.


"Nazi-OUN collaboration was vitiated from the start by Hitler's determination to treat the Ukraine as a colony of serfs. In spite of the systematic decimation of OUN activists by Nazi execution squads, however, the OUN returned to collaborationism as soon as it could be directed against the main enemies. The Ukrainian integral nationalist situation was peculiar in that there were two enemies of almost equal significance -- the Poles and the Russians. Even before 1939, 80 per cent of the Ukrainians were under Soviet (or, in OUN eyes, Muscovite) domination. This situation dictated a concentration on the enemy from Moscow, a concentration encouraged by prominent East Ukrainian figures like Dontsov. On the other hand, nearly all the active leaders and most of the OUN rank and file were West Ukrainians, who had grown up fighting Poles. As a result, the OUN was a faithful German auxiliary in the Polish campaign of 1939. Later, OUN units took advantage of the unsettled conditions in the occupied territories to carry out attacks on Polish villages designed to destroy or drive out Polish enclaves on what was considered Ukrainian territory. Since these atrocities, like the Ustasa excesses, were potential threats to the war effort, they constituted an additional barrier to collaboration. So did ruthless OUN attacks on Russian elements in the East Ukrainian cities in the autumn of 1941. In both cases the Nazis preferred to play off the scorned Slavic elements against each other, rather than to risk giving the Ukrainians a free hand. In spite of all this, when the Nazi regime offered to collaborate with Ukrainians again, the OUN agreed. Hatred of the Nazis was undiminished, but the desire to fight the principal enemy, the Russians, proved more intense. As a result, the more moderate wing of the OUN overtly aided in recruiting the Waffen SS Division Galicia, and the extreme wing at least acquiesced in the recruitment. After the Soviet reconquest of Volhynia and Galicia, OUN-led guerrillas there co-operated as much as possible with the Wehrmacht." John Armstrong, "Collaborationism in World War II: The Integral Nationalist Variant in Eastern Europe. From the Journal of Modern History Vol. 40, No. 3 (Sep., 1968))"


Ev1612 wrote:Finaly, what about the Jewish issue? You have avoided it the third time. Why in Marx's view Polish Jews were the dirtiest of all races?


Hahaha the only person ignoring anything here is you! I adressed it when you first brought it up, Does anyone else agree with me that i have?

That you are seemingly unable to understand what i actually wrote and the language of the times is entirely your fault.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:40 pm
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 3
 [ 51 posts ] 
Return to Blog of Reason

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
cron