Yes, and no prizes for guessing which member.of the clique it was. Case rested m'lord.
Off Topic General Election
- Thread starter Jennings60s
- Start date
It was his strong opinion that the SNP were a bunch of Nazis and Nationalists. But allowing for the fact that only a small percentage of our debate touches on Scotland, this appears to be something of an overreaction. Pity, because Aberdeen stood his ground and did actually debate seriously, and, despite having very contrary views, I do not remember him ever being personal or insulting. Just a question Yorkie - there are no Nazis on this forum, but were the Nazis Left or Right wing ? The question is very much open to debate.
When is a Nationalist, not a Nationalist? - when they are a Scottish Nationalist!
yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
I Still fail to understand your point?
I believe you inferred he was hounded out by the lefty clique.
Looking at his profile page I saw that last posting which indicated he was not fed up with a lefty clique but by nationalists and Nazis?
Analysis of the new marginal seats shows that a swing of just 1.63% to Labour would deliver the 34 gains that Corbyn needs to make it the largest party in the Commons. Before the election he needed 4.6%, something that was very unlikely.
yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
mmm.... Interesting and challenging question. first thoughts... far-right.... they presented themselves as national socialists and executed trade unionists, socialists, communists and social-democrats etc And Hitler was anti-Marxism:
"At that time the struggle against Marxism first was raised as a goal of this fight. I then pledged to myself for the first time as an unknown individual to begin this war, and never to rest until this phenomenon was finally driven out of German life".
They allied with right- wing govts and were staunch nationalists....
Any further thoughts?
Taken from the manifesto of the National Socialist Party:
11. Abolition of unearned incomes - breaking of debt (interest) slavery.
12, Personal enrichment through war designated as a crime - total confiscation of all war profits.
13. Nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. Division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. Expansion of old age welfare.
16. Immediate communalization of all warehouses.
17. Prevention of land speculation, usury and free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility.
It goes on Yorkie - I have left a lot out here which was irrelevant to the question but it collective ownership of the means of production is the yardstick by which we measure real socialist belief then it is clear that the Nazis were left wing in their thinking. The difference was that they were nationalists - and whilst they did not object to the 'socialism' of the left they did object to the supposed 'internationalism' of the Bolsheviks. Whilst there is much criticism of Marxism in Mein Kampf (meant for the public) - it becomes clear from other material (table talks) that Hitler believed the whole National Socialist movement to be Marxist in origins. Many socialists will recoil from this (as will modern Nazis and Fascists) - however, any real reading of Marx casts real doubt on the 'international' nature of Marxism. 'The Proletariat has no fatherland' is an oft quoted phrase from Lenin - as is workers of the World unite but, how many countries at this time had an industrial proletariat. It is clear reading both Marx and Lenin that races and cultures which were not capable of developing an industrial proletarian class consciousness (and this meant most of the World at that time) would be cast on the dung heap of history - 'exterminated' was used by Marx to describe this. I am sorry but Marx was as racist as hell - read 'The Jewish Question', and it is almost the holocaust waiting to happen. All Hitler did was to transform 'class war' into 'race war' - His problem with the Communists was that they were competing for the hearts and minds of the same people. As for collective ownership - Hitler's first aim was the nationalization of all industry in Germany - only Goebbels insistance that they could control without ownership prevented this. They turned the 'ownership' class into a 'managerial' class in service of the state.
Italian Fascism also has left wing origins (Mussolini was, originally a staunch Marxist). After the second world war socialists of all descriptions have been all too happy to use the expression Nazi and Fascist to insult those on the right - it fitted well, they were, after all at war against the USSR. But the real truth is different - they were both perverse variations of socialism. Hitler simply replaced the 'internationalism of the proletariat' with 'The Community of the Volk'. Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat can take bizarre forms and easily become a genetic expression. This is why, although I have dabbled with many forms of pre Marxist communism, and with the Anarcho Communism of Kropotkin I came to believe that the movement must come from below - and must not involve compulsion. Marxism itself repelled me in every way.
His reason for resigning is astonishing. He is right in the sense that you should be free to believe what you want to believe and that this should not impact on others. His rather pathetic suggestion that scrutinising his beliefs is somehow intolerant is laughable. We see people blowing themselves up, and as many as they can around them, in good faith. We see people shooting others in church in good faith. and so on and so forth.
Across the pond we have pretty much an entire government, ironically seemingly not orange45 himself, awaiting the apocalypse - the rapture, the second coming - and now we have Theresa May who is trying to get away with that very same nonsense over here - this is the sort of rubbish the DUP believe in.
We are the pure and chosen few, and all the rest are damned. There’s room enough in hell for you – we don’t want heaven crammed. (George Elliot - Adam & Bede; Christopher Hitchens - God Is Not Great).
You wouldn't put the National Space Agency in the hands of a "flat earther"?
Or the Environment Agency in the hands of a climate change denier.... would you, Mrs May
I know that my Mum got extremely frustrated with the main parties, so voted Green for the first time in her life - and her 71st birthday is next month. Given that the biggest issue in the future is the state of the planet, if she isn't already, should Caroline Lucas have discussions with her contemporaries in countries where the Greens are more popular on how to appeal to more people? I know she's joint leader, but she would carry more weight as she is an MP unlike her colleague.
There was a European Greens conference in Liverpool earlier this year, so there must be a lot of dialogue between the English Greens and those in other countries. In our municipality of Engelskirchen we had a visit from the North Devon Green Party a few years back, and I know that the Greens in St. Albans have a kind of partnership with those in Worms (Germany). The problem is that most other Green Parties operate under a PR. system - this is why they are more successfull. There is also some difference between the programmes of the various Green Parties, although the core values are the same.
yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
Wow pretty damning about Marx..who I always believed was misunderstood. I think his economic theory was particularly interesting although never Marxist myself. However I could never agree with any model that is in any way racist. The Nazi model was particularly awful.. And perhaps a result of Hitler s own childhood humiliations...
Although some aspects of the Marxist analysis are brilliant there is the pitfall that an ideology which stresses class conflict as being the motor which drives history forward can easily become intertwined with an ideology which stresses racial conflict as performing the same function. If the proletariat seize control and oust the bougoisie we call it a left wing revolution - but if the proletariat all have one ethnic origin and the ruling classes another then the same revolution apparently becomes one of the far right. All very illogical. The only thing which is generic to all hard left (or socialist) ideologies, is the belief in the common ownership of the means of production - whether through the state (USSR), direct ownership by the workers themselves, ownership by the commune (which is the end goal of Communism ie. where the state has withered away - or religious communalism (which is voluntary). Elements such as 'race' are peripheral to this. Do we call a nation which holds all ownership as common right wing because it holds its socialism to itself and is aggressive to outsiders ?
Maybe we need to redefine what we mean by left and right wing - or maybe the terms are redundant anyway. For me the term 'hard right' means something like neo liberal, free market economics based on the survival of the fittest where losers can go to the wall. I cannot easily use it about Fascists and Nazis, who have large chunks of left wing ideology built into their programme (if they didn't have this they would never have any appeal for working class people). Unfortunately 'the left', and by that I mean not only the hard left but also social democrats such as the Labour Party - have had to redefine themselves since 1945 - have had to 'prove' their internationalist crudentials, in order to differentiate themselves sharply from the national socialists - to prove that the Nazis were, actually, on the right. This is understandable - to distance yourself from monsters. The result is that no leftist of the modern era will criticize 'multi culti' in any way - because they are 'internationalists'. We have to get back to being able to talk about issues such as immigration in an objective way - in places such as Stoke on Trent, or Oldham - where multi culti does not work so well as in Chiswick or Islington. What do you say to the last ethnic Anglo Saxon family living in a street in Oldham where the chip shop has gone, the corner pub has gone, and the memory of dark satanic mills exists only in your mind but nobody elses ? The Labourite can point out how immigration actually benefits the country - he can produce statistics to prove it. The real Socialist can try to convince the person that he is a victim of his relationship to the means of production - but this is just as abstract. We need more - and, unfortunately, those from the BNP etc. are well able to step into this situation. We have to move on from the idea that everyone who questions the virtues of uncontrolled immigration is a racist, a Fascist or a Nazi.
yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
Mmmm...so there are grounds in your mind for controlling immigration? How does that go with freedom of movement ?
We have to acknowledge the fact that people do not like living in communities which are constantly changing. There are many ways in which immigration could be filtered in the UK. - compulsory registration systems - need for people to have a bank account etc. as is the case on the continent. The Uk. has become the easiest place in Europe to go to and earn casual, cash in hand, money. The problem is that immigration has always been in the interests of capital - it can suppress wages, and it can divide the working class upon ethnic lines - yet it is the left which supports it ? In contrast the Conservative right claims to be against it - yet profits most from it. All very illogical. Don't get me wrong Yorkie - I love having different cultures around me - it is interesting, and many towns would die if it wasn't there. But we have to face up to the fact that many normal people who are not racists, fascists or Nazis have their concerns. It is very easy to sit in eg. Chiswick etc. talking about the benefits - but harder for those lower down the scale.
yorkshirehornet
Well-Known Member
There is IMO a political correctness about freedom of movement as if to acknowledge there may be a problem may be racist or condoning what are considered right wing views. I think in the UK people have reacted to ukip, and further right wing views on immigration by taking a reactive position.
Hence the shock in the Brexit vote when Labour communities voted Leave.. And then the return of many Brexit voters to the Labour party for this election which surprised Pollsters.
Hence the shock in the Brexit vote when Labour communities voted Leave.. And then the return of many Brexit voters to the Labour party for this election which surprised Pollsters.
I agree about the PC. Complete freedom of movement is great in principle but can lead to demographic problems. Britain, as a whole, does not have a problem with immigration - but some parts of it do, and they are often run down areas where some people end up feeling like foreigners in their own town. There is also the problem of depopulation of other areas - because nobody invests in a country which has a falling population, or where all the young people are leaving.
We can see clearly that the country cannot function with immigrants. Look at any sector of the economy and it relies on them. The nurses from the EU have stopped coming, and those already here are leaving, creating the situation where 1 in 9 positions are now unfilled. Weatherspoons want to stop immigration except for the staff they need to employ. Many food processing companies cannot operate without them. It is no wonder that the realists in government are saying that business needs to come first and not immigration. Hammond was expected to say something along those lines at the Mansion House speech that had to be cancelled. There are increasing signs that the splits within the Tory party are opening up for all to see. Will they hold together or not is becoming a real question.
I don't intend to damn all of Marx's ideas Yorkie - but this raises another question. Nearly all people were racist in the 19th Century, at least when measured by our moral standards of today - even my parents were less open to multi culti than I am. Can we really judge the past by moral standards of the present ? Do I reject all of the ideas of Charles Darwin because he was also a racist ie. partly a creature of his time. This brings back a quote ie. ''Women should leave reasoning to men, and they are not fit for serious employment''.......thankfully not sentiments which are repeated too often today, and could be atributed to a boorish chauvinist pig were it not for the fact that they are from Immanuel Kant, one of the most influentual philosophers of the 18th Century.......but at that time his ideas may have been mainstream - and I cannot blame him for not being a moral pioneer of his age. Another example of this is in our relationship to children - for 98% of human history we have thought it ok. (in fact constructive) to beat them with sticks, rods, and often worse - yet now we are horrified at the idea. Were all the people who actually did this monsters - and should we be closed to all of their other ideas (to all history) as a result ? How many of those ideas which are mainstream to us now (perhaps how we relate to the animal world or to nature) will appear grotesque in 200 years time ? We can only judge the past by its own standards - or we can assign Dickens, Jane Austin and half of the other classics to the dustbin because they were not PC. enough.