Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Why is there no socialist architectural movement today?

I am choosing to repost a reply I wrote in answer to a good question Ren raised over at my blog. I hope that it is informative for everyone.

There is no truly socialist architectural movement today. This can be seen in two different lights — one positive, the other negative.

On the one hand, I believe that there is no socialist architectural movement largely because we don’t inhabit a revolutionary moment. There are significant events taking place throughout the Arab world and in some of the poorer parts of Europe. Even the major economic powers of the world are reeling from crisis. The world is experiencing more upheaval now than it has felt in decades. But all-out social revolution is not imminent. I understand, as you do, that revolutionary transformation is a process, but history requires certain spasms or events to trigger such processes and set them concretely in motion.

So from this perspective, it’s perfectly understandable why there should be no socialist architectural movement — any such proposals or designs would be hopelessly utopian in our present situation. Architecture can have a social mission, and modernist architecture was certainly committed to such ends in its time. But as Le Corbusier and others realized, an emancipatory architecture can only take place at the level of a generalized process of global social planning. Only then could such ambitious schemes be undertaken and implemented. And so for this to take place, a social revolution must have already laid the groundwork for revolutionary architecture and urban-planning.

On the other hand, however, this all can be seen in a tragic light. The failure of the Russian Revolution to spread to Central and Western Europe left most of the world outside the pale of truly transformative social change. Still, the ideology of modernist architecture sought initially to rationalize building practices across borders, to create a universal language of spatial organization. The modernists wanted to lay to rest the arbitrary, capricious, and anachronistic methods of traditional construction throughout the world. Furthermore, the European and Russian avant-gardes were deeply concerned with the shortage of workers’ housing, the continued antithesis between town and country, and the general anarchy of design in a world where the architect was forced to seek out private, individual contracts, and satisfy their patrons’ every whim and fancy.

It was for precisely this reason, I argue, that European modernists pinned their hopes so strongly on the socialist experiment taking place in Russia. Even though modernism — in both Russia and abroad — practically worshipped technology, with its cult of the machine, the members of the avant-garde saw in the Soviet Union the opportunity to realize their visions on an unprecedented scale. Occupying approximately a sixth of the terrestrial globe, the Soviet Union represented to them a sort of spatial infinity, where they could plan not only individual structures or neighborhoods, nor even just individual cities. Wholeregions could be moulded through the efforts of unified, centralized planning. Thus, with the disappointment of the League of Nations’ choice opting for a neo-Renaissance design for its headquarters, and the global crisis of capitalism in the midst of the Great Depression, the European avant-garde flocked to Russia in staggering numbers. From Germany, Holland, France, Switzerland, and even the United States, architects of the “International” style were eager to participate in the building of a new society.

To name just a few: Le Corbusier, André Lurçat, Victor Bourgeois, Ernst May, Hannes Meyer, Bruno Taut, Ludwig Hilberseimer, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Erich Mauthner, Arthur Korn, Hans Schmidt, Mart Stam, Cornelis van Eesteren — joining the dozens of capable modernist architects already working in the Soviet Union (Moisei Ginzburg, the three Vesnin brothers, Nikolai Ladovskii, El Lissitzky, Konstantin Mel’nikov, Il’ia Golosov, Nikolai Krasil’nikov, Georgyi Krutikov, Ivan Leonidov, etc., etc.)

And this is why the Stalinist betrayal dealt modernism such a crushing blow. With the decision for a grotesque neoclassical style for the Palace of the Soviets, the entire “mystique of the USSR” (as Le Corbusier called it) faded swiftly. Those who had dared to dream of a better future now found themselves hopelessly disillusioned. I maintain that this is where the social mission of modernism died its final, miserable death, and gave way to a more or less complete opportunism. Le Corbusier flirted with fascism in Vichy during the war before collaborating on the UN Building afterwards. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, who in the 1920s had designed the official Monument to the communist heroes Karl Liebneckt and Rosa Luxemburg, was now commissioned to design the ultimate symbol of swanky corporate capitalism, the Seagram Building, in 1958. For architectural modernism, the form remained — but its substance had forever vanished. Thus, this accounts for the present lack of an international socialist movement in architecture as well.



Thersites said...

There is DEFINITELY a new socialist architectural movement underway around the world. Only it's based upon true socialist realism and not the grand Stalinesque ideal. Mad Max, your time and "style" are drawing near, as "socialism" reaps it's true rewards.

-FJ said...

Socialists, in their original native habitat.

-FJ said...

The future of socialist architecture is written in capitalism's past.

Daudelus (the cunning worker) will never work for King Minos. He will only work for himself, as Strife (Hesiod, "Works and Days") is the best motivator.

Attend thou with eye and ear, and make judgements straight with righteousness. And I, Perses, would tell of true things.

So, after all, there was not one kind of Strife alone, but all over the earth there are two. As for the one, a man would praise her when he came to understand her; but the other is blameworthy: and they are wholly different in nature. For one fosters evil war and battle, being cruel: her no man loves; but perforce, through the will of the deathless gods, men pay harsh Strife her honour due. But the other is the elder daughter of dark Night, and the son of Cronos who sits above and dwells in the aether, set her in the roots of the earth: and she is far kinder to men. She stirs up even the shiftless to toil; for a man grows eager to work when he considers his neighbour, a rich man who hastens to plough and plant and put his house in good order; and neighbour vies with is neighbour as he hurries after wealth. This Strife is wholesome for men. And potter is angry with potter, and craftsman with craftsman, and beggar is jealous of beggar, and minstrel of minstrel.

Perses, lay up these things in your heart, and do not let that Strife who delights in mischief hold your heart back from work, while you peep and peer and listen to the wrangles of the court-house. Little concern has he with quarrels and courts who has not a year's victuals laid up betimes, even that which the earth bears, Demeter's grain. When you have got plenty of that, you can raise disputes and strive to get another's goods. But you shall have no second chance to deal so again: nay, let us settle our dispute here with true judgement which is of Zeus and is perfect. For we had already divided our inheritance, but you seized the greater share and carried it off, greatly swelling the glory of our bribe-swallowing lords who love to judge such a cause as this. Fools! They know not how much more the half is than the whole, nor what great advantage there is in mallow and asphodel.

SecondComingOfBast said...

FJ-That native habitat is exactly where socialism would take us back to. And then, just like before, mankind would decide they had enough of that shit and start once again clawing their way back to civilization.

SecondComingOfBast said...

If anybody had the slightest doubt that communism, socialism, Marxism, etc., is a cult, all you need do is read the words of Ross Wolfe, who in an earlier post actually stated that a goal of socialism should be "immortality".

I guess I can see the "wisdom" of such a goal though. Whereas most religions promise you an eternity of heaven if you do what they tell you, socialists will promise you an eternity of hell if you don't.

That wouldn't be a hard sell because they will have already created hell on earth. Expect suicide rates to skyrocket because nobody will want to live past their natural lifespan and would do anything to avoid it.

Ross Wolfe said...

Whereas most religions promise you an eternity of heaven if you do what they tell you, socialists will promise you an eternity of hell if you don't.
I'm pretty sure that most religions promise an eternity of hell if you don't do what they tell you. Perhaps with Judaism the concept of the afterlife is a little underdefined, but in Christianity and Islam there is certainly a hell. And with the religions that believe in reincarnation, there's always the idea of karmic justice, wicked people being reincarnated as slugs or fungus or some such nonsense.

-FJ said...

So evidently socialism has been reduced by the New Left into a religion that promises that men will be reincarnated as slugs or fungus if they do what the AGW crazed Leftists tell them, but would be forced to keep their riches and live in air conditioned houses if they don't...

SecondComingOfBast said...

The difference in most religions and your socialist religion though, Ross, is they have a heaven and a hell. All you can promise is a hell. Good luck finding somebody that would want immortality in your version. In your case, immortality would be a curse, not a gift.

Ross Wolfe said...

Well, I might have overstated my case when I spoke of immortality earlier. But isn't that the goal of medicine and healthy living? The prevention of disease, starvation, malnutrition, unhealthiness, and finally even death (as much as possible)? Now certainly such things sound fantastic, but this is the goal of medical science, its infinite task. It should be made available to anyone who would want to use its services.

Also, regarding suicide, if at any point someone decided that he would want to end his life, he certainly would be free to do so. Hopefully, the availability of plentiful goods and universal services, without the periodic economic crashes that occur under capitalism, will keep the suicide rate low. After all, as Durkheim pointed out in his studies on suicide, it was the social anomie precipitated by socioeconomic upheaval that caused the suicide rate to rise so sharply over the course of the nineteenth century. He saw capitalism as the source of alienation and the lost solidarity that had existed in simpler social formations.

As far as the dialectic of life and death go, though, I have a rather troublesome question, Ren. For I would argue that thought must be dialectical because reality is itself dialectical (i.e., it contains unsolved contradictions and antagonisms that seethe beneath the surface, even in times of relative tranquility). Insofar as revolution would imply the overcoming of these contradictions and antagonistic relations, would this not also mean that dialectical thought would no longer be needed in a truly emancipated world? I would agree that along the way towards achieving this dialectical thinking would be absolutely vital and necessary in solving the social antinomies that present themselves to us. But once the last vestige of unfreedom has been cast off, would dialectical thought not have rendered itself anachronistic?

SecondComingOfBast said...

Matter naturally degrades over time. No DNA genetic manipulation will ever accomplish more than slowing down the process, or at best reversing it temporarily. Put some meat in a freezer and keep it there for ten years, then take it out, cook it and eat it, and see what it tastes like. A clue, it will taste like crap. That's because even in that environment, the meat is subject to matter degradation, albeit slowed to a considerable extent. That's just the nature of the universe. Even rocks degrade over time.

That's also related to why you'll never create a perfect or even a near perfect world where there aren't any natural down cycles of boom and bust or any economic downturns. You're taking a wholly natural phenomenon that is a part of universal reality and ascribing capitalism as the villain. Such a profound misunderstanding of the natural laws of the universe doesn't exactly inspire me with hope that you could create a better world, let alone a perfect one.

Thersites said...

It should be made available to anyone who would want to use its services.


It IS available to anyone with the cash to pay for it... but why should I have to pay for someone else's services? Let THEM earn the $ (by LABOUR) for it! Nobody has a RIGHT to MY labour, but ME!

Thersites said...

Also, regarding suicide, if at any point someone decided that he would want to end his life, he certainly would be free to do so.

LOL! Anyone can commit suicide... for what are they going to DO to them for committing suicide... PUNISH them?

Suicide isn't the issue. ASSISTING someone in committing suicide, is. And I say that anyone who does it, is guilty of murder. Like "torture", making it LEGAL is STUPID! Let the assisters of suicide and torturers of terrorists make their case before a jury of their peers. If it's "justified", they'll get off.

Frank Partisan said...

Ross: Thank you for posting.

There is no socialist, without a socialist movement. Remember in Russia, before the socialist revolution in February 1917, czarism was overthrown. We're going through a period now, like we have never seen before. When capitalism could buy off dissidents with reforms is ending.

I went to a futurist meeting. They were talking about designer bodies.

Farmer once brought up, if you achieve communism, does the dialectic end? My comrades don't believe it ends, at the same time, it's a problem we don't have tools to assess. I think Marx didn't have to speak to something, so far away. I don't believe the dialectic ends.

Thersites: What architecture do Tea Party members like?

Pagan: Boom and bust cycles, are capitalism characteristics. Stalinist Russia didn't have cycles.

Ross Wolfe said...


The problem with most rightists is that they don't have the first clue about the various species of leftism. It's clear enough to them that you're a Trotskyist of some sort, though that probably means very little to them in terms of understanding.

I don't really know how they peg me. They know I like Trotsky's work and know it fairly well (probably not as thoroughly as you, though), and I would have thought it was clear when I declared that the New Left was "long dead" and a "miserable failure" that I can't really be associated with it.

Otherwise they consider socialism to always amount to Stalinism or backwater third-world dictatorships that bandy about the name of "socialism" or "communism" as if their politics had anything to do with it.

For some bizarre reason they also believe that even the Nazis were leftists or socialists, despite the fact that they were clearly the most ultra-rightist nationalist party to have ever existed. Of course they say it's because in the title they were "national socialists," as if that meant anything at all to them. Then they'll say, "But they had SOCIALIST policies!" Big government economic healthcare initiatives and state welfare programs aren't socialist principles; they're charity gigs set up by capitalist states with a guilt complex. Or in the Nazi case they're commanding the heights of industry in order to gear up for an imminent war.

The Nazis officially didn't like capitalism or communism. They were both "invented by the Jews," as part of some scheme of global domination. For the millionth time, capitalism is not just "free-market" economics. It flourishes even in states with huge government apparati.

So honestly, I don't know where you find the patience to talk with halfwit rightists like Thersites. Pagan actually seems like he can engage in intelligent conversation when he wants to. Honestly I'm fairly sure that Thersites/FJ/speedy/etc.'s constant activity and endless strings of posting have driven away most of the leftist audience your blog once had. Not even Sonia participates as much anymore.

Intelligent, atheistic libertarians are fine to talk to. At least they know that the universe is godless and are decently rational, even if they think mechanically and not dialectically. And at least they base their philosophy around the classical liberal tenets of freedom and liberty, one of the truly great legacies of the bourgeois revolutions. But if I were you, I would ban Thersites on the grounds that he fails to even approach the threshold of intelligence.

Ducky's here said...

Ren you may be interested in Laurie Bakers architecture in India.

There is controversy around the value of projects to construct inexpensive housing but there are serious movements around the world.

The question of building efficient communal urban spaces is pretty much dead. Urban planning consists of maximizing commerce. Modernism shows no signs of a revival.

Thanks to Farmer for reminding us what Stalin destroyed. He loved those big monstrosities just like her student, Ayn Rand.

Thersites said...

So honestly, I don't know where you find the patience to talk with halfwit rightists like Thersites. Pagan actually seems like he can engage in intelligent conversation when he wants to. Honestly I'm fairly sure that Thersites/FJ/speedy/etc.'s constant activity and endless strings of posting have driven away most of the leftist audience your blog once had. Not even Sonia participates as much anymore.

Maybe because a dialectic isn't a monologue delivered by some pro-Soviet ideologue. For all the stress and importance you lend the term, most Marxists like yourself haven't the foggiest idea as to how to actually perform one ala Plato's "Parmenides". You haven't the intellectual integrity. Because the goal isn't to win your argument, so much as to arrive at a better understanding of the truth. And sometimes, the truth is a BITCH that there's nothing you can do about.

Thersites said...

Thersites: What architecture do Tea Party members like?

American Colonial architecture, of course! Williamsburg, VA is a virtual paradise. And have you ever been to the campus at UVA? Jefferson's "campus" is now the freshmen dorms.

Thersites said...

It's very popular throughout the Middle Atlantic region.

The Sentinel said...

Ross Wolfe

"they were clearly the most ultra-rightist nationalist party to have ever existed"

Completely wrong.

The Nazis were pan-Europeans, and clearly in deed and not just word as evidenced by the (over 60% non-German) multi-ethnic, multi-national military wing of its executive state organ: The Waffen SS - whose task it was to forge the pan-European 'New Order.'

The Nazis also implemented socialist policies during the height of war, and in countries that had never seen such policy before.

Ross Wolfe said...

Perhaps in the East the Germans were willing to turn a blind eye to the Romanians, who were quite enthusiastic fascists themselves, but one can't say they were "pan-Europeanists." They loved the complicity of Vichy France and very much desired a similar situation with England, but all of Slavdom (the great majority of which is located in Europe) was to be extricated or subordinated as untermenschen. And everything for them was about Lebensraum for the great German/Aryan nation, with its proud Teutonic traditions and mythologies.

And again, what sort of "socialist" policies? Welfare? Healthcare? Public transportation? A large bureaucratic and bookkeeping apparatus? These are not socialist policies or institutions in the least. They are reformist measures of capitalism with a bad conscience. In the case of the Nazis it was just racialized/nationalized reformism. Also, true Marxism despises bureaucracy just as much as, if not more than, libertarians do.

Also, I've read the "Parmenides" dialogue thoroughly, and I know the way in which Platonic/Aristotelian dialectic operates. Plato used different dialogical characters to enact it, while Aristotle used dialectic in his argumentation stripped of its more literary aspects. Hegel's concept of dialectic sprang from the Kantian notion, combined with Pyrrhonian skepticism.

The Sentinel said...

Ross Wolfe

Again, completely wrong.

The goal of the 'New Order' was to restructure Europe with a common purpose under a new, federated politically and economically integrated Europe - much like the EU.

The very praetorian guard of Nazism, their political soldiers - the Waffen SS - draw over 60% of their strength from volunteers of all European nations, races and creeds, Slavs included - and even auxiliary contingents of Indians and Muslims.

Indeed the last defenders of Berlin were largely the foreign volunteers of the Nordland (Scandinavian) Waffen SS and the last defenders of the chancellery were French volunteers of the Charlemagne 1st Waffen SS.

As for socialist polices, then for instance, in Holland, via a “health care fund” the Dutch State pays the cost of health care of the below average income segment of thier people. This fund has been hailed as “a pinnacle of civilization”. However, it was established by the Nazis on November 1, 1941 [during the occupation of the Netherlands].

In 2006, the PvdA (Socialists) blocked the loosening of Dutch employment protection. Some labor unions even termed this employment protection 'holy' However, this measure was also introduced by the Nazis.

The dependent child allowance, one of the shrines of the Christian Democrats, was introduced by the Nazis in 1941.

In another example, during the occupation of Czechoslovakia the Nazis introduced
social security into the country for the first time; increased pensions and introduced unemployment benefit. In fact it was because these measures were so popular that their overseer, Heydrich was assassinated.

One other social policy the Nazis instituted that is being banded around the US at the moment was that the cost of health care was paid for by the government.

But there were many other socialist policies introduced by the Nazis too:

- The Nazis brought the automobile within reach of the working man - at that time, it was truly remarkable

- They doubled the number of holidays for workers.

- They introduced agricultural subsidies for farmers to protect them against the risks of weather and a fickle world market.

- Prices of food were set by the government.

- The Nazis introduced the progressive income tax (still a “sacred” item for the leftist parties)

- The Nazis were not just leftists, they were green as well: they were the first to make care for the environment a government responsibility and they outlawed animal vivisection and cruelty.

- Landlords were required to charge their tenants affordable rents.

- The legal position of tenants was strengthened.

- Child benefits were introduced.

- Pensions were increased.

- The only tax increase that hurt “the common man” was a 50% increase on the duty on tobacco and alcohol.

- And in the war a “special social benefit” was introduced: benefits for the cost of rent, insurance, coal, potatoes and other essential goods.

The USSR never even came close to these tenets of socialism.

Ross Wolfe said...

This is idiocy.

The Waffen SS, despite their status as an "elite" unit, comprised a very small part of the German army, which was itself composed overwhelmingly of Germans, Austrians, etc.

How are any of these things you mentioned "socialist"?

- The Nazis brought the automobile within reach of the working man - at that time, it was truly remarkable (Actually, Ford was able to do that with the Model T, which is why the early Soviets worshipped Ford and brought in teams of designers who had helped build Detroit and make new centers of production.)

- They doubled the number of holidays for workers. (What do holidays for anyone have to do with anything? Holidays are religious events invented by the superstitious. If there should be holidays at all, they should be like the ones for the French Revolution -- for everyone, and to universal principles like Reason, Truth, Justice, Courage, Beauty, etc. Also, the relics of the then-debunked religions of the world should be displayed as evidence of the irrationality of faith in the supernatural).

- They introduced agricultural subsidies for farmers to protect them against the risks of weather and a fickle world market. (Government subsidies have nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. Marxism does not want big government at all. It is fundamentally anti-state, like anarchism, only it knows that a transitional phase is necessary.)

- Prices of food were set by the government.(In a postcapitalist society, the concept of a thing's "price" would be absurd. Food would be provided for as necessary, based on first vital need and then further on demand. Only in a socialist society would a society based on demand be possible. Capitalism only cares about "demand backed by the ability to pay," as Marx pointed out. The world currently produces more than double the amount that would be required to feed its population, and only goes to waste because there are people in nations so impoverished that they cannot afford to pay for it, and so they starve.)

- The Nazis introduced the progressive income tax (still a “sacred” item for the leftist parties)(Again ridiculous. The progressive income tax in America was instituted by another right-wing American nationalist chauvinist, Teddy Roosevelt. Taxation itself would become superfluous in a society based on need rather than profit and the percentages extracted thereof)

- The Nazis were not just leftists, they were green as well: they were the first to make care for the environment a government responsibility and they outlawed animal vivisection and cruelty. (They certainly were green. But true Marxism is also antithetical to most of the modern-day "Green" movement. Contemporary environmentalism indeed has some undeniably fascist roots.)

- Landlords were required to charge their tenants affordable rents.(In a postcapitalist society, there wouldn't even be a need for landlords or ground rent. Adequate housing would be provided and maintained for free by everyone, in the most rationally constructive manner.)

- The legal position of tenants was strengthened. (As with the above, the concept of a "tenant" would be rather ludicrous. Even Engels in his work On the Housing Problem said that the relationship between landlord and tenant was nothing at all like that between the capitalist and the worker.)

- Child benefits were introduced. (Again, how exactly is this socialist? Services would be freely rendered unto all.)

- Pensions were increased. (In a truly emancipated postcapitalist society, it is unlikely that the money-form of capital would remain at all, so the concept of pensions would be ridiculous.)

Ross Wolfe said...

- The only tax increase that hurt “the common man” was a 50% increase on the duty on tobacco and alcohol. (There would be no taxes in a postcapitalist society.)

- And in the war a “special social benefit” was introduced: benefits for the cost of rent, insurance, coal, potatoes and other essential goods. (These aren't the policies of socialism, but of German militarism.)

In all seriousness, Sentinel, your numbskullery is superseded only by your habit of posting endless strings of nonsensical posts with links that no one in their right mind would ever click on, for only more wanton stupidity surely lies beyond them. You are a dunce among dunces, a dolt amongst dolts, and a dullard amidst dullards. You should probably be banned, and then tarred, feathered, and paraded through the streets as an imbecile.

I fear, Ren, that if I have to keep seeing his unfailingly hogshit posts, filled with unintelligible gibberish, my inclination toward continued participation on this site will be severely diminished.

Weed out the stupid so that the smart can carry on civilized discussion. And as proof that I am unbiased, I will say for the record that I have absolutely no problem with Pagan Temple, who has roughly the same ideology as Sentinel/Speedy/etc. Pagan's posts display intelligence and the ability to stay on topic.

Speaking of which, no one in this thread has really responded to the content of the post at all. Except for, of course, some bizarre link that our troglodyte friend provided as "evidence" of a socialist architectural movement in the present day.

Frank Partisan said...

Sentinel: When Churchill, Roosevelt or Hitler, occupied a territory, none of them changed property relations. Only Stalin changed property relations. His strength was with nationalized property relations. The others represented some form of capitalism. The difference between Stalinism and Nazism is property relations. Therefore the Soviet Union didn't adopt what was on your list.

Ducky: Interesting.

Ross: Trotsky called Stalin a national socialist. He stopped because Hitler using that term, caused confusion.

I'll send you a message on FB about blog issues. Nothing is like an Israel/Palestine post on this blog.

Thersites: Both the extreme right, and the extreme left, have a style of criticizing from the sidelines. I've never seen a rightist persuade people, except believers.

Ross Wolfe said...

Again, so it's clear to everyone: Reformism is not socialism. That's why all these idiotic measures like state welfare, basic universal healthcare, guaranteed or increased pensions, job programs, etc. are not socialist. They're Bernsteinian and reformist measures. At one time these measures would not even be considered Social-Democratic, but after the defection of Kautsky at the outbreak of the First World War (he shamelessly backed nationalist German militarism), the name of Social-Democracy -- which had formerly been a radical designation, with members like Rosa Luxemburg, Vladimir Lenin, and Leon Trotskii -- became associated with bourgeois reformism.

Socialism is revolutionary. Bourgeois reformism, programs undertaken to keep the unemployed, disenfranchised, and underpaid from turning revolutionary, is reactionary.

The Nazis carried out no revolution. Horrifyingly, they were democratically elected, and then were able to manipulate conditions to enact emergency measures provided for by the Weimar constitution. They declared a permanent state of emergency, and thus put the final nail in the coffin of the miserable Weimar state. And most of the social programs and "progressive" measures that the Nazis could lay claim to were inherited from legislation introduced by the various Weimar governments, whether Social-Democratic, and were thus already present before the Nazi takeover. Not to mention that some of the social programs and the progressive income tax had been put into place as far back as the age of Bismarck. And if you think that Bismarck, a fucking monarchist, is a leftist, you forfeit any claim to rationality.

Speedy G said...

Weed out the stupid so that the smart can carry on civilized discussion.

Reformism is not socialism.

Ross, looks like you're the first weed. "Reformism" represents step-by-progressive-step "appeasements" offered to socialists. W/O the socialists, there would be no need for "reform", as the capitalist system works exceeding well for capitalists (but not the looser parasites of the "socialist inclined").

Thersites: Both the extreme right, and the extreme left, have a style of criticizing from the sidelines. I've never seen a rightist persuade people, except believers.

No one on the Left persuades the right, either. One must suffer the "torpedoes shock" (Plato, "Meno") in order to be convinced, as the vast majority of people (ie - Wolfie) do not know what they do not know.

The Sentinel said...

Ross Wolfe:

You are just another in long line of extreme 'left' malevolent internet blowhards whose only recourse to dissent is playground insults and demands for silence / censorship / violence / tantrums.

I came here occasional and read the meaningless waffle you drivel out all day and every day (do you work?) and typically for your sort its merely verbiage without meaning.

It is quite literally fantasy peppered with 'in a postcapitalist society' / 'in a truly emancipated postcapitalist society, it is unlikely that the money-form of capital would remain at all' and equally grandiose but equally deluded, entirely imagined nonsense: In modern times there has never been such a thing and it is highly likely there never will be.

Therefore you proceed along these fantastic lines, making up nice little stories about what will happen in your fantasy world, whilst of course, studiously ignoring what has happened in the real world when truly demented malevolent fools like you have to tried to implement your nasty ideology on mankind: Murder, torture, oppression, depression, war and famine.

Of course you claim not have clicked on the links (three of them in fact, not 'endless' as your typically hysterical and dishonest rant claims) because they reveal the horrific truth about what you jovially champion: It was enforced by the biggest genocide in history.

You couldn't give a flying fuck about mass-murder / genocide / violence / oppression so as long as its the 'right' mass-murder / genocide / violence / oppression i.e your mass-murder / genocide / violence / oppression - all in the name of 'equality' of course.

How you would deal with any sort of power at all is revealed here by how you deal with a poxy blog comments box: Hysterical outrage, immediate demands for censorship and some impotent projections of violence (all quite safely from your keyboard, of course.)

You really need to take a look in the mirror, fella. The rubbish you spout is devoid of any foundation in reality - if someone points out real-world examples, you just retreat into your imaginary world of what you think socialism is - Marx et al are NOT socialism - and neither are you, any more then Obama is the Democrat party.

The Sentinel said...

But as for your truly bizarre attempts at rebuttal, it is quite simple to recap:

- The Wehrmacht were ordinary soldiers, largely conscripted whereas the Waffen-SS were political soldiers and all volunteers - they numbered over a million strong and over 60% of that number were non-German, including Slavs and even Indians and Muslims - the SS were the executive arm of the Nazi state and every expression of it was an expression of the regime. They were largely pan-European in nature, because the regime was pan-European in nature.

- The Model T wasn't within the reach of the German 'working man' (nor many others) with its price range over time from $20,000 - $3,000 in today's terms; it was mostly for the 'middle-class' and one the main reasons why the Volkswagen programme was initiated in the first place

- To people who actually work for a living, holidays are very important; and they couldn't give a toss why they are, as long as they. But ANZAC day in Australia, for instance, is this superstitious? Or Australia day? Or US independence day?

- As for agricultural subsidies - who gives a fuck what Marx wanted? I don't nor do the vast majority of the world. Do most people see this type of policy as social? I think they do

- Prices of food set by government - again all you have is your fantasy of what you pretend will happen 'in a postcapitalist society' - whereas the rest of us here in the current space/time continuum realise that this is a social policy

- Progressive tax - so it is not a demand in section 2 of the Communist Manifesto then? And wasnt the Communist Manifesto written 10 years before Roosevelt was even born? You clown.

- Green - again, no one gives a fuck about what you or Marx think, most people associate these policies with the left

- Rent - again back to your fantasy world about 'in a postcapitalist society' - meanwhile the rest of us have to live in reality, and for those of us who actually work and pay rent, this policy would have enormous impact on our quality of lives; and it would also be seen by most as a social policy too

- Tenets - same as above

- Child Benefit - same as above

- Pensions - as above

- Taxes - as above

- Special social benefit - as above

So now having put you back in your box and educated you in reality, please do continue with the Prima Dona hissy fits - they make me and everyone else laugh at you even more.

Or you could actually try and engage with the adults and maybe just learn something.

You have a nice day, now, sweetpea.

Ross Wolfe said...

When did I ever advocate torture, mass-murder, genocide, or anything of the sort?

The Communist Manifesto, while a brilliant rhetorical piece, is a piece of juvenilia which Marx wrote on commission from a party active in France, which he slapped together in under a week because he had put it off.

You won't see him advocating any such political "platforms" in his later, more mature theoretical writings. Any such platforms could only be seen as provisional, if they were to be implemented at all.

In his 1876 Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx specifically repudiated Lassalle for attempting such reformist measures meant simply to act as a palliative to ensure the continuation of capitalism.

And my point in bringing up Bismarck and Teddy Roosevelt was that their politics UNDENIABLY belonged to right-wing nationalist chauvinism. And they were the ones who introduced government regulations of business and progressive income taxes. Implying that they are reformist measures undertaken by the Right to appease the discontent of the masses.

I suppose you also find restrictions on child labor and free public education for all youths to be unjust as well.


Ross Wolfe said...

From Hitler's own speeches and writings:

"We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings – if only in order to break them up – so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people." Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter 7

"it is much more difficult to impress definite political ideas on the minds of men whose earlier political education was not less nonsensical and illogical than that given to the partisans of the Left. These men have sacrificed the last residue of their natural instincts to the worship of some abstract and entirely objective theory. It is particularly difficult to induce these representatives of our so-called intellectual circles to take a realistic and logical view of their own interests and the interests of their nation in its relations with foreign countries. Their minds are overladen with a huge burden of prejudices and absurd ideas and they have lost or renounced every instinct of self-preservation. With those men also the National Socialist Movement has to fight a hard battle." Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter 14

"To-day our Left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors. To all that kind of talk the answer ought to be: No, the contrary is the truth. Your action in delivering up the arms was dictated by your anti-national and criminal policy of abandoning the interests of the nation. And now you try to make people believe that your miserable whining is fundamentally due to the fact that you have no arms. Just like everything else in your conduct, this is a lie and a falsification of the true reason." Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter 12

"In the beginning of 1920 I put forward the idea of holding our first mass meeting. On this proposal there were differences of opinion amongst us. Some leading members of our party thought that the time was not ripe for such a meeting and that the result might be detrimental. The Press of the Left had begun to take notice of us and we were lucky enough in being able gradually to arouse their wrath. We had begun to appear at other meetings and to ask questions or contradict the speakers, with the natural result that we were shouted down forthwith. But still we thereby gained some of our ends. People began to know of our existence and the better they understood us, the stronger became their aversion and their enmity. Therefore we might expect that a large contingent of our friends from the Red Camp would attend our first mass meeting." Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter 12

Ross Wolfe said...

"[T]he Marxist fighting forces, commanded by international and Jewish stock-exchange capital, cannot finally smash the national resistance in Germany without friendly help from outside. For this purpose French armies would first have to invade and overcome the territory of the German Reich until a state of international chaos would set in, and then the country would have to succumb to Bolshevik storm troops in the service of Jewish international finance." Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter 13

"The Jewish way of reasoning thus becomes quite clear. The Bolshevization of Germany, that is to say, the extermination of the patriotic and national German intellectuals, thus making it possible to force German Labour to bear the yoke of international Jewish finance – that is only the overture to the movement for expanding Jewish power on a wider scale and finally subjugating the world to its rule." Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter 13

"Among this great mass of denationalized countries which have become Jewish colonies one independent State could bring about the ruin of the whole structure at the last moment. The reason for doing this would be that Bolshevism as a world-system cannot continue to exist unless it encompasses the whole earth. Should one State preserve its national strength and its national greatness the empire of the Jewish satrapy, like every other tyranny, would have to succumb to the force of the national idea." Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter 13

"The activist assault formations that had started the [German 1919] Revolution were dissatisfied and felt that they had been betrayed. They now wanted to continue the fight on their own account. But their illimitable racketeering became odious even to the wire-pullers of the Revolution. For the Revolution itself had scarcely been accomplished when two camps appeared. In the one camp were the elements of peace and order; in the other were those of blood and terror. Was it not perfectly natural that our bourgeoisie should rush with flying colours to the camp of peace and order? For once in their lives their piteous political organizations found it possible to act, inasmuch as the ground had been prepared for them on which they were glad to get a new footing; and thus to a certain extent they found themselves in coalition with that power which they hated but feared. The German political bourgeoisie achieved the high honour of being able to associate itself with the accursed Marxist leaders for the purpose of combating Bolshevism." Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter 9

Ross Wolfe said...

"Another thing which irritated me was the manner in which Marxism was regarded and accepted. I thought that all this proved how little they knew about the Marxist plague. It was believed in all seriousness that the abolition of party distinctions during the War had made Marxism a mild and moderate thing." Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter 5

"In the August of 1914 the German worker was looked upon as an adherent of Marxist socialism. That was a gross error. When those fateful hours dawned the German worker shook off the poisonous clutches of that plague; otherwise he would not have been so willing and ready to fight. And people were stupid enough to imagine that Marxism had now become ‘national’, another apt illustration of the fact that those in authority had never taken the trouble to study the real tenor of the Marxist teaching. If they had done so, such foolish errors would not have been committed." Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter 5

"Marxism, whose final objective was and is and will continue to be the destruction of all non-Jewish national States, had to witness in those days of July 1914 how the German working classes, which it had been inveigling, were aroused by the national spirit and rapidly ranged themselves on the side of the Fatherland." Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter 5

Ross Wolfe said...

"The disruptive work done by the Marxists and the poisonous propaganda of the external enemy had robbed these people of their reason. And one had no right to complain. For the guilt on this side was enormous. What had the German bourgeoisie done to call a halt to this terrible campaign of disintegration, to oppose it and open a way to a recognition of the truth by giving a better and more thorough explanation of the situation than that of the Marxists? Nothing, nothing. At that time I never saw those who are now the great apostles of the people. Perhaps they spoke to select groups, at tea parties of their own little coteries; but there where they should have been, where the wolves were at work, they never risked their appearance, unless it gave them the opportunity of yelling in concert with the wolves." Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter 6

"It is useless to object here, as certain big Berlin papers of German-National tendencies have attempted to do, that this statement is refuted by the fact that the Marxists have exercised their greatest influence through their writings, and especially through their principal book, published by Karl Marx. Seldom has a more superficial argument been based on a false assumption. What gave Marxism its amazing influence over the broad masses was not that formal printed work which sets forth the Jewish system of ideas, but the tremendous oral propaganda carried on for years among the masses. Out of one hundred thousand German workers scarcely one hundred know of Marx’s book. It has been studied much more in intellectual circles and especially by the Jews than by the genuine followers of the movement who come from the lower classes. That work was not written for the masses, but exclusively for the intellectual leaders of the Jewish machine for conquering the world. The engine was heated with quite different stuff: namely, the journalistic Press. What differentiates the bourgeois Press from the Marxist Press is that the latter is written by agitators, whereas the bourgeois Press would like to carry on agitation by means of professional writers." Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter 6

"The very absurdity of the economic and political theories of Marxism gives the doctrine its peculiar significance. Because of its pseudo-logic, intelligent people refuse to support it, while all those who are less accustomed to use their intellectual faculties, or who have only a rudimentary notion of economic principles, join the Marxist cause with flying banners. The intelligence behind the movement – for even this movement needs intelligence if it is to subsist – is supplied by the Jews themselves, naturally of course as a gratuitous service which is at the same time a sacrifice on their part." Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter 11

Thersites said...

Ballads for the Modern Proletariat...

Ross Wolfe said...

"Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is the fore-runner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding-ground in which the bacilli of the Marxist world pest can grow and spread. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced an abortion of filth and fire, the creative fire of which, however, seems to have died out." Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter 3

"Today Bolshevism and its Marxist-Centrist-Democratic helpers are faced with a gigantic front of awakening Germany!

Were it not for the pact which the Center and the middle classes have entered into with Marxism as a result of their inner relatedness of character, there would be no red, anti-Christian Germany today. Therefore they are the accursed accomplices of Bolshevism.

Just as a figure like Bismarck once rightfully described liberalism as the pacesetter of Social Democracy, Democracy and the Center are today the pacesetters of Bolshevism and thus the parties who are mainly to blame for our misfortune." Speech delivered January 1st, 1932

"For seventy years, disreputable bourgeois parties in Germany have exhausted the power of the national idea and, to a large degree, left our Volk at the mercy of Marxism. For seventy years the parties of democracy and, in their wake, the strictly Christian Center Party, have helped to corrupt our Volk by practicing sodomy with the forerunners of Bolshevism.

Today they are clinging with a reprehensible thirst for power to a regime which would no longer belong to them if their own significance alone were any measure.

Were the National Socialist Movement to cease existing today as a counterbalance to Marxism, Germany would be Bolshevist tomorrow." Speech delivered January 1st, 1932

In case you're so illiterate when it comes to political history that you don't understand this, the Nazis were Conservative to the point that they even rejected liberal, parliamentarian democracy, considering it just to be a phase towards Marxism. This is why they were ULTRA-RIGHTISTS.

Frank Partisan said...

Ross: I can understand that the right doesn't want, the stigma of Nazism, as the left doesn't want the stigma of Stalinism. The Truth is the truth.

When Churchill, Roosevelt or Hitler conquered, they never expropriated or nationalized property. They were all anti-Bolshevik. Bolshevism is revolutionary socialism. Not social democracy.

The Hitler quotes would make a good post.

SpeedyG: Look up social democracy. To deny its differences with Marxism is dishonest and moronic.

Sentinel: Are you going to say Ross made up those quotes?

Thersites: ?

Ross Wolfe said...

All right, hopefully the Nazi matter is settled and done with. Before moving on to a new post, does anyone have any thoughts at all regarding the contents of the post at hand?

Thersites said...

Look up social democracy. To deny its differences with Marxism is dishonest and moronic.

And what is it to deny its' similarities, as Mr. Wolfe does?

Thersites said...

Marx loves to pontificate upon the subject of inter-class struggle, but apparently ignored the intra-class struggle (notice their feet) that will never disappear. Man's ship of state sails between Scylla and Charbydis... and despite Marx's "desires" that religion would dissappear, looking "backwards" to capitalism will NEVER go away.

The Sentinel said...

Ross Wolfe:

Again, all very easy to deal with. I really don't know what you (or Renegade Eye) think you have achieved with those quotes, but not to worry, I will provide you with some more to further your education.

But first off though, don't you think there might be some double standard or hypocrisy at play here?

Only a couple of comments back you dishonestly claim this about me ...

"your habit of posting endless strings of nonsensical posts with links that no one in their right mind would ever click on"

... and the then produce the above. Like I said, look in the mirror, son - you are projecting.

"When did I ever advocate torture, mass-murder, genocide, or anything of the sort?"

Well for a start you never stop salivating over 'revolution' - and how exactly will this be achieved (and what is wrong with democracy?)

But most especially a post or so back you were crowing about Soviet collectivisation and recommending 'some really interesting Soviet films about collectivization' - clearly quite taken with the idea.

Now are you really going to tell me in all seriousness that you have no idea that that policy was responsible for the biggest mass-murder and genocide in human history?

I think not.

You purposefully didn't comment when I posted films documenting the reality of that monstrous act of crimes against humanity, and then acted like an enraged 5 year old here - spitting venom about links you claim not have seen - at the first opportunity in revenge. You must think we have all just dropped out of the sky.

Now, as for Hitler quotes, what do you think of this one to reinforce your claim about the Nazis that they were ULTRA-RIGHTISTS :

"1 - True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"

Or how about this one:

"2 - This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom."

And surely this one seals the deal:

"3 - Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".

The Sentinel said...

And here we have Marx and Engels with their take:

"4 - We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"


"5 - As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence".


"6 - Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?"

The only problem is that the first two nationalistic quotes came from Friedrich Engels and the third one, sounding very much like a Hitler speech, is from Karl Marx - whereas the last three distinctly socialist sounding quotes came from Hitler.

1 - Friedrich Engels Telegraph für Deutschland January 1841

2 - Friedrich Engels , Schelling and Revelation, Critique of the Latest Attempt of ReactionAgainst the Free Philosophy, 1842

3 - Karl Marx, Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, 1844

4 - Adolf Hitler, May 1, 1927, Toland, John , Adolf Hitler, pp. 224–225.

5- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume 2, Chapter 12

6 - Adolf Hitler, 1933, Robert N. Proctor, The Nazi War on Cancer, p. 74.

The Sentinel said...

So that is your firmly put back in your box again on Nazis, Ross, they were ULTRA-LEFTISTS.

But more interestingly, did you know both your heroes - Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - was a convinced racialists? And advocates for genocide?

In January 1849, months before he migrated to London, Karl Marx published an article by Friedrich Engels in Die Neue Rheinische Zeitung announcing that" in Central Europe only Germans, Hungarians and Poles counted as bearers of progress." The rest must go. "The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust."

"The lesser races of Europe -- Basques, Serbs, Bretons and others -- being sunk in feudalism, were counter-revolutionary; having failed to develop a bourgeoisie, they would be two steps behind in the historical process". Engels dismissed them as left-overs and ethnic trash (Voelkerabfall), and called for their extinction.

You can see the original article for yourself, and hear a Professor on the subject here:


And here are a few more choice Marx quotes for your delectation:

"It is the circumvention of law that makes the religious Jew a religious Jew." (Die Deutsche Ideologie, MEGA V, 162)

"The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races." (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849)

He called Ferdinand Lassalle, "Judel Itzig – Jewish Nigger." (Der Jüdische Nigger, MEKOR III, 82, July 30, 1862)

"Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas." (MEKOR IV, 490, August 25, 1879)

Starting to wake up a little now?

Reality can be a bitch, fella, but unfortunately it is where most of us have to spend our time.

You have a nice day, now.

The Sentinel said...

Renegade Eye:

Are you going to say I made up those quotes?

The Sentinel said...

Oh and Renegade Eye, as you keep mentioning Churchill, are you actually aware of his true opinion of the 'Russian' revolution?

If you didn't already know, then this may shed a different light on your man:

"There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin [It has since been revealed that he was Jewish] the majority of the leading figures are Jews...

In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses...

The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people...

The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated....

Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism.

Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people."

Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920, page 5

Orignal Article

The Sentinel said...

Renegade Eye:

Are you going to say I made up those quotes?

Ross Wolfe said...

Again, nearly all of the quotes you cite from Marx and Engels are from 1841-1845, when they were in their early- to mid-twenties. Pre-1844, they both probably still considered themselves Young Hegelians, even if they were critical of Hegel's political philosophy.

You really are a fucking idiot.

And you obviously didn't read the texts where you take quotes from Engels.

1. The first quote is not Engels. It's Engels quoting (in criticism of) Ernst Moritz Arndt. If you had read the fucking article this would be obvious.

2. The quotation about the thousand-year reign is from his lecture notes on Schelling's philosophy, which he included as a part of his work Anti-Schelling later that year. Engels despised the man and his wretched philosophy. You fucking idiot.

3. The Marx quote is obviously anti-semitic and partially self-loathing, and his early writings on the Jews (On the Jewish Question) are admittedly problematic. No Marxist I know denies this at all. But again, they were pieces of juvenilia that he quickly outgrew.

4. The reason the Nazis were anti-capitalist (in name only, really, since they deployed massive industrial capital in their rearmament) is that they believed that "International Jewry" controlled it and used it to "pull the wires" of all the nations of the world.

5. Socialists and Marxists are not blindly pro-union. Marx himself expressed his thoughts about their limitations, and some of Lenin's most famous rhetorical barbs are specifically anti-union, since he regarded many of the unions to be reactionary and opportunistic. Not all, but many.

6. The idea of "nationalizing the people" is not socialist at's exactly what it says...NATIONALIST POPULISM. Marxism and socialism in general is anti-populist, and you would know this if you knew anything about what you are talking. Hence Marx's polemics against the anarchists, Lenin's polemics against the Narodniki (literally "The Populists" or "The Nationalists" -- народ means both the people and the nation).

And I have no idea what Marvin thinks of Churchill, but my opinion of him is rather low. I consider him a cheap anti-semite and incorrigible conservative whose own military career as an admiral in the British Navy led to disastrous losses at the hands of the Turks. Churchill deserved to be kicked out of the Prime Ministry before the end of the war, as did happen.

There. Admit defeat and end your schoolboy antics.

-FJ said...

6. The idea of "nationalizing the people" is not socialist at's exactly what it says...NATIONALIST POPULISM.

The boy had juster views when he gazed at the shells on the beach, or the flowers in the meadow, unable to call them by their names, than the man in the pride of his nomenclature. -Emerson

The Sentinel said...

Ross Wolfe:

No defeat here, fella, only in your fevered imagination - and no surprises at your latest convulsions and contortions.

Of course you need to throw a prima donna hissy fit again, because deep down, you know you are full of shit - and so is your twisted ideology.

Unfortunately, you are the fucking idiot, my little friend, a real one at that and of the worst kind: A deluded, insecure, affirmation junkie.

You dress yourself up as some kind of intellectual but in reality your endless verbiage is just a cover for your own insecurities - as you soon as you are confronted with truths you and your ilk invariably go into verbose overdrive, thinking that that tedious and wordy smokescreen will somehow fool people that what has been done, what has been said, hasn't really in fact been done or said, or wasn't meant to be done or said in the way that it clearly was.

It is the ultimate cult of anti-reality - and you are its feckless follower.

I see once again you have studiously avoided having to acknowledge that you crow over policies that caused the biggest mass-murder and genocide in human history and that both your heroes were genocidal racists - but that's par for the course.

Instead you continue to embarrass yourself with your flights of fancy and outright dishonesty:

1) The quote is directly from Engels, the only part where Arndt is quoted is quite clearly marked as such " the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine" - the rest is all Engels words, you lying fucking idiot.

2) The quote is from Engels, not from Schelling. Those are Engels words - you lying fucking idiot.

3) Yes it is. Your hero was an anti-Semite and a racist - didn't seem to like black people very much either. Nor Basques, Serbs, Breton or Scots. In fact he wanted to exterminate them. I notice you have avoided this one completely. You fucking idiot.

4) As proved several times over, the Nazis implemented far more social policies then the USSR ever did - thus they were far more socialist then the so-called Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

5) Again, who gives a fuck what Marx liked or wanted? The vast majority of the world couldn't care less about what your genocidal racist had to say. For most people, the unions are the mainstay of the 'left' or at least a social idea.

6) Again, who gives a fuck what you and Marx think is socialist? You are irrelevant. The majority of people would consider a nationalised people to be working to a nationalised goal.

My opinion of Churchill is equally as low, he was a calamity for my country in the First and Second World Wars, he cost my country its empire, and mired us in debt for generations - but out of interest, what exactly is anti-Semitic about his article (written near the time)? Are you saying that the factual components are wrong?

There, admit defeat, Sweetpea.

As for 'schoolboy' - isn't that what you are? And isn't that the problem here? You haven't been anywhere, done anything, seen anything yet? You swallow all of this fantasy land rubbish as fact because you have never been in the real world - you have never seen the horrific results of civil wars, you have no idea what it is you are demanding.

I asked you before, have you ever worked? And I mean a real manual labour job?

Because I usually find your sort to be of the 'champagne socialist' type:

Not even remotely working class, never done a days real work in your life and nor have generations of your family; much like the so-called Labour party in my country - dinner party more like - a mix of middle class, upper-middle class and toffs playing at being the working mans friends just to feel radical and purge themselves of various bitternesses.

That's you, isn't it Ross?

The Sentinel said...

Who wrote this verse, comparing himself to a God:

Like unto a God I dare
Through that ruined realm in triumph roam.
Every word is Deed and Fire,
And my bosom like the Creator's own.


Maybe this one then:

"It is high treason to pay taxes. Refusal to pay taxes is the primary duty of the citizen!""

Or perhaps this:

"I begin to understand French anti-Semitism when I see how many Jews of Polish origin with German names intrude themselves everywhere to the point of arousing public opinion in the ville lumiere, of which the Parisian philistine is so proud and which he believes to be the supreme power in the universe."

And I really do recommend you read the article in the New-York Daily Tribune on January 4, 1856 entitled "The Russian Loan" - its a real eye-opener.

If you cant find it, I will be happy to oblige ...

Ross Wolfe said...


I didn't realize that you were an imperialist, and quasi-fascist.

Frank Partisan said...

Sentinel: I've been through this discussion 1000x.

Marx's essay on The Jewish Question is so antisemitic. It proposes that Jews will have the highest amount of religious freedom, in countries as the US, where there is a separation of church and state.

The Sentinel said...

Renegade Eye:

I know we have. This is very much old ground.

Ross Wolfe:

So I was right about you. I thought as much.

The less the reason and argument (in lieu) yet the more nonsensical and groundless and substanceless labels that fly, the greater the truth there is to the kernel of the contention.

Like I said, look in the mirror, son. And look hard into yourself.

Changes are coming - they must. But I don't think you will like what you see - and people will certainly not like what you are demanding.

Reality can be depressing, I will grant you, and being young give rise to 'idealism', I will grant you, but I think that you are at the age where the former is a necessity and the latter is past its premium