A return of Fascism in Europe?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > A return of Fascism in Europe?

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Raskolnikov38 posted:

This is a godawful link. Half of the bits on the Russian Revolution aren't even written yet and the rest of is BOLSHEVIKS BAD with nothing on your claim of how anarchists played a major role in the revolution. They didn't

For me "What did the anarchists do in the Russian Revolution" is a blank. I assume this is unintentional.

# ? Jan 18, 2014 18:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 18:50

SSJ2 Goku Wilders: Mar 24, 2010

Obdicut posted:

But I don't agree that it was a sardonic comparison, and that's not really a supportable interpretation.

And I fully agree that Marx thought that Jews could be emancipated 'politically' without being emancipated from Judaism. However, as what you're quoting says:

I don't think agree with Fine's interpretation of the passage as heavily ironic, and I don't think that it's well-supported in what you quoted, either. I definitely think that he's poking fun at anti-semites who chastize Jews for being in love with money when the larger culture is also in love with money, but he doesn't, at all, deny that Jewish culture, Jewish religion, is in love with money; instead, he affirms that as a reality. I think that Fine has mistaken irony used to attack capitalism here with those ironic statements negating the view of Jewish religion and culture; in fact, the ironic attack on capitalism only works if you affirm those qualities are really part of the Jewish culture and religion.

I don't think you understand what's going on here, or what Marx is saying

Watch:

On the Jewish Question posted:

In the perfect democracy, the religious and theological consciousness itself is in its own eyes the more religious and the more theological because it is apparently without political significance, without worldly aims, the concern of a disposition that shuns the world, the expression of intellectual narrow-mindedness, the product of arbitrariness and fantasy, and because it is a life that is really of the other world. Christianity attains, here, the practical expression of its universal-religious significance in that the most diverse world outlooks are grouped alongside one another in the form of Christianity and still more because it does not require other people to profess Christianity, but only religion in general, any kind of religion (cf. Beaumont�s work quoted above). The religious consciousness revels in the wealth of religious contradictions and religious diversity.

We have, thus, shown that political emancipation from religion leaves religion in existence, although not a privileged religion. The contradiction in which the adherent of a particular religion finds himself involved in relation to his citizenship is only one aspect of the universal secular contradiction between the political state and civil society. The consummation of the Christian state is the state which acknowledges itself as a state and disregards the religion of its members. The emancipation of the state from religion is not the emancipation of the real man from religion.

Therefore, we do not say to the Jews, as Bauer does: You cannot be emancipated politically without emancipating yourselves radically from Judaism. On the contrary, we tell them: Because you can be emancipated politically without renouncing Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation. If you Jews want to be emancipated politically, without emancipating yourselves humanly, the half-hearted approach and contradiction is not in you alone, it is inherent in the nature and category of political emancipation. If you find yourself within the confines of this category, you share in a general confinement. Just as the state evangelizes when, although it is a state, it adopts a Christian attitude towards the Jews, so the Jew acts politically when, although a Jew, he demands civic rights.

One popular reading of Marx's critique of religion in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, is that Marx is critiquing religion as being a tranquilizing substance which deters people from wordly goals and acts as a siphon for revolutionary potential. Similar to what Nietzsche noticed with Christian man always pushing his happiness forward, always postponing his actualization, Marx sees the religious man accepting his suffering because of the promise of heaven. That is, for him, crudely and in a nutshell, where religion comes from. His famous 'opium of the people' quote is a very carefully chosen phrase, as befits a man of Marx's brilliance: opium is of course used as an analgesic and anaesthetic. Its function is to dull pain. So it is for religion:

CCHPR posted:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man � state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d�honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Marx, in talking about human emancipation, is directly and uncontroversially comparing being Jewish to being Christian. Political emancipation of man vis-a-vis religion is acquired when there is no state religion. But human emancipation requires eventual emancipation from religion itself, whether it be Christianity or Judaism.

But here is his point, which Fine made explicitly and well, and you seemed to have missed: Bauer insisted that Jews give up Judaism in order to achieve political emancipation. But the same requirement was not demanded from the Christians. That is the point that Marx was making there. The references to 'Jewish culture' being one way or the other are not meant to be taken at face value, as you are seemingly wont to do. They are saying: "let's take for granted that the Jewish people are as you say they are, my friend Bauer. What makes them in any way different from Germans, or anyone else for that matter?"

I think Fine points to one of Marx's citations at one point, where Marx quotes someone that is describing New Englanders(!) in exactly the same way as Bauer is describing (and as anti-semitic Europeans continued to describe) the Jews. Marx's style is one that uses extremely clever, sardonic wit to expose the absurdity of his opponent's argument. Bauer's framing of the conversation is acknowledged only insofar as to brutally destroy it. If you walk away from this piece with an invigorated antisemitism, that is not on Marx; although you are entitled to your interpretation. I hope this has cleared some stuff up for you.

quote:

When you asked if I'd read "On the Jewish Question" before, did you actually mean if I'd read (and agreed with) Fine? Or are you saying those pieces I quoted before are obviously ironic--and if so, can you demonstrate that without simply asserting it?

When you asked me if I'd read On the Jewish Question, did you mean to ask whether I'd read it in your shallow, accusative reading?

SSJ2 Goku Wilders fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jan 18, 2014

# ? Jan 18, 2014 18:27

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:

I don't think you understand what's going on here, or what Marx is saying

Yes, that's obvious. I disagree with you. When you just say 'watch' and then quote something, bolding some sentences, without making an argument, it doesn't really do much to bolster your argument. Can you try, instead of just quoting, showing how those quotes support your interpretation?

quote:

One popular reading of Marx's critique of religion in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, is that Marx is critiquing religion as being a tranquilizing substance which deters people from wordly goals and acts as a siphon for revolutionary potential.

That's a pretty straightforward reading, yeah. Marx gets a lot of unneeded criticism for being 'hostile' to religion, but when he describes it as 'opium', it's actually an ambivalent attribute; it really does take away pain. However, he thinks that it also disguises the real problem.

quote:

Marx, in talking about human emancipation, is directly and uncontroversially comparing being Jewish to being Christian. Political emancipation of man vis-a-vis religion is acquired when there is no state religion. But human emancipation requires eventual emancipation from religion itself, whether it be Christianity or Judaism.

Yes, I don't think that Marx is harsher on Judaism than he is on Christianity as a religion.

quote:

But here is his point, which Fine made explicitly and well, and you seemed to have missed: Bauer insisted that Jews give up Judaism in order to achieve political emancipation. But the same requirement was not demanded from the Christians. That is the point that Marx was making there.

That is one point Marx was making, an in making that point, he asserted that the Jewish religion, and Jewish culture, is practically centered around aquisition and money.

quote:

The references to 'Jewish culture' being one way or the other are not meant to be taken at face value, as you are seemingly wont to do. They are saying: "let's take for granted that the Jewish people are as you say they are, my friend Bauer. What makes them in any way different from Germans, or anyone else for that matter?"

Can you support this from the text? That he's saying 'let's take for granted are as you say', and that he's just accepting for the sake of argument Bauer's characterization?

quote:

Marx's style is one that uses extremely clever, sardonic wit to expose the absurdity of his opponent's argument. Bauer's framing of the conversation is acknowledged only insofar as to brutally destroy it. If you walk away from this piece with an invigorated antisemitism, that is not on Marx; although you are entitled to your interpretation. I hope this has cleared some stuff up for you.

Not really. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm granting that Marx is doing everything you're ascribing to him, except for saying that these attributes of Jews are only Bauer's, that Marx doesn't accept them as true but is only accepting them for the argument. You haven't supported this.

quote:

When you asked me if I'd read On the Jewish Question, did you mean to ask whether I'd read it in your shallow, accusative reading?

I don't think you really understand my 'reading' of it. Marx was certainly refuting Bauer's anti-semitism. That doesn't mean that he wasn't engaging in stereotyping and endorsing views of Jewish religion and culture as money-centric. Your claim is he didn't really endorse this, and that he was only taking on Bauer's view. You haven't supported this. You've just asserted it.

You have an odd habit of repeatedly calling me (or my interpretations) shallow, and making obviously assumptions like that I haven't read any Marx. This is really silly, and you should cut it out. It just makes you look insecure.

If you can support your argument that Marx is simply grating the attributes of Jews as offered by Bauer, I'm happy to change my opinion of the text. But you haven't actually supported that yet.

# ? Jan 18, 2014 18:38

SSJ2 Goku Wilders: Mar 24, 2010

Obdicut posted:

You have an odd habit of repeatedly calling me (or my interpretations) shallow, and making obviously assumptions like that I haven't read any Marx. This is really silly, and you should cut it out. It just makes you look insecure.

Your second question to me, coming into this thread, was whether I had read On the Jewish Question.

Obdicut posted:

Can you support this from the text? That he's saying 'let's take for granted are as you say', and that he's just accepting for the sake of argument Bauer's characterization?

Not really. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm granting that Marx is doing everything you're ascribing to him, except for saying that these attributes of Jews are only Bauer's, that Marx doesn't accept them as true but is only accepting them for the argument. You haven't supported this.

I don't think you really understand my 'reading' of it. Marx was certainly refuting Bauer's anti-semitism. That doesn't mean that he wasn't engaging in stereotyping and endorsing views of Jewish religion and culture as money-centric. Your claim is he didn't really endorse this, and that he was only taking on Bauer's view. You haven't supported this. You've just asserted it.

If you can support your argument that Marx is simply grating the attributes of Jews as offered by Bauer, I'm happy to change my opinion of the text. But you haven't actually supported that yet.

I've given you a counter-reading, one which is carried quite widely in the field, to the blunt and superficial reading of Marx as an antisemite. As I said in my previous post however, you are entitled to your interpretation. But I will repeat that in my opinion, concluding that On The Jewish Question is 'antisemitic' in a meaningful way, cannot be the product of careful reading nor a thorough understanding of Marx, his contemporaries or his extended work.

# ? Jan 18, 2014 19:08

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:

Your second question to me, coming into this thread, was whether I had read On the Jewish Question.

Yes, it was. It didn't accuse you or your arguments of being shallow. I think your arguments are wrong; I don't think they're shallow. I haven't read all of Marx, and asking you if you've read a text is not some accusation.

quote:

I've given you a counter-reading, one which is carried quite widely in the field, to the blunt and superficial reading of Marx as an antisemite.

But my reading isn't that Marx is an antisemite. I never said that, or anything close to that. Compared to his contemporaries, Marx wasn't an antisemite, and his critique of Judaism as a religion is similar to his critique of all religion. However, I do think his view of Jewish culture and Jewish religion--what he calls 'practical Judaism' (differentiating it from Bauer's view, which is why I think your interpretation is insupportable) is one that identifies Jewish culture and religion as extremely capitalist and money-oriented.

To put it another way, Marx isn't an antisemite who thinks Judaism is inferior to Christianity, nor is he an antisemite who thinks that the materialism and capitalism he finds embedded in Judaism and Jewish culture is some grand conspiracy or indication they're the real 'rulers'.

quote:

As I said in my previous post however, you are entitled to your interpretation. But I will repeat that in my opinion, concluding that On The Jewish Question is 'antisemitic' in a meaningful way, cannot be the product of careful reading nor a thorough understanding of Marx, his contemporaries or his extended work.

I'm confused. I asked you to support your interpretation that he's simply using Baeur's framing of the Jew, and not endorsing that framing. Can you support that interpretation from the text, or not--especially in light of, as I said, his differentiation of 'practical Judaism' from Bauer's more theology-focused Judaism?

# ? Jan 18, 2014 19:17

Radio Prune: Feb 19, 2010

Can we get back to laughing at Freikorps LARPers?

# ? Jan 18, 2014 19:18

SSJ2 Goku Wilders: Mar 24, 2010

Obdicut posted:

Yes, it was. It didn't accuse you or your arguments of being shallow. I think your arguments are wrong; I don't think they're shallow. I haven't read all of Marx, and asking you if you've read a text is not some accusation.

But my reading isn't that Marx is an antisemite. I never said that, or anything close to that. Compared to his contemporaries, Marx wasn't an antisemite, and his critique of Judaism as a religion is similar to his critique of all religion. However, I do think his view of Jewish culture and Jewish religion--what he calls 'practical Judaism' (differentiating it from Bauer's view, which is why I think your interpretation is insupportable) is one that identifies Jewish culture and religion as extremely capitalist and money-oriented.

To put it another way, Marx isn't an antisemite who thinks Judaism is inferior to Christianity, nor is he an antisemite who thinks that the materialism and capitalism he finds embedded in Judaism and Jewish culture is some grand conspiracy or indication they're the real 'rulers'.

I'm confused. I asked you to support your interpretation that he's simply using Baeur's framing of the Jew, and not endorsing that framing. Can you support that interpretation from the text, or not--especially in light of, as I said, his differentiation of 'practical Judaism' from Bauer's more theology-focused Judaism?

As for the accusation: it implies a lack of knowledge on my part. I specifically mentioned On the Jewish Question, and you asked me whether I read it. Implications matter.

As for supporting the interpretation, I already have. You have to read it from the text; Fine says it's 'reading it from the grammar'. He's not alone, you can find countless examples in support of that reading of the text, because it is basically the default one. The grammar is fully ironic.

The difference between 'Sabbath Jew' and 'everyday jew' is equally ironic, and is used to set up the frame for Marx in order to talk about historical materialism ('what is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest.'), rather than how the mere religion ('"merely" a religious significance') makes jews into that, in practice. Note the use of 'Very well then!', as an sarcastic agreement on the nature of Jews, as well as the use of 'We' (italicized in the text by me) to connote that he is talking about the prevailing view, or at least that of Bauer's, about the Jews.

So the difference:

Bauer posted:

Bauer demands of the Jews that they should break with the essence of the Christian religion, a demand which, as he says himself, does not arise out of the development of Judaism.

Since Bauer, at the end of his work on the Jewish question, had conceived Judaism only as crude religious criticism of Christianity, and therefore saw in it �merely� a religious significance, it could be foreseen that the emancipation of the Jews, too, would be transformed into a philosophical-theological act.

Bauer considers that the ideal, abstract nature of the Jew, his religion, is his entire nature. Hence, he rightly concludes:

�The Jew contributes nothing to mankind if he himself disregards his narrow law,� if he invalidates his entire Judaism. (p. 65)

Marx posted:

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 Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.

[...]

We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, 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 begin to disintegrate.

Radio Prune posted:

Can we get back to laughing at Freikorps LARPers?

Do you have anything to laugh at? Post it!

# ? Jan 18, 2014 19:34

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:

As for the accusation: it implies a lack of knowledge on my part. I specifically mentioned On the Jewish Question, and you asked me whether I read it. Implications matter.

Sorry, I missed that.

quote:

As for supporting the interpretation, I already have. You have to read it from the text; Fine says it's 'reading it from the grammar'. He's not alone, you can find countless examples in support of that reading of the text, because it is basically the default one. The grammar is fully ironic.

I don't agree. There's a use of irony and sarcasm, but that doesn't mean every statement is absolutely ironic.

quote:

The difference between 'Sabbath Jew' and 'everyday jew' is equally ironic, and is used to set up the frame for Marx in order to talk about historical materialism ('what is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest.'), rather than how the mere religion ('"merely" a religious significance') makes jews into that, in practice. Note the use of 'Very well then!', as an sarcastic agreement on the nature of Jews, as well as the use of 'We' (italicized in the text by me) to connote that he is talking about the prevailing view, or at least that of Bauer's, about the Jews.

I don't agree that 'we' is ironic. You aren't supporting that it is ironic in any way. That's why I'm asking you to support it. The use of 'we' on its own implies no irony.

I've also said I think there's a big difference between Baeur and Marx, so I have no idea why you're laboring that.

You seem to have a knee-jerk defensiveness to anything remotely critical of Marx. I love Marx, I think his critique is amazing, I think that his contributions to sociology are beyond that of probably any other single person other than Sewell. Does this help you emotionally deal with what I'm writing?

# ? Jan 18, 2014 20:26

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Maybe you two could make a thread for sectarian sniping and let the Fascism in Europe thread be about modern European fascism?

# ? Jan 18, 2014 23:15

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Pope Guilty posted:

Maybe you two could make a thread for sectarian sniping and let the Fascism in Europe thread be about modern European fascism?

There's nothing sectarian at all in this, though. We're arguing about an interpretation of a work.

I'll agree it's a total derail, however.

So in content, have a terrible article saying that modern Fascists are on the left, or they're Islamacists, and reminding everyone that the 'intelligentsia' were once in love with Fascism.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100227116/the-strange-death-of-fascist-europe-and-how-the-left-wants-to-revive-it/

It's an absolutely terrible article that ignores the very real Fascist though on the 'right' in Europe.

# ? Jan 18, 2014 23:22

ReV VAdAUL: Oct 3, 2004; I'm WILD about
WILDMAN

Obdicut posted:

There's nothing sectarian at all in this, though. We're arguing about an interpretation of a work.

I'll agree it's a total derail, however.

So in content, have a terrible article saying that modern Fascists are on the left, or they're Islamacists, and reminding everyone that the 'intelligentsia' were once in love with Fascism.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100227116/the-strange-death-of-fascist-europe-and-how-the-left-wants-to-revive-it/

It's an absolutely terrible article that ignores the very real Fascist though on the 'right' in Europe.

I do love right wingers so consistently saying how terrible Fascism and its treatment of the Jews was, thus we really need to hate Muslims as much as possible.

# ? Jan 19, 2014 01:19

Grand Prize Winner: Feb 19, 2007

ReV VAdAUL posted:

I do love right wingers so consistently saying how terrible Fascism and its treatment of the Jews was, thus we really need to hate Muslims as much as possible.

Islamofascism. :v:

# ? Jan 19, 2014 01:29

Time to read Zinn: Sep 11, 2013; the humidity + the viscosity

Obdicut posted:

There's nothing sectarian at all in this, though. We're arguing about an interpretation of a work.

I'll agree it's a total derail, however.

So in content, have a terrible article saying that modern Fascists are on the left, or they're Islamacists, and reminding everyone that the 'intelligentsia' were once in love with Fascism.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100227116/the-strange-death-of-fascist-europe-and-how-the-left-wants-to-revive-it/

It's an absolutely terrible article that ignores the very real Fascist though on the 'right' in Europe.

From the comments.

quote:

"political correctness" is an expression fascism

Microwaves are a temperature fascism. Fabric softener is a texture fascism.

# ? Jan 19, 2014 01:36

Praseodymi: Aug 26, 2010

Time to read Zinn posted:

From the comments.

Microwaves are a temperature fascism. Fabric softener is a texture fascism.

We can do better than that.

quote:

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
National Socialist German Workers' Party.
A party of the Left. Unless words have lost their meaning.

# ? Jan 19, 2014 15:07

Shibawanko: Feb 13, 2013

Yeah because Nazis would never lie, would they?

# ? Jan 19, 2014 15:10

EmpyreanFlux: Mar 1, 2013; The AUDACITY! The IMPUDENCE! The unabated NERVE!

The Telegraph, article is an awful read, incapable of understanding political subtly, frames everything in two plane BnW, news @ 11. The worst part is that this is a general opinion held by most on the Right in the US, then consider the US's actual position with the political spectrum. At least things are looking better.

# ? Jan 19, 2014 16:54

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Shibawanko posted:

Yeah because Nazis would never lie, would they?

These are just showers, unless words have lost their meaning.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 01:51

Shibawanko: Feb 13, 2013

I read about the Auschwitz revolt the other day. Apparently the Sonderkommando who rebelled decided to take a particularly nasty SS guard and stuffed him into an oven to burn him alive. Good for them.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 05:06

Praseodymi: Aug 26, 2010

My favorite account like that came from Sobibor. They lured an officer into a room by saying they had made him some boots and then were going to knock him out with an axe, but the Russian soldier responsible didn't know you were meant to hit with the blunt end and split his head open. They dragged him out of sight and cleaned up ready for the next Nazi to come in and repeat the process, only for him to do it again.

Praseodymi fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Jan 20, 2014

# ? Jan 20, 2014 11:52

Zohar: Jul 14, 2013; Good kitty

Praseodymi posted:

We can do better than that.

Bear in mind these are the same people who bring up 1984 as a justification for why political correctness is a very bad thing

# ? Jan 20, 2014 12:11

Tias: May 25, 2008; Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Obdicut posted:

For me "What did the anarchists do in the Russian Revolution" is a blank. I assume this is unintentional.

Try reading Black Flame instead. It's pretty clear you already made up your mind about what you believe, but I guess leninist revisionism is cool like that :sigh:

# ? Jan 20, 2014 15:22

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Tias posted:

Try reading Black Flame instead. It's pretty clear you already made up your mind about what you believe, but I guess leninist revisionism is cool like that

Do you think I'm someone else, or something?

# ? Jan 20, 2014 15:27

ekuNNN: Nov 27, 2004; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Ukraine, pro-European Union protestors yesterday:

# ? Jan 20, 2014 16:28

OBAMA CURES ALAWIS: Sep 5, 2013; by XyloJW

So the guy with the cross and 1488 on his homemade shield is pro-democracy, pro-EU.

Glad to know who to be rooting for in this.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 16:37

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

OBAMA CURES ALAWIS posted:

So the guy with the cross and 1488 on his homemade shield is pro-democracy, pro-EU.

Glad to know who to be rooting for in this.

The pro-Russian side has nazis too, just different ones.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 16:39

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

That'd be the, uh, Slavic cross, right

# ? Jan 20, 2014 17:03

OBAMA CURES ALAWIS: Sep 5, 2013; by XyloJW

Enjoy posted:

That'd be the, uh, Slavic cross, right

Whatever it is, the man got the inspiration from somewhere!

# ? Jan 20, 2014 17:11

Dusz: Mar 5, 2005; SORE IN THE ASS that it even exists!

Tias posted:

Try reading Black Flame instead. It's pretty clear you already made up your mind about what you believe, but I guess leninist revisionism is cool like that

You're like a missionary or something?

# ? Jan 20, 2014 17:16

OBAMA CURES ALAWIS: Sep 5, 2013; by XyloJW

Dusz posted:

You're like a missionary or something?

For Hot Topic anarchy.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 17:27

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

Tias posted:

Try reading Black Flame instead. It's pretty clear you already made up your mind about what you believe, but I guess leninist revisionism is cool like that

Reality! Now with Leninist bias!

You know you could actually post some loving proof that anarchists played a role in the revolution other than Kronstadt and a Ukrainian bandit instead of lamenting a supposed conspiracy to hide the "glorious successes" of anarchism.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 18:02

ekuNNN: Nov 27, 2004; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Raskolnikov38 posted:

Reality! Now with Leninist bias!

You know you could actually post some loving proof that anarchists played a role in the revolution other than Kronstadt and a Ukrainian bandit instead of lamenting a supposed conspiracy to hide the "glorious successes" of anarchism.

A quick thing from wikipedia:

quote:

At first it seemed to some Anarchists the revolution could inaugurate the stateless utopia they had long dreamed of. On these terms, some Bolshevik-Anarchist alliances were made. In Moscow, the most perilous and critical tasks during the October Revolution fell upon the Anarchist Dvinsk Regiment, led by the old libertarians Gratchov and Fedotov. It was they who dislodged the Whites from the Kremlin, the Metropole and other important defenses. and it was the Anarchist sailor Zhelezniakov who led the attack on the Constituent Assembly in October 1917. For a while, the Anarchists rejoiced, elated at the thought of the new age that Russia had won.

I also remember reading in Robert Service's biography of Lenin that there was at least one anarchist in charge of an important department of the revolutionary government, but I can't find it at the moment. I remember the passage because it surprised me :v:

# ? Jan 20, 2014 18:23

fatherboxx: Mar 25, 2013

ekuNNN posted:

Ukraine, pro-European Union protestors yesterday:

Any protest or a meeting that doesn't immediately throw a nazi out deserves to be beaten into the ground. Good job at presenting yourselves to the world, Progressive Opposition!

I am of the same opinion of Russian Marches - spread the dogwhistle poo poo about Nation, wave the Imperial flags as much as you want, if you don't break the arm thrown in a nazi salute next to you or don't leave at the first sign of it, get ready to be shamed and spat upon.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 18:58

Gantolandon: Aug 19, 2012

fatherboxx posted:

Any protest or a meeting that doesn't immediately throw a nazi out deserves to be beaten into the ground. Good job at presenting yourselves to the world, Progressive Opposition!

I am of the same opinion of Russian Marches - spread the dogwhistle poo poo about Nation, wave the Imperial flags as much as you want, if you don't break the arm thrown in a nazi salute next to you or don't leave at the first sign of it, get ready to be shamed and spat upon.

Yup. When you're about to be beaten by the riot police, the proper thing to do is to disperse immediately at the first sight of a fascist flag or attack the guy next to you. That's some premium advice here.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 19:55

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

fatherboxx posted:

Any protest or a meeting that doesn't immediately throw a nazi out deserves to be beaten into the ground. Good job at presenting yourselves to the world, Progressive Opposition!

I am of the same opinion of Russian Marches - spread the dogwhistle poo poo about Nation, wave the Imperial flags as much as you want, if you don't break the arm thrown in a nazi salute next to you or don't leave at the first sign of it, get ready to be shamed and spat upon.

Yeah thats unworkable if not really short-sighted especially since the far-right is makes up a significant portion of the protests (they are Ukrainian nationalists first, the rest is largely secondary to them). It is a choice between tolerating them or having the protests collapse immediately into in-fighting, it isn't a great choice but there isn't much for Ukrainians to do in that situation just like everything else.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 20:13

fatherboxx: Mar 25, 2013

Well, they are collapsing anyway because the radicals turned onto their own leaders.
Ukrainian nationalists tried to whitewash Ukrainian Insurgent Army for years just to annoy Russia and played with far-right rhetoric - so here you go, literal nazis in the front row, Russian media does not even need to put any effort in lies with this one.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 20:50

Darth Walrus: Feb 13, 2012

Orange Devil posted:

The pro-Russian side has nazis too, just different ones.

Source on this? I don't doubt you, I could just use the links.

# ? Jan 21, 2014 00:09

Gantolandon: Aug 19, 2012

fatherboxx posted:

Well, they are collapsing anyway because the radicals turned onto their own leaders.
Ukrainian nationalists tried to whitewash Ukrainian Insurgent Army for years just to annoy Russia and played with far-right rhetoric - so here you go, literal nazis in the front row, Russian media does not even need to put any effort in lies with this one.

The movement was close to collapse anyway, because the "leaders" seemed to have completely no idea what to do with it.

# ? Jan 21, 2014 00:10

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Darth Walrus posted:

Source on this? I don't doubt you, I could just use the links.

I actually can't find a source. When I think "pro-Russian" I think "Russian nationalist" and well, those guys tend to be not very nice. Maybe that's purely a Russian thing and not also Ukrainian though, and I spoke to soon, anyone know more?

# ? Jan 21, 2014 00:58

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Orange Devil posted:

I actually can't find a source. When I think "pro-Russian" I think "Russian nationalist" and well, those guys tend to be not very nice. Maybe that's purely a Russian thing and not also Ukrainian though, and I spoke to soon, anyone know more?

I think he means the Russian nationalists in Russia itself rather than the Russophile Ukrainians/Russian in Ukraine. That said I am sure there are must be some hard edge Russian nationalists in the Crimea.

That said the Party of Regions is an authoritarian pro-Kremlin party, so I don't know how much of a pass your are going to give them. Basically, the Ukrainian neo-nazis showed up this time because it is an event revolving around Ukrainian nationalism, similar poo poo happens all the time in Russia.

(If you go to a opposition event in Moscow/St. Petersburg your going to see all types of flags and symbols on display.)

# ? Jan 21, 2014 01:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 18:50

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Darth Walrus posted:

Source on this? I don't doubt you, I could just use the links.

Here's one weird case:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/anton-shekhovtsov/provoking-euromaidan

I can't make heads or tails out of all of these groups. There's pro-NATO far right, anti-NATO and pro-Russia far right, anti-NATO and anti-Russia far right, and some groups accused of being agents provocateurs and now in hiding.

# ? Jan 21, 2014 02:47

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > A return of Fascism in Europe?

«‹›96 »