|
i'm pretty sure before 1940 or so everyone on earth was either a semite or an anti-semite
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
The gently caress does "the way he fought ww2 was bad" mean? I've never heard this criticism of Stalin before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:bakunin was a horrible anti-semite, so that reflects mostly on mutualists/collectivists. But was Kropotkin an anti-semite? I thought anarcho communists mostly took to his literature. I dunno. I've tried looking that up before and never found any evidence of it. If he was an antisemite it wasn't a thing for him like it was for Proudhon & Bakunin. smarxist posted:i'm pretty sure before 1940 or so everyone on earth was either a semite or an anti-semite pre-21st century antisemitism does have to be graded on a scale, but even in that context Proudhon & Bakunin were outrageously antisemitic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
I confronted the BSA account about that and they were like we could do the same thing with Marx and a bunch of other people so what's your point? Well, Marx supported Jewish emancipation and the worst thing he said is that 'money is the true god of Israel.' He never said "Jews are the enemy of mankind."
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:The gently caress does "the way he fought ww2 was bad" mean? I've never heard this criticism of Stalin before. sometimes I hear that take that it was so terrible that they let women serve in combat arms which is how you detect that someone is a complete sexist piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
While it is totally wrong to countenance categorical antisemitism I do think it is worth pointing out that the bigotry of Proudhon and Bakunin was rooted almost completely in the sort of inescapable parochialism of 19th century antisemitism, especially in France. It wasn't just a common thing, it was a foundational part of the general discourse in the same way racism was in the American south and thus had lots of ugly characteristics that (iirc) weren't super common in anarchist antisemitism, because they were exclusively concerned with their perception that French/German Jews were complicit in creating and maintaining capitalist hierarchies. It kinda goes to the heart of the problem with some anarchist philosophy in that period, in the sense that it was a pseudo-materialist antisemitism that didn't recognize the long historical-material context that pushed European Jews into formerly marginal areas of economic activity that expanded in service of the early modern bourgeoisie. I guess what I mean is if you look at some antisemitic propaganda, particularly from reactionaries and conservatives, European Jews are depicted as licentious, thieving, predatory, rapacious creatures who are sexualized and caricatured as some kind of pseudo-human creature. Anarchist antisemitism appropriated elements of that and fused it with their criticisms of hierarchy to create something misguided, wrong, and retrospectively bad enough to taint much of their work, but different in character from the antisemitism of their contemporaries. for instance, as lovely as the categorically racist parts of Proudhon's writing is, I don't think he would have countenanced stuff like the Dreyfus affair, because it was part of a cultural legacy of cruelty and exclusion unrelated to anticapitalist or anti-hierarchical sentiments in even a tangential way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:sometimes I hear that take that it was so terrible that they let women serve in combat arms which is how you detect that someone is a complete sexist piece of poo poo It's also completely loving stupid. If ever you're going to put women in combat roles it's gonna be during a genocidal war of extermination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
I'm gonna write about all of you in The Guardian now, TIA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I confronted the BSA account about that and they were like we could do the same thing with Marx and a bunch of other people so what's your point? Well, Marx supported Jewish emancipation and the worst thing he said is that 'money is the true god of Israel.' He never said "Jews are the enemy of mankind." I may be wrong, but wasn't Marx's "On the Jewish Question" basically speaking out against anti-semitism on a materialist basis? Marx was actually pretty good on that topic as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's also completely loving stupid. If ever you're going to put women in combat roles it's gonna be during a genocidal war of extermination. i have never seen anyone except for one or two commies like us online even acknowledge the huge amounts of Russian deaths in ww2, let alone how many of them were in the camps or were civilians that got wasted by the SS
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
as I recall, Marx's "antisemitism" was like the other Problematic parts of his writing, in that they were basically manifestations of universal cultural/political/scientific consensus he was trying to obliterate that cropped up in his writing. I mean people have tried to distort Marx's analysis of growth in the New World and the history of England (or was that Engels?) as defenses of colonialism but just like people who believe he was antisemitic, they're just unable to comprehend context or systematic criticism when they see something they find rhetorically distasteful, often literally just taking issue with verbiage
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
marx's writing continues to own the libs long after he drew his last breath. an inspiration to us all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:I may be wrong, but wasn't Marx's "On the Jewish Question" basically speaking out against anti-semitism on a materialist basis? Marx was actually pretty good on that topic as far as I know. Marx's main fault was characterizing Jews according to stereotypes in common knowledge. Bauer was arguing that Jews have to be secularized because emancipation is impossible if you're a committed religious thinker separate from the body politic. Marx said that was nonsense, because real emancipation isn't possible unless you're also emancipated from the material circumstances of destitution. Therefore Jews were already "emancipated" insofar as they had the freedom to participate in bourgeois society. From Marx's perspective there wasn't a meaningful difference between Jews and Christians in terms of their relation to political economy. He'd also follow this up by supporting Jewish petitions for political rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
This reminds me of the idiot on Reddit who thought Marx was being literal when he wrote "a spectre is haunting Europe..." and that Marx meant a giant ghost was going to create Communism. I wish I could find the screenshot
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:This reminds me of the idiot on Reddit who thought Marx was being literal when he wrote "a spectre is haunting Europe..." and that Marx meant a giant ghost was going to create Communism. I wish I could find the screenshot Hold on are you telling me that Marx wasn't talking about his stand here? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:This reminds me of the idiot on Reddit who thought Marx was being literal when he wrote "a spectre is haunting Europe..." and that Marx meant a giant ghost was going to create Communism. I wish I could find the screenshot If 20th century propaganda is anything to go by then communism looks an awful lot like one of the bosses from Dark Souls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:This reminds me of the idiot on Reddit who thought Marx was being literal when he wrote "a spectre is haunting Europe..." and that Marx meant a giant ghost was going to create Communism. I wish I could find the screenshot is it this? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
wow, that is so ridiculous. like, really over the top exaggeration. is there a word for that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:This reminds me of the idiot on Reddit who thought Marx was being literal when he wrote "a spectre is haunting Europe..." and that Marx meant a giant ghost was going to create Communism. I wish I could find the screenshot now that i think about it marx did a lot of the sarcastic twitter thing where you just say the opposing POV in the least charitable way possible. "a spectre is haunting europe". "Capital consists of raw materials, instruments of labour, and means of subsistence of all kinds, which are employed in producing new raw materials, new instruments, and new means of subsistence. All these components of capital are created by labour, products of labour, accumulated labour. Accumulated labour that serves as a means to new production is capital... So say the economists." i guess what im trying to say is that marx was the original @GetFiscal
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
weast posted:is it this? Yes lol. I love the phrase "planet sized ghost". Ruzihm posted:now that i think about it marx did a lot of the sarcastic twitter thing where you just say the opposing POV in the least charitable way possible. "a spectre is haunting europe". "Capital consists of raw materials, instruments of labour, and means of subsistence of all kinds, which are employed in producing new raw materials, new instruments, and new means of subsistence. All these components of capital are created by labour, products of labour, accumulated labour. Accumulated labour that serves as a means to new production is capital... So say the economists." Marx is most readable when he's just mocking other writers he hates. Especially in the manuscripts of 1844 he gets so worked up about political economists
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:wow, that is so ridiculous. like, really over the top exaggeration. is there a word for that? 2019
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:Marx is most readable when he's just mocking other writers he hates. Especially in the manuscripts of 1844 he gets so worked up about political economists Yeah the 1844 manuscripts are surprisingly readable for unedited jumbled essays that are 30% adam smith block quotes Ruzihm posted:bakunin was a horrible anti-semite, so that reflects mostly on mutualists/collectivists. But was Kropotkin an anti-semite? I thought anarcho communists mostly took to his literature. IIRC kropotkin was actually pretty good on the issue
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:This reminds me of the idiot on Reddit who thought Marx was being literal when he wrote "a spectre is haunting Europe..." and that Marx meant a giant ghost was going to create Communism. I wish I could find the screenshot I’m going to be Spooky Communism Ghost for halloween now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
weast posted:is it this? ohhh... so that's where i've been going wrong in my summoning rites
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:Yes lol. I love the phrase "planet sized ghost". Marx wrote the original script for Solaris
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:wow, that is so ridiculous. like, really over the top exaggeration. is there a word for that? It is so very funny, I don't care if it is sincere or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:now that i think about it marx did a lot of the sarcastic twitter thing where you just say the opposing POV in the least charitable way possible. "a spectre is haunting europe". "Capital consists of raw materials, instruments of labour, and means of subsistence of all kinds, which are employed in producing new raw materials, new instruments, and new means of subsistence. All these components of capital are created by labour, products of labour, accumulated labour. Accumulated labour that serves as a means to new production is capital... So say the economists." while marx was clearly a poster, i am left wondering whether or not socrates was too. does refusing to write anything down entail denial of shitposting, or the apotheosis of it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
someone was trying to tell me the other day about how its okay to support socialists with bad foreign policy and while I already knew this, it hit me pretty hard again that basically first-world progressives live in a mental space where foreign proletarians aren't sufficiently human for them to empathize with, ever, no matter what. there's no circumstance that can convince them they are people just like them with the same needs and desires and right to a high standard of living. because of this, they don't feel inconsistent about that position, because they genuinely think foreigners are qualitatively different from us in a way that not only allows them to tolerate immiseration by the first world, but enjoy it, and they have a ton of evidence of that because street vendors smiled at them when they went to Peru/Cameroon/Mexico/Cambodia
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:The gently caress does "the way he fought ww2 was bad" mean? I've never heard this criticism of Stalin before. my instinctive guess is buying into the same old anti-soviet propaganda about blocking detachments and sinister commissars mercilessly gunning down cowardly troopers or using penal battalions to clear out minefields by running blindly into them (on the first, every belligerent military executed deserters and on the second, penal battalions were ordered to clear minefields, but the old fashioned way with proper tools) oh wait, i just remembered another really dumb one, the idea that soldiers were sent into battle underequipped so you had situations with one rifle for every two conscripts and one had to follow the other one with the rifle so when they dropped dead they could pick up the weapon it's all a bunch of nonsense cooked up to set up america as the undisputed winner of the second world war with the soviets only barely scraping by because stalin threw his troops into a meat grinder without care. the truth is that the united states as usual joined the war late and the soviets were literally fighting for their homes and lives and paid the cost in oceans of blood.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
3 posted:oh wait, i just remembered another really dumb one, the idea that soldiers were sent into battle underequipped so you had situations with one rifle for every two conscripts and one had to follow the other one with the rifle so when they dropped dead they could pick up the weapon I was under the impression this was a thing that actually happened but under the Tsars in WWI?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:The gently caress does "the way he fought ww2 was bad" mean? I've never heard this criticism of Stalin before. Muh asiatic hordes, probably
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:someone was trying to tell me the other day about how its okay to support socialists with bad foreign policy and while I already knew this, it hit me pretty hard again that basically first-world progressives live in a mental space where foreign proletarians aren't sufficiently human for them to empathize with, ever, no matter what. there's no circumstance that can convince them they are people just like them with the same needs and desires and right to a high standard of living. because of this, they don't feel inconsistent about that position, because they genuinely think foreigners are qualitatively different from us in a way that not only allows them to tolerate immiseration by the first world, but enjoy it, and they have a ton of evidence of that because street vendors smiled at them when they went to Peru/Cameroon/Mexico/Cambodia im fairly charitable to people in the us having huge blinders when it comes to imperialism just by virtue of the fact that it takes a fair amount of time for people to really understand and internalize that we are the bad guys. we don’t import media like other countries do and so our worldview is narrow and there is zero depth to the roster of politicians with good foreign policy. given that’s how we tend to engage with politics it’s not surprising that we’re in this boat. i think it’s pretty straightforward for people to understand their own exploitation but expanding that to an international view is something that takes a lot of reprogramming for most people. it obviously has to be done but it’s probably the most uphill climb in growing the class consciousness here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I was under the impression this was a thing that actually happened but under the Tsars in WWI? i'm not as familiar with imperial russia during the great war but i highly doubt that was the case then either. as far as i can tell, that specific misconception came as a mixture of propaganda and misinformed first-hand accounts from the very early days of barbarossa, in which soviet army groups were often encircled and had to break out in a very unorganized fashion, giving rise to the idea of their commanders throwing "human wave" attacks at the enemy in desperation. movies like enemy at the gates and games like the original call of duty latched onto these ideas and imprinted them into the public consciousness; i think it was mentioned earlier that company of heroes 2 was a particularly egregious example and very nearly wehrmacht apologia in how poorly it distorted the eastern front and how it was fought
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:32
|
|
|
3 posted:i'm not as familiar with imperial russia during the great war but i highly doubt that was the case then either. The story as presented to me was about the Tsars in WWI and I always assumed it was one of those “this maybe happened one time but was an isolated incident turned into war myth” type deals. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
3 posted:i'm not as familiar with imperial russia during the great war but i highly doubt that was the case then either. as far as i can tell, that specific misconception came as a mixture of propaganda and misinformed first-hand accounts from the very early days of barbarossa, in which soviet army groups were often encircled and had to break out in a very unorganized fashion, giving rise to the idea of their commanders throwing "human wave" attacks at the enemy in desperation. movies like enemy at the gates and games like the original call of duty latched onto these ideas and imprinted them into the public consciousness; i think it was mentioned earlier that company of heroes 2 was a particularly egregious example and very nearly wehrmacht apologia in how poorly it distorted the eastern front and how it was fought i will always post this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m4SCUaBHS8
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
the "human wave" type stuff were these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtrafbat not the red army
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
3 posted:i'm not as familiar with imperial russia during the great war but i highly doubt that was the case then either. as far as i can tell, that specific misconception came as a mixture of propaganda and misinformed first-hand accounts from the very early days of barbarossa, in which soviet army groups were often encircled and had to break out in a very unorganized fashion, giving rise to the idea of their commanders throwing "human wave" attacks at the enemy in desperation. movies like enemy at the gates and games like the original call of duty latched onto these ideas and imprinted them into the public consciousness; i think it was mentioned earlier that company of heroes 2 was a particularly egregious example and very nearly wehrmacht apologia in how poorly it distorted the eastern front and how it was fought It's absolutely correct that Tsar Nicholas pushed the empire to it's absolute breaking point resources wise. 2/3rds of all train engines being lost, massive fuel shortages, military commanders brutalizing their soldiers trying to keep them in line with fear. You can't really overstate how bad things were getting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
like i mentioned earlier, even the penal battalion stuff is luridly overdramatized; rokossovsky has claim to probably being one of the top commanders in all of world war 2 and his 16th army was almost entirely penal troops. they had blocking detachments to execute deserters (which again, in literally every belligerent army at the time desertion was an offense punishable by death) but they still practiced actual small-unit tactics and functioned the same as pretty much any other army groupVenom Snake posted:It's absolutely correct that Tsar Nicholas pushed the empire to it's absolute breaking point resources wise. 2/3rds of all train engines being lost, massive fuel shortages, military commanders brutalizing their soldiers trying to keep them in line with fear. You can't really overstate how bad things were getting. i can definitely believe the tsar was incompetent enough to allow his troops to be underequipped on the front, that war was the entire reason there even was a red army to begin with after all 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
3 posted:like i mentioned earlier, even the penal battalion stuff is luridly overdramatized; rokossovsky has claim to probably being one of the top commanders in all of world war 2 and his 16th army was almost entirely penal troops. they had blocking detachments to execute deserters (which again, in literally every belligerent army at the time desertion was an offense punishable by death) but they still practiced actual small-unit tactics and functioned the same as pretty much any other army group What happened to them when the war was over? Did they have to go back to jail or were they done?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:What happened to them when the war was over? Did they have to go back to jail or were they done? the idea of a penal battalion was that you would pay for your crimes through blood, so if you managed to survive through the war, your sentence was p much considered served. special order 227 was the order stalin gave early on that ended up being popularized as "not one step back," which meant that if any soldiers were caught retreating without authorization from a commanding officer, they could be subject to punishment including assignment to a penal battalion and up to summary execution. cold war propaganda inflated this into the idea that if any red army trooper ran backwards during actual combat, they would be gunned down by machinegun emplacements behind their lines set up specifically for that purpose, nevermind the fact that setting up an HMG so that only your own troops are in the firing line is a fantastical waste of resources and these so-called "barrier troops" were often set up as a defensive line against, y'know, nazis EDIT: quote:"Yes, there were barrage detachments. But I do not know if any of them would shoot at their own people, at least in our sector of the front. Already, I requested archival documents on this subject; there were no such documents. The detachments were at a distance from the front, covered the troops from the rear from the saboteurs and the enemy landing, detained deserters, who, unfortunately, were; brought order to the crossings, sent soldiers who had strayed from their units to assembly points. I will say more, the front received a replenishment, naturally, not fired, as they say, not smelled gunpowder, and protective detachments consisting solely of soldiers already fired, the most persistent and courageous, were like a reliable and strong shoulder of the elder. It often happened that the detachments found themselves face to face with the same German tanks, chains of German machine gunners and suffered heavy losses in battles. This fact is irrefutable."
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 23:56
|
|