They’re very similar, you know. Communism and Marxism both sound good on paper but has yet to be proven as an actually effective system of government.
Well, you’re the one that’s been studying it.
I’ve never had anything against Communists and the Communist prinicpal is good. But many ruthless dictators have ruined the idea. Marixsm, on the other hand, I don’t think has ever really been used by a government completely.
Who coined the phrase “the dictatorship of the proletariat?” Lenin? No. Marx.
The notion that “ruthless dictators have ruined the idea” suggests that some “we” can do better and keeps the whole thing alive. Unlike National Socialism.
The communist principle is “good” if one does not value personal liberty, autonomy and opportunity, if one wishes to see himself as part of a collective rather than as an independent human being.
How would it be used by a “government completely?”
Of course noone is debating whether Hitler, anatomically, was a human being. Also, being interested in Hitler, Nazis and WWII in general is not abnormal. However, Lindberg comes across antisemetic and seems to deny certain things happened, whilst glorifying other things. He posted some footage of Jews and their slaughtering methods to make a point; perhaps trying to sweet talk or justify Hitler’s anti semitism. This, at least to me, put his interest in the subject matter in a totally different and offensive light.
On another note: I am in favor of this topic, for the same reason as others mentioned. At least this nonsense, if I may say so, will now (hopefully) be in one central topic.
The censorship in Germany in connection with Nazi symbols is indeed a bit odd, and at the same moment very understandable. A country, whose people have slaugthered 6 mio Jews has to be more sensitive about any anti semit statements than any another countries. But it is still censorship.
The swastika for example is a symbol that is also often forbidden to show, except in works about the Nazis.
I have read that in Alan Moore’s Tom Strong every swastika was erased and the German poster for Inglourious Basterds is the same as in other countries except again for the swastikas. But of course the film itself has them on the uniforms.
So the cover of the Rev is no singular case.
This is now a bit absurd, but it has to be a sensitive matter here.
Making a link to ugly videos about kosher slaughtering is not directly anti-semitic, but Lindberg connected this link with a propaganda photo showing Hitler petting a Bambi like deer. And that makes it quite problematic imo.
Saying Hitler wasn’t a monster is another problematic thing, and so far he hasn’t answered the questions what he really thinks about these things, but I fear I won’t like the answer.
It was a just a horrible time in European history. And war crimes did not end on 8 May 1945. The victors punished German civilians-- starving them deliberately in the British-occupied zone, summary executions on the road of ethnic Germans fleeing Czechoslovakia, POWs in slave-labor camps, etc. etc. etc. (But at least the Soviets fed those in their zone…) The Americans and French were not angels either…
Why are you so upset, Hoover.
We don’t glorify Hitler or make propaganda for Neo-Nazis, we are only discussing certain matters in connection with Hitler. That’s as legitimate as any other off-topic theme.
Don’t forget btw, we are talking here in this forum mainly about a genre which mostly glorifies violence.
And extreme individualism. ;D
[quote=“Stanton, post:47, topic:2465”]Making a link to ugly videos about kosher slaughtering is not directly anti-semitic, but Lindberg connected this link with a propaganda photo showing Hitler petting a Bambi like deer. And that makes it quite problematic imo.
Saying Hitler wasn’t a monster is another problematic thing, and so far he hasn’t answered the questions what he really thinks about these things, but I fear I won’t like the answer.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s basically what I was saying, or: trying to say if it was misinterpreted.
A first-time Indian director, Rakesh Ranjan Kumar, has announced that he will make a movie about Adolf Hitler. Dear Friend Hitler stars Indian actors Anupam Kher and Neha Dhupia as Hitler and Eva Braun, and will focus on what the director claims was “Hitler’s love for India and how he indirectly contributed to Indian independence”.
More on Bollywood Adolf here:
Oh I read those as purely provocative posts on his part and not as statements of his opinion. But I could have misread them of course. This ‘conversing’ on the internet is flawed as hell and bound for misinterpretations.
Would love to see more posts by Mr. Lindberg himself though. He could clear the matter up in a few sentences (and stop the angry mob running towards the castle :).
I can only say how it came across to me. Such things aren’t that funny, or perhaps it’s my lack of sense of humour. Provoking is not the same as offending, though maybe that’s a matter of taste. Of course you’re right on the last part. That happens to all on the web. I think they invented smileys for it. But if one doesn’t like to use them, it’s hard to spot the tone.
I’ll make a little attempt to tie some of this discussion to the Spaghetti Westerns.
Damiani was a member of the PCI (and not the CPSU) and made a well-liked and respected film, A Bullet for the General. In that film Chuncho and his band “liberate” a small town (the one that is later the victim of government reprisals, I forget the name). The peones murder the local rich guy (Don Pedro?) because he is rich and they are poor. Shades of Russia, Cuba, China, etc. in reality. And their flunkies might be hanged as in Il Mercenario. How is that avoided in Marxism? Not all the “haves” are going to be cooperative when it comes to sharing the wealth. What is done with them then???
And who shares the wealth for the good of the whole in SWs? Billy Blood does in Hole in the Forehead. Losoya does in Long Live Your Death. Trying to think of other examples… :-\
I think it’s OK, because the holocaust is a fact. Every attempt to deny this fact is criminal, because in a couple of years there will be no one left who whitnessed the time. From this moment the history books will be the one place to tell us from this horrible era. Every attempt to rewrite the history books is criminal, because this gives neo nazis the chance to glorify Hitler and his crimes.
Generally speaking I find every attempt to soften the nazi crimes disgusting. For me arguments like “jewish capitalists caused the economic crisis” or “Stalin killed millions of people as well” or “the allies treated Germans badly after the war” are very problematic because the try to qualify the cruel deeds of the 3rd Reich. Hitler can’t be justified in ANY way!
Sometimes you are just plain misunderstood, like this golden moment from the excellent series Father Ted shows:
You must speak only for yourself and certainly not for me , because what I have written is in no way an attempt to “try to qualify the cruel deeds of the 3rd Reich.”
I brought up Communism because of the hint that somehow it is worthy to ban some things but not some other equally horrible things. How can one decide which is worse between the deliberate extermination of people because of class and nationality (Communism) or ethnic group and religion (Nazism)?
As far as mentioning German suffering after the war and the changes in Germany I am suggesting that Germans have been punished for that era and it is now history. It is a different country. That kind of horror is no more likely to re-emerge in Germany than anywhere else.
Sorry major. I know that. Of course I’m speaking for me. I did’nt say you justified the nazi terror. I wanted to say that arguments like the ones I mentioned are problematic.
No problem, mi amigo!
lindberg, what’s your motivation for starting this thread?