Nazis vs Communists, International Civil War 1

There is a rising political struggle being seen the world over. The battle lines are drawn. You either support the Nazis, or you support the Communists which do you choose?

 

To grantedpanda: Neither. They are two sides of the same coin.

 

Can it be both international and civil?

Here in Europe at least things are not black and white only , i am a dedicated communist party voter but i agree with one of he nazi policies (on immigration) , several nazis are supporting working class and union rights as well . Kids beat each other senseless in the streets because they feel it is the right thing to do , after all they always did using a variety of excuses .

As about being "two sides of he same coin" someone failed politics 101 class

 

They are both authoritarian. (That is certainly communism as it ever has been put into practice and I cannot imagine it being different in the foreseeable future)

 

Just because Stalin was an autocrat it doesn't mean that communism is about autocracy , if you had even the minimal background in the subject you wouldn't post things like that.

 

To mutmekep: Yes —— when International is used as a noun.

To mutmekep: Only in a European school.

Then-Senator Harry Truman had it right in 1941 when he said:

Parenthetically, communism/socialism, or socialism/communism, is appropriate terminology in America.

Note that NAZI is an acronym for National SOCIALIST German Workers’ Party.

 

Well I did study it when doing my degree and that was why I deliberately put in, as it has been put in. I can't imagine communism at the present time being possible without being authoritarian. Stalin was more totalitarian.

 

Like People's REPUBLIC of China & Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran

We can get into debate about why Stalin was what he was into another thread ( with references to cultural Russian traits ) but seriously you have done a study so you know the basics , i am sure you can imagine communism at the communal scale it should be not in national state level.

 

You brought him in

You will need to be more clear on what you mean here. Communism on the level of 'to each according to their needs and from each according to their ability' and allowing people to be 'free conscious creative beings' is a high spiritual goal which I do not believe we have the capacity of yet as human beings. Due to people not having reached such a level of consciousness it generally has to be put in, in a flawed and authoritarian way with decreased human rights.

I would go for certain things being the responsibility of the state to provide for the common good while allowing free enterprise within sound safeguards. In the UK in the 80's the Conservative government surprisingly discussed a mandatory wage to be given as a right to all people without having to do any work. This was no doubt due to the reality that at that time the idea of full employment was viewed as no longer operable. The idea would have been that people of a right received this money and then worked to top it up. They decided the tax needed would make it unworkable and went instead for selling the UK off to the financial markets. I think Andre Gortz came up with a similar idea, for different reasons of course, in his book 'the end of the working class'.


I think something new is needed. I think we have seen that capitalism does not work and I think we have also seen that communism does not work. I would be happy with something a bit in the middle. How would you deal with global banking? How would you be governed? How would you make sufficient money to provide for your people? The Scandinavian countries seem to have got quite a good balance. I just feel, having emotionally and spiritually been drawn to Marxism that it is utopic in the world as it is now.

 

true but he is an example to be avoided

I am with you on this , we are still lacking the consciousness and need to achieve some higher level of social evolution.
What i mean is simple, what we can not do in a national scale we can do in communal of even municipal , right now in Athens there are several business that are run by anarchists from parks to cafes and restaurants for immigrants . I think we can do it in agriculture or manufacturing as workers that own the means of production outside of state's general politics standing as an example of what can be achieved if you place the good of the community before your skin.
This is the basic illness of capitalism IMO , it made us selfish and we don't care any more .

We are all sick of neoliberalism , yes it started in the 80's and only took 30 years to burn the universe .
I love your expectations from the state to act responsibly, marionettes never do .

Of course i don't have all the answers , or even any answer ... what i think we need is a new framework , a new social contact to start and move cautiously with reforms , i can expand on that but we definitely don't need a post big enough to be seen from space . It is true that 19th century or older theories do not apply , i know that my comrades will probably spit on me for even thinking this but revisionism is the way to go .

*BTW are you aware of the Norwegian debt , or the debt of Luxembourg ( €3.400.000 per capita!) ? it looks that the richer you are the more into debt you sink

 

To mutmekep: You forgot the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. No matter. Socialism/communism is a totalitarian form of government as is “Republic” the way Iran applies it. Bottom line: Socialism is a religion; so they are all totalitarian theocracies using the power of government to impose their religious beliefs on non-believers.

Since you are European, I’m guessing that you do fully grasp the importance most Americans place on the First Amendment in the US Constitution. In simple terms these few words disarm theocrats:

Unfortunately, American Socialists/Communists found a way to circumvent the First Amendment because their religion has never been legally defined as a religion. That’s how they get away with imposing the tax collector’s morality on the private sector exactly as priests in every theocracy misuse the power of government to impose their beliefs on society.

Over the years, I’ve posted countless messages on the subject and debated hundreds of Socialists. Instead of using my words again, here is just one of many articles that does a good job of identifying socialism/communism for what it is:

Once Again: What Is Socialism?
2010-04-01By Thomas Brewton

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/04/01/once-again-what-is-socialism/

 

Drat, I had answered this post and got through to one of those pages saying 'Database error' and post gone!! Will try again

Indeed.

I believe people are more alienated and brainwashed than they were in the '70's. The word spin for instance has replaced the word integrity.

While I can appreciate that in the present situation you have people who have a communal feeling for your present predicament it is very hard to achieve on anything but a small scale without becoming authoritarian. Someone always has to come up with the money in the beginning. In the 60's and 79's for instance we, the UK, had communes and co-operatives but they never managed to gain a major footing or into industry and manufacturing. UK governments in the 60's and 70's tried to get Private Industry in for talks and planning but they refused to come believing that the ultimate result would be a version of socialism. Instead we had boom and bust and strikes taking up almost as much of the time as work. During this time we were increasing equality of opportunity, social mobility and redistribution of the wealth.

The 80's saw the end of that and we now have as much inequality and lack of social mobility as we had in Victorian times.

From where? There was a great deal more social awareness prior to neo liberalism so I am going to take it form there. That imo was from when people became deceived. They mistook quantity of possessions for quality of life. They also were taught there was no society and it was everyone out for themselves. Greed was good. Social responsibility did not exist. We need to regain a social conscience and within that time there is the possibility for various groups to try and fill the space - hence I guess the OP as there is no doubt the far right is on the rise and potentially in some places could make inroads.

Indeed. It never had my support.

I don't know where you got that idea from because I have no such expectations. Indeed the reason I have an interest in Independence for Scotland is because I have no such hope from the political apparatus in the UK. I do however think we are moving into a time of change and think new ideas are needed. For instance if Scotland did achieve independence while still remaining in the neo liberal way it is now, there would be no change. People have not been political for 30 years. People have not discussed ideals and values and ideas on ways to move forward. The desire for that to start happening rather than any confidence or expectation in the current process is where I come from.

I can agree with that.

Norway has massive resources. What I said was the Scandinavian countries seem to have a good balance of working for the common good and private enterprise. Now I would like the Global fly by nights cut out from everywhere and would be in favour of interest fee banking debt but .....

 

Before "submit" try copy your entire post , it works for me

You make me wanna talk about vanguards and how stupid Marx was believing that the working class can achieve things using bourgeois institutions like parliaments . Yes people are natural conservatives and unless you present them with a solid plan that will ensure their survival tomorrow they will always being reluctant to innovate. The case here is that much of the population has nothing left to hope , no false images to follow and no deceiving illusions from the world of Barbie , see sometimes excessive capitalism can be the birth canal of socialist revival.
What i have experience interacting with the communes - at least those having some minimum "officiality" is that they are flooded with the personal ambition of professional leaders, they will label anything that questions their authority as "version of socialism" or "version of capitalism" or whatever suits them , this kind of "leadership" is destined to fail us all.
So everything boils down to the basics , selfishness.

Money specially cheap money act as a drug , i remember few years ago receiving a "gift" €1000 loan for buying a set of spoons , it wasn't really about greed . Europeans have very strong egos and think that the world owes to them (free) wealth was a way to flatter our egos and they did it the right way.
Both capitalism and nazis work the same way simplistically pointing fingers to the most obvious targets like Saddam, socialism , Bengali immigrants , gays , single mothers etc they all detract from reality and you are left with the feeling that you are with the good people doing the right thing , believing , voting and consuming .

Asking for a class consciousness in a world where class warfare is a taboo word is just too much.
Of course the right will rise , the end result of fascism is corporate-ocracy and for nazim autocracy both similar to the regime we live under today , they are presented as a way through only that this path leads back to the same point although it does burn anger quickly .

Chopping countries into smaller easier to chew pieces ? not sure how it will work for the working class and the nationalism paper is played too much to still work .
I think this is where you are wrong, you hope , there is no hope only acting . After you understand how things work you should try to brake them, corrupt them , change them , we are all running out of time here and soon they will look to us to propose solutions .

I understood what you posted but thing is that Norway has a massive debt .

 

Yes, I forgot

My primary interest in Marx is not to do with equality but to do with psychology. Removing alienation. That I think is where there is an irony. Which comes first the chicken or the egg and why it is difficult to put in communism without authoritarianism. If it is authoritarian, it no longer works to create free conscious creative people. I very much believe in equality of opportunity, social mobility and care of the vulnerable and I am definitely left of centre but I put free choice very strong. I do not believe you can achieve communism as Marx envisaged it any way other by free will. Unless, until that free will is there it is necessary to create the best conditions possible for the things I mentioned above.

Well it is understandable that people will want security.

I understand that. I do not have much hope in the long term for most places if we carry on in the way we are now.

I have no problem with that provided the previous shortcomings are taken into account. Such a situation also makes people vulnerable to those who promise a lot as you said above.

Well as you said that is your experience which I am sure will be different from the UK 30 years ago. Have not most communes now become privatised and charge a hefty fee for a nights stay? I think they were experimental here. I never stayed on one myself but I think that was a time for experimentation. It was a very small part of the move towards equality of opportunity, social mobility and so on - more a bit of dropping out. Co-operatives however were different but as I said they did not manage more than small scale and I think often had a very good orientation. That was certainly one of the ways in which we could have moved on a much larger scale.

and selfishness comes from inner emptiness or as Marx puts it alienation. It's a hard one to heal and cannot be done over night. It also cannot be forced out of people because it really is about healing. However the past 30 years when people have been running around like headless chickens trying to make as much money as they can and do all the things which will make them 'look' the best, has certainly not helped. It's a psychological/spiritual issue. The real need is to be 'free, conscious and creative', in other wards really alive, Marx was right on that.

Ah, I can see we are in agreement here.

People have strong egos when they are not in touch with their inner feeling self, in other words when they are alienated.

Yes, Nazi's point the finger and say they are the elite and then add threats. I don't think the anti islam extremist network is that different despite the appearance they try to make and do not see it as impossible that at some point they could join and I see your point about capitalism as presented by the government certainly in the UK. It has done well at making those with least, on benefits, pay the most by losing benefits and managing to get people to believe they are just scroungers. Thatcher once said it was far easier than she had ever imagined to get rid of socialism from the UK.

very true

I think you need to start where there is agreement and it has to be something which most people can see to be to their benefit. It seems at the moment there is lack of trust in most places both in governments and in the financial system.

Well that is what I am wanting to move away from. To be frank if we stay in this present position as far as I can see there is no reason why we may not become the new people struggling to make ends meet working 16 hours a day under bad conditions or something not much better and if that is not sorted in some social way then of course the nazi's and the anti-islamists and whoever else will come in blaming this person and that...so yes, you are right, a wholesome socialist alternative is necessary and that needs to be one which can educate, bring people together and offer support to those in need - like our Unions used to do on a big scale and our local authority's as well. If you like the foundations were removed and need to be put in place again ...or people will just like little sheep follow whoever manages to put some nazi type policy in the best sheep's clothing. A baddie is needed and that will be the most vulnerable and unable to protect themselves.

However, the other side of it is that we are all much more educated than we once were and although, speaking for the UK, the past thirty years have been one about indoctrination and brainwashing where certain political views have become almost unspeakable, people can remember and see when it is time to change.

There is an alternative viewpoint. Scotland is actually the most likely place in the UK to get a social democratic government going with a good written constitution including rights and the right to information. Now that is only one way she could go but there is no question that is quite big on the expectation. There is talk of having a similar system to say in Norway - making clear what things will be taken as a right as collective for people - the right to a home, higher education and so on and which parts will be left to private enterprise. There is no reason why Scotland would be disunited. Indeed if Scotland did move in this direction it surely would be positive support for her neighbours..but that is a different thread. I only mentioned it in to let you know I did not trust the system.

To be honest I don't know too much about it but she has oil and if you have oil you are considered fine to lend to at cheap rates. The UK has I think the highest personal debt in the world but is getting historically low interest rates.

 

They are simply 2 variants on the same theme.

You are aware, are you not, that the full name was the "National Socialist German Workers Party". And this itself should show the difference between these two differing branches of Socialism.

When most people think of "Socialism", they automatically think of "Communism", that is "International Socialism". However, there is another form, and that is "National Socialism". There is no question that the Nazi Government was Socialist, with all of the Big Brother type of Socialist programs that Socialists even today support and try to spread.

However, where they differ is that one supports the Socialism only within it's own government, and the other wants to spread it out to become a world-wide movement and government. And that is where the Civil War comes in. They did strongly oppose the Communists, there is no doubt of that. But if you look at all the internal policies and actions of the Party, it is almost impossible to seperate them from those of the Soviets of the time, or a great many Socialist nations in existance currently.

 

Okay Sir do not take my tone as offensive because i don't mean to offend but this is how it goes

If you pull out racialism IT IS NOT NATIONAL SOCIALISM
If you pull out sexism IT IS NOT NATIONAL SOCIALISM
If you pull out theism IT IS NOT NATIONAL SOCIALISM
If you pull out mysticism IT IS NOT NATIONAL SOCIALISM

Yes Hitler was influenced by the rhetoric of his era and so was Stalin , there are common elements and indeed many people jumped from one wagon to the other (Hitler himself did) , it is like believing that Orcas are whales when they don't even look like whales yet people see the general shape and draw conclusions even there is a huge fin on their back screaming that they are dolphins !

 

You're so 20th century.

 

You are throwing in a ton of garbage that the National Socialists are known for, that does not apply. I suggest you go and actually learn what the policies are of National Socialists. And the last laughable claim of "mysticcism" is a very large part of Soclialism, be it National or International.

For example, Racism is a very key component of National Socialism. Heck, the very name itself almost screams to this fact. The Nation itself is superior, therefore what it does to achieve it's goals is quthorized because the Nation is Superior to all other nations. This is major part of Nationalism. Members of this nation have a predestination to rule because of their superiority.

Where you are making your mistake is that you are pointing out how Nationalist Socialism and International Socialism differ (and not even doing that very well), and making a total failure because you apparently do not understand National Socialism enough to make these claims. I suggest you go and read My Struggle, the writings of Anton Drexler, and Martin Heidegger.

 

Hitler’s freedom from International Debt Slavery


An interesting perspective on World War II, and the players involved.

Many people take joy in saying Wall Street and Jewish bankers “financed Hitler.” There is plenty of documented evidence that Wall Street and Jewish bankers did indeed help finance Hitler at first, partly because it allowed the bankers to get rich (as I will describe below) and partly in order to control Stalin.

However, when Germany broke free from the bankers, the bankers declared a world war against Germany.

When we look at all the facts, the charge that “Jews financed Hitler” becomes irrelevant. Los Angeles Attorney Ellen Brown discusses this topic in her book Web of Debt…

When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people, demanding that Germans repay every nation’s costs of the war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in Germany.

Private currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms were lost to speculators and to private banks.

Germans lived in hovels. They were starving.

Nothing like this had ever happened before – the total destruction of the national currency, plus the wiping out of people’s savings and businesses.
On top of this came a global depression. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power.

At that point the German government thwarted the international banking cartels by issuing its own money.

World Jewry responded by declaring a global boycott against Germany.
Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities.
All these were paid for with money that no longer came from the private international bankers.

The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency.

To pay for this, the German government (not the international bankers) issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates.

In this way the National Socialists put millions of people to work, and paid them with Treasury Certificates. Under the National Socialists, Germany’s money wasn’t backed by gold (which was owned by the international bankers). It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said,

“For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.”

The government paid workers in Certificates. Workers spent those Certificates on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people.
In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the international bankers.

Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and Germany was back on its feet.

It had a solid, stable currency, with no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries (controlled by international bankers) were still out of work.
Within five years, Germany went from the poorest nation in Europe to the richest.

Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the international bankers’ denial of foreign credit to Germany, and despite the global boycott by Jewish-owned industries.

Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system that cut the bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits. (Venezuela does the same thing today when it trades oil for commodities, plus medical help, and so on. Hence the bankers are trying to squeeze Venezuela.)

Germany’s economic freedom was short-lived; but it left several monuments, including the famous Autobahn, the world’s first extensive superhighway. Hjalmar Schacht, a Rothschild agent who was temporarily head of the German central bank, summed it up thus… An American banker had commented,

“Dr. Schacht, you should come to America. We’ve lots of money and that’s real banking.”

Schacht replied,

“You should come to Berlin. We don’t have money. That’s real banking.”
(Schacht, the Rothschild agent, actually supported the private international bankers against Germany, and was rewarded by having all charges against him dropped at the Nuremberg trials.)

This economic freedom made Hitler extremely popular with the German people.
Germany was rescued from English economic theory, which says that all currency must be borrowed against the gold owned by a private and secretive banking cartel — such as the Federal Reserve, or the Central Bank of Europe — rather than issued by the government for the benefit of the people.

Canadian researcher Dr. Henry Makow (who is Jewish himself) says the main reason why the bankers arranged for a world war against Germany was that Hitler sidestepped the bankers by creating his own money, thereby freeing the German people. Worse, this freedom and prosperity threatened to spread to other nations. Hitler had to be stopped!

Makow quotes from the 1938 interrogation of C. G. Rakovsky, one of the founders of Soviet Bolshevism and a Trotsky intimate. Rakovsky was tried in show trials in the USSR under Stalin.

According to Rakovsky, Hitler was at first funded by the international bankers, through the bankers’ agent Hjalmar Schacht. The bankers financed Hitler in order to control Stalin, who had usurped power from their agent Trotsky. Then Hitler became an even bigger threat than Stalin when Hitler started printing his own money.

(Stalin came to power in 1922, which was eleven years before Hitler came to power.)

Rakovsky said:

“Hitler took over the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones. He took over the machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the people. Can you possibly imagine what would have come if this had infected a number of other states?”
(Henry Makow, “Hitler Did Not Want War,” March 21, 2004).
Economist Henry C K Liu writes of Germany’s remarkable transformation:

“The Nazis came to power in 1933 when the German economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.”

(Henry C. K. Liu, “Nazism and the German Economic Miracle,” Asia Times (May 24, 2005).
In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented:

“Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for Germany’s startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers.”

These facts do not appear in any textbooks today.

What does appear is the disastrous runaway inflation suffered in 1923 by the Weimar Republic, which governed Germany from 1919 to 1933. Today’s textbooks use this inflation to twist truth into its opposite. They cite the radical devaluation of the German mark as an example of what goes wrong when governments print their own money, rather than borrow it from private cartels.

In reality, the Weimar financial crisis began with the impossible reparations payments imposed at the Treaty of Versailles. Hjalmar Schacht [who was never a Nazi Party member either and now it appears clear why that was the case] – the Rothschild agent who was currency commissioner for the Republic — opposed letting the German government print its own money…

“The Treaty of Versailles is a model of ingenious measures for the economic destruction of Germany. Germany could not find any way of holding its head above the water, other than by the inflationary expedient of printing bank notes.”

Schacht echoes the textbook lie that Weimar inflation was caused when the German government printed its own money.

However, in his 1967 book The Magic of Money, Schacht let the cat out of the bag by revealing that it was the PRIVATELY-OWNED Reich bank, not the German government, that was pumping new currency into the economy. Thus, the PRIVATE BANK caused the Weimar hyper-inflation.

Like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Reichsbank was overseen by appointed government officials, but was operated for private gain.

 

Communism cannot be enforced without an authoritarian model. The Haves will hardly settle for having their wealth taken away and handed to those who didn't earn it, being made poor themselves. If Communism were a good system, people would support it from the bottom-up, which in reality they simply never do, though there will always be some naïve whiny "poor" who think they deserve more just for breathing.

 

The fight between right and left wingers is obsolete.

ON HAVING A CORRECT
UNDERSTANDING OF
NATIONALISM

by Kim Jong Il

It is important to have a correct understanding of
nationalism. Only when they have such an understanding can
people achieve national unity, champion the interests of the
nation and contribute to the shaping of its destiny.
Nationalism came into being as an ideology for defending
the interests of a nation in the course of the latter’s formation
and development. Although nations differ from one another in
the period of their formation, every nation is a social
community which has been formed and consolidated
historically on the basis of a common kinship descent,
language, residential area and culture, and is composed of
various classes and strata. There is no person in any country or
in any society who exists outside his or her nation, separate
from it. Every person belongs to a class or stratum, and at the
same time to a nation, endowing that person with both a
national and a class character. Class character and national
character and the demands of classes and nation are inseparable
from each other. As a matter of fact, the classes and strata of a
nation entertain different demands and interests owing to their
different social and economic functions. However, all the
members of a nation have the same stake in championing the
independence and character of the nation and attaining national
prosperity without distinction of the interests of their classes
and strata. This is because the destiny of a nation is precisely
the destiny of its individual members; in other words, the latter
is dependent on the former. None will be happy with the
sovereignty and honour of his or her nation being trampled
upon and national character disregarded. It is the common
ideological feeling and psychology of the members of a nation
to love their nation, cherish its characteristics and interests, and
yearn for its prosperity. Nationalism reflects this feeling and
psychology. In other words, nationalism is an ideology that
advocates love for the nation and defence of its interests. Since
people carve out their destiny while living within the nationstate
as a unit, genuine nationalism constitutes patriotism. The
progressive nature of nationalism lies in the fact that it is a
patriotic ideology which advocates the defence of national
interests.
Nationalism emerged as a progressive idea along with the
formation and development of each nation. However, it was
understood in the past as an ideology that defends bourgeois
interests. It is true that in the days of the nationalist movement
against feudalism, the newly-emergent bourgeoisie, upholding
the banner of nationalism, stood in the van of the movement.
At that time, the interests of both the masses of the people and
the newly-emergent bourgeoisie were basically coincident in
their struggle against feudalism. Therefore, the banner of
nationalism seemed to reflect the common interests of the
nation. As capitalism developed and the bourgeoisie became
the reactionary ruling class after victorious bourgeois
revolutions in various countries, nationalism was used as a
means of defending the interests of the bourgeois class. The
bourgeoisie disguised their class interests as national interests,
and used nationalism as an ideological instrument for
solidifying their class domination. This led nationalism to be
understood, among the people, as a bourgeois ideology that
runs counter to the national interests. We should distinguish
clearly between true nationalism that loves the nation and
defends its interests and bourgeois nationalism that advocates
the interests of the bourgeois class. Bourgeois nationalism
reveals itself as national egoism, national exclusivism and bigpower
chauvinism in the relationship between countries and
nations; it is reactionary in that it creates antagonism and
disagreement between countries and nations, and checks the
development of friendly relations between the various peoples
of the world.
The original revolutionary theory of the working class
failed to give a correct explanation of nationalism. It paid
major attention to strengthening the international unity and
solidarity of the working class all over the world–the
fundamental problem in the then socialist movement–failing to
pay due attention to the national problem. It went so far as to
regard nationalism as an anti-socialist ideological trend,
because bourgeois nationalism was doing great harm to the
socialist movement. This is why progressive people in the past
rejected nationalism, considering it incompatible with
communism.
It is wrong to view communism as incompatible with
nationalism. Communism does not advocate only the interests
of the working class; it also advocates the interests of the
nation–hence it is an ideology of loving the country and the
people. Nationalism is also an ideology of loving the country
and the people, as it defends the interests of the country and the
nation. Love of the country and the people is an ideological
emotion common to communism and nationalism; herein lies
the ideological basis on which they can ally with one another.
Therefore, there is no reason or ground to pit one against the
other, and reject nationalism.
Nationalism does not conflict with internationalism. Mutual
help, support and alliance between countries and nations–this is
internationalism. Every country has its borders, and every
nation has its identity, and revolution and construction are
carried on with the country and nation as a unit. For this
reason, internationalism finds its expressions in the
relationships between countries and between nations, a
prerequisite for which is nationalism. Internationalism divorced
from the concepts of nation and nationalism is merely an empty
shell. A man who is unconcerned about the destiny of his
country and nation cannot be faithful to internationalism.
Revolutionaries of each country should be faithful to
internationalism by struggling, first of all, for the prosperity of
their own country and nation.
For the first time in history, the great leader President
Kim Il Sung gave a correct explanation of nationalism, and
elucidated the relationship between communism and
nationalism and between communists and nationalists in his
revolutionary practice of carving out the destiny of his country
and people. He said that in order to be a true communist one
must first become a true nationalist. With a determination to
devote his life to his country and fellow-countrymen, he
embarked on the road of revolution in his early years and
created the immortal Juche idea, on the basis of which he
established a Juche-oriented outlook on the nation, and
scientifically expounded the essence and progressive character
of nationalism. Through a correct combination of class
character with national character and of the destiny of
socialism with that of the nation, he realized an alliance
between communists and nationalists, cemented the class and
national positions of our socialism and led the nationalists to
join the efforts for socialist construction and national
reunification. Attracted by his broad magnanimity and noble
personality, many nationalists took the patriotic road to
national unity and national reunification, making a clean break
with their erroneous pasts. Kim Ku, a life-long anti-communist,
allied with communists, a patriotic changeover, in the twilight
of his life, and Choe Tok Sin, a nationalist, was able to find
salvation as a patriot in the leader’s embrace. The great leader
treasured and championed the independence not only of our
nation but also of the peoples of the rest of the world. He
devoted all his efforts to the cause of making the whole world
independent, as well as to the Korean revolution. We can say
that there has been no man in the world as great as him, who
devoted his whole life to the nation’s independence and
prosperity, and a bright future for mankind. He was the most
steadfast communist and, at the same time, a peerless patriot,
true nationalist and paragon among internationalists.
I also assert, as the leader instructed, that one must be an
ardent patriot, a true nationalist, in order to become a genuine
revolutionary, a communist. The communist who fights for the
realization of the independence of the masses of the people
must first of all be a true nationalist. Those who fight for their
people, their country and their homeland are genuine
communists, true nationalists and ardent patriots.​

 

Those who do not love their own parents, brothers and sisters cannot love
their country and compatriots. Likewise, those who do not love
their own homeland and people cannot become communists.
We are inheriting with fidelity the great leader’s noble idea of
loving the country, the nation and the people, and making
every effort to rally all the sections of the nation by dint of allembracing
politics, and lead them to the road of patriotism.
It is not communists but imperialists who oppose
nationalism and place obstacles in the way of the independent
development of nations at present. The imperialists are
manoeuvring cunningly to realize their dominationist ambition
on the plea of “globalization” and “integration.” They claim
that the ideal of building a sovereign nation-state or the love
for country and nation is a “national prejudice lagging behind
the times,” and “globalization” and “integration” are the trend
of the times in the present situation, when science and
technology are developing rapidly and economic exchanges
between countries are being conducted briskly on an
international scale. Today, when every country and nation is
carving out its own destiny with its own ideology, system and
culture, there can never be a political, economic, ideological
and cultural “integration” of the world. The manoeuvres of the
US imperialists for “globalization” and “integration” are aimed
at turning the world into what they call a “free” and
“democratic” world styled after the United States, and thus
bringing all countries and nations under their domination and
subordination. The present era is one of independence. Human
history is propelled by the struggle of the masses of the people
for independence, not by the dominationist ambition and
aggressive policy of the imperialists. The manoeuvres of the
imperialists for “globalization” and “integration” are doomed
to failure, as they are opposed by the vigorous efforts of the
world’s peoples aspiring after independence.
We should resolutely oppose and reject the manoeuvres of
the imperialists for “globalization” and “integration,” and
staunchly fight to preserve the excellent characteristics of our
nation and safeguard its independence. We frequently
emphasize the Korean-nation-first principle so as to preserve
the national character and defend the independence of the
nation.
A most important task facing us today in championing and
realizing national independence is to reunify the country. Our
nation, which has inherited a time-honoured history and culture
and the tradition of patriotism, has been divided into north and
south by foreign forces for more than half a century. The
division of the territory and the nation is blocking the way for
the nation’s concerted development, and inflicting untold
misery and hardship upon it. National reunification is not only
a vital demand of our people but also the unanimous will and
aspiration of the entire nation.
The historical Pyongyang Meeting and the June 15 NorthSouth
Joint Declaration ushered in a new era of great national unity
and independent reunification. The North-South Joint Declaration
stipulates all the principles and ways for solving the problems
arising in reunifying the country independently by the united
efforts of our own nation. The declaration is a programme
of national unity and a general principle of national reunification,
based on the idea of “by our nation itself” and permeated
with the spirit of loving the country and people. The
substantial guarantee for independence, peace and national
reunification lies in supporting and thoroughly carrying out
the declaration. Holding aloft the North-South Joint
Declaration as a general principle of reunification,
the entire nation must launch a nationwide struggle
to accomplish the historic cause of national reunification.​

 

There is more truth to this thread than most people realise. With higher unemployment, populations are going to become more polarized. Ethnic/class conflict may be a natural human reaction to scarcity.

 

You know, there is a general term for individuals who use a copy and paste of the works of others and do not reference it or admit that it is not their own work. It is call "plagarism", and the individual that does that is considered to be a "thief".

FYI, that article was written by Abdul Alhazred, the pseudonym of a noted internet Anti-Semite. The name is false, it comes from a character from H. P. Lovecraft. In Lovecraftian lore, he is the author of the Necronomicon, and often refered to as the "Mad Arab".

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/6720

So next time if you are going to just do a copy and paste, admit to us where you stole it from.

 

Good link but I didn't get it from there and never claimed authorship as you ill see plenty of references throughout the post. Didn't see any references to Lucifer either.

Maybe it is your way of distracting from the subject. If you want information on National Socialism goto Hitler said: and listen to the man who created it.
Hitler said:
http://www.politicalforum.com/history-past-politicians/252361-hitler-said.html