Article

2005-05-24 Caribbean-Latin America

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by TMH 2005-05-24 11:41|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Che's own diaries from when he was fighting in Africa show him to be incredibly racist, but that hasn't dimmed the left's love with him. It's easy to ignore unpleasant truths.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2005-05-24 12:30|| rjschwarz.com]">[rjschwarz.com] 2005-05-24 12:30|| Front Page Top

#2 The left still DEPENDS on Sen. Robert KKK Byrd, just as Stalin had no compunction cutting a deal with Hitler.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-05-24 12:35|| 2005-05-24 12:35|| Front Page Top

#3 The ideological difference between Marxist socialism (Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Allende/Castro/Daily Kos) and nationalist socialism (Hitler/Mussolini/Ba'athism/Kim Jong Il/Pat Buchanan) is a lot less than much of the modern Left would like you to believe. Both are totalitarian ideologies in which the state takes the place of God; one's just a variant on the other. "Nazi" is a contraction of the German words for "National Socialist," and at one time, don't forget, Hitler and Stalin were allies! The distinctions are, as I see it, one ideological point, and one practical one:

--Marxists proclaim themselves internationalists, while a nationalist-type socialist is, well, a nationalist. "Workers of the world, unite! vs. "Aryan superiority."

--In practice, nationalist socialists have been willing to leave most of the economy under nominal private ownership, instead of forcing collectivization. Both styles of socialism are still command economies, however.

So, then, is anyone shocked that a Marxist would be in favor of eugenics? Margaret Sanger, patron saint of the Left, was a flaming eugenicist! Did'ya notice that it's the Left who wanted Terri Schiavo dead?

Similarly, is it any wonder that socialists are anti-Semitic? (If you don't believe they are, then you haven't met any Soviet Jews.) If the state is God, then you can't have anyone running about identifying themselves as the Chosen People of some rival God, it undermines support for the state/party/Dear Leader.

Posted by Mike">Mike 2005-05-24 12:53|| 2005-05-24 12:53|| Front Page Top

#4 What is the difference between Nazism and Communism? Both are totalitarian, both are for the state controlling the economy (less for the Nazis), both are agressively atheistic. The main differnce is that Nazis are consistently nationalist, antisemitic and racist while communists aim to undermine nationalism and patriotism as long as it helps to destroy the bourgeois state, they are anti-racist in the states they DON't control for reasons like undermining the ex-colonial power, getting support in third world contries or straining racial relations in the USA. But once they are in power, communists fan the flames of nationalism and chauvinism (so soldiers accept to die for the regime), antisemitism and are betweeen the worst xenophobic (think Maoist China) and racists in world: there are no Black ministers in Cuba, there are no Black generals and only two in 13 governors of provinces. No Cuban Colin Powell or Condolezza Rice.

Far right and far left are not 180 degrees apart, they are 360 degrees apart.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2005-05-24 14:08|| 2005-05-24 14:08|| Front Page Top

#5 Mike 1. Most of the parallels you express between facism and Marxism are in fact parallels with Marxism-Leninism. Which makes sense, since not only were both totalitarian, but the Nazis immitated the leninist form of party organization. This is not new, but was pointed out decades ago by Hannah Arendt.
2. Note well that not all Marxists are Leninists. Many Marxists have fought against Leninist Communism.
3. I dont think Margaret Sanger was a Leninist.
4. Hardly anyone in the Terri Schiavo dispute was a Leninist, nor was that about Eugenics. Whatever else she was going to do, that woman wasnt going to reproduce.

There were plenty of conservatives who were pro-eugenics pre-1930. I think even Theodore Roosevelt was.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-05-24 14:16|| 2005-05-24 14:16|| Front Page Top

#6 Mrs D - please - no more references to Sen Robert Byrd and "DEPENDS" in the same sentence. Bad visual, thx
Frank

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-24 14:29|| 2005-05-24 14:29|| Front Page Top

#7 'Hawk:

I never claimed to have a particularly original insight, and perhaps I should have credited Hannah Arendt and the other giants on whose shoulders we stand. Still, I think it important to point out that all totalitarian ideologies are ultimately eugenicist and racist (since they deny that man is fallen, and claim he is "perfectable" if you just employ the right breeding/education/secret police) and ultimately hostile to Jews and Christians (the almighty secular state is a jealous god). Allende was nothing unusual in those respects.

I always find it mildly amusing to hear hard-core Leftists denounce the rest of us as "Nazis," when they're a lot closer to Nazism than you or I will ever be.

Posted by Mike">Mike 2005-05-24 14:47|| 2005-05-24 14:47|| Front Page Top

#8 By the time Hitler came to power, the Soviet union was espousing 'socialism in one country' and their position on the issue was almost indistinquishable from the Nazis. You are correct in that both were socialists. The most important distinction from my perspective was the Nazis believed man was in control of his destiny, while the Soviets still believed in Marx's dictum that man's fate was determined by social forces beyond his control.

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-24 16:36|| 2005-05-24 16:36|| Front Page Top

#9 since they deny that man is fallen, and claim he is "perfectable" if you just employ the right breeding/education/secret police)

Er, my problem is with your identifying everyone who beleives in some degree in the perfectability of man as a totalitarian. Once again, not all Marxists are Leninists/Communists. Not all socialists are Marxists. Many social democrats, and many liberals and Progressives believe to some degree in the perfectability of man. Especially if youre not just making the parallel between them and their Leninist enemies, but going a step farther and comparing them to Nazis.

BTW, not to go into theology, but Judaism (AFAIK) does not treat the fall of Adam as having the same theological significance as Christianity does. Adams fall means we're mortal, and must work, and bear children in pain. It does NOT mean we're morally fallen, or in special need of salvation for original sin. To Judaism each human is born with the power to choose good or evil, and is responsible for that choice. This may not match "sole gratia" but thats not a Jewish concept.

You know, one could argue that there are many parallels in Nazi and broader fascist theology to the fall of man. There is no hope for most of humanity, only a select portion. Humans are naturally inclined to struggle and war. Etc, etc. Now someone COULD say that this gives Christians something in common with fascists. I would see that this is silly and unfair. And even antichristian. I hope you can see how implying a similarity between liberals, social democrats, etc and Nazis is silly and unfair.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-05-24 17:12|| 2005-05-24 17:12|| Front Page Top

#10 'Hawk: I didn't meant to suggest that plain old social democrats (and the odd LiberalHawk and such!) are indistinguishable from totalitarians; to the extent I didn't communicate myself clearly, I apologize. Of course there's a difference between the two sets. However, I've never been much worried about the taxonomic difference between Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, Ba'athists, and all that. (If my wife starts screaming about bugs in the basement, I reach for the Raid and don't stop to wonder if they're Periplaneta americana or Periplaneta brunea.)

If you're interested in how one's conception of the nature of Man (fallen vs. perfectable) plays against politics and ideology, you ought to come visit over at Brothers Judd, and jump in to the comments next time the topic comes up (like it did here).

Posted by Mike">Mike 2005-05-24 17:39|| 2005-05-24 17:39|| Front Page Top

#11 There is no hope for most of humanity, only a select portion. Humans are naturally inclined to struggle and war. Etc, etc. Now someone COULD say that this gives Christians something in common with fascists

*scoff* one could say that if they wanted to make it up out of thin air. You are the worst kind of bigot.

Posted by 2b 2005-05-24 17:50|| 2005-05-24 17:50|| Front Page Top

#12 Hawk, I don't think that Sanger's beliefs on economic policy are the relavent issue. I think the thread of interst is that eugenics begat Planned Parenthood which begat the "Right to Die" enthusiasts. The abortion and euthanasia cheerleaders are definitely a special interest of the New Left. Please understand that I am not equating a doctor who recommends an abortion in a medical emergency or someone who signs a living will with zealots of the grim reaper. I think that many people would agree that a line of 40 sixteen year-old girls at an abortion clinic is pretty trajic and not cause for grabbing pompoms and cheering.
A discertation that extols the beneficient nature of eugenics can't easily be reconciled with the Hipocratic oath and is certainly more embarassing than the fact that Abe Lincoln thought that minstrel shows were a hoot.

Posted by Super Hose 2005-05-24 20:17|| 2005-05-24 20:17|| Front Page Top

22:34 DEMOCRAT YES
22:34 VOTE YES
23:52 BH
23:49 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
23:28 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
23:26 trailing wife
23:03 CrazyFool
23:03 DMFD
23:00 Fred
22:50 2b
22:41 mojo
22:40 Minni Mullah
22:35 Mike
22:34 VOTE YES TROLL
22:34 DEMOCRAT YES TROLL
22:31 SC88
22:30 Fred
22:28 Fred
22:28 Fred
22:28 Fred
22:27 .com
22:24 Destro
22:24 Omotch Sheasing8304
22:23 Minni Mullah