I'm laboring to understand what exactly his philosophy is, because who in their right mind would place Hugo Chavez in the same group as Adolf Hitler? Or Qadhaffi in the same group as Morales?
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu- national socialist
Muammar al-Gaddafi- socialist
Adolf Hitler- national socialist
Evo Morales- democratic socialist
Hugo Chavez- socialist
Is that easier for you to put into perspective now? If it isn't, then please, by all means, explain why you insist that these leaders have absolutely nothing in common. Is it a game of naivety, or one of disdain and cheap rhetoric that you're playing? I know it's shocking that a person would admire elements from both the far left, and the far right because those who you have called friends throughout your lives, or had any semblance of association, were probably either too afraid to freely express their thoughts out of a coercive fear that they will be ostracized socially, or that they genuinely have no amount or depth of thought concerning political issues other than those that have been forced upon their minds by the society in question.
I must emphasize that the U.S. is not unique in this, however their education system, it's structure, and the entire way it has been manufactured, is wholly different from those in many other parts of the world, in that it does everything it can to avoid the development of critical thinking skills of the student. It's focus is heavily on obedience, memorization and the instant recall of specific facts, like dates, names, and so on. Essentially these elements are secondary to the information underlying those dates, and facts, and this is where American students fail across the board. This changes at a university level, but there the focus is more so on pleasing the teacher by reciting to them what they want to hear. If your views differ, then good luck obtaining a decent grade. Anyway, I would attempt to demonstrate how indoctrinated you are regarding history, and politics by using a simple thought experiment, but given the fact that it would be subject to corruption due to anyone having the ability to easily look the information up on the internet, I will refrain. What I find abhorrent is that not a single person in this thread bothered to acknowledge this threat of controlling, and it appears that if all possible, even prohibiting views that are independent from those commonplace in American society by calling into question the psychological well being of those that refuse to, or even so much as proposition even the slightest degree of inquiry outside of the beliefs that you yourselves adhere to. What goes unnoticed by many is that the fascism of moderates like Rol82 is far more threatening to the individual than these so called fringe elements that the media incessantly feels the urge to broadcast in order to secure their own positions of political and economic dominance within the current hierarchy. It's also no surprise that those who hold these views, that are flogged like an escaped slave in front of a public square, are always those leaning towards the right.
I have no doubt that you could rattle on forever about JFK, or Roosevelt, or Clinton, or any other number of safe topics in American politics, and that is precisely what I do not care to indulge in, because it is about as stimulating and productive as discussing the current celebrity sex scandal on television.
Are you assuming national socialism and socialism are two ends of the same coin because both contain the word socialist?
lol. You couldn't be more off. There is a ton of socialist literature dedicated strictly to attacking the concept of nationalism. One of the reasons Karl Marx abandoned Hegel was due to Hegel's insistence on ideas such as metaphysics, ideology, empty idealism, and German superiority. As a matter of fact, Lenin and Trotsky, the leaders of the bolshevik revolution, had no sympathy on any form of nationalism, from its most meek form, to its most vile, under the guise of patriotism.
National socialism was a failed project attempting to marry two incompatible systems of belief.
From wikipedia:
"
Nazism (
Nationalsozialismus,
National Socialism; alternatively spelled
Naziism[1]) was the
ideology and practice of the
Nazi Party and of
Nazi Germany.
[2][3][4][5][6][7] [8][9] It was a unique variety of
fascism that involved
biological racism and
antisemitism.
[10] Nazism presented itself as
politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from
right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a
far right form of politics.
[11] "
"Historians
Ian Kershaw and
Joachim Fest argue that in post-
World War I Germany, the Nazis were one of many nationalist and fascistic political parties contending for the leadership of Germany's
anti-communist movement, and of the German state. The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve
private property, its support of
class conflict, its aggression against the
middle class, its hostility to small businessmen, and its
atheism.
[91] Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic
egalitarianism, favouring instead a
stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent, retaining
private property, and the creation of national
solidarity that transcends class distinction.
[18] "
Just to clear things up. Muammar al-Gaddafi, like Hitler, is attempting to marry two incompatible systems of belief, socialism and Islam. In a beautiful post by AlexLibman, he fully elucidates the intimacy Islam and private property, private contracts, and big business share. The UAE is the best example of Islam in action. It can be found if you look for Alex's posts.
Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, last I remember, were voted in by the population. Maybe we should do with them what was done with Manuel Zelaya
Oh wait a minute. It was attempted on Chavez, but failed due to popular support.
Edited by medicineman, 01 October 2010 - 02:17 PM.
