Karl Marx: Opium of the People

[Josh]

I can believe almost anything would happen on this forum, but Bootstrap openly supporting a Communist revolution was not what I expected.

I guess if any of us don't want to live under Communism, Bootstrap will accuse of being Nazis. (It is notable that I don't think I've ever seen Adolph Hitler quoted on MennoNet before Bootstrap's seminal post.)

[Bootstrap]

I can believe almost anything would happen on this forum, but Bootstrap openly supporting a Communist revolution was not what I expected.

And Josh openly supporting Nazis is not what I expected either. Fortunately, neither of those things happened.

Care to quote something I actually said and offer your opinions on it?

[RZehr]

I can believe almost anything would happen on this forum, but Bootstrap openly supporting a Communist revolution was not what I expected.

I guess if any of us don't want to live under Communism, Bootstrap will accuse of being Nazis. (It is notable that I don't think I've ever seen Adolph Hitler quoted on MennoNet before Bootstrap's seminal post.)

To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.
-Adolf Hitler

[Bootstrap]

I can believe almost anything would happen on this forum, but Bootstrap openly supporting a Communist revolution was not what I expected.

Let me be really, really clear. I don't want revolution from the right or the left. I don't trust extremists. Both Nazis and Marxists scare me. If you want the loudest voice in the room against Marxists in Germany back then, Hitler was the loudest voice. There are ditches on both sides of the road. I'm a rule of law and civil order kind of guy.

That was the reason I quoted Hitler, from Mein Kampf. Really, people should take the time to understand both Marx and Hitler before throwing their names around. If you want the loudest voice against Marxism, that was Hitler.

To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.
-Adolf Hitler

But Hitler didn't actually say that. Not for German citizens. This was all about sowing fear of foreigners and Jews. Whenever you see a quote from Marx, Hitler, or Confucius, make sure it's genuine.

Here's the real quote - "subjugated races" does not include Germans. He wanted to take guns from Jews and foreigners, not from Germans.

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.

So if you want the loudest voice to say Germany is for the Germans, Hitler is your guy once again.

And that's the danger of extremism "in the name of liberty". We don't need extremism. We don't need enmity. We need civil order and the rule of law.

[Ken]

I can believe almost anything would happen on this forum, but Bootstrap openly supporting a Communist revolution was not what I expected.

Let me be really, really clear. I don't want revolution from the right or the left. I don't trust extremists. Both Nazis and Marxists scare me. If you want the loudest voice in the room against Marxists in Germany back then, Hitler was the loudest voice. There are ditches on both sides of the road. I'm a rule of law and civil order kind of guy.

That was the reason I quoted Hitler, from Mein Kampf. Really, people should take the time to understand both Marx and Hitler before throwing their names around. If you want the loudest voice against Marxism, that was Hitler.

To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.
-Adolf Hitler

But Hitler didn't actually say that. Not for German citizens. This was all about sowing fear of foreigners and Jews. Whenever you see a quote from Marx, Hitler, or Confucius, make sure it's genuine.

Here's the real quote - "subjugated races" does not include Germans. He wanted to take guns from Jews and foreigners, not from Germans.

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.

So if you want the loudest voice to say Germany is for the Germans, Hitler is your guy once again.

And that's the danger of extremism "in the name of liberty". We don't need extremism. We don't need enmity. We need civil order and the rule of law.

Honestly Bootstrap, I think you are a little off-base here. In the 1920s the world was full of people who objected to Stalin and communism. Hitler wasn't some lonely sentinel speaking truth to power. Watch the recent film "Mr. Jones" about the Holodomor for an example. Hitler was simply doing the classic fascist trope of scapegoating to rile people up against the "other". Communists, Jews, Poles, Slavs, etc. etc. If a alliance with German communists would have sped his rise to power he would have made it. He had no trouble at all with making peace and common ground with Stalin when they signed the non-aggression pact and carved up Poland. Then when they thought the time was right, stupidly invaded the USSR. EVERYTHING that Hitler did in his rise to power was disingenuous. He is not who I would turn to for an intelligent criticism of socialism or Marxism. Anymore than I would turn to Stalin for an intelligent criticism of capitalism or western democracy.

[temporal1]

New phrase for me:
Quite a bit written on it.

“The Cheapest Insult” / The reductio ad Hitlerum: a refuge of tired minds
https://www.city-journal.org/html/cheap ... 15138.html

Hats Off had a word or name for it. (i can’t recall.) someone might? - i think it’s well known.

[Robert]

[Bootstrap]

So if you want the loudest voice to say Germany is for the Germans, Hitler is your guy once again.

And that's the danger of extremism "in the name of liberty". We don't need extremism. We don't need enmity. We need civil order and the rule of law.

Honestly Bootstrap, I think you are a little off-base here. In the 1920s the world was full of people who objected to Stalin and communism. Hitler wasn't some lonely sentinel speaking truth to power.

Of course not. But he was one of the loudest and most extreme.

Hitler was simply doing the classic fascist trope of scapegoating to rile people up against the "other". Communists, Jews, Poles, Slavs, etc. etc.

Exactly. Just like Marx did. Just like Lenin did.

And that's what you look for. That kind of riling people up against each other, making the "other" an enemy and a threat, fanning the emotional flames to build tribes of opposition. When you see that happening, the ideological message is more or less beside the point.

EVERYTHING that Hitler did in his rise to power was disingenuous. He is not who I would turn to for an intelligent criticism of socialism or Marxism. Anymore than I would turn to Stalin for an intelligent criticism of capitalism or western democracy.

Exactly. If you get people riled up enough and convince them to think of you as the hero defending against that enemy, you can sell them anything. What we learn from Hitler and Stalin, I think, is that we need to step back from that emotional space and think things through, that society needs to care about everyone, that absolute power is a real danger and our authorities need to be held accountable.

[Bootstrap]

But is overthrowing a democratic government the goal? As I read history, positive change comes from within, gradually, recognizing the wisdom of stability and the dangers of hostility and enmity.

I don't get to vote for who overthrows the government. Few revolutions work out well for the average citizen.

[Bootstrap]

“The Cheapest Insult” / The reductio ad Hitlerum: a refuge of tired minds
https://www.city-journal.org/html/cheap ... 15138.html

Hats Off had a word or name for it. (i can’t recall.) someone might? - i think it’s well known.

Are you thinking of Godwin's Law, from Mike Godwin? I think it's OK to compare Hitler to Hitler, quote what he said directly, etc. And for what it's worth, Mike Godwin says it's fine to discuss Hitler if we take the time to do it thoughtfully.

When do you believe it’s a fair shake?
I urge people to develop enough perspective to do it thoughtfully. If you think the comparison is valid, and you’ve given it some thought, do it. All I ask you to do is think about the human beings capable of acting very badly. We have to keep the magnitude of those events in mind, and not be glib. Our society needs to be more humane, more civilized and to grow up.

Any idea how to stop the glib references?
A lot of education reform. If I ran the world, I would strengthen both history and scientific education in the United States. If we fostered more self-criticism and self-skepticism, I think that would do much to prevent rhetorical meanness and mean spiritedness on the internet, of which Hitler comparisons are only a tiny part.

We are in mid-adolescence culturally. When you reach adolescence, you’re not fully socialized. If we’re more self-aware, we can use social media with newfound growth and muscles.