I think it was 50/50.
Well, theyâre not, the thing is that the whole âcommunismâ part of those books is like maybe ten percent of the whole and the other ninety is a not-inaccurate study of the failings of 19th century monopoly capitalism.
Mein Kampf on the other hand is such legit garbage that it was a running joke with high ranking Nazis at the height of Naziism they no one ever actually read it.
But the question remains, what serious pro-fascist texts should be studied? There really arenât any.
I agree the Russians fought in the worst environment, but I canât agree with 50/50.
If the Germans had been able to focus on the Russians without the damage to German production, the Nazis would have taken Russia. Holding it would have been a different story.
70/30
Well, yes they are.
You donât seem to want to answer my question about what pro fascist texts should be studied.
The laws, including court rulings, in your own country. âReasonable suspicionâ, âNo knocksâ, etc.
Read any text on law & order.
A study of economics (high school or college) should including readings from the numerous capitalist schools and Marxist schools.
Within capitalism, selections should come from Classical and Neo-classical schools, the Austrian School, Keynesian and neo-Keynesian Schools and modernists schools.
Within Marxism, selections should come from basic Marxist theory (Das Kapital, etc) and from the various âas-appliedâ Communists schools, i.e. Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.
Studies of democratic-socialism would also be appropriate.
There is really no unified Fascist economic theory, so study would not be appropriate. That would be more appropriate for a general history class than an economics class.
2 Likes
Education is good
Except for those in power and politically connected. They have the lionâs share of all the wealth as compared to the sheeple.
That is because the democrats and Euroâs favor one of them while demonizing the other.
These communes are/were small Marxist Utopian communities, one after another they eventually fail.
Are you now going to make the argument they didnât succeed simply because they were never able to spread far enough to control whole countries?
In the seventies and eighties this was the claim, that communism was the ideal form of govât and the only reason it hadnât yet succeeded was that it had to be implemented worldwide in order to do so.
All communist organizations from the smallest to the largest require central planning which requires a centralized authoritarian govât.
The elimination of private property is the first thing required in a communist state and itâs morally abhorrent.
Who decides what it is that the individual âneedsâ?
Where has it worked?
no private property⌠your body is no longer yoursâŚ
No, my argument is that they arenât Marxist communes. If you have evidence otherwise Iâll be more than happy to review it.
False.
Without US and UK aid the Russians would have folded up like thin paper.
Only with our aid and eventually opening up two fronts in Europe to draw large portions of Nazi forces away and even the fear of an invasion of France for a year prior to itâs launching Hitler would have conquered Russia by the end of 43, mid 44 at the latest.
Of course, Stalinâs willingness to throw millions of unarmed civilians into the grinder to help slow the advance helped as well but it certainly didnât help the millions he killed in doing so much.
Additionally he was willing to see millions of his own troops massacred as well to accomplish his goals.
He never cared how many million it took as long as himself and his closest comrades were protected.
Show me one that doesnât rely on it.
Are you talking personal and private property or just private property?
