Diane Abbott
- Thread starter Quicksilvera
- Start date
Go on, mate. Say something about donkey jackets. You know that you want to. If you do that then it might make BoroFur start posting on here again.
r00fie1
Well-known member
"Whatever the quote or your reasoning it’s not accurate"
Perhaps reasoning and elaboration would be helpful?
If you read whats written: National Socialism is an ideology built upon preservation of the status quo. Its pivotal focus is preservation and perpetuance of sustainability of the existing means of production. The National Socialism of Hitler preserved capitalism from the "Red Menace". Capitalism is the callous cash nexus. Politically and economically, National socialism preserved Capitalism. Thats a historical perspective and a fact. Take Capitalism to its natural conclusion, what actually happened showed how accommodation, cooperation and collusion preserved and sustained it. It might not be comfortable reading, but its an informed tract, whether any of us like it or not.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
But that is different from it being capitalism though as you said as generalisations are dangerous especially political ones
See also socialism is commmnism in the us media.
r00fie1
Well-known member
No.
The Nazi`s provided conditions for the “.....economic and political system in which a country's [Germany`s] trade and industry are [were] controlled by private owners for profit.”
r00fie1
Well-known member
See the answer above to your "definition".
Granville Bennett
Active member
This video puts my point forward better than I can. Maybe I was clumsy. I have read a lot on the subject. No offence, but I don’t tend to read your copy and pasted, lengthy, drawn-out posts as I feel they are not conductive to messageboards. Just my opinion of course.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
But nazism is not capitalism that’s just wrong.
Don't need to, mate. You just did.
Both of them gone now, well just about.
If the message is so pure I wonder why they haven't just popped of and started their own party for like minded people. But they didn't. Wonder why.
r00fie1
Well-known member
Ideology and economy are inseparable components of the same system.
The two cant be separated or considered in isolation.
Its not a moral question.
We clearly wont agree so l`l politely leave it at that.
With any luck Starmer will wrap himself in the flag a bit too tightly and choke to death on it. After that Zarah Sultana will take his place and we'll have a Labour Party worthy of the name again.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
Ideology and economy are inseparable components of the same system.
The two cant be separated or considered in isolation.
Its not a moral question.
We clearly wont agree so l`l politely leave it at that.
So taking your view then are you arguing all capitalists are nazis and that capitalism leads to nazism
??
As that’s your argument
r00fie1
Well-known member
I`ve said no such thing.
I have said that Nazism preserved, perpetuated and sustained private Capital, using its ideology - irregardless of the rights and wrongs.
Capitalism will use whatever means it can to preserve its power and dominance: whether its Pinochet`s murderous dictatorship in Chile, The Shah of Iran`s oppressive political regime or murdering innocent civilians in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and hundreds of other countries around the world.
That is my last comment.
Goodnight
BiggEggo
Well-known member
I was not suggesting for a moment that she was engaged in any of that malarkey. Just her high profile presence, and the total guff she spouted, caused a huge swath of the electorate to swerve labour.
BoroMart
Well-known member
So inherent in that definition is capitalism as the epitome of anti-communism
Hilarious. I wonder why the press are always so keen to point it out when Abbott occasionally gets her figures wrong and yet they allowed Johnson to pull different figures out of his @rse during each of the election debates and they never questioned them.
Scrote
Well-known member
Of course you do. If you write a lot you throw any old **** down in the first instance and then slowly refine it by running the arguments through your head as you develop them.
No-one of any note has a set of pre-formed ideas that they just go to - otherwise they'd never develop beyond their initial position.
The problem Abbott has here is that her view of racism is out-dated. It was a fairly standard view not that long ago (as the original article mentions).
It might end up coming full circle in twenty years, who knows. People are always searching for better ways to describe things so that ambiguity is removed. The trans debate is a brilliant example of this happening in real time.
Scrote
Well-known member
And yet there isn't a single person defending, or making excuses, for anything she said.
Neither has anyone from the left resorted to any form of whataboutery which would be the first recourse of centrists and the right.
Funny that. It's almost as if the lefties are comfortable with their position and are able to recognise stupidity when they see it.