cockneyrebel
New Member
From you tbaldwin I've learnt absolutely nothing.....
Could someone tell what the SWP are about?
- Thread starter Lost Zoot
- Start date
cockneyrebel said:
Good grief!! Better at what?
Why on earth if you are one of the 'least politically educated members in Workers Power' (although having read Red Hippy and the intriguing Workers Power member you would only have to have one more brain cell to be a plant)do you continually make a fool of yourself and embarass your organisation on here? Is there no discipline or self decency in Workers Power?
And what do you want the SWP to say about mattkid, normally the Workers Power view is what ever they say is not good enough anyway!!!!
mattkidd12 said:
Watch this cunt Matt, he'll be texting Banbury when he is off his head at some pop festival.
cockneyrebel
New Member
I'm not having a go at you Matt, I'm just surprised the SWP and their members on here, who aren't exactly known for their openess, didn't pick you up more on what you were saying on that thread. I suppose RW did a bit, but didn't really give it much of a go....
cockneyrebel
New Member
....
EDIT: I've just looked over that thread. I think you're referring to my reply to ernestolynch? What did I say that was untrue there? I wasn't agreeing with ernesto's views, I was just saying that some of the things he was saying was true. I can't see why the SWP and SWPers on here would have any problem with me telling the truth, would they?
By this logic (imperial armies invading a country) Hitler was a revolutionary leader. These types of simple-minded and naive comparisons are evidence of you being a better class of trot I suppose.Squatticus said:LOL!
Pilchardman, have you ever wondered why Britain, the US, France, Japan et al. sent armies to Russia in 1919 to suppress the revolution if Trotsky (who was head of the Red Army at the time) was doing such a good job.
I mean, really!
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Don't be silly. That would only be the case if they'd argued there was only ever one reason for being invaded by imperialist armies.
Trying to claim that something somebody has said must "logically" imply something else entirely is one of the more tedious and wearying tricks played too often on this forum.
Trying to claim that something somebody has said must "logically" imply something else entirely is one of the more tedious and wearying tricks played too often on this forum.
Red Faction
Allez Les Rouges
gurrier said:
i dont follow
hitler was democratically elected
where was the revolution in that?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
You mean there are people in Banbury who can read?Chuck Wilson said:
Red Faction said:i dont follow
hitler was democratically elected
where was the revolution in that?
Hitler was NOT democratically elected. He was given power by the rich. I understand Nazis repeating this myth but I can't for the life of me understand why anti-Nazis give them this legitimacy. The Nazis rise to power shows that the niceties of bourgeois democracy do not protect against dictatorship. But it does not show that Hitler had majority support. He only got a majority in Parliament after being made Chancellor, suppressing the opposition and then banning the Communist deputies from Parliament. If New Labour had not got a majority but joined with the Tories to expel the Lib Dems thus giving them a majority how 'democratic' would that be? That is even to ignore the mass repression of and violence against the left opposition parties in the run up to the 1933 elections.
I'm not being silly and I'm using the well known and perfectly untricky method of argument called reductio ad absurdam. Squaticus volunteered the fact that Russia was invaded by imperialist armies as the single piece of evidence that the Bolsheviks had not crushed the revolution. I was pointing out that invasions of imperialist armies are proof of nothing on their own. Imperialist armies invade countries for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with crushing working class revolutions. Among those reasons are things likeDonna Ferentes said:
* because they can
* because the wrong people are in power
As it happens I do think that the misguided idea that there might have been a genuinely revolutionary force in Russia played a part in the invasion. However, the same holds for many of the imperialist interventions in ex-colonies in Africa where it was equally misguided.
Red Faction
Allez Les Rouges
Groucho said:
well theres something they dont teach you in GCSE history
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
mattkidd12 said:
And?
Heinrich Brüning, Gustav Stresemann, Franz von Papen and Kurt von Schleicher were also appointed by presidents of Weimar (which was the manner as stipulated by the constitution when politicians had trouble forming coalitions).
So in Nov 1932 seats were:-
NSDAP 196
SPD 121
KPD 100
Zentrum 70 same party
Bayerische Volkspartei (BVP) 20 Bavarian wing
DNVP 52
Deutsche Volkspartei (DVP) 11
Others 14
Total: 584
In bold is the NSDAP-BVP/DZP-DNVP Coalition (Hitler-Von Papen-Hugenberg respectively) 196 + 52 + 70 + 20 = absolute majority
agreed to by President Von Hindenburg (who had won his election back in 1932 against Hitler)
Hitler had a relative majority (largest share of the vote) in both elections in 1932- under a standard use of the term Hitler was elected.
Just as one might say Salvador Allende was elected in 1970 in Chile with the largest share of the vote.
rebel warrior
Soca Warrior
gurrier said:Oh shit. I mentioned Hitler first. It's all my fault.
sorry
Its okay -Trotsky's analysis of the Nazis coming to power puts all other analysis from contemporary figures in the shade.
In terms of the percentage of the votes, the KPD and SPD always polled higher than the NSDAP - even in November 1932. The tragedy was the failure to form a united front against fascism on the part of the SPD and KPD - something Trotskyists were alone in arguing for in that period. A SPD - KPD alliance would have kept the Nazis out of power, by showing in practise that workers unity came before 'national unity'.
rebel warrior
Soca Warrior
sihhi said:
Apologies - just watched Enemy at the Gates and got carried away with all the Nazi generals getting shot to bother to do any research. I think my wider point still stands though - even if I was 1.2% out in the election results.
Red Faction
Allez Les Rouges
so he WAS democratically elected?
Red Faction
Allez Les Rouges
Sorry. said:
thats what i thought
so whats all this:
about?Groucho said:
Red Faction said:
Maybe Groucho has an alternative meaning of the phrase "democratically elected" other than the common usage. Perhaps it's a searing critique of the undemocratic nature of bourgeois democracy.
Or maybe he's just clumsily trying to tell us that Nazis are bad and everyone hates Nazis.
Red Faction
Allez Les Rouges
Sorry. said:
oh right
had me worried there- why were they brainwashing us in school
'the nazis didnt seize power like the bolsheviks, they were democratically elected...'
they WERE democratically elected
right- got that straight
still
i always felt our teacher tried to skew things-
portraying the nazis as not being so bad
and always picking on me to highlight why lenin's russia was so evil
(i used to be quite actively left wing back in the days when i gave a fuck)
Similar threads
- Poll
