The Death Doctrine

So you actually believe there was only one holocaust ?

there have been many *genocides* but the holocaust, or shoah, is a singular thing with a specific meaning.

people like tossing the word "slavery" around, too.

I might agree if the word hadn't already existed and been used to describe events similar to what happened during the NAZI reign of terror, Jill.

Word History: Totality of destruction has been central to the meaning of holocaust since it first appeared in Middle English in the 14th century, used in reference to the biblical sacrifice in which a male animal was wholly burnt on the altar in worship of God.

Holocaust comes from Greek holokauston ("that which is completely burnt"), which was a translation of Hebrew '
omacr.gif
lâ (literally "that which goes up," that is, in smoke). In this sense of "burnt sacrifice," holocaust is still used in some versions of the Bible.

In the 17th century the meaning of holocaust broadened to "something totally consumed by fire," and the word eventually was applied to fires of extreme destructiveness.

In the 20th century holocaust has taken on a variety of figurative meanings, summarizing the effects of war, rioting, storms, epidemic diseases, and even economic failures.

Most of these usages arose after World War II, but it is unclear whether they permitted or resulted from the use of holocaust in reference to the mass murder of European Jews and others by the Nazis. This application of the word occurred as early as 1942, but the phrase the Holocaust did not become established until the late 1950s.

Here it parallels and may have been influenced by another Hebrew word,
scaron.gif
ô'â ("catastrophe," in English, Shoah). In the Bible
scaron.gif
ô'â has a range of meanings including "personal ruin or devastation" and "a wasteland or desert."
c_scaron.gif
ô'â was first used to refer to the Nazi slaughter of Jews in 1939, but the phrase ha
scaron.gif
-
scaron.gif
ô'â ("the catastrophe") became established only after World War II. Holocaust has also been used to translate
hlowdot.gif
urb
amacr.gif
n ("destruction"), another Hebrew word used to summarize the genocide of Jews by the Nazis.

source

If the USA has a nuclear holocaust, does that mean that only Jews Gypsies, homosexuals, communists, social democrats, union leaders and mental defectives will die?

I don't think so.

I think the word had the same meaning before WWII that it has now.

the only truly unique thing about the NAZI holocaust is the meticulous records the NAZIs kept of it.

Pot Pot I'm informed, perhaps inspired by the NAZI's also kep metiulous records of his holocaust, too.

In fact, I just heard something where not only did he keep records of his slaughter, but they actually photgrpahed the victims right before they killed them.

We share this earth with a lot of truly sick people, and worse, we share the world with a lot of people who, if the sickos are in charge, will do their bidding willingly.
 
Last edited:
So you actually believe there was only one holocaust ?

there have been many *genocides* but the holocaust, or shoah, is a singular thing with a specific meaning.

people like tossing the word "slavery" around, too.

and just what is that specific meaning ? Shouldn't all genocides be equally condemned and memorialized ?
They should be, but the root words of holocaust mean to be eliminated by fire. Not many genocides occur by burning or gassing people alive.
 
Every country has an element of socialism, kids. Even dictatorships.

I wonder if any of the wingnuts on this thread have actually learned critical thinking.
 
Another obfuscation. Fess up!

Fess up? I've already thoroughly dissected your inappropriate conflation of socialism and state capitalism.

A pity that so many fail to understand the nature of communism, and instead conflate it with inappropriate references to Soviet state capitalism. As I've mentioned previously, the Soviet Union was not a socialist country. Socialism necessitates collective ownership and control of the means of production. Now, this collective ownership can theoretically be manifested (to some extent) through the state apparatus, as is the case in Venezuela, but they do not adhere to a "state socialist" model, and instead rely on local collectivization and governance.

The condition of the collective ownership of the means of production was not satisfied in the Soviet Union because the Bolshevik regime was extremely hostile towards the spread of democracy, as indicated by the dispatch of two Cheka agents to assassinate Nestor Makhno, or the Red Army's brutal suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion. Indeed, since it was a rule of the party and the Politburo, no condition of collective governance was satisfied, and a replacement of the tsarist ruling class was instead formed that mirrored the ruling class of Western capitalist nations, and thus formed a state capitalist ruling class.

Hence, Soviet state capitalism is inappropriately conflated with socialism. Noam Chomsky has noted this far too widespread phenomenon, along with the obvious contradictions between socialism and the state capitalism of the Soviet Union in The Soviet Union Versus Socialism.



Of course, Chomsky's article was written in 1986, so you might be inclined to respond that socialists only rejected the Soviet Union once its numerous failures were apparent. (Thought that would still conflict with your claim that socialists ignore the failures of their ideology.) But this claim applies only to certain classes of socialists, and certainly cannot include all. You might mention failures of the Soviet Union when conversing with a Marxist-Leninist, for instance. (And I have many times.) But that approach will likely do you little good in a discussion with those who espouse more libertarian variants of socialism, such as anarchists.

Indeed, legitimate socialists identified the Soviet Union as anti-socialist once they became aware of its authoritarian and statist nature, which might serve as a response to your possible claim that socialists only condemned the Soviet Union once its failures became apparent. For instance, the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin recognized the authoritarian, anti-socialist nature of the Bolshevik regime immediately after the Russian Revolution. In a 1920 letter to Lenin he writes this:



Kropotkin quickly recognized the state capitalist nature of the Bolshevik regime and the calamities that socialism would later face if the Soviet Union was identified as "socialist." Hence, it is not only Chomsky, nor even only Kropotkin or other anarchists, but all legitimate socialists who recognize the state capitalist nature of the Soviet Union. Indeed, it could be argued that anarchists recognized the imminent failure of authoritarian varieties of Marxism long before the establishment of the Soviet Union or the Bolshevik party, as evidenced by Bakunin's observations that "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself" and "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."

The anti-socialists' desperation to cling to the falsity that the Soviet Union or its state capitalist ideology was socialist reveals the fact that they have no other arguments against socialism to provide.

"How do you tell a Communist?
Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
And how do you tell an anti-Communist?
It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
Ronald Reagan

I've found that most who regurgitate that quote themselves have a rather shallow understanding of Marx and Engels (writhe with numerous misunderstandings), and indeed, the very act of limiting an analysis of socialism or communism to Marx and Engels is itself a behavior that necessitates a shallow understanding of the topics.

I realize that those who cloud the issue, which is quite simply that Communism is the bastard son of dominance and slavery, "have a rather shallow understanding of" those of us who see right through them.

Having dealt the concept a stunning blow (Ronald Reagan), we have the (temporary) luxury of revealing those who use words, differences without distinctions, and a bogus claim that a deep knowledge of Communism reveals it to be a revelation, as the wizards behind the curtain.

Actually, these apologists are rather cockroaches to be stepped on constantly, rather than wizards, as they keep appearing in classrooms and journals, giving new emphasis to Lenin's reference: "useful idiots."
 
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It ... has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment” ... for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation ... Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any special principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

"
The Communist Manifesto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pretty interesting reading, thanks for opening this topic. Idealistic, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
I realize that those who cloud the issue, which is quite simply that Communism is the bastard son of dominance and slavery, "have a rather shallow understanding of" those of us who see right through them.

Claims without reasoning or arguments to support them. I extensively detailed reasons why the Soviet Union was not a socialist country; you simply chose to ignore them at your own leisure. I am an anarcho-communist, and therefore an extreme libertarian; there's obviously no basis for claiming I have any sort of relation with a "bastard son of dominance and slavery."

Having dealt the concept a stunning blow (Ronald Reagan), we have the (temporary) luxury of revealing those who use words, differences without distinctions, and a bogus claim that a deep knowledge of Communism reveals it to be a revelation, as the wizards behind the curtain.

The Soviet Union collapsed because of its own failed social and economic structures and its overextension in Afghanistan, as well as growing popular dissatisfaction with its existence, not as a result of any action by Ronald Reagan. Indeed, the neoliberal regimes of Reagan and Thatcher were quite content with promoting socioeconomic ills and limiting economic growth in key areas.

Actually, these apologists are rather cockroaches to be stepped on constantly, rather than wizards, as they keep appearing in classrooms and journals, giving new emphasis to Lenin's reference: "useful idiots."

That almost seems plagiarized from a Mona Charen book, but inasmuch as I have done nothing but criticize the authoritarianism of Leninism, there's really no basis whatsoever for claiming that I could be in any way "useful" to Lenin or Leninists. This merely seems to illustrate your ignorance of the varieties of socialism.
 
They should be, but the root words of holocaust mean to be eliminated by fire. Not many genocides occur by burning or gassing people alive.

The root word originally meant a religious sacrifice by fire. Like any word it was adapted and shifted its meaning. We use "awesome" today to mean something is admirabld and not frightening. I don't know when the term "holocaust" was used to describe a genocidal or other terrible event but it was before WWII I bet. And as jillian pointed it, it's called the "Shoah" by Jews and apparently that's roughly translated as "catastrophe".

I'm only making this point because I'm cheesed off to the gills with people who claim that Jews have claimed the word "holocaust" as a propaganda tool. Crumbs a passing familiarity with ancient history should alert anyone to the word's origins. Try this - "hypocaust" - "hypo" = roughly "below" "caust" = roughly "heat"/"fire" - under floor heating as developed by the Romans.

"Holo"="whole" - "Holocaust" - whole fire, consumed by fire, as you've already pointed out Ravi. Meaning shift over time to its more flexible and broader use today.

Now, for my next extreme act of pedantry.....:lol:
 
Poor old Communism, it gets a bum rap. Talk about a spectre haunting message boards. A good idea is to actually go and read a bit of Marx (hard work but them's the breaks).

In terms of Marx's theory or ideas, it's useful to understand his background and how his ideas were developed. In vol 1 of "Capital" Marx gives a withering crique of the Factories Acts of Britain and explains how parliamentarians and capitalist factory owners maintained these dreadful Acts. Marx analysed capitalism (at least the British capitalism of the 19th Century) at great length, in fact, great, great, great length.....

Anyway also read Engels' "The Conditions of the Working Class in England." Unlike "Capital" you can actually read it without getting a blinding headache.
 
Agna - a question if I may, because I'm too bloody lazy to google.

My understanding is that Marx was originally a gradualist. I think that he eschewed it and advocated a revolutionary approach. That may have changed when he got older, I don't know. Can you help out a confused reader?
 
there have been many *genocides* but the holocaust, or shoah, is a singular thing with a specific meaning.

people like tossing the word "slavery" around, too.
The difference is; slavery really happened. :eek:


The holocaust; not so much :cuckoo: :lol:

No, the only difference is black people in Africa sold their own people into slavery while the Jewish holocaust was started by no fault of the Jewish people.
 
No, the only difference is black people in Africa sold their own people into slavery while the Jewish holocaust was started by no fault of the Jewish people.

That's not an entirely accurate analysis. Africans may have been of the same black race, but slave vendors in Africa typically sold captives from enemy tribes, not "their own people." To claim otherwise would be similar to claiming that Germans killed "their own people" by killing Ashkenazi Jews since they were both of the white race.
 
No, the only difference is black people in Africa sold their own people into slavery while the Jewish holocaust was started by no fault of the Jewish people.

That's not an entirely accurate analysis. Africans may have been of the same black race, but slave vendors in Africa typically sold captives from enemy tribes, not "their own people." To claim otherwise would be similar to claiming that Germans killed "their own people" by killing Ashkenazi Jews since they were both of the white race.

Sunni made a generalization so I did in kind.
 
Agna - a question if I may, because I'm too bloody lazy to google.

My understanding is that Marx was originally a gradualist. I think that he eschewed it and advocated a revolutionary approach. That may have changed when he got older, I don't know. Can you help out a confused reader?

I'm afraid I don't know. The majority of my interest in Marxism is based on its critique of capitalism; I essentially wholly reject the societal framework that its founder and proponents advocate.

And another thing. The rot set in with Lenin not long after 1917. But Stalin really stuffed it up. If you want a good idea of how nutty Stalin was then read up on Trofim Lysenko. Crazy.

Yes, the Bolsheviks were certainly rotten from the beginning (consider the dispatch of Cheka agents to assassinate Nestor Makhno and sabotage the Black Army or the brutal suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion), but Stalin's authoritarianism was particularly intense. Lysenkoism, unfortunately, was likely justified by the inaccurate theories of Marx and Engels themselves, namely historical materialism. Their belief that human nature was essentially malleable and was formed by capitalism and the state (originally stated in one of Marx's Theses on Feuerbach) led to the belief that human nature could be altered in different settings. Moreover, Engels's belief in Lamarckian evolution rather than Darwinian evolution was also used to justify Lysenkoist atrocities in the Soviet Union.
 
That almost seems plagiarized from a Mona Charen book, but inasmuch as I have done nothing but criticize the authoritarianism of Leninism, there's really no basis whatsoever for claiming that I could be in any way "useful" to Lenin or Leninists. This merely seems to illustrate your ignorance of the varieties of socialism.
You've got her pegged.
 
They should be, but the root words of holocaust mean to be eliminated by fire. Not many genocides occur by burning or gassing people alive.

The root word originally meant a religious sacrifice by fire. Like any word it was adapted and shifted its meaning. We use "awesome" today to mean something is admirabld and not frightening. I don't know when the term "holocaust" was used to describe a genocidal or other terrible event but it was before WWII I bet. And as jillian pointed it, it's called the "Shoah" by Jews and apparently that's roughly translated as "catastrophe".

I'm only making this point because I'm cheesed off to the gills with people who claim that Jews have claimed the word "holocaust" as a propaganda tool. Crumbs a passing familiarity with ancient history should alert anyone to the word's origins. Try this - "hypocaust" - "hypo" = roughly "below" "caust" = roughly "heat"/"fire" - under floor heating as developed by the Romans.

"Holo"="whole" - "Holocaust" - whole fire, consumed by fire, as you've already pointed out Ravi. Meaning shift over time to its more flexible and broader use today.

Now, for my next extreme act of pedantry.....:lol:
You're awesome, Di. :)
 

Forum List

Back
Top