The normal terminology in far-wing radicalism is that they are not radicals
We should stop talking about nationalism and left-wing movements at the different kind of movements. There is no difference between right- or left-wing radicalism, and the result is always devastating. The thing what might give little brakes for Stalin and Tito was that they were members of the ethnical minority of their homeland.
They couldn't get support from the majority same way as Adolph Hitler could. And the thing why the nationalism was not so highly respected in the Soviet Union was that there were so many nationalities. Of course, Russians wanted people of the world think that they are the heir of the Soviet Union, and that's why there is so great nationalistic wave.
There is very long living opinion, that Russians created the Soviet Union and the entire state was created around Russia, who has rights for the heritage of the Soviet Union. And this thing makes possible to say, that Russia is the Soviet Union, what have lost some land areas.
When we are thinking about the far-wing radicalism, the normal version of their speeches is that they are not far-wing members and the things like fascism have been lost after the Second World War. The argument is similar, with the argument that Mafia does not exist anymore.
That thing is an argument, that the fascist and nazis were lost after WWII. There are some versions, that the Fascists and Nazis were some kinds of the right-wing movement, but the reality is that those movements were market themselves as the labor movement, and the nazism has got the name from their agenda of national socialism.
The difference between those movements is that national socialism is highlighting the greatness of the nation, and that thing also is supporting by the militaristic strength. When we are thinking about the power and the Marxism, the idea about the peace between labors is very good marketing speech.
But the real socialism is looking like a little bit different than ideal socialism. There are many similarities with nazis and communists, and the reason why there were not so great nationalistic movement in the Soviet Union was that there were many nationalities in that country. Maybe Stalin had problems to create a real "team spirit" in his country because he couldn't just ask support from Russians.
He was Georgian himself, and that put him to a difficult position because he couldn't just agitate the people against minorities. That means that Stalin was one member of the very small minority in the Soviet Union. Hitler was a much better position. He could yell against Gypsies and Jews because he was a member of the majority of people. And that gave him the very good weapon against minorities. The argument of that kind of leaders in that the majority is the thing, who is ruling, and other people must follow the majority.
We should stop talking about nationalism and left-wing movements at the different kind of movements. There is no difference between right- or left-wing radicalism, and the result is always devastating. The thing what might give little brakes for Stalin and Tito was that they were members of the ethnical minority of their homeland.
They couldn't get support from the majority same way as Adolph Hitler could. And the thing why the nationalism was not so highly respected in the Soviet Union was that there were so many nationalities. Of course, Russians wanted people of the world think that they are the heir of the Soviet Union, and that's why there is so great nationalistic wave.
There is very long living opinion, that Russians created the Soviet Union and the entire state was created around Russia, who has rights for the heritage of the Soviet Union. And this thing makes possible to say, that Russia is the Soviet Union, what have lost some land areas.
When we are thinking about the far-wing radicalism, the normal version of their speeches is that they are not far-wing members and the things like fascism have been lost after the Second World War. The argument is similar, with the argument that Mafia does not exist anymore.
That thing is an argument, that the fascist and nazis were lost after WWII. There are some versions, that the Fascists and Nazis were some kinds of the right-wing movement, but the reality is that those movements were market themselves as the labor movement, and the nazism has got the name from their agenda of national socialism.
The difference between those movements is that national socialism is highlighting the greatness of the nation, and that thing also is supporting by the militaristic strength. When we are thinking about the power and the Marxism, the idea about the peace between labors is very good marketing speech.
But the real socialism is looking like a little bit different than ideal socialism. There are many similarities with nazis and communists, and the reason why there were not so great nationalistic movement in the Soviet Union was that there were many nationalities in that country. Maybe Stalin had problems to create a real "team spirit" in his country because he couldn't just ask support from Russians.
He was Georgian himself, and that put him to a difficult position because he couldn't just agitate the people against minorities. That means that Stalin was one member of the very small minority in the Soviet Union. Hitler was a much better position. He could yell against Gypsies and Jews because he was a member of the majority of people. And that gave him the very good weapon against minorities. The argument of that kind of leaders in that the majority is the thing, who is ruling, and other people must follow the majority.
Comments
Post a Comment