“The Magyar Struggle”

Permanent revolution is a term within Marxist theory, established in usage by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels by at least 1850 but which has since become most closely associated with Leon Trotsky. The use of the term by different theorists is not identical. Marx used it to describe the strategy of a revolutionary class to continue to pursue its class interests independently and without compromise, despite overtures for political alliances, and despite the political dominance of opposing sections of society.

Trotsky put forward his conception of “permanent revolution” as an explanation of how socialist revolutions could occur in societies that had not achieved advanced capitalism. Part of his theory is the supposed impossibility of “socialism in one country”. Trotsky’s theory also argues, first, that the bourgeoisie in late-developing capitalist countries are incapable of developing the productive forces in such a manner as to achieve the sort of advanced capitalism which will fully develop an industrial proletariat. Second, that the proletariat can and must, therefore, seize social, economic, and political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry.

if you want to know, hitler was just fulfilling Engels.

you just have to be able to transalte and see synonyms..

worldstorm / holocaust / shoa / world war

there is more.. but if you dont know this, ignorance will not find it for you, and you need a Virgil to take you through hell without experiencing it.

Weltsturm is the key word for holocaust till it was renamed to separate the marxists from that.. it then pushed the idea that these lenin stalin hitler, etc. attrocities were not marxism.. and they say so even today (like claiming a doseedo for dems and republicans.. )

Weltsturm

All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm (Weltsturm).

“The Magyar Struggle.” Weltsturm is sometimes translated as “holocaust.”

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels

now isnt it funny jews are funding their own extermination? i dont think so, but they dont think that is what they are doing…

From Cambridge University historian George Watson, we learn, for example, that the atrocities of Lenin and Stalin may not have been deviations from orthodox Marxism as modern Marxist sympathizers might like to believe.

Marx was concerned that some nationalities might not be able to adapt to the coming socialist and communist revolutions he foresaw and championed.

Certain groups Marx probably had in mind, which he referred to as Vé¶lkerabfé¤lle, “racial trash,” included Serbs, Scottish highlanders, Basques, and Poles.

Poland, in particular, was a country that Marx believed had no reason to exist as an independent state. [and hitler and stalin teamed up to start the holocaust following the doctrins that todays supporters dont read any more than the fools that enabled them before!!!!!!!! -artfldgr]

The documentary commits a minor error of attribution here, though, since one quotation is actually from Frederick Engels–a small error in itself, since it’s unlikely that anything he published in Marx’s journal deviated significantly from Marx’s own thought.

“The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way,” Engels wrote. He openly declared the need for these weaker peoples to “perish in the revolutionary worldstorm/holocaust [Weltsturm].”

– From a Review i sent to neo years ago, called Soviet Story latvians produced. and also wiki listing for engels.. i guess people are too lazy to read it.

and dont bitch at me for saying it:

int he news yesterday that the big crazes are kids watching other people play games, and adults watching videos of other adults playing with farting foam.

i mean… how lazy is it to sit and watch someone ELSE play farting foam on film?

[“Greening”] can be considered as part of a more sweeping body of Marxist [in a very broad sense] influenced millenarian, emergent-evolution and consciousness raising literature which emerged in the 1960s or early 70’s and was fed to us a few years later in college by excited instructors and professors.

Reich takes pains to distance Consciousness III from Marxism. The parallels are there, especially if we are speaking “in a very broad sense.” Plus Marxism has permeated 20th-century Western thought thoroughly enough that everyone is influenced by Marxism whether or not they read any Marx at all.

However, it’s hard to imagine any real Marxist would advocate wearing bell-bottom jeans and long hair, smoking grass, listening to rock music as serious paths to revolution. There are still some observers from the left who argue the hippie movement was the product of a government cabal to neutralize the civil-rights and anti-war movements.

More overt Marxism flowed into Consciousness III when the New Left glommed onto the hippie lifestyle and attempted to organize hippies into the New Left with mixed results.

It’s interesting to look back.

Nick: Slicing and dicing in the human realm is messy. Consider neo’s substantial investigations of the word “neoconservative.” It’s not like saying water is a liquid at specific ranges of temperature and pressure.

In some ways revolutions are all the same and in others they are all different. The Consciousness III revolution was unusual in that it emerged from the most technically advanced, prosperous society in history and was in no small part fueled by quasi-mystical drug experiences. (LSD’s influence on the sixties remains underestimated.) At the start Consciousness III eschewed politics, conflict, and reason. IMO it had more in common with early Christianity than the American, French, or Soviet revolutions.

Reich was educated at Oberlin and Yale Law in the late forties and early fifties, which is to say he received a far more traditional, conservative education than is available today. He excelled and became a prestigious member of society.

So I wouldn’t say he had a lazy understanding of history. “The Greening of America” is a surprisingly dense book in sections. Furthermore Reich did write in the midst of what I would call a religious conversion. He could be, let us say, overly emphatic in “Greening.”

On the other hand, Barack Obama was the only President I know of, for whom people were insisting that his predecessor resign… just so that BHO could take office early. I believe people were also clamoring for the repeal of the 22nd Amendment, so that he could serve more than 8 years, even before he was re-elected.

While we’re at it, has any other American President had a phenomenon equivalent to “Obama Girl”… or to schoolchildren singing hosannas to the new President (and the networks broadcasting it)??

I have something of a contrary nature. I was suspicious of President Obama, in part just because so many people were singing his praises too loudly, too early. And I have a sneaking sympathy for President Trump the same way, in spite of myself. (As Glenn Reynolds and others have said: do you want more Trump? Because THIS is how you get more Trump.)

Nick Says:
March 8th, 2017 at 11:01 am

“There is a revolution under way. It is not like revolutions of
the past. It has originated with the individual and with culture, and if it succeeds it will change the political structure only as its final act.”

I know that’s one quote out of context, but doesn’t Reich realize that all revolutions follow that pattern? You’ve got to make a lazy reading of history to think that all revolutions other than yours just started as political forces one day.

It’s been years since I was handed that text by a young professor but it can be considered as part of a more sweeping body of Marxist [in a very broad sense] influenced millenarian, emergent-evolution and consciousness raising literature which emerged in the 1960s or early 70’s and was fed to us a few years later in college by excited instructors and professors.

Seriously, now that I think about it, we were not only fed a diet of Maslow and Rogers, and even Jung and Alpert, but even obvious crap like Carlos Castenada and was “submitted for our approval” as the saying goes.

I cannot even imagine what those in Liberal Arts college in the mid to late sixties were learning.

They apparently took it more seriously at first blush than we did somewhat later.

“My point is there is nothing in Reich’s vision about the Constitution or reason. Reich takes it as a given that Consciouness III will sweep away the lower, inferior levels of consciousness and he wasn’t interested in the details of what happens when people disagree about means and ends.

This is what I see again and again with liberals and progressives. They are not as crude as Muslims in their drive to subjugate the world, but that is what they are up to. They feel a divine mandate for the project, though few would language it that way, and they can’t understand why anyone would object unless they are evil or ignorant.”

You and I have had serious differences (though I cannot at the moment remember what they are) , but you get top marks for that observation; which deserves repetition.

It explains the moral certitude they feel, the confidence in their ‘right’ to dictate and rule, despite the inchoate, and even incoherent nature of their sociopolitical stances considered philosophically.

Evolution, imagined as the God of the Material Machine, justifies all. It’s considered indubitable, even holy. Even when they are discovered furtively pulling the levers behind the curtain the faith and spiel persist. Imagining, and then doing, is after all, according to that scheme, its own justification.

It’s a dynamic we learned in high school or as kids first exposed to this literature. Then we grow up, and we forget about that war between the Apollonian and the Dionysian life-stances our H.S. English teachers drummed into our heads; or the similarly dichotomous, if not identical stuff, our university professors jabbered on about.

We stop thinking about it.

Then almost 30 years or so later we find ourselves wondering: How can they possibly spout this sh–, eh, crap, with a straight face?” … forgetting for the moment that we have seen it all before.

I know that’s one quote out of context, but doesn’t Reich realize that all revolutions follow that pattern? You’ve got to make a lazy reading of history to think that all revolutions other than yours just started as political forces one day.