whitepeoplestealingculture

eamo2747 asked:

I'm confused about what Beethoven was doing in the black composers post. He was German.

whitepeoplestealingculture answered:

By golly gee! I keep forgetting that Black people didn’t exist until the Fresh Prince of Bel Air came on television! Or that Black people existed in anywhere else than Africa even with slavery going on :) My apologies.

Anyway, here’s proof that Beethoven was Black:

"… Said directly, Beethoven was a black man. Specifically, his mother was a Moor, that group of Muslim Northern Africans who conquered parts of Europe—making Spain their capital—for some 800 years.

In order to make such a substantial statement, presentation of verifiable evidence is compulsory. Let’s start with what some of Beethoven’s contemporaries and biographers say about his brown complexion:

Beethoven2

(Louis Letronne, Beethoven, 1814, pencil drawing.)

"Frederick Hertz, German anthropologist, used these terms to describe him: ‘Negroid traits, dark skin, flat, thick nose.’

Emil Ludwig, in his book ‘Beethoven,’ says: ‘His face reveals no trace of the German. He was so dark that people dubbed him Spagnol [dark-skinned].’

Fanny Giannatasio del Rio, in her book ‘An Unrequited Love: An Episode in the Life of Beethoven,’ wrote ‘His somewhat flat broad nose and rather wide mouth, his small piercing eyes and swarthy [dark] complexion, pockmarked into the bargain, gave him a strong resemblance to a mulatto.’

deathmaskdeathmask2
Beethoven’s death mask: profile and full face

C. Czerny stated, ‘His beard—he had not shaved for several days—made the lower part of his already brown face still darker.’

Following are one word descriptions of Beethoven from various writers: Grillparzer, ‘dark’; Bettina von Armin, ‘brown’; Schindler, ‘red and brown’; Rellstab, ‘brownish’; Gelinek, ‘short, dark.’

In Alexander Thayer’s Life of Beethoven, vol.1, p. 134,  the author states, “there is none of that obscurity which exalts one to write history as he would have it and not as it really was. The facts are too patent.” On this same page, he states that the German composer Franz Josef Haydn was referred to as a “Moor” by Prince Esterhazy, and Beethoven had “even more of the Moor in his looks.’ On p. 72, a Beethoven contemporary, Gottfried Fischer, describes him as round-nosed and of dark complexion. Also, he was called ‘der Spagnol’ (the Spaniard).

Other “patent” sources, of which there are many, include, but are not limited to, Beethoven by Maynard Solomon, p.78. He is described as having “thick, bristly coal-black hair” (in today’s parlance, we proudly call it ‘kinky’) and a ‘ruddy-complexioned face.’ In   Beethoven:  His Life and Times by Artes Orga, p.72, Beethoven’s pupil, Carl Czerny of the ‘School of Velocity’ fame, recalls that Beethoven’s ‘coal-black hair, cut a la Titus, stood up around his head [sounds almost like an Afro].  His black beard…darkened the lower part of his dark-complexioned face.’

  BeethovenCweb

Engraving by Blasius Hofel, Beethoven, 1814, color facsimile of engraving after a pencil drawing by Louis Letronne. This engraving was regarded in Beethoven’s circle as particularly lifelike. Beethoven himself thought highly of it, and gave several copies to his friends.

Beethoven, the Black Spaniard

(read more here)

>[feel free to substitute “corporatism” for “totalitarianism” at the end]

What, however, unites all [the] layers and grouping within the bourgeoisie is their common class interest in the defence of property, the freedom of capital accumulation and the guarantee of valorization of capital. And on this level the balance sheet of fascism is unequivocal. The fundamental features of the capitalist mode of production were not only kept and consolidated. They were able to freely develop as never before.

Economically, the Third Reich was the unconstrained rule of monopoly capital. What appeared as state ‘interference’ in the economy turned out, in nine cases out of ten, to be measures aimed at strengthening the self-management of monopoly capital, including support for big business in its disciplining of weaker firms (forced cartelization) in the run-up to the predatory imperialist war. There was no economic disempowerment of big business by the Nazis.

[…]

On only one occasion did Hitler try to impose his will against the interests of the bourgeoisie: in the final phase of the war when he wanted to destroy their factories. He didn’t succeed. The totalitarianism thesis, in its most logical form, does not stand up to the historical evidence.

Ernest Mandel’s “Trotsky as Alternative”:

(lifted from a comrade’s facebook post)

Yes.
With the help of the Western allies, they won.
Without their help, they would have done the same,but maybe with a little difference in the timing.

The Soviets won WWII, not the Americans.
It is an undeniable fact now that the Soviets defeated the Germans.
The United States didn’t do anything, period.
Same goes for WWI, the English and French defeated the Germans then, not the US.
Entering the war a few months before the end of it when it is clear that the enemy will be defeated is a coward’s strategy.
A strategy not unknown to the US I might add.

Wanna know why?
1) The Soviets were the ones who planted the flag on the Reichstag
(Do I really need to put a source for this? -__-)
2) 9 out of every 10 Germans were killed or taken prisoner on the Eastern Front. (Rüdiger Overmans) (Richard Overy)
3) The first defeat ever of the Fascists happened at Stalingrad, after that, it was defeat after defeat: Moscow, Rostov, the Don, Rhzev, then Kursk, then Leningrad, then Minsk, then Kiev, then in Romania, then Yugoslavia, then Moravia, and eventually then Prague, and finally Berlin.
(This isn’t even denied by Western historians, that’s how blatant its truth is)
4) Only ~30 German divisions were stationed on the Western Front and they even managed to push the Western powers back a bit, while there were more than 254 trying to counter-attack the Soviets, whilst failing miserably. At the end, more than 640 divisions perished on the Eastern front, whilst barely a 100 did on the entire Western, Italian and African fronts. (Rüdiger Overmans) (G. I. Krivosheev)
5) The Western Allies had a distance of less than 750km to cover to get to Germany, and that is from England, not France. The Soviets on the other hand, had to cover over 2000km to get to Berlin and they still managed to get their first. (This is common sense)

The only victory the US was really responsible for was in the Pacific against Japan, but even that was only half the effort from the US.
Manchuria, the largest occupied territory of Japan, was cleared by the Soviets in two weeks, whilst the Americans have been attempting for over a year.
The Soviets also invaded Hokkaido, in northern Japan and that’s what pressured the Americans to drop the nukes on Japan, if they didn’t, then there would’ve been a Soviet flag in Tokyo as well.

All the major production centers were in Manchuria since that was out of reach of American bombers, but it was nonetheless heavily defended. Also, the Americans tried and failed numerous times at attacking Manchuria, while the Soviets tried once and completely wiped the area.

Marxist Internet Archive Users Discussion Group:
Would the Soviet Union have won the war against Nazi Germany by itself, without the intervention of the imperialist nations?

The free market triumphalism of the 1990s is over. Early 21st century capitalism looks like Karl Marx’s description: growing extremes of wealth and poverty, and irrepressible boom-bust cycles. The centre-left clings to nationalist and bureaucratic-statist nostalgia for the social-democratic Cold War era. The far left clings to the coat-tails of the centre-left. It cannot unite itself - let alone anyone else - because it is unwilling to reinterrogate the ideas of the early Communist International, especially on the revolutionary party. To move beyond this impasse we need to re-examine critically the strategic ideas of socialists since Marx and Engels. In this book, Mike Macnair begins the task.

this book comes highly recommended from a comrade. putting it at the top of my reading queue.

"so WHY do we need socialism and communism? If ethics are purely subjective and "muh feelz" are based on ideology and therefore false, then how do you make your case for communism? Why does HistMat imply socialism is needed?"

Historical materialism works in mysterious ways.
In all seriousness, there’s class struggle as a result of the mode of production. Capitalism creates the preconditions for socialism in terms of productive forces. Communism is a political program articulated on the basis of the inherent potentials of capitalism: there’s the potential for classless society. There’s no “objective case for communism” but that’s some sleek academicism; tbh people like living good lives and capitalism screws people over, communism is a viable alternative.

the white government and police of Ferguson are parasites, extorting millions from the Black population of that city to the tune of 1.5 cases and 3 warrants per househould per year. this is racism. racism is systematic, and system-wide. this is happening elsewhere, probably everywhere across the US. this is white privelege, and white supremacy.

A report issued just last week by the nonprofit lawyer’s group ArchCity Defenders notes that in the court’s 36 three-hour sessions in 2013, it handled 12,108 cases and 24,532 warrants. That is an average of 1.5 cases and three warrants per Ferguson household. Fines and court fees for the year in this city of just 21,000 people totaled $2,635,400.

Ferguson Feeds Off the Poor: Three Warrants a Year Per Household

In the chamber where Officer Darren Wilson received a commendation six months before killing Michael Brown, a minor court generates major money from the city’s poor and working people.

Simply put, that true innovation isn’t born from greed but from creativity. And creativity is something we’re born with, and as we grow up it can either be subdued or encouraged.
The idea that creativity is born from economic incitaments is pretty absurd really. Are people just sitting around in droves and simply refusing to put out their ideas until someone comes along to pay them enough for it?
If anything, capitalism is hindering innovation. Take the software engineering branch for example, it’s populated largely by people with a passion for computers. Every single programmer I know, which is quite a few despite not being in the business myself, has learned programming in their free time and I know of no one who learned it with a profit motive.
With capitalism, these specific people can actually make a living doing what they love - programming. But what are they programming? Products which are in demand, products which already exist (some may be in R&D and have more creative jobs, but broadly speaking).
Take a look at the computer gaming industry, compare the indie games and studio made games. Which are the more creative and which are the less creative?
Of course, indie companies are still run by a profit motive, but much less so. Given enough spare time (i.e. enough resources, which they would get in a society where everything is shared), these are the games most likely to be made with or without the profit motive. I.e. as much in a capitalist as in a socialist society.
And this is of course not an isolated case. Look at the movie industry, where do the more daring creative films come from? Hollywood or independents? Music? Ever heard of a painting corporation (besides graphic designers)? Scientific research generally isn’t a very well paid profession either (I study molecular biology, hoping for a low-paid base research job when I’m done…), people go into it because they want to do scientific work not money.
tldr: A capitalist society encorages people to create more of what’s already in demand, the inate creative drive (if encoraged) will blossom in anwhere where it’s allowed to.

Profit motive does not make for efficiency, it makes for profit maximization. For instance many retail and restaurants in the US will throw away perfectly suitable materials for use, because it is more profitable to destroy them, than it is to give them away. As an example from my life, working in a construction supply warehouse, when perfectly good lumber, sinks, paint, etc was discontinued, it was thrown into the compactor by company policy.
Most often efficiency is aimed at labor, producing more for less labor. Which in a socialist society would provide more time for the workers engage in other actives beneficial to themselves and perhaps society, however in a capitalist society it means higher competition among labor and lower wages.
I would say efficiency would be a stronger motive in a socialist society as it would directly benefit everyone.
socialist redditors in this thread
Marx himself never imagined that socialism could be achieved in impoverished conditions. Such a project would require almost as bizarre a loop in time as inventing the Internet in the Middle Ages. Nor did any Marxist thinker until Stalin imagine that this was possible, including Lenin, Trotsky and the rest of the Bolshevik leadership. You cannot reorganise wealth for the benefit of all if there is precious little wealth to reorganise. You cannot abolish social classes in conditions of scarcity, since conflicts over a material surplus too meagre to meet everyone’s needs will simply revive them again. As Marx comments in The German Ideology, the result of revolution in such conditions is that “the old filthy business” will simply reappear. All you will get is socialised scarcity. If you need to accumulate capital more or less from scratch, then the most effective way of doing so, however brutal, is through the profit motive. Avid self-interest is likely to pile up wealth with remarkable speed, though it is likely to amass spectacular poverty at the same time.
Nor did Marxists ever imagine that it was possible to achieve socialism in one country alone. The movement was international or it was nothing. This was a hardheaded materialist claim, not a piously idealist one. If a socialist nation failed to win international support in a world where production was specialized and divided among different nations, it would be unable to draw upon the global resources needed to abolish scarcity. The productive wealth of a single country was unlikely to be enough. The outlandish notion of socialism in one country was invented by Stalin in the 1920s, partly as a cynical rationalisation of the fact that other nations had been unable to come to the aid of the Soviet Union. It has no warrant in Marx himself. Socialist revolutions must of course start somewhere. But they cannot be completed within national boundaries. To judge socialism by its results in one desperately isolated country would be like drawing conclusions about the human race from a study of psychopaths in Kalamazoo.