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:
(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.’
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.’
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)
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.
Would the Soviet Union have won the war against Nazi Germany by itself, without the intervention of the imperialist nations?
"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.