Astute observers might notice that the removal of the statue of the Georgian leader of the Soviet Union, Vasily Iosifovich Dzhugashvili (known tp the world as Stalin - the other most famous Georgian being Beria, Stalin's butcher head of the secret police) was performed by the "democratic" Saakishvili regime in the middle of the night, without public debate or annoucement, with journalists being forbidden to photograph it, and those that tried to photograph it were beaten bloody in the pre-dawn streets and had their cameras confiscated.
Ironically, I think dear Stalin would be proud of his modern Georgian successor....

More people must learn what "syncretic politics" means. That is why so much debate rages over whether Stalin, and Hitler in effect, were right or left-wing. The truth is, they were both. That's what syncretic politics means. Both leaders attempted to reconcile the two spectrums of the ideological universe. Stalin attempted to infuse right-wing nationalism with left-wing socialism, whereas Hitler attempted to infuse left-wing socialism with right-wing nationalism. The true differences between the two leaders lied in how they came to power, and the forms of racism they pursued. Stalin and his minions (i.e. Lenin) came to power via revolution, and were able to rid themselves of the Czar's institutions and create their own to fit their ideology. Hitler, on the other hand, attempted to take control via revolution, but failed to do so, and had to use the democratic system against itself. He was in this capacity forced to utilize the old institutions of the Kaiser already in place (i.e. corporatism/aristocracy), rather than creating his own brand new institutions as the Soviets had done in Russia. But it must be remembered, that while Hitler was a corporatist, he also implemented one of the largest and most extensive social welfare systems and centralized bureaucracies the world had ever seen. His true differences with Marxism lied in blood. If one reads Mein Kampf, it is telling insomuch as Hitler acknowledges the similarities between Marxism and National Socialism, but asserts the difference lies in blood; Semitic vs. Aryan in nature.

This is the key to understanding the difference between the two ideologies, and the leaders themselves. It truly lied in the forms of racism they pursued, which was this; culture vs. blood. An example of this can be seen in the diverging racial policies the two pursued; i.e. decossackization vs. the Holocaust. It was Stalin's belief (very similar to Mussolini's in fact) that minority groups that were deemed "primitive" and "inferior" to the majority Russians, such as Cossacks, Tatars, etc... could be Russianized via assimilation. This undoubtedly led to the deaths of many Cossacks, Tatars, etc.. who wished to remain culturally autonomous and not assimilate, but it WAS possible for them to do so. Conversely, Hitler's idea of a pure-blooded race left no room for compromise. True, certain areas of the Third Reich, such as Poland, the Baltic States, etc... were "Germanized" to a certain extent given the fact they were considered to be a part of the larger Aryan race, via scientific racism, though the people living there could never become "Germanic" as it were, and were still viewed as inferior to the pure-blooded Germans. But insofar as much as the Jews were concerned (a race completely separate from the Aryan race, i.e. the Semitic race), Germanization was impossible. Cultural assimilation simply wasn't enough. Hitler believed the Jews' non-Aryan nature to be so insidious and corrupting, that their presence within his empire could not be tolerated to any extent. To the same degree, he believed that only a people of one blood could function efficiently and free of corruption. And this is where the difference truly lied between the two leaders; culture vs. blood.

Yes, collectivization vs. privatization was a difference, but the restraints Hitler placed on the free market, and the social collectivization he imposed were substantial. And who's to say, had Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch come to fruition, that he wouldn't have ridded Germany of its capitalist system, as he had professed a will to do so in Mein Kampf, just as the Soviets had done in Russia? To the same extent, had the Soviets been put in a similar situation as Hitler (i.e. failed at revolution and forced to seize power via democratic means), perhaps Stalin's state would've more closely resembled that of Hitler's in terms of corporatism? The key word here is "syncretic" (go ahead and Google "syncretic politics" if you haven't heard the term before), and the key phrase "culture vs. blood". Once you understand these concepts you will understand the differences and similarities between Stalin and Hitler. In the larger picture, there were far more similarities between the two than differences.

n all seriousness, I agree that the Saakashvili government is far from being a perfectly functioning democracy, but it is simply hyperbolic to compare Saakashvili with a man who butchered millions of his own people. Under Saakashvili, Georgians lives have improved (other than the war) at a much faster rate than under his autocratic predecessor, Eduard Shevardnadze and the democratic institutions replica TAG have, on aggregate, become stronger (just look at the relatively free municipal election in Tbilisi).

Ed Hardy
Ed Hardy Tattoo
christian louboutin

Ed Hardy Tattooes
ed hardy
ed hardy mens shorts
ed hardy womens shorts
ed hardy purses
ed hardy watches