this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
158 points (100.0% liked)
196
16246 readers
2429 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hard-core authoritarian communist. The kinda peeps who support Stalin and shit
Isn't "authoritarian communist" kind of an oxymoron? 😂 like the whole point of communism is that there isn't a ruling class. I guess Russia and China were never really communist, just statist authoritarian right? I mean, the Nazis called themselves Socialist. They were nowhere near that
Most real life implementations of communism used an authoritarian one party system. You can say these aren't true examples of communism, but that just ends up sounding like cope unfortunately.
None of those states ever gave economic or political power to the working classes.
Fair point. Though so far, there hasn't really been any system at all that didn't lead to genocide and/or class based opression. From monarchs to feudal Lords to capitalist oligarchies and communist dictators, terrible people always rise to the top.
Yes. Yes, it is. I sometimes call them “pseudocommunists” for this reason.
well socialism has the proletariat as the ruling class, this is true in Marxism & anarchism even if anarchists word it differently
The proletariat are by definition the majority. The Soviet Union was by no means ruled by the majority. Stalin murdered millions to enforce his autocracy—the exact opposite of majority rule.
just to chime in with an anarchist perspective-- majority rule, as lionized by proponents of liberal democracies, is itself a form of heirarchy in which the will of an ostensible 'majority' (though usually that of the capital- owning class actually) is inflicted upon society as a whole, alienating the minority position, enforced by the state apparatus' monopoly of violence.
if one values bodily autonomy, reconciled with the needs of the collective, a system of governance like mutual collective determination must be established which guarantees that all voices are heard and acknowledged.
The party leaders are not proletarian, but rather become part of a class of privileged bureaucrats.
there's a trend towards that, which can be combatted & has been by communist parties. Stalin had a pretty incoherent plan to combat rightist tendencies within the communist party, assuming the problem stemmed from external meddling. Mao actually shared your view in that bureaucracy rots socialism, and that it needs to be decreased as the people are helped towards being self reliant, ready to self manage the economy & have suitable industry to run the country with. that's why the cultural revolution happened, to fight bureaucracy
Communism must be enforced somehow, it just ends up being authoritarian because of that
The same can be said for capitalism though.
Capitalism must be enforced somehow, it ends up being an oligarchy or authoritarian because of that.
Certain aspects of Stalin? Or in general?
Both. Fascist apologist like to cherry pick palatable characteristics of figures like Stalin, or Hitler, or Andrew Jackson in order to destigmatize thier idolatry of these figures. These "certain aspects" are the tip of the wedge they use to destroy rationality and peace.
A reasonable person who would like to discuss the benefits of communism would point to the value of labor, advantages of unions, and the dignity of the worker, not the evil, paranoid, and violent person of Stalin.
Always, the stink of fascism follows the idolization of so called "great men." Excuses after excuses.
The Holocaust most definitely happened and was perpetuated by the Nazis. Please don't accuse me of denial.
Communism, or to be most specific, Marxism, was most definitely aligned against Hitler.
Stalin, was not. He would have watched Hitler kill all of Europe had the Nazis not attacked Russia. Same as the united states if Japan had not attacked them.
I'm not obsessed with Stalin. I'm also not a Holocaust denier. You really seem keen on saying inflammatory things about me without any preceding context.
I will observe that I think Stalin was an awful person who tarnished the reputation of socialism for a century. I don't have anything against socialist, being one myself.
I have a beef with apologist for failed communist states like the soviet onion. I feel they deeply misrepresent socialism.
You did not addressed a single point lol you're a broken disc, say the same thing all the time
It's a semantic argument, then. To me a fascist is a Donald Trump. To me, Facisim is a broad set of characteristics which can be attributed to people outside of the context of Nazi Germany. For example, I might call an ancient emperor a fascist.
Facisim to you is a political movement linked only to the Nazis and thier allies.
That's not unfair. It's a different definition of the word.
Either you have a misunderstanding of what a tankie is in common vernacular, or I do.
My definition of a tankie is as follows: A "tankie" is a term that originated in British politics, referring to individuals who unconditionally supported actions of the Soviet Union, including the use of military force to suppress dissent. Today, it's often used more broadly to describe those who uncritically support or defend perceived socialist or communist authoritarian regimes, sometimes even in the face of human rights abuses. The term is typically used pejoratively within leftist circles.
I don't believe a communist is necessarily a tankie, but a tankie would call themselves a communist.
Personally, as an American, I would never fly an American flag. To me, it represents the violence of the state, the genocide of the indigenous people, and capitalism.
I believe that the Soviet union, as well as some modern communist states, have largely failed to represent the Marxist vision, and I am extremely critical of people who are embrace the theater of certain communist states.
Your historical notes are technically correct, and Stalin did even attempt to reach a pact with France to limit the potential expansion of Nazi Germany. However, once those initiatives failed, Stalin had no issue about pacting with Hitler instead to invade third countries together, which highlights how Stalin's first priority was improving his geopolitical position, rather than an ideological opposition to nazism.
BASED
Do you deny the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact and the illegal attack on Poland by the Soviet union under its leader Josef Stalin?
No why should I ? A non aggression pact is not the same than occupying another country. The Jews which were deported to other parts of the Union were in deed saved from the Nazis.
I am of the strong opinion that fascism doesn't care if you call yourself a communist, a capitalist, or a Democrat. If someone promotes a state which strips the power of local and individual labor for it's own use; cultivates violence as a means of domestic control; supports expansionism; and finally the consolidation of power under a personality; I oppose it, and call it what it is.
My comments are split now, so I'll let you read my other one. I would just like to emphasize that I consider myself a socialist, and that it's not really that vague of a criteria for the purposes of an Internet argument. It's just broad. I believe all current world superpowers current share elements of fascism which I despise and oppose.
What's your excuse for the holodomor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor The Holodomor happened before WW2 dipshit. Tankies really can't resist genocide denial huh? Fits right in with you defending the Soviet Union teaming up with the nazis.
And then they killed millions of people to enforce Stalin's autocracy. How, exactly, is that better than Hitler?