Agarast
21577
458
28
May 1, 2025 6:23 PM
Agarast
21577
458
28
lonelyrangerofthedreams
Gently reminder that the book 1984, published in 1948, wrote an allegory of the totalitarian governments, not only nazis of Germany but also communists of Russia, franchists of Spain and all other. It’s not Germany, never has been, and not Nazis either, is ANY totalitarian regime the true enemy.
Shaows
The agreement for the Nazis to sell PCP in the Soviet Union?
SpanWolf
Varenvel
Russians today are still saying "its Poland foult" and "we were the good guys" , the "russian good guys" propaganda goes really deep , vidogames , movies , books largely ignore that Russians were equal to nazis , both in expansion of territory and warcrimes.
br0da
https://imgur.com/UULspnL
[deleted]
[deleted]
HitandRyan
Username relevant
knubberrub
"Maybe the real Nazis were the friends we made along the way." - Day 1,162 of the 3-Day Special Operation by Comrade Putin Pants.
Ircy
Correct me if I'm wrong but the way I learned about this was that stalin first proposed an alliance with great britain who rejected it with "We won't ally with goddless commies" So he went to hitler to try and buy himself some time.
ElorYosnak
That is correct, yes
supremacysun
This isn't from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Cyrillic is RSFSR, "Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic", not the USSR (which looks like CCCP), and the "hammer and plow" symbol in the star was only used from 1917-1922. It's a medal from the Russian Civil War.
andotherstories
After some research since I got curious it is even "better" than that, it is not a real medal it is some random person who created a set of fantasay sssr/rsfsr medals and this was one of them. So the post in itself is correct in that in can serve as a reminder of that but the medal or award itself is made up.
br0da
Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany had _a lot_ in common. It is not by accident that the word "nazi" comes from the name of the Hitler's party: "National Socialist German Workers' Party" or NSDAP. One of the differences is that the Nazi Party promoted "national socialism", while the Communist Party promoted "international socialism". https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nazi-Party
idrinkcheapbeer
lol. Ask a senior citizen in St Petersburg how they feel about this artifact.
GundamHeavyarms
in 2010 i visited The Museum of the Siege and Defense of Leningrad. Spoke to a wonderful lady who was a child during the siege. heard some incredible stories from her
HiveMindGuy
I recently read The Forbidden Garden. It tells the story of the siege from the viewpoint of a team of agricultural scientists.
Fucking heavy stuff.
Magnar1183
Why does it have "child porn" on it twice?
Zixtank
The only molotov this needs is a cocktail.
WaxedApple
The USSR was the last European power to sign a non aggression pact with Germany. The UK, France, and Poland had all done so earlier. Poland even allied with Germany to carve up Czechoslovakia, with approval from the UK and France. The USSR tried to form an anti-Germany pact with the UK and France up to summer of 1939, but both countries hoped Germany would attack the Soviets first.
br0da
Fake. Poland did not sign an alliance with Hitler, only a nonaggression pact, a pretty standard one. Unlike the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, declared a nonaggression pact, but with its secret protocol, it was in fact an alliance on the partitioning of neighbouring European countries, and it triggered the German aggression against Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, shortly followed by the Soviet aggression against Poland on Sept 17, 1939. https://www.britannica.com/event/German-Soviet-Nonaggression-Pact
Anysource
Of course it's fake, that guy is a communist apologetic.
stukajr
Is this the official commemorative bling / award? Cyrillic letters in and around the swastika are RSFSR - abbreviation for the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the symbol within the red star is not something I've seen before...
somnif
The hammer and plow symbol was apparently used by the red army circa 1917~1918.
skipweasel
If anyone's curious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
nclu
never ask a man his salary
a woman her age
or a tanky who the soviets were allied with from 1941-1949
DIDJAPUTYERNAMEINTHEGOBLETUVFIRE
AceJohnny
1949? I think stuff happened before then.
nclu
I wrote the wrong dates!
NChomsky
Here's two reminders, one of how US planners had contingency plans to "share power" with the Nazis if we weren't able to defeat them, implicitly conceding the "Old World" to a German-dominated bloc. And the other that the Soviets ended up essentially defeating the Nazis, doing the lions share of the work. Maybe we all forgot that little tidbit with the red scare bullshit bubbling back up nowadays in order to distract from the newest oligarchical criminal empire on the block, good ol' US of A.
malexmatt
Tankie need an icepick?
MaleProstateMilker88
Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were always planning to turn against each other eventually, thanking Russia for defeating nazis after them joining forces with nazis to split Europe between the two, and then infighting, is more than little thick. Soviet Russia was an invader that committed war crimes and attempted to erase other cultures and nationalities and replace them with their own. As bad as US is, Russia is just as bad. It's never "the one or the other" all imperialist countries suck.
NChomsky
The difference is our crimes are far more numerous and have been sustained for 250 years. Frankly, imho, Russian crimes struggle to hold a candle to the savagery of our current global criminal empire. Americans have got to stop softening our oligarch's crimes and constantly deflecting to the crimes of OTHERS. If we don't, we'll get much, MUCH worse than Trump. I mean this is just an incomplete sample of our terrorist's handiwork over that time:
nelllybellly1
Both have oft demonstrated willingness to be imperialist pigs.
NChomsky
Indeed, but one is long gone and the other is here today, right now, being run by wealthy zionist cockroaches and poised to be 10x orders of magnitude worse.
nelllybellly1
But Russia isn't gone and currently demonstrates much the same authoritarianism and imperialism as its predecessor, the Soviet Union.
NChomsky
The USA in its current form is the most dangerous, anti-democratic, authoritarian force for destroying peace in the world (we hold the record for destroying & plundering nation after nation). Russia doesn't hold a CANDLE to what we've done and are doing. We hold the virtual MONOPOLY on terrorism and general economic crime in the world. Russia? How about we TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR for once (something that's so alien to Americans that we look at people weird when they ask us to do it).
nelllybellly1
It's possible to look in the mirror as well as to look out the window. I've seen acts of USA imperialism and advancing authoritarianism for more than half a century and am aware of its history of the same prior to that. Ditto for Russia (pre, during, and post USSR) as well as that of other nations. As for the present, while Trump threatens the sovereignty of Canada, Greenland, and Panama and is selling weapons to Israel, Russia has invaded Ukraine and is directly murdering its citizens.
SoftKleenex
中
spookymormonhelldream
I'm pretty sure that's a Ф which is an F is Cyrillic. I'm just trying to figure out what word it would be for
ElorYosnak
Please scroll through the comments to find the varying inaccuracies here but:
USSR tried to ally with UK first, but was denied, forcing them to turn to Germany
This is also not a real medal
Also, USSR Is not Russia. So, this whole thing needs a lot of context, and kinda falls apart a little.
To be clear, as this is apparently required: Despite all this, I do not like Stalin, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was bad, though there are arguments regarding information and ability.
Anysource
Forcing them to ally themselves with nazi Germany?! Do you even hear yourself?
ElorYosnak
uh.... y... yes? Okay. The Allies said 'we're not going to fight over anyone not on our side'
The Axis said 'We're gonna attack anyone not on our side'
The USSR says "Hey Allies, I don't love this situation, Let's team up, so that we don't get attacked, and you have another good friend!"
The Allies say "Eat shit big boy, You have A Communism."
What do you do?
Anysource
"we're not going to fight over anyone not on our side." Y.. yes, that's how it works. Do you think someone just jumps into else's war? Hitler did not act on that utter nonsense, and Germany was to weak to attack the USSR. So, you'd sided with nazis and then divide Poland?
ElorYosnak
Brother yes, that is how it works. So when you ask to be on their side, and they say "no, absolutely not", and you know that the other side is going to *attack* anyone not on their side, What Exactly Do You Do?
Germany was not too weak to attack the USSR *alone*. Hitler killed communists on principle, so the assumption that they would *absolutely* attack them was extremely justified
And without an alliance, the USSR was likely fucked. So, as the allies refused, they took the only deal they could
ElorYosnak
(also the USSR Struggled to deal with the Eastern Front *after* it had been At War for a while, and there were other fronts. They managed it, but 'germany couldn't have won against the ussr if they attacked them alone' is pretty clearly garbage. They could, and they would.)
blaghart
A reminder that Stalin openly admitted he was a fascist, saying he believed Hitler would uphold the MRP because he was the "Same kind of man." The next time someone tells you "Socialism" or "communism" is evil because "USSR," remind them that Stalin admitted he was fascist just like the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany did. Aka the Nazis.
br0da
https://imgur.com/gsJcIRI
WaxedApple
France, the UK, and Poland had all signed pacts with Hitler before the Soviets. Also the first group the Nazis targeted were the German communists, who were also the only group to actually fight the Nazis in the streets. The German liberals chose not to fight back and simply went along with the Nazis
br0da
Fake.
Anysource
No true communist fallacy. Stop defending the undefendable, you're just embarrassing yourself. Also, saying that Hitler would uphold his word is not admitting of being a nazi. Where do you even hear this rubbish?
Battle4ngel
Well, there's a reason Stalinism was directly followed by De-Stalinization. Dude effectively hijacked the political movement from within and, for decades, installed a brutal tyranny purging its own ranks of anyone who wasn't a yes-man.
A problem with popular perception of the USSR, or debates about "communism", is that a lot of people seem to only look at one of its eras, ignoring the various reforms and at-times drastic changes in leadership or policy.
blaghart
Or the fact that for all its love of claiming to represent "communism" it never actually had a government that was synonymous with the people and the people never controlled the means of production. And they love to worship Lenin, a guy who said that farmers demanding a socialist government was the biggest threat the Bolesheviks ever faced.
Battle4ngel
In theory, the state owning the means of production means the people do -- but you've got a point, an argument can be made that a government can never truly represent the people when you don't have free elections, i.e. citizen participation, as the term "soviet" originally implied.
The USSR did have elections in 1989 as part of Gorbachev's reforms. But that was a mere two years before the hardliners launched their coup, ultimately bringing down the entire Union, so not sure if that counts.
blaghart
Technically speaking any government that is not synonymous with the people is not leftist. Representatives inherently deprive people of control of the means of production, and even one person denied participation in government is not leftism. Even Gorbachev's reforms were republican, not socialist/communist in nature.
Battle4ngel
Ah, you're talking Direct Democracy? I like the idea in theory, but I find it's not realistic - at least not with current technology and sociocultural problems like widespread ignorance of how things work. We need representatives to quickly make important calls in the interest of the electorate, and we need experts these reps listen to.
It is something I could see in the future, though. Mass Effect had an interesting idea in that vein with Asari "e-democracy".
WhoWantsAMustacheRide
I think you're right about Stalin, but misrepresenting Lenin. The problem with the peasantry in Russia during and immediately after the revolution is that they were not immediately aligned with the parry, had a Bourgeoisie class of their own, and no Industrial scale to be proletarianized. They literally were not wanting to feed the Red Army. So, the party, led by Lenin, had to make all sorts of practical decisions about how to get that grain. Sure he said it was a problem but he capitulated.
blaghart
no he didn't capitulate at all. I'm talking about the kronstadt rebellion, where he wiped out peasant farmers demanding that he implement a socialist government where they had a fair and equal say in government. Lenin's entire attitude about ruling Russia was "I'm the Tsar for now and we'll do socialism at a later, unspecified, date"
WhoWantsAMustacheRide
This is bourgeois propaganda. That's not true at all. I suggest you find better sources for your information.
WhoWantsAMustacheRide
Whatever Stalin and the USSR were, sure authoritarian, mostly a bureaucratic state, they were not fascist. And Hitler only called it that to take the place of socialism. The Nazis weren't socialist. Do you think North Korea is democratic because it's the Democratic People's Republic?
blaghart
Oh look you had a little selfawarewolves moment. "they were not fascist. And Hitler only called it that to take the place of socialism". You even spelled out that calling yourself "socialist" or "democratic" doesn't make you such...and yet you reject the idea that the USSR was a fascist dictatorship?
Anysource
It was a communist dictatorship, though there's no non communist dictatorship cause it's intertwined .
WhoWantsAMustacheRide
Lolol selfawarewolves. Unintentionally metal. Unfortunately, your gotcha isn't such. Just because you want it to be fascist doesnt make it so. Sure, it was the dictatorship of Stalin and the beurocratic class, but the USSR are the ones who beat fascism. Read more
Anysource
USSR was just one of several main actors, the US being the most important one.
WhoWantsAMustacheRide
Bruh, that's just not true. The USSR was the biggest causal factor for defeating the Nazis. You're very confident for being wrong.
Ikwilstroopwaffels
Aww are asshurt Russians downvoting this? Maybe they should look up the Katyn Forest.
WaxedApple
Unlike France, Poland couldn't find enough officials to form a pro-Nazi Vichy government.
br0da
Unlike France and all the other European countries Poland formed an anti-Nazi underground government.
Escapist83
It can't be people offended by the swastika. Motherfuckers upvote things with swastikas left and right around here.
animatronicChristmasChickens
But mostly right
Cutwail
American tankies also hate this fact.
SarcasticComment
lot of that going around. never seen so many of my comments downvoted hard on a pro-trans post. Trolls are out in force.
raitchison
Probably tankies who don't like to be reminded how Stalin & Hitler conspired to carve up Poland.
WaxedApple
Germany and Poland conspired to carve up Czechoslovakia a year earlier. Poland was having a great time with their Nazi allies until suddenly they werent.
br0da
Fake.
amglasgow
Much like the USSR was having a great time with their Nazi allies until they weren't.
afgncap
There was no conspiration, Poland took the opportunity to take back Zaolzie which Czechoslovakia grabbed when Poland was fighting for survival against USSR in 1920. Was it in a bad taste to do that knowing Hitler's intentions? Absolutely. Is it comparable to Ribbentrop-Molotov pact? Not even close.
Ikwilstroopwaffels
I am still not sure what a tankie is?
raitchison
Tankies are people who support or defend authoritative (usually ostensibly communist or socialist but not really) regimes that use military equipment such as (in particular) tanks to quash protests against their rule.
In their eyes because the USSR (or the PRC) pretended to be communist then everything they do is fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
Vorphalack
*authoritarian
Ikwilstroopwaffels
Ahhh! Ok, thank you!
rshini
It's much more simple than that, they have a binary view of the world, and because Western Imperialism is bad (and it fucking is), they assume anything that oppose it is automatically good
miserycones
This event drastically undermined popular opinion of communism among US and European leftists. A clear demonstration that the USSR had no actual principles
DaisyfromDownunder
As if the assassination of Czar Nicholas & co. didn't give a clue to that. And Razputin as well as Riley Ace of Spies and the list goes on.
theworldcouldbeflat
My grandfather didn't consider the war over until the 80's because he started WW II running from the Russians. He and most of his village ended up being refugees in German Concentration camps.
WhoWantsAMustacheRide
This was all Stalin and why Lenin on his deathbed was trying to tell everyone not to let Stalin lead, though it was too late. Trotsky tried too, but... I lay the blame of all this on Imperialist powers who basically created the white army. So many of the revolutionary leaders were killed in the war.
dohcohv
Or maybe, a one party government without any check to power leads to bad situations? Lenin invaded neighboring countries to integrate them.
PinkyTheUnicorn2
It was “one party” only in the most abstract sense. There was still a legislative body and factions within it, let alone trade unions that had tons of sway. Stalin dissolved all of these.
NChomsky
It basically demonstrated that they weren't actually communists, since communism is diametrically opposed to Nazism.
FrancsTireur
To be semi fair even though he doesn't deserve it, Stalin had tried to convince Britain and France of the threat posed by nazi Germany and proposed an alliance. At the time however Britain and France actually saw the USSR as the most likely cause of a new war and both were considering intervention in Finland.
WaxedApple
It demonstrated that the Soviets saw the war coming and hoped to buy a few more years to militarize after every other European power had already signed a non aggression pact with Hitler and eagerly cooperated with the conquest of Czechoslovakia. Stalin had tried for years to get the UK and France to renew the Entente to contain Germany, but neither country would commit, likely because they preferred fascists to communists, same as all liberals.
malexmatt
Never been tried, eh? I would think a famous professor would have better things to do than shit up the imgur comments.
Anysource
I doubt this looser is Chomsky.
malexmatt
No shit
Altanese
What nation past or present best embodies communist ideals to you?
Anysource
No true communist fallacy. Stop defending the undefendable, you're just embarrassing yourself.
NChomsky
Take a look in the mirror with that knee-jerk nonsense.
Anysource
"There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, small words from a small man". Hey Tito, don't worry about growing old, better think about growing up.
NChomsky
Well I mean you get what you give. Playground insults = brain cell count is in single digits. So why waste time educating online know-nothings with the kind of reductive, politically illiterate, and basically lobotomized commentary you made? Maybe demonstrate at least a kindergarten-level grasp of political theory instead of intellectually tissue-thin 'hur durr no true Scotsman'. Disgraceful. In fact, forget it.
nefroye
No - Communism and Nazism share a *lot* in common. Both require strong adherence to the State, for starters.
SerialChickenLover
What you’re referring to is authoritarianism, which is a political tendency. It exists outside of the context of economic organization. The reason why Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and the U.S. in its declined state today resemble each other so much is due to the embrace of authoritarianism.
nefroye
"It exists outside of the context of economic organization." Totally disagree. Politics and economic organization are merely two sides of the same coin, for the majority of life's activities; you can't possibly separate them into independent systems. They are both at the core the same thing - the mechanisms that determine how people hold and exchange property, goods, and services. There are a few things perhaps that are political but not economic (social issues), but not vice versa.
Battle4ngel
Isn't that the *only* thing they have in common?
The spectrum you're referring to is individualism vs collectivism. The problem being that strong individualism comes with its own problems, too, as instead of the worst case being the state exploiting you, it'll instead be a corporation.
nclu
So, I'm not a communist, but I will say that the original theory differentiated between a period of state socialism meant to command & control the economy, and an eventual transition to a time that man had internalized those ideals to the point the state became unnecessary to enforce them, with that end state being communism. That part stinks of magical thinking utopianism...
nclu
The Soviet Union and those various revolutionary implementations leaned very hard into authoritarian state socialism. This would be in contrast to more social-democratic blended economies of today.
Ircy
While some forms of communism are very authoritarian some forms of communism outright reject the idea of a state.
ChristopherHallett
Tell us you have no idea what communism is without...
Communism is a classless STATELESS society.
nefroye
Only in some people's dreams. In the real world the opposite is true. It's been proven time and time again. (and at the cost of tens of millions of lives)
ChristopherHallett
Leajjes
The horseshoe effect (or horseshoe theory) suggests that the far left and far right of the political spectrum, rather than being at opposite ends of a linear continuum, actually bend around and resemble each other, like the shape of a horseshoe.
According to this theory, despite their opposite stated goals, extreme political movements on both ends often share similarities.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
PinkyTheUnicorn2
If you took a few minutes to read your own link, you’d see the numerous studies that show Horseshoe Theory is bullshit, and that it’s basically disregarded by all political scientists.
HonestCommentFarmer
A different explanation: authoritarians have a natural common cause with each other, similar to how democracies will generally ally with each other and won't war with each other. They can be authoritarians of different ideology, but Saddam Hussein were good friends with Muammar Gaddafi.
WaxedApple
Horseshoe theory is dumb. It demonstrates that the far ends of the spectrum can identify problems with the status quo but have very differing solutions. Centrists prefer to defend the status quo and refuse to recognize failures of the current system and label anyone who says things should be better as a radical
LordFriteuse
horseshit theory more like.
Leajjes
Found the tankie!
LordFriteuse
Found the politically illiterate.
Ticmea
In defense of horseshoe theory: A common criticism (that seems to come up in replies to this comment, which is why I post this) is that it's a centrist misrepresentation to discredit one side as being equal to the other. I find this criticism falls flat for several reasons. As a response to it I like to put horseshoe theory on top of the political compass and contextualise it. (I made an image for this:
context is down in the comment chain, please read it) 1/11
Ticmea
This criticism fails to consider what horseshoe theory actually does: It corrects a misrepresentation. Political opinions are often described on a line between left and right. This can be a useful simplification, but it can also be used as a tool for authoriatarians to drag people from the "center" to their side. They do this by misrepresenting the political spectrum as a "tug of war" style battle using the left-right simplification. The horseshoe theory attempts to fix this by representing 2/11
Ticmea
political opinions on more than one dimension. You can basically think of it as a simplification of the political compass (which is itself a simplification of reality, though a lot better at describing it than the other two are). What the criticism of "centrists use this to say >bOtH sIdEs aRe eQuAl< when they actually want different things" does is, it attempts to remove the second dimension that the horseshoe adds by focussing on the fact that the two dots on the left and right are 3/11
keillrandor
Only if you don't separate everything that can and should be - if authoritarianism ISN'T what's being compared, then...
Leajjes
This was a big part of Hannah Arendt The Origins of Totalitarianism in the Totalitarianism portion.
keillrandor
If you ever let authoritarians define the contexts that matter for humanity, then guess who has to suffer? The 20th Century and beyond have wound up as they have BECAUSE the authoritarians got to do JUST THAT. There are times when academia becomes its own worst enemy.
WaxedApple
'This man is sick, we should give him medicine'
'This man is sick, we should kill him so he isnt a burden'
'I am a smart centrist, these two ideas are the same because horseshoe theory! Also the problem is already solved because medicine already exists, just work harder to afford it!'
Leajjes
Very bad example.... That has killing sick man has been done in far left governments. The fact you don't know that should concern you. It concerns me. :(
Anysource
"CoMmUNisM gOOd, NoN CoMmUNisM BAD".
NChomsky
Good ol' horseshit theory. Equating diametrically opposed theoretical goals based on the methods of flawed, authoritarian implementations. It's just another way to avoid grappling with fundamental distinctions by pointing at a superficial resemblance in tactics. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying "apples and anvils are similar because they both obey gravity". Positing HT represents a profound observation, if you're aiming for a participation trophy in oversimplification.
Leajjes
Lol you nuked your message because it got downvoted and posted it again. Maybe third time will be a charm.
NChomsky
Anything else on offer, besides hot air? Try a substantive response instead of using typical troll responses like "hur hurr you nuked yer post" that have literally nothing to do with what's being said. Ocean of ignoramuses on here.
Ihadsexwithadragonlastnight
Bro named himself after chomsky so it tracks
It aldo tracks that he would hate a valid theory and his only way to deride it is big words to sound smart
ballsoutflyer
Apples and anvils. Heh. Both are objects, both have mass, both obey the laws of physics, both are tangible objects. The only difference is one is edible and the other isn't.
Try a better example next time.
NChomsky
The point, which seems to have flown over your head, is about equating things based on superficial resemblances while deliberately ignoring fundamental, defining differences (like comparing a stateless, classless society to totalitarian nationalism based only on the state using force during transition). It’s not the shared 'obeying gravity' or 'being objects' that matters, it's the DEFINING characteristics. Maybe stick to edible vs. non-edible.. abstract political theory seems a stretch for you.
Leajjes
To be fair, his communication style comes across as overly academic and detached, like someone trying too hard to sound intelligent rather than genuinely connect. Effective communication prioritizes clarity and mutual understanding over unnecessarily complex language.
drinkthederpentine
Overwrought tripe. Communism always devolves to authoritarianism. It is authoritarian by nature when all the power is vested in the state. Very, very pbvious
NChomsky
Makes sense if you only read books that have scratch & sniff stickers in them. Funny talking about a system that never existed as "devolving" into something while capitalism's human-misery & death generator runs on a 24/hour cycle right NOW: Wars for oil, kids in mines, wage-slave labor, climate catastrophe. We have this failed economic malware of a system that favors CEOs & landlords while 4 billion live on $1-5/day eating crumbs but we're discussing how "communism" never works. Fucking genius.
5omeWhiteGuy
COMMUNISM is using fascist methods to try and achieve socialist ideas.
NChomsky
Did you read that in a comic book? It's truly precious how you confuse an ideal of a classless, stateless society with the authoritarian actions of a specific regime. It's almost as if you've never opened a book beyond the cover...
5omeWhiteGuy
you deleted your comment to make another one? XD.
and to replace it with claim that communism is stateless.
NChomsky
I'm simply saying pick up something to read that doesn't say X-MEN on it. By your logic, a state existing at all = fascism. Does your brain also conflate rainbows with tornadoes? I mean they're meteorological, right?. Soviet authoritarianism ≠ communism. Claiming? No, stating the fundamental theoretical goal: a stateless, classless society. Understanding the difference between a theoretical ideal & historical experiments isn't rocket science, you know. Give it a shot.
SerialChickenLover
Communism isn’t that, but it is a basically good idea that can’t be seriously practiced in earnest on any scale because it’s incompatible with human nature and our tendency to self-organize into unequal hierarchies.
5omeWhiteGuy
to me its more that there are only 2 ways to actually achieve a purely socialist society (which is what communists mean when they preach for it) is either by quite literally everyone suddenly agreeing its best and moving to it (Marx thought would happen as capitalism collapsed in his lifetime) or by sheer force, like we have seen historically. Why I called it "fascism" is because of the strict state/party allegiance thats enforced, along with strong use of military against internal descent.
WaxedApple
Human society ran on communism for most of history. People contributed to a central common stockpile and took from that common stockpile as needed. Greed is not inherent to human nature anymore than racism is. It takes a lot of propaganda to make a few rich people owning everything 'normal'
ihavesexwithllamas6
not really, unless you’re referring to the need for violent and open class struggle to accomplish a material revolution, as Marx and others would insist is obligatory. Socialism is merely the reformation of various socioeconomic institutions without true revolution.
Fascism is eternal war between “us” and “them”, where the “us” gets progressively more exclusive, and “them” gets radically broader and more extreme on an unending continuum. No revolution, no utopic equality, no expansive inclusion
5omeWhiteGuy
Marx believed that socialism would naturally arise out of the decay of capitalism. He considered it an inevitable end.
ihavesexwithllamas6
yes, but he was adamant that armed struggle was necessary to achieve true communism, and that mere socioeconomic reforms wouldn’t be able to overthrow bourgeois ideology, which was fundamental to the erasure of class conflict.
AgainstMethod
The "unless" clause there is doing a lot of work. Even in Marx's original formulation, but especially in the pre-war Communist parties around Europe, there was a absolutely no notion that Communist regimes would be based on democratic ideals or any kind of voluntary consent of the governed.
ihavesexwithllamas6
authoritarianism and fascism are not interchangeable concepts. it’s like saying that both Clifford and Garfield have four paws and a tail, therefore they are both cats.
ihavesexwithllamas6
also, yeah, democracy was critical to Marx’s final stage of Marxism. It was his transitionary phase that permitted severe handbrakes to democratic practices: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Marxism
ihavesexwithllamas6
i think you are conflating authoritarianism and fascism, which go hand in hand but are not commensurate concepts. the lack of democratic institutions are not fascism full stop. likewise, there exist theories of liberalism that don’t require full democracy.