this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
176 points (100.0% liked)
196
16490 readers
2548 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
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.
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.
To blame "anti-communist revolution" for the decline of LGBT-rights in hungary when much of the anti-LGBT legislation came about near 20-years after Hungary became a democracy and during when the Hungarian Socialist Party, the successor of the Communist Party, was still the largest force in Hungarian politics is disingenuous.
...it's nice that you're honest about being anti-democratic and that you have no qualms about calling yourself tankie in that context. Are you a "little green man" as well?
I'm not a man, and its very obvious that I am not a man given pronouns in bio and my username.
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.
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.
Not when it kills millions through starvation --> holodomor
The only evil person here is you. How can you not only defend but celebrate a regime that during its reign of terror during the occupation of Poland put over 500-thousand Poles in prison, committed the Katyn Massacre, deported 1.7-million Poles to Siberia, raped over a 100-thousand women, and murdered over 150-thousand additonal Poles in cold blood, and then robbed Poland of the independence it had achieved after WW1, after 200-years of attempted cultural genocide by the Russian Empire?
I am half-Polish, my father was born in Communist Poland - tell me how your crackhead ideology justifies your abhorrent views. Tell me how the Soviets rounding up innocent Poles and murdering them in cold blood, like happened to the families and friends of my grandparents, is to be celebrated as the Soviets "saving" anyone; how subjugating the Polish people and state for the next 40-years was something good.
You're simply a disgusting PoS, a certified A-grade fucking tankie.
So what about the Soviet Union doing ethnic cleansings in the parts of Poland they conquered? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_repressions_of_Polish_citizens_(1939%E2%80%931946)
Oh so it's fine that the Soviet Union displaced their government and murdered anyone who opposed them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_Soviet_Union
What black book of communism are you talking about? I linked you a wikipedia article. These are real historical events that you're willfully ignoring.
There are dozens of sources listed on the bottom, one possibly questionable source means the entire thing is made up?
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.
Stalin purposely diverted shipments of grain away from Ukraine, he made a deliberate effort to starve and repress his political enemies.
Because they were attacked. Otherwise they would have happily sat out of ww2.