• Traister101@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    I mean the big ones people like to point at (Rushia and fucking Nazi Germany) sure as shit weren’t doing communism or socialism

      • DoctorSpocktopus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        There are definitely some folks that see “National Socialism” as the party name and look no further. Fortunately, I don’t think it’s a strong majority, but they pop up online.

      • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Both Crowder and Shapiro have claimed this. They point out that the Nazi party was the ‘National Socialist German workers’ party’ and claim that’s enough for it to be socialist, and then also claim Russia is a communist country.

        • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          There’s a Hitler quote somewhere, in some letter that was like “we laugh at the fools who think our ideology has anything to do with the socialism of the bolsheviks”

          There was another one where he says “I didn’t want to kill the Jews, but they’re all communists”

          Someone with a better ability to keep track of sources than me probably knows where to find them

          • Anarcho-Bolshevik@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago
            You may be referring to a line from Mein Kampf, volume 2, chapter 4.

            The fact that we had chosen red as the colour for our posters sufficed to attract them to our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisie were very shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red of Bolshevism and they regarded this as something ambiguously significant. The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists. The actual difference between Socialism and Marxism still remains a mystery to these people up to this day.

            The charge of Marxism was conclusively proved when it was discovered that at our meetings we deliberately substituted the words ‘Fellow-countrymen and Women’ for ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’ and addressed each other as ‘Party Comrade’. We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint‐hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims.


            And the other paraphrase sounds like a reply to Planck:

            Planck began his intercession on behalf of Haber, even going so far as to say that without the latter’s chemical process for obtaining ammonia from the nitrogen of the air “the previous war would have been lost from the beginning.” To this remark Hitler retorted: “I have nothing at all against the Jews themselves. But the Jews are all Communists, and these are my enemies — it is against these that I am fighting.”

        • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          The USSR was a communist country. A normal use of that term is that a country communist is one that’s run by a communist party.

          If you mean it didn’t achieve communism, well duh communism is a hypothesized society achieved through socialism where the state ceases to exist. No socialists, including the people of the USSR, would think that their nation-state has achieved communism as that’s oxymoronic. They would think of it as a transitional socialist state.

      • TxzK@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t think anyone points at Nazi Germany as an example of a leftist system

        I’ve seen many idiots do that unfortunately

      • Traister101@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s always as a “See!! Socialism bad!!” but yep they were literally fascist, Rushia too and yet here we are with people still thinking communist Rushia was communist.

            • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              Fascism is when you oppose fascism.

              Do you even understand what the words you’re using mean?

              • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                The USSR was a dictatorship

                No it wasn’t. This is propaganda. Even the CIA admits that it is propaganda in this document:

                https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf

                Democracy under socialism is simply structured differently. You need to study it properly.

                Several countries that you support today still use a system very much like this. Cuba and Vietnam for example. A solid video on Cuban democracy is here: https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds

                All the socialist countries built on this system.

              • duderium [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Dictatorships are when almost the entire population supports the government. Democracy is when corporations own all candidates and the electoral college designed by slaveowners almost 300 years ago decides all presidential elections. I am a critical thinker.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                Stalin tried to resign 3 times and wasn’t allowed to. Weird thing for a dictator to not be allowed to do.

                • Gabu@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Ignoring everything else wrong about your one sentence, a dictatorship needn’t be helmed by a single person. Brazil was a dictatorship from the 60s to the 90s, and had 6 different presidents during that time.

                  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    You’re moving the goalposts. Obviously a succession of dictatorships is possible, even with a preservation of an overarching dictatorial system. However, you can’t have a dictatorship where the so-called dictator doesn’t even have the authority to resign unilaterally. Try “oligarchy” next time and you’ll get more interesting responses.

                  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    Okay, what about the whole soviets and sharing power with trade unions thing? What about their innovations in participatory democracy. The USSR were hyperdemocratic, even on war footing, at least until destalinization happened and the bureaucracy started taking hold.

                  • What_Religion_R_They [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Cuba follows a really similar system to the soviets system and it is probably as close to a democracy as you can get in a capitalist world, so how is it that the USSR was undemocratic? Did the evil russkies implement council democracy but forgot to actually do it??? Just like they implemented the Washington Consensus post-breakdown but forgot to do the American-“democracy”??

                  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    His sentence isn’t wrong. Stalin did try to resign multiple times (four actually). When his fourth resignation was rejected by the party he then attempted to abolish his own position entirely.

            • GarfGirl [she/her]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              > article by a jewish linguist who spent decades interviewing holocaust survivors, writing about how the claim that the soviets were “as bad as the nazis” feeds into holocaust apologia (like when the Canadian parliament gave a standing ovation to a former SS member Yaroslav Hunka last year because he fought against the USSR)

              > “I dont really care what Jewish holocaust scholars want”

              🤔 its almost as if you dont care about the victims of fascism and just want to score cheap internet points

              • Traister101@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Incredibly I don’t think that the USSR is “as bad as the Nazis” nor did I say anything like that. Is that why you morons are calling me a Nazi? Do you guys need a paragraph explaining that yes I do think the Nazis are bad?

                I’m not trying to win fuckn internet points I’d still be on reddit if I got turned on by that kinda shit. You people are.

        • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Have you considered that you seem to know almost nothing about this and therefore shouldn’t share your opinion like it’s some kind of fact?

      • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Correct. They are both idiots who pointed at Nazi Germany as an example of a leftist system.

    • darvit@lemmy.darvit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Not sure if alternative spelling or if your autocorrect really likes controversial vtuber Uruha Rushia.

    • ohitsbreadley@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Even the DDR wasn’t doing socialism. The public were sold on the idea or they were discredited or arrested. It was an authoritarian autocracy acting in the name of socialism.

      • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        That is indeed what your capitalist NGOs tell you with unlimited funds.

        Consider that socialism is about control over the means of production, of deposing the capitalist system, and that your dismissal of the DDR as socialist didn’t address that at all. Do you think it’s possible you’ve been lied to?

        • ohitsbreadley@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          No, I think I’m far enough on the left to be aware of capitalist propaganda. In all fairness to you, my statement did not treat the subject with the appropriate nuance the subject should require.

          The DDR was socialist. However, it was state socialism, which in my opinion is not ideal and not something we should strive to replicate. Yes, the means of production were “owned by the people,” but the state tasks itself with protecting the people. And therein lies the problem with state socialism - the state is easily commandeered by a corrupt minority who then uses the governmental apparatus to run an authoritarian regime. Precisely what happened in the DDR and the USSR.

          We should be able to recognize the imperfections in prior socialist attempts, without immediately calling it “capitalist NGO propaganda.”

          • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            There was no issue re: nuance in your statements, they were just nonsensical and revealed a lack of understand the basic ideas of the topic. This trend has continued with this reply.

            The DDR was socialist. However, it was state socialism, which in my opinion is not ideal and not something we should strive to replicate.

            The framing of socialism as ownership of the means of production goes hand-in-hand with control over the state. It’s how it was originally formulated by Marx, Engels, etc. The term “dictatorship of the proletariat” is stated in the same breaths and texts and concepts. There is no such thing as non-state socialism in this conception, the only conception that is relevant to this discussion.

            This is something a person would know if they had ever read even a basic summary of this topic.

            Yes, the means of production were “owned by the people,” but the state tasks itself with protecting the people. And therein lies the problem with state socialism - the state is easily commandeered by a corrupt minority who then uses the governmental apparatus to run an authoritarian regime.

            You’re even using the liberal NGO lexicon for this description! Vague generalizations about authoritarianism and cute little stories with no grounding in reality.

            We should be able to recognize the imperfections in prior socialist attempts, without immediately calling it “capitalist NGO propaganda.”

            It’s not hard to identify a poor understanding when you have, you know, actually learned about these things. And interacted with thousands of people just like you and know why they parrot such nonsense. If you had an informed or valid criticism that would be something to talk about, but we are not in that situation. I think we are looking at a graduate of Reddit University, with all the intellectual humility that implies.