Are we communists?!
- Thread starter Grab-bag
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But Stalin manufactured those problems himself by adopting a terrible economic policy. Life in Czarist Russia was terrible, but it became worse under the communist regime. You can't set a house on fire and then claim that you "did what needed to be done" to save the people inside and then claim yourself a hero. Stalin (and Lenin) fucked up Russia; you can't take credit for causing a giant problem and then fixing maybe 10% of it.Therumancer said:
This is factually incorrect. Stalin intentionally starved ethnic Ukrainian and Caucasian communities, not to mention his pogroms against the Jews. Where are you getting your history? He didn't save his country - The USSR failed from the beginning and tens of millions of people died because of his policies! Now Russia is wracked with poverty and corruption and political cronyism and you can trace that directly back to Stalin and his destructive policies that crippled Soviet infrastructure and economy.
This is just factually incorrect. Under no measurement was life improved for the majority under communism; life was improved for Stalin and his cronies, but the average Russian was far worse off - and the average Ukrainian or Jew was dead! You're right that it may be necessary to kill millions to make communism work (in fact, I'd agree), but that doesn't mean someone is heroic for doing so. If I had a system where we powered our cars with the ashes of babies, would I be heroic for killing enough children to make it possible? No, I'd be a tyrant and a mass murderer for pursuing the system in the first place.
No, in Stalinism you end up with a few greedy assholes controlling most of the wealth and using it to murder the ethnicities they don't like.
Stalin's mass murder did not "need to be done." Stalin pursued a terrible authoritarian despotism and murdered millions to make sure he stayed in power, fucking Russia over in the meanwhile. Stalin was not a hero, he was a murderer, probably "worse" than Hitler, although comparisons like that are hard to make.
As for the OP, I agree completely. Communism and fascism are both blood-stained and terrible ideologies that are should be equally demonized. I hate Nazis and I hate communists and neither disgusting symbol should be tolerated. I'm all for socialism and I'm all for capitalism but parading around the icons of their tyrannical authoritarian permutations is simply unacceptable.
Unfortunately, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (or the Nazis as we came to know them) co-opted the swastika so thoroughly in their symbolism and propaganda that its old meaning was all but lost. Fun fact, for comparison: The Romans crucified plenty of people before Jesus, but now the cross symbolizes Jesus's death. Probably not very comforting to everyone else who died of thirst, blood loss or exposure while nailed to two thick pieces of wood.szs0061 said:
Nazis= genocide.
Soviets (who were more fascist than communist by the way)= war, espionage and press control.
Overall, I think people who are cool with mass murder based on race are a lot more f*cked up than people who just think that Soviet propaganda produced a lot cool imagery.
Soviets (who were more fascist than communist by the way)= war, espionage and press control.
Overall, I think people who are cool with mass murder based on race are a lot more f*cked up than people who just think that Soviet propaganda produced a lot cool imagery.
Communism has some good ideas in it, it's moronic to discredit it completely. A pure capitalist system is no better than a pure socialist system. A mix of both is necessary, and the only reason we don't think that radical capitalism is as bad as radical socialism is because we live in a capitalist society. Plus, for a few people to be in charge in a capitalist system, it's necessary to fool everyone into thinking that those few aren't in charge for a while.peruvianskys said:
I agree with pretty much everything else you said though.
no no no you cannot decide that an entire political philosophy is evil simply because there once was a terrible person who led it hitler was evil, stalin was evil, communism and fascism just are. also just to play devils advocate, can we really say hitler is evil for doing what he believed to be right? if he had won and you had been taught your whole life that jews were terrible and he was a hero youd believe it so can you really just decide hes evil? right and wrong are entirely relative ideas when it comes to moralsperuvianskys said:
The swastika is only viewed in such light in western society. Asians and Indians commonly use the swastika for as many purposes as any other symbol. We shouldn't be so damn worried about a stupid symbol over 65 years after one group used it.The Rogue Wolf said:
Are none of you listening?? If he wasn't involved in the post-revolutionary governments then I don't see why he should be scapegoated without evidence that that was his actual intention.Del-Toro said:
Fun Fact: After Russia switced to Democracy, the country has become nationally poorer, and they can barely fund/pay their military properly (a sad truth is that even some of their generals will take common jobs just to get by). Thus in recent years the idea of Communism is returning to Russia. Now Communism isn't a bad thing for Russia, it's simply that when they tried to switch to Democracy, it wasn't over a slow period of time where the economy/people could adjust, it was an immediate and total overhaul that caused more problems than solved. So basically Russia may revert to a communist country in the near future (their most popular 'President/Presidential Candidate' is Putin, and he is Pro-Communist/Bad-Ass who makes Teddy Roosevelt and Chuck Norris look like small children. XD
I see you're interested in the swastika symbol; I am too. It's such a great symbol, not only because of what it represents (not in Nazi context), but because it is extremely old and almost completely the same in all cultures throughout the globe. It pre-dates antiquity and the metal ages; swastika symbols have been found on neolithic pottery in Europe, which makes it older than written history (there's also one from palaeolithic Ukraine [http://books.google.com/books?id=oq-xLPfgvJ4C&lpg=PA74&pg=PA117#v=onepage&q&f=false]). I'm really saddened that it became a symbol of hate, racism, war and mass murder, and I'm especially saddened when people don't even know the origin.hooksashands said:One strange thing about the equilateral cross (swastika) is that to this day nobody knows where it truly originated. Some say it's simply St. George's cross with each end given a bent foot. Or it could be a simplified version of the Phoenician Sunwheel. Each arm (Γin the symbol represents a letter in the Greek alphabet (in this case 'gamma'), which is itself derived from a letter in the Phoenician one (gimel). The pre-christian Anglo-Saxons, Druids and Celts all claim to have made it too. It persists in present-day India as a universally holy symbol. It's been drawn throughout China, Syria, France, Israel, and even North America (Yes, the one before white people came).
Sadly, most just see it and think supremecist/neo-Nazi. It's history is much more complex.
I'll let someone else field the hammer and sickle.
We can't be sure it's from Asia, as the oldest one currently known is not really from Asia (I put the link above), and the oldest Asian depiction is much more younger than the ones from Europe. But whether it is from Asia or somewhere else, yes, the symbol was used and abused and is now fixed as the symbol of everything horrible, sadly.Daverson said:
The soviets were far from true communists, they were far closer to communism than fascism but they weren't true communists. True communists don't butcher people based of ethnicity. True communists don't have people shot because they want to maintain power. True communists don't force rank when you call them comrade. It's comrade for everyone, not comrade commissar - comrade.Staskala said:
They weren't true communists, they were a bastardisation of communism.
OT: No, that doesn't make everyone communists. The hammer and sickle symbol has come to be the universal symbol for communism, despite it being a Bolshevik one to begin with. Besides, like I said, Stalin's interpretation of communism was a horrific one. I'm a strong advocate of communism and I think he's an abomination of a man. Definitely one of the worst things to ever happen to communism.
Actually no. europe and america does. In the east (india, china) swastica is acutaly a sybol of luck. its very common to see swastica engraved on doorstep wishing the house luck and so on. Swastika is actually the first "cross" symbol in existance and is found as far back as paleolith drawings.
As for the laws and hate - russians didnt loose the war, so thats why their evil deeds are "ignored". winners write history.
I honestly don't know. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were both terrible countries that don't deserve any praise.
TBH he's probably a better role model than Guevara.BoTTeNBReKeR said:
How?Grospoliner said:
I resent the implication that Communism is the opposite of Democracy. Russia hasn't really ever been either. But yeah I agree with what you're saying apart from that.SteewpidZombie said:
Communism isn't a terrible ideology. Communism and socialism are extremely similar. Communism has nothing to do with the authoritarian regimes. Proper communism isn't authoritarian. In fact, it has more in common with Anarchism than with authoritarianism. Get your facts right before you judge things.peruvianskys said:
It still had a heirarchy so I don't see what's so communist about it. And people being crushed into poverty together doesn't make it communist.Warforger said:
According to my English professor, there has never been a true communist state since Karl Marx developed the theory.AnarchistFish said:
You make an excellent point, but Clarion's answer probably makes the most sense. Stalin was just greedy and people suffered because of that, but Hitler actually made it his goal to kill innocent people.Daystar Clarion said:
Still, this makes a lot of sense as well:
That would really just mean that you're pointing out that society is hypocritical. Tell me something new... Still an interesting question though.Generic Gamer said:
As far as I can tell it's for a number of reasons:
the Nazi swastika (not the Swastika in general, but it's easy to tell whether a Swastika is a Nazi one or not) is associated specifially with the Nazi party whereas the Hammer and Sickle is associated with the general communist ideology.
The Nazis were much more systematic in their genocide. they targeted specific social and racial groups whereas in Stalin's USSR people were killed 'as needed' (although this did include the targeting of specific groups, including Jews this wasn't actual defined policy)
The crimes committed by the Nazis are much more documented. They were committed during a time when there was a major war on, the spotlight was on germany and the mass murder wasn't only committed in their country - it was in occupied countries too. The mass killing committed by the Soviets was largely internal and unoffical so less is known about it - a point which is further compounded by the fact that until relatively recently a lot of soviet history and records where off limits to those who wished to study it.
The Nazis lost what is probably the most well known war in history. History is always written by the victors and not the loosers. That combined with the massive anti Nazi propaganda that existed during and in the period after the war influences the way future generations see past events.
Hmmm... this post sounds way too much like an extract from an essay - as I was writing it I was checking spelling, grammar and use of words in a way I only do when writing essays xD
the Nazi swastika (not the Swastika in general, but it's easy to tell whether a Swastika is a Nazi one or not) is associated specifially with the Nazi party whereas the Hammer and Sickle is associated with the general communist ideology.
The Nazis were much more systematic in their genocide. they targeted specific social and racial groups whereas in Stalin's USSR people were killed 'as needed' (although this did include the targeting of specific groups, including Jews this wasn't actual defined policy)
The crimes committed by the Nazis are much more documented. They were committed during a time when there was a major war on, the spotlight was on germany and the mass murder wasn't only committed in their country - it was in occupied countries too. The mass killing committed by the Soviets was largely internal and unoffical so less is known about it - a point which is further compounded by the fact that until relatively recently a lot of soviet history and records where off limits to those who wished to study it.
The Nazis lost what is probably the most well known war in history. History is always written by the victors and not the loosers. That combined with the massive anti Nazi propaganda that existed during and in the period after the war influences the way future generations see past events.
Hmmm... this post sounds way too much like an extract from an essay - as I was writing it I was checking spelling, grammar and use of words in a way I only do when writing essays xD
Read up on Batista [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista], the guy Guevara and Castro fought to overthrow. Here's a quick rundown:Del-Toro said:
1) Appointed himself chief of the armed forces after a small revolution
2) Instated leftist ideas and then took them away 4 years later
3) Removed civil liberties
4) Went into league with the rich sugar plantation owners
5) Sat back and watched as the gap between rich and poor grew bigger - guess which group he was in.
6) Governed a corrupt and repressive regime where he worked with the American Mafia
7) Censored the media because of riots and protests
8) Used secret police to kill 20,000 Cubans using US weapons
Yeah, he sure does sound like the lenient type, if only they left him in power. I guess it was all about economic equality and none of it was about freedom. Totalitarian =! No freedom.
AnarchistFish said:
What I was trying to state was not that Democracy and Communism were direct opposites, but rather that by simply switching to a completely different style of government and governing of a country, you'll see a huge decline in things such as economics due to how the control/use of businesses and money will change over that short period of time. It'd be like having someone who has lived in a brightly lit room their whole life, shoved into a dim lit cave and told to adjust. If something like that isn't handled slowly so that everyone can adapt and make changes, as well as come to a understanding of how the new government system actually functions, then you get new problems and confusion from everyone. Thus alot of Russian people and those in Government want to change back to a Communist system (which when they were using, they had a stable and slowly growing economy).