Are we communists?!

[Dutch 924]

In answer to your question; no, we are nowhere near Communism.

One of the main beliefs of communism was equality among the classes, although the USSR didn't do it well. If you look at the west today, there is more classism than ever.

Yes, everyone can vote etc., but there is the problem that the rich can keep all the money and not suffer from the recession - despite them being the ones that caused it - while everyone else loses their jobs and money just trying to keep up.

In short, although we don't have Communist ideals, it wouldn't hurt to try it sometime, just to see what happens.

 

[ThreeWords]

Because anti german/nazi propaganda was so heavy back then, its crept through to the present.

This. There is rarely a good reason behind any strong public opinion.

Captcha:

Ironic indeed...

 

[slipknot4]

"At least back then everyone had a job." Unemployment from what I understand is a real big problem in Eastern Europe right now.

Make that the entire western world. Back in the USSR era unemployment was a crime and people who didn't look for jobs got sent to jail (the kind of jail where prison rape is "nothing notable").

 

[Jegsimmons]

Right, before I start I want to make it clear that I don't support any of the things mentioned in this thread, I just thought about it and wanted to see what others thought. Now then, everyone in the world knows the swastika as the sign of the Nazi Party and many know the hammer and sickle as a sign of the USSR. The communist USSR, under Stalin killed at least 17 million Russians, or Russian speakers. Hitler, though still crazy, killed about 10 million at least. (This isn't counting the death toll of the war, I see that as every nation involved.) Anyway, my point is, how come, though the leaders of the USSR are responsible for many more deaths, why is it acceptable for people to wear T-shirts, hoodies, accessories etc with the hammer and sickle on, but if someone was to walk around with a Swastika T-shirt, they would get so much more hate and disapproval talks. Is this just because the Nazis were seen as the bad guys because they were the main enemy or is it something more of a cult thing that spread? I just want to know what you guys think. (This is just a brief overview, without going into the Nazi-soviet pact, the hammer and sickle in modern communist parties etc.)

well its ironic to wear a commie hoodie you bought at a hot topic.
we also never honestly fought the USSR

also, i dont consider the moron teens and college students that think they are enlightened by their sophomore year as actual commies.
(especially when they wear che guevera shirts because they think he was a revolutionary even though he was a murdering fascist who was also fairly racist and committed several war crimes. Thanks for takeing his ass out bolivia)

Now people who think that the government should be in charge of ALL political and economical decisions while the people make their own means of production in a classless society are communist. And they make me fucking puke.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

The problem with this topic and every topic related is that people think that Stalin=Communist.
Communism is a good system if done right. Stalin was a paranoid maniac who had the power.
That doesn't make the whole system bad.

Is every sort of energy used since nuclear energy was used to nuke 2 cities in WW2? I doubt it. It's not the energy, it's the user. Same goes for systems. Communism is neither really good nor really bad. It has it good and bad sides, but it's mostly neutral/good-ish.

There is the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It's the country where my parents were born. Unfortunately, it met it's end soon after my birth (I didn't do anything, trust me ). Anyone living in that country says it was the best system people can come up.
Tito was the leader. Everyone who was ready to work had a job. Everyone who wanted to study had free education. Free GREAT education. Many great minds came out of those schools/college. Everyone had GREAT free medical care. Everyone had food.

Looking at the current time, people in that time were actually living, unlike us who are just surviving in this retarded system. Working for over 8 hours a day just to be able to pay for my basic needs, 90% of the world capital in the hands of just a few % of the population....
Communism isn't broken, if anything capitalism is. Capitalism is actually the only system which is breaking it self.


So to answer the question. Fascism is a system where everyone who doesn't meet a certain standard is eliminated. If you ask fascists, women won't have rights, homosexuality would be punished by death and many more bad things.
Communism takes the away stuff from those who have to much, gives it to those who have to little. Everyone who is able to work has to work in order for the country to move forward. Education and medical care are free, everyone has food.

Don't take only the bad examples of a system and say the whole system is bad. Stalin was a maniac with power. A paranoid maniac with power.
On the other hand we have Tito who said NO to Staling (actually the only guy at that time who had the guts to say that) and had a GREAT country running. Although in the SFRY Tito used a red star to represent communism.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Besides, he helped replace an authoritarian regime (pay your fucking taxes and follow the fucking rules and we won't have a problem) with a totalitarian (we own your ass now, *****) one. Yeah, gotta love all that freedom. If you wanted to make the arguement that he was about economic equality and not freedom, then go ahead and do so, but don't call him a freedom-fighter.

Read up on Batista [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista], the guy Guevara and Castro fought to overthrow. Here's a quick rundown:

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.

Also this was the guy that the US propped up

 

[Baresark]

People are putting way too much thought into this. When push comes to shove, ideals of time change. It doesn't matter that Stalin communist, or Hitler was a fascist (in outright admittance because he professed to hate socialism). Symbols change over time. I shave my head, and for years people thought I was a "skin head". This was never true, but the neo-nazi movement in America took the imagery of how soccer fans represented their team and turned it into a common look for their followers. People who represent a movement want a common symbol to rally under, whether it be a flag (US, UK, Netherlands, etc.) or a hairstyle (shaved head) or a color (bloods, crypts, police forces, etc.).

Imagery changes over time. The art style of communist Russia is called Socialist Realism and remains a popular form of art design today. I have a friend who loves the art style, though he is not a socialist. The reason why the Swastika remains the same negative imagery is simply because a good portion of the world still teaches the horrors of fascist Germany.

I used to get mad at people wearing the image of Che Guevara all the time. They like to drop bullshit lines about how he represents "rebellion". The hard fact is, he lead a communist revolution in South America, so his image does, in the loosest terms, represent revolution. Most people who sport the image of good old Che would not support his revolution if they understood what that lead up to. Just like people who support communism don't really seem to understand what their ideals has historically always lead up to. The hammer and sickle do not represent communism necessarily, but the image became very popular for communists because they support the worker class exclusively and all things that come with that.

An image is only an image, and people give it the spin they want to give it. That is all there is to that.

 

[Terrara]

Hammer and sickle was a flag of the country for 80 years, there was good and bad. Swastika is only associated with the short period of Hitler's rule and his ideology. I really don't think it had anything to do with 10 million dead in the army of ussr during the war itself, no.

 

[peruvianskys]

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.

I agree with pretty much everything else you said though.

I agree that radical capitalism and radical socialism are both really shitty ideas. The balance definitely lies in the middle.

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 morals

First off, both communism and fascism are inherently immoral because they require massive human rights violations. You cannot have a fascist or communist regime without the results being horrific because mass murder, bigotry, inequality, and totalitarianism are all in the definition of those two philosophies. You can't have one without the other. So unless we say that pogroms, purges, censorship, theft, graft, and deportations/mass executions of political dissidents aren't immoral, then it's completely reasonable to say that the systems requiring such actions are evil too.

Secondly, while there is a social and cultural definition of right and wrong, some basic human tenants of decency stretch across those barriers and just because a culture decides to flagrantly ignore them out of vitriolic hate doesn't mean that it's okay. The Holocaust was wrong whether or not the people doing it thought so and we see that clearly now, just like we see how slavery was wrong or how we will one day see how animal ownership is wrong. It's regressive and dangerous to argue that just because you don't think something is wrong, then it isn't! Very few people willingly do evil things knowing that they are evil; does that mean that only serial killers and psychopaths can ever be judged as "wrong?"

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.

As an anarchist myself, I mean no criticism towards communal/social anarchism in the vein of Kropotkin or the Catalan autonomous communities. I'm referring here to Russian-style state communism or Marxism, which I think we can agree, as anarchists, is disgusting.

 

[APSunder]

Just puttin it out there... Communism is a form of Democracy. The US is a Republic, because it has representatives that push through/veto bills that turn into laws. In Communism/Democracy, everyone gets one vote.

 

[AnarchistFish]

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.

As an anarchist myself, I mean no criticism towards communal/social anarchism in the vein of Kropotkin or the Catalan autonomous communities. I'm referring here to Russian-style state communism or Marxism, which I think we can agree, as anarchists, is disgusting.

I think calling it communism is wrong in the first place.

Just puttin it out there... Communism is a form of Democracy. The US is a Republic, because it has representatives that push through/veto bills that turn into laws. In Communism/Democracy, everyone gets one vote.

The US is a republic because it doesn't have a monarchy. It has representative democracy, which is a very twisted form of democracy. In proper communism there theoretically wouldn't be need for a vote since all decisions would be made by the people and there wouldn't be a central government.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Also this was the guy that the US propped up

Yeah I know, the USA was a bunch of assholes back then. The Anti-communist attitude is still present among the majority of it's people too, albeit not as much as 60 years ago. It certainly isn't as violent either.

 

[AlloAllo]

Same reason you can wear Che Guevara shirts. That guy basically ruined Cuba, was involved in countless bloody revolutions, yet he's seen by many as a hero, a goddamn freedom fighter.

He was a freedom fighter. The regimes he fought were authoritarian ones that suppressed their people so it'd be hard to argue that the fundamental aim of the revolutions was wrong.

Ah yes, a man who executed civilians, soldiers and police officers alike without giving them any form of trial. Yup, sounds like a good guy to me.

It matters not wether or not he was fighting for a right cause or not. It's like saying, well. Hitler did well making Germany a fascist nation cause he put Germany back on the map. But hey, the end justifies the means, right?

One guy's hero is another one's villain. No one can really live 'til the end of his days as a pure saint- unless somebody doesn't kill him before he can do anything else, of course.

In other words: leave it.

Ghandi did manage to contribute to a "revolution" without any use of force and he definately did not execute people... Yet, you don't see people wearing his face on their shirts.

TBH he's probably a better role model than Guevara.

As I said to answer to him, it's all about the point of view. You can't force your idea upon somebody else just because you think it's right, and, besides, no one will change what they think no matter how much you keep insisting.

People do stuff, he thinks that's wrong, the other one thinks that's right, another one thinks it was a necessary evil and yadda yadda, useless war upon something that won't change no matter what.

Just... leave it. For the love of God. Don't go out of topic because your idea was challenged by a stranger on a forum.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Also this was the guy that the US propped up

Yeah I know, the USA was a bunch of assholes back then. The Anti-communist attitude is still present among the majority of it's people too, albeit not as much as 60 years ago. It certainly isn't as violent either.

I'd say that the US still hold sentiments like that, when you look at places like Israel.

In the UK the news showed a clip of a guy at some rally in the US shouting at the journalist asking if he was a communist. I think it was some tea party thing though.

at least the Soviets fought the nazis.

The Soviets fought the Nazis cos they were attacked by them. Originally they were willing to let the Nazis invade all of Europe so they don't exactly have the moral high ground.

also we cannnot create a utopia EVER! human nature would not let it happen.

It's beliefs like that that make it impossible in the first place.

 

[SonicKoala]

For the most part, it didn't. Gypsy and Jews were targeted on occasions, but it had less to do with the race and more to do with the life style (Both were, at the time, highly secular. Not really in line with the 'Party First' ideal).

Secular means separate from religion, which is exactly what the Communists wanted. I think you mean both groups were religious.

 

[Kair]

So many people talk about things they know so little about. It is nice that you ask though.

 

[peruvianskys]

So many people talk about things they know so little about. It is nice that you ask though.

If you are a Marxist, please give me three examples of successful communist states. Or one, maybe.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Nazism and the Swastika:
Antisemitism and state headed prejudiced.

Communism and the Hammer and Sickle:
Everyone is equal, ect ect

The symbol does not stand for the person... it stands for the political ideology.
On its own, without Hitler, nazis are still evil.
Where as without Stalin, Communism is just stupid.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I'd say that the US still hold sentiments like that, when you look at places like Israel.

In the UK the news showed a clip of a guy at some rally in the US shouting at the journalist asking if he was a communist. I think it was some tea party thing though.

Yeah, you'll see that every now and again. I find the more absurd ones to typify US anti-communism more than any others though. In almost every pirate thread you'll see a couple Americans saying how they're communists for wanting everything for free. It isn't something every American hates, but there is definitely more hatred than love for communism.

also we cannnot create a utopia EVER! human nature would not let it happen.

It's beliefs like that that make it impossible in the first place.

You'd need a true communist to take up the position and a protégé that they'd pass on their ideals to before you attain a perfect communist state. Any slight deviation would throw the entire country into another Stalinist state, a horrific monstrosity of a once wonderful idea with so much potential.

 

[Kair]

So many people talk about things they know so little about. It is nice that you ask though.

If you are a Marxist, please give me three examples of successful communist states. Or one, maybe.

You know very little about this subject, and the question you ask is rhetorical.
Most likely I can't tell you anything that you have not already insisted on ignoring.