Are we communists?!

[Kair]

Double post because of server problems.

 

[AnarchistFish]

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.

So much lol

When you say you're an anarchist, what do you actually believe in specifically?

 

[peruvianskys]

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.

Hardly! You are advocating a political philosophy and I am asking you to show me an example of it not failing terribly. What's so wrong with that? I've read the classics, I'm not ignorant of communism's sociopolitical tenants, I'm just asking you to explain why Marxism has always failed.

When you say you're an anarchist, what do you actually believe in specifically?

I lean towards Mutualism or market anarchism, a la Benjamin Tucker or Proudon. I'm a heavy individualist anarchist but not an anarcho-capitalist.

 

[Harrowdown]

Part of it will just be that the USSR was on the side that won, and thus the side that wrote the history. That, and the crimes committed by the nazi party, whilst less numerous than those of Stalin, were significantly more grotesque in nature. Stalin killed dissenters and political enemies, but Hitler instigated the systematic eradication of an entire race.

 

[Kair]

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.

Hardly! You are advocating a political philosophy and I am asking you to show me an example of it not failing terribly. What's so wrong with that? I've read the classics, I'm not ignorant of communism's sociopolitical tenants, I'm just asking you to explain why Marxism has always failed.

When you say you're an anarchist, what do you actually believe in specifically?

I lean towards Mutualism or market anarchism, a la Benjamin Tucker or Proudon. I'm a heavy individualist anarchist but not an anarcho-capitalist.

"Marxism has always failed" - To give credit to Karl Marx: Marxism never tried.
Also, a Communist is not a Marxist.

The only conflict here is between you and the common misconception of what Communism is. I told you that you know very little about this subject, and I told you that very few people know much about this subject.
If I try to teach you, it would be as if I was trying to teach you what an apple is while you had already insisted to yourself that you knew that an apple is a banana.

 

[TiloXofXTanto]

The USSR were closer to fascism than communism, they weren't a properly socialist society. The hammer and sickle represents communism, not the USSR, whereas the swastika specifically represents the Nazis (in this context).

It's a 100% Russian symbol; they invented it, they used it. It was only later adopted by other communist nations.

Yeah, that's the point. It kinda represents the whole movement, although tbh I don't see many communists using it cos it still has that taboo.

Anyway, the hammer and sickle represents what the USSR was meant to be- a socialist utopia. The swastika represents Nazi beliefs, i.e. anti-semitism. So the hammer and sickle doesn't really represent the USSR's genocides like the swastika does with Nazi Germany.

Actually, the Swastika was an ancient symbol of purity and peace, the Nazi party took it as their symbol in order to symbolize that they were pure.
They never intended it to be the antisemitism symbol, that's just how people took it afterward. They didn't even really mean to use it to represent their beliefs or justify their genocide, they just wanted something to inspire and rally their soldiers and followers.

The hammer and sickle though was used simply to show that the USSR was supposed to be a utopian communist society, (they didn't do that very well) so I can see your point to that end.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

This is appropriate:

 

[peruvianskys]

"Marxism has always failed" - To give credit to Karl Marx: Marxism never tried.
Also, a Communist is not a Marxist.

The only conflict here is between you and the common misconception of what Communism is. I told you that you know very little about this subject, and I told you that very few people know much about this subject.
If I try to teach you, it would be as if I was trying to teach you what an apple is while you had already insisted to yourself that you knew that an apple is a banana.

That is a No True Scotsman argument in perfect form; you're looking at all these examples of people who openly identified as Marxist, supported by the vast majority of Marxists at the time, following principles based in the writings of Marx (and Engels) and saying "No, that wasn't Marxism!" It's like the capitalists today who argue that the shitstorm that currently plagues the world is not capitalism's fault because we didn't adhere to every comma and period in The Wealth of Nations. Maybe Marx never ran a country and maybe you can point out vague discrepancies between orthodox Marxist political economy and the basis of every communist regime in history, but again, it's hardly convincing proof that while every government and social movement proclaiming to be Marxist has failed, you can point out that it wasn't "really Marxism" and go on your way. It reminds me of the Christians who look at the crusades and pogroms and bloodshed throughout history and say, "Well those people weren't really Christians."

I hate to pull out the "I'm well-read" defense but you should know that I've read the Communist Manifesto, The Conquest of Bread, Lenin and Trotsky and all the "authentic Marxists" as well. So yes, if you want to get semantic, "communism" can never be state-run as defined by Marx. I get that. It doesn't change the fact that Marxism and the theories espoused by Marx have been the motivation behind dozens of terrible atrocities in the last hundred years.

In short, yes, pure Marxist "communism" is not the USSR or Pol Pot. But that doesn't mean that A) those people were not clearly motivated and often self-identified as ardent Marxists, and B) that Marxism in its pure form is even viable apart from those atrocities. If Marxism has never been tried, as you claim, then why?

 

[CrystalShadow]

That being said, I have never, in my life, seen ANYONE wear either symbols. I have only seen the swastika displayed in public in South Korea, but it was used by Buddhist (Scared the shit out of me the first time I saw it, though).

Yeah... That's what you get when some genocidal lunatics co-opt a religious symbol that's thousands of years old.

There are actually two versions of the swastika, which point in opposite directions. They mean, life, and death respectively. (And guess which one the Nazis were using?)

Still, both symbols are now completely ruined as far as their original purpose goes. I doubt anyone would give any thought to why it would be back to front for the other version.
And in general, only those who have some knowledge of buddhist history (or those like me that know this particular anecdote) would even realise this symbol has any meaning outside of it's use as the Nazi symbol.

Figures.

 

[Racecarlock]

No form of government is inherently evil. Even dictatorships. It's the people who run them that tend to be jackasses. And this is true of every form of government. Remember when bush lead our capitalist society? Yeah, that sucked. That said, most people, including you and I, are quick to make a stereotype out of it and judge ideologies based on the idiots that ran them, excluding the smart people that also might have ran them. Fear sucks, paranoia sucks. But neither are escapable.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Swasticas are associated with Nazis which are associated with evil, The Hammer and Sickle is largely associated with Russia, more specifically communist Russia. It's not directly associated with Stalin or evil things just with communism in a country. Therefore it is generally more acceptable.

 

[Kair]

"Marxism has always failed" - To give credit to Karl Marx: Marxism never tried.
Also, a Communist is not a Marxist.

The only conflict here is between you and the common misconception of what Communism is. I told you that you know very little about this subject, and I told you that very few people know much about this subject.
If I try to teach you, it would be as if I was trying to teach you what an apple is while you had already insisted to yourself that you knew that an apple is a banana.

That is a No True Scotsman argument in perfect form; you're looking at all these examples of people who openly identified as Marxist, supported by the vast majority of Marxists at the time, following principles based in the writings of Marx (and Engels) and saying "No, that wasn't Marxism!" It's like the capitalists today who argue that the shitstorm that currently plagues the world is not capitalism's fault because we didn't adhere to every comma and period in The Wealth of Nations. Maybe Marx never ran a country and maybe you can point out vague discrepancies between orthodox Marxist political economy and the basis of every communist regime in history, but again, it's hardly convincing proof that while every government and social movement proclaiming to be Marxist has failed, you can point out that it wasn't "really Marxism" and go on your way. It reminds me of the Christians who look at the crusades and pogroms and bloodshed throughout history and say, "Well those people weren't really Christians."

I hate to pull out the "I'm well-read" defense but you should know that I've read the Communist Manifesto, The Conquest of Bread, Lenin and Trotsky and all the "authentic Marxists" as well. So yes, if you want to get semantic, "communism" can never be state-run as defined by Marx. I get that. It doesn't change the fact that Marxism and the theories espoused by Marx have been the motivation behind dozens of terrible atrocities in the last hundred years.

In short, yes, pure Marxist "communism" is not the USSR or Pol Pot. But that doesn't mean that A) those people were not clearly motivated and often self-identified as ardent Marxists, and B) that Marxism in its pure form is even viable apart from those atrocities. If Marxism has never been tried, as you claim, then why?

So you have read up on 'how to argue versus communists for dummies'.
I tell you that you do not know what Communism is and that few people know what Communism is and you grab the closest stock-counterargument you find.

Otherwise, Your argument is as invalid as 'Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are to blame for the Holocaust and there can never be vegetarians again.'.

 

[k-ossuburb]

Only idiots ignorant of what the symbol actually means would find it offensive. Unfortunately that's a large majority since Hitler not only ruined the swastika but also the toothbrush mustache.

This example below shows some of the different iterations of what it is used for.

One of the most unfortunate is that it is one of the symbols of Jainism, a religion that strongly teaches pacifism and non-violence towards all living things. Completely at odds with the Nazi agenda.

 

[thevillageidiot13]

In the deaths within the USSR, it was mostly the fault of poor management by the part of Stalin and his successors, rather than some inherent problem with communism. Stalin, as leaders go, is a very poor example of a communist. Even Lenin warned his supporters not to give Stalin a chance to get into power, because he knew that Stalin would be a poor leader and give communism a bad name (which he did).

If you look at some other communist/socialist/quasi-socialist societies (Algeria directly after independence from France, Guatemala before the Armas takeover, Cuba to a certain extent), these are societies which did a very good job of taking care of their people through modest taxes on the wealthy and generous welfare programs.

On the other hand, the Nazi party was more-or-less built on the ideals of Hitler, and was therefore inherently evil.

TLDR: Communism itself wasn't evil; the deaths in the USSR were more a consequence of Stalin's stupidity rather than some inherent flaw in Marx or Lenin's ideals. On the other hand, the persecution of left-wingers and the Jewish population was more or less an inherent aspect of Nazi ideologies.

 

[LeeHarveyO]

The USSR were closer to fascism than communism, they weren't a properly socialist society. The hammer and sickle represents communism, not the USSR, whereas the swastika specifically represents the Nazis (in this context).

Umm yes the USSR was a communism, the Nazis were the facist ones.

 

[kingcom]

The USSR were closer to fascism than communism, they weren't a properly socialist society. The hammer and sickle represents communism, not the USSR, whereas the swastika specifically represents the Nazis (in this context).

It's a 100% Russian symbol; they invented it, they used it. It was only later adopted by other communist nations and movements.
And no, the Soviets were true communists if you define "communist" as following the teachings Marx and Engels outlined, with the only difference being that Lenin thought a violent revolution was the way to go while Marx thought it should be the last possible means.

No they were not communist, it was pretty clearly documented of Lenin's application of Praxis to skip the bourgeoisie social step and move directly into implementing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (small body running the state until people can do it on their own). Now before he died this step, even if you consider it to be within the theory of Marxism and not trating it as a devergence we call Leninism, is still only in a phase Marx documented as Socialism. A communist state does not exist until the dictatorship of the proletariat, led by Stalin after Lenin died and all the various groups were destroyed finished putting down the counter revolutions but never relinquished power. Therfore the USSR were never true communists in any sense of the word.

 

[Dark marauder]

Simple question Simple Answer.The answer is its because they won the war same with America nuking Japan they got away with it because they won

 

[peruvianskys]

So you have read up on 'how to argue versus communists for dummies'.
I tell you that you do not know what Communism is and that few people know what Communism is and you grab the closest stock-counterargument you find.

Otherwise, Your argument is as invalid as 'Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are to blame for the Holocaust and there can never be vegetarians again.'.

Please stop assuming my motivations are from some sort of furious anti-communism; quite the opposite, as a young adult I was very interested in the subject and I read up on it earnestly. I'm just not one anymore. Instead of attacking my motivations could you answer my assertions?

And that's an absurd straw-manning of my argument; are you really saying that Stalin's forced starvation of Ukrainian peasants had as little do with his Marxist philosophy than the Holocaust had to do with Hitler's vegetarianism? A more apt comparison would be "Hitler was a furiously antisemitic, therefore furious antisemitism was the blame for the Holocaust and there can never be antisemitism again." It's a historical simplification, as would be saying "Marxism is to blame for Pol Pot," but the link between philosophy and rational outcome of that philosophy/necessary steps required for the philosophy to work is definitely there.

 

[AnarchistFish]

The USSR were closer to fascism than communism, they weren't a properly socialist society. The hammer and sickle represents communism, not the USSR, whereas the swastika specifically represents the Nazis (in this context).

Umm yes the USSR was a communism, the Nazis were the facist ones.

The Nazis were fascist but the USSR had very fascist leanings and it certainly wasn't communist.

So you have read up on 'how to argue versus communists for dummies'.
I tell you that you do not know what Communism is and that few people know what Communism is and you grab the closest stock-counterargument you find.

Otherwise, Your argument is as invalid as 'Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are to blame for the Holocaust and there can never be vegetarians again.'.

Please stop assuming my motivations are from some sort of furious anti-communism; quite the opposite, as a young adult I was very interested in the subject and I read up on it earnestly. I'm just not one anymore. Instead of attacking my motivations could you answer my assertions?

And that's an absurd straw-manning of my argument; are you really saying that Stalin's forced starvation of Ukrainian peasants had as little do with his Marxist philosophy than the Holocaust had to do with Hitler's vegetarianism? A more apt comparison would be "Hitler was a furiously antisemitic, therefore furious antisemitism was the blame for the Holocaust and there can never be antisemitism again." It's a historical simplification, as would be saying "Marxism is to blame for Pol Pot," but the link between philosophy and rational outcome of that philosophy/necessary steps required for the philosophy to work is definitely there.

Marxism hadn't existed for very long before the USSR was formed. Sure, all examples of communist nations so far have failed (although I think western propaganda as exaggerated it to some extent) but it has succeeded in some small regions and who says it can't succeed because it failed first time? It failed because of circumstance, not because the aim is impossible to reach. Besides, capitalism has been around for much longer and that is yet to prove itself.

 

[Therumancer]

[This is factually incorrect. .

This is mostly what it comes down to. In the end we're not going to agree here, but simply put I think your wrong, as illustrated by this entire conversation. Stalin *IS* viewed differantly as the OP pointed out. The version of things you espouse is keeping with the whole "peace at any price" liberal idealogy where anyone who kills a lot of people for a principle is nessicarly wrong, or the bad guy. Reality sucks however and that's not true, and the fact that Stalin did terrible things for the right reasons given the situation he was faced with isn't something the current political slant of our educational system wants to deal with. As a result when people look at Stalin and how he's perceived outside of a tightly controlled left wing enviroment, it can be extremely confusing to one minute see him lumped in with modern mass murder, and then turn around and see people treating him like a hero within the idealogy he supported, especially the people he supposedly victimized.

This isn't to say Stalin was a great guy, he's more an example of how much the world sucks, easy and painless solutions to big problems don't exist, and how being a bastard works... frequently being the biggest bastard of a bunch is the only way to get anything done.