Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron? 😂 like the whole point of communism is that there isn’t a ruling class. I guess Russia and China were never really communist, just statist authoritarian right? I mean, the Nazis called themselves Socialist. They were nowhere near that
Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron?
Most real life implementations of communism used an authoritarian one party system. You can say these aren’t true examples of communism, but that just ends up sounding like cope unfortunately.
The proletariat are by definition the majority. The Soviet Union was by no means ruled by the majority. Stalin murdered millions to enforce his autocracy—the exact opposite of majority rule.
just to chime in with an anarchist perspective-- majority rule, as lionized by proponents of liberal democracies, is itself a form of heirarchy in which the will of an ostensible ‘majority’ (though usually that of the capital- owning class actually) is inflicted upon society as a whole, alienating the minority position, enforced by the state apparatus’ monopoly of violence.
if one values bodily autonomy, reconciled with the needs of the collective, a system of governance like mutual collective determination must be established which guarantees that all voices are heard and acknowledged.
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.
this is incorrect. the USSR made a suggestion to Czechoslovakia to make a defensive pact in case of nazi invasion. they also suggested this to poland. the polish did not like the idea. poland teamed up with nazi germany to invade czechoslovakia, and czechoslovakia preferred the help of the west, which backstabbed them and did not assist them despite declarations to the contrary. this meant that the soviet union could not intervene early in a large alliance against nazi germany. instead, they had to rebuild after the civil war as quickly as possible. they are on record knowing the germans were going to attack well before the war.
it should also be noted that poland invaded and annexed parts of independent ukraine and russia prior to WW2. the west was hoping the nazis and poland would both invade russia together. the polish ambassador to germany was in fact favorable to handing danzig over to nazi germany, and is on record about their surprise at the attack on poland. the fact that the soviet union suggested an alliance to poland was a massive act of deference considering the recent history.
why you have an obsession about stalin is beyond me. especially in regards to advocating for violence against marginalized groups that are usually socialist ‘tankies’. the soviet union does not exist anymore. grow up.
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.
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.
Terrible understanding of the sequence of events. The bartering of Czechoslovakia by the West was itself the first invasion, and it was supported by the West. Notably, the Soviet Union did not cede ground to the Nazis, they prevented that ground from being gained and those people from being slaughtered. The West made a NAP with the Nazis and handed vast swathes of people over for extermination. The Nazis were bound to invade Poland no matter what, and it should be noted that France made no offensive push during the invasion of Poland in order to make it happen faster. I would even argue that things were so close on the Eastern Front, that if the Soviet Union did not take back western Belarus and Ukraine the Nazis would have won the war.
Improving geopolitical position is ideological opposition to Nazism, which had always postured itself as an enemy to communism.
Hard-core authoritarian communist. The kinda peeps who support Stalin and shit
Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron? 😂 like the whole point of communism is that there isn’t a ruling class. I guess Russia and China were never really communist, just statist authoritarian right? I mean, the Nazis called themselves Socialist. They were nowhere near that
Yes. Yes, it is. I sometimes call them “pseudocommunists” for this reason.
Most real life implementations of communism used an authoritarian one party system. You can say these aren’t true examples of communism, but that just ends up sounding like cope unfortunately.
None of those states ever gave economic or political power to the working classes.
well socialism has the proletariat as the ruling class, this is true in Marxism & anarchism even if anarchists word it differently
The proletariat are by definition the majority. The Soviet Union was by no means ruled by the majority. Stalin murdered millions to enforce his autocracy—the exact opposite of majority rule.
just to chime in with an anarchist perspective-- majority rule, as lionized by proponents of liberal democracies, is itself a form of heirarchy in which the will of an ostensible ‘majority’ (though usually that of the capital- owning class actually) is inflicted upon society as a whole, alienating the minority position, enforced by the state apparatus’ monopoly of violence.
if one values bodily autonomy, reconciled with the needs of the collective, a system of governance like mutual collective determination must be established which guarantees that all voices are heard and acknowledged.
Communism must be enforced somehow, it just ends up being authoritarian because of that
The same can be said for capitalism though.
Capitalism must be enforced somehow, it ends up being an oligarchy or authoritarian because of that.
Not sure I disagree, necessarily, but that’s the answer to your question.
it’s also not an either or situation
Certain aspects of Stalin? Or in general?
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.
nonsense, communists were on the front line to kill people like hitler. this is holocaust denial
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.
this is incorrect. the USSR made a suggestion to Czechoslovakia to make a defensive pact in case of nazi invasion. they also suggested this to poland. the polish did not like the idea. poland teamed up with nazi germany to invade czechoslovakia, and czechoslovakia preferred the help of the west, which backstabbed them and did not assist them despite declarations to the contrary. this meant that the soviet union could not intervene early in a large alliance against nazi germany. instead, they had to rebuild after the civil war as quickly as possible. they are on record knowing the germans were going to attack well before the war.
it should also be noted that poland invaded and annexed parts of independent ukraine and russia prior to WW2. the west was hoping the nazis and poland would both invade russia together. the polish ambassador to germany was in fact favorable to handing danzig over to nazi germany, and is on record about their surprise at the attack on poland. the fact that the soviet union suggested an alliance to poland was a massive act of deference considering the recent history.
why you have an obsession about stalin is beyond me. especially in regards to advocating for violence against marginalized groups that are usually socialist ‘tankies’. the soviet union does not exist anymore. grow up.
more info here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Czechoslovak_border_conflicts
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.
Terrible understanding of the sequence of events. The bartering of Czechoslovakia by the West was itself the first invasion, and it was supported by the West. Notably, the Soviet Union did not cede ground to the Nazis, they prevented that ground from being gained and those people from being slaughtered. The West made a NAP with the Nazis and handed vast swathes of people over for extermination. The Nazis were bound to invade Poland no matter what, and it should be noted that France made no offensive push during the invasion of Poland in order to make it happen faster. I would even argue that things were so close on the Eastern Front, that if the Soviet Union did not take back western Belarus and Ukraine the Nazis would have won the war.
Improving geopolitical position is ideological opposition to Nazism, which had always postured itself as an enemy to communism.
BASED