• TheFriendlyDickhead@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

    The difference is that Hitler was after one specific group of people and wanted to eradicate them. Nobody says that Stalin was as bad as Hitler, bit his death count was just as high. He killed millions of political enemies or people in the regions he conquered.

  • Haus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    115
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    2 years ago

    Basing your opinions on socialism on how Russia implemented it makes about as much sense as basing an opinion on Democracy on how Putin has implemented it.

      • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Cuba, Vietnam, Allende’s Chile perhaps, but it’s not like any are perfect. There’s a wide range of socialist approaches used in different countries around the world though.

        Moderate socialist governments effectively weren’t allowed to exist, the US sponsored fascist coups and did whatever they could to remove them. So the ones that were able to survive had to be more extreme, autocratic, and isolationist.

      • Not_mikey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        If your looking for modern day examples, the zapatistas are a pretty good example.

        For historical examples you can look to the Paris commune, civil war Barcelona, the original zapatista movement.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Communism, like capitalism, is an extreme that has certain, very difficult to achieve, requirements. Capitalism needs everyone to be morally decent in order for companies to focus on winning customers through innovation instead of propganda and lobbying, and to accept losses instead of whining. Even the transition into communism is incredibly complicated and technically what where the USSR was stuck, and once there you have to hope that the rest of the world went along with it because it’ll work either on increbily small scales(individual companies, for example) or on a global scale but not really on a mid-sized scale. Plus in both you have basic greed and people who are literally just born narcissitic or legitimately psychotic.

        Extreme ideologies are great thought experiments but rarely have any kind of well-developed protections built and are pretty fragile.

        If you want a better answer, look at the quality of life in countries with stronger regulations and more communism-according-to-North America systems. In the heavily privatised U.S. there are a lot of people who live absolutely shit lives due to an abyssmal lack of protections. Even in Canada, which is far too close to the U.S. here, at least a homeless person can recieve some level of medical assistance including major surgeries and Covid stimulus was more than a cheap joke.

        Extreme

  • patomaloqueiro@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    This is more accurate: Online discussion about capitalism

    People living in a third world capitalist country

    14-year-old white boy living in a Western country: I know more than you

  • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    14 year old white girl

    Bravo they managed to also cram ageism and misogyny in the old “champagne socialism” meme. All in the single sentence.

  • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    This meme doesn’t work, because in the scene the image comes from, we have every reason to believe Ron Swanson actually does know more than the employee at the hardware store.

    • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      TBF I wouldn’t be surprised if survivors of a collapsed dictatorship didn’t know much about the definition, theories, or philosophies of Communism. Stalin isn’t “the working people” and therefor his seizure of the means of production was not communism.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    2 years ago

    What people who lived in the Soviet union and other socialist states have to say:

    This study shows that unprecedented mortality crisis struck Eastern Europe during the 1990s, causing around 7 million excess deaths. The first quantitative analysis of the association between deindustrialization and mortality in Eastern Europe.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        2 years ago

        The trajectory Hungary took after transition to capitalism mirrors what happened in most post USSR states. This just further supports the point that the communist system was better.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            2 years ago

            What happened in countries like Hungary and Poland is a direct result of the transition to capitalism however. What’s more this transition happened under the best possible conditions. The transition happened largely democratically without any violent revolutions, and these countries got support from the west to soften economic impact of the transition. Yet, despite all that we see that majority of post Soviet countries end up going in a similar direction under capitalism. Again, Hungary isn’t an outlier here.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                2 years ago

                Thing is that bad management, corruption, and so on, have happened in every human society that has ever existed. A political system isn’t magically going to change that. What a political system can do however is create different selection pressures for behavior. Capitalist system selects for different kinds of behaviors than a communist one. As we see with the case of transition from communism to capitalism in eastern Europe, the selection pressures of capitalism result in far worse things happening than under communism.

      • Ludwig van Beethoven@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        Hard agree. Our government will wreck the economy just to die on two hills: social conservatism (EU funding says hi) and russian reliance. Russian gas, russian atom (x2) because they want to build Paks II. They also gerrymandered the everliving fuck out of electoral districts so they can win their precious supermajority. I hope they fail on at least one of the aforementioned hills so they can drop the ball like the now-opposition did in 2006. As for communism, well, the 72% seems very wrong. Sure we had dictatorship-lite, but 1956 happened beforehand, to which we lost many of our schools for example. Plenty of (grand+)parents’ tales paint communism like it was the worst thing that could possibly have happened. Also, if 72% of people preferred communism, then surely the dem. socialist party would Poll higher than 3%.

        Reminder that fidesz (the govt party) was originally anti-communist. (I am Hungarian if it wasn’t obvious).

          • Ludwig van Beethoven@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            God how hard it will be for people to realise how fucking stupid making more russian reactors and signing more russian gas contracts are. Our electoral system is in shambles1. social issues are overwhelmingly conservative here. The bigger green party is anti-gLObaLisM. The neo-na**s have the same amount of seats as green party number 1.

            1: 2022: Popular vote: 54,13% Fidesz-KDNP; 34,44% United Opposition; 5,88% Our Homeland (neo-na**s). cf district votes: Fidesz-KDNP 87, United Opposition 19.

            Mixed system so parliament makeup (199 seats) is 135 seats - 67,84% for Fidesz-KDNP; 57 seats - 28,64% for United Opposition; 6 seats - 3,02% for Our Homeland; and 1 seat for German national representation thing.

            So yeah, shit’s fucked

  • Prunebutt@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Considering that the USSR only claimed to be socialist and used propaganda (in accord with the US) to convince the people that state control is the same as worker’s control over the means of production (it isn’t), the girl is probably correct.

    • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      An Excerpt from Parenti - Blackshirts and reds:


      The upheavals in Eastern Europe did not constitute a defeat for socialism because socialism never existed in those countries, according to some U.S. leftists. They say that the communist states offered nothing more than bureaucratic, one-party “state capitalism” or some such thing. Whether we call the former communist countries “socialist” is a matter of definition. Suffice it to say, they constituted something different from what existed in the profit-driven capitalist world–as the capitalists themselves were not slow to recognize.

      First, in communist countries there was less economic inequality than under capitalism. The perks enjoyed by party and government elites were modest by corporate CEO standards in the West [even more so when compared with today’s grotesque compensation packages to the executive and financial elites.—Eds], as were their personal incomes and lifestyles. Soviet leaders like Yuri Andropov and Leonid Brezhnev lived not in lavishly appointed mansions like the White House, but in relatively large apartments in a housing project near the Kremlin set aside for government leaders. They had limousines at their disposal (like most other heads of state) and access to large dachas where they entertained visiting dignitaries. But they had none of the immense personal wealth that most U.S. leaders possess. {Nor could they transfer such “wealth” by inheritance or gift to friends and kin, as is often the case with Western magnates and enriched political leaders. Just vide Tony Blair.—Eds]

      The “lavish life” enjoyed by East Germany’s party leaders, as widely publicized in the U.S. press, included a $725 yearly allowance in hard currency, and housing in an exclusive settlement on the outskirts of Berlin that sported a sauna, an indoor pool, and a fitness center shared by all the residents. They also could shop in stores that carried Western goods such as bananas, jeans, and Japanese electronics. The U.S. press never pointed out that ordinary East Germans had access to public pools and gyms and could buy jeans and electronics (though usually not of the imported variety). Nor was the “lavish” consumption enjoyed by East German leaders contrasted to the truly opulent life style enjoyed by the Western plutocracy.

      Second, in communist countries, productive forces were not organized for capital gain and private enrichment; public ownership of the means of production supplanted private ownership. Individuals could not hire other people and accumulate great personal wealth from their labor. Again, compared to Western standards, differences in earnings and savings among the populace were generally modest. The income spread between highest and lowest earners in the Soviet Union was about five to one. In the United States, the spread in yearly income between the top multibillionaires and the working poor is more like 10,000 to 1.

      Third, priority was placed on human services. Though life under communism left a lot to be desired and the services themselves were rarely the best, communist countries did guarantee their citizens some minimal standard of economic survival and security, including guaranteed education, employment, housing, and medical assistance.

      Fourth, communist countries did not pursue the capital penetration of other countries. Lacking a profit motive as their motor force and therefore having no need to constantly find new investment opportunities, they did not expropriate the lands, labor, markets, and natural resources of weaker nations, that is, they did not practice economic imperialism. The Soviet Union conducted trade and aid relations on terms that generally were favorable to the Eastern European nations and Mongolia, Cuba, and India.

      All of the above were organizing principles for every communist system to one degree or another. None of the above apply to free market countries like Honduras, Guatemala, Thailand, South Korea, Chile, Indonesia, Zaire, Germany, or the United States.

      But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

      The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    2 years ago

    Pretty much Lemmy. I grew up in a communist civil war, hosing blood off my sidewalk was a weekly chore, the neighbors vanishing cause they pissed someone off and were labeled red. But yeah, Lemmy teens, you guys know all about it! /S

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Did you still use money to buy goods and services? Was your father able to do speak up at work? Change jobs? Go on vacations?

      Just because something called itself communism didn’t make it communism. The state owning everything is the opposite of communism. In extreme communism, there isn’t even a damn state as we know it.

      The people in the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea do not live in a democracy nor a republic.

      • mutter9355@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        The ussr may not have been communist, but it was definitely the initial goal. The idea of a revolution that leads to a dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently flawed. You just end up replacing a corrupt government with another corrupt government.

        • Album@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          The idea of a revolution that leads to a dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently flawed.

          Not all Communists are Marxist-Lenninists or Stalinist… But obviously Lenin and Stalin were. Non-ML Communists would agree with you.

        • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Revolutions in general are only really good for replacing dictatorships and monarchies, it’s kind of like re-rolling your government with a high chance of getting the worst kind, so you only use it when your government is already the worst kind. Usually, Power Vacuum’s just get filled by whoever has the most military might.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          In many ways, yes. It is absolutely an ideal that is not compatible with current reality.

          That’s why anyone who’s remotely realistic about it understands it’s an end state of pushing for anarcho-socialistic policies, one that maybe cannot be achieved. Like saying, “Humanity will walk on the moon.” when it’s 1910. Conceivable? Kinda’. Possible? Hell no.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      This certainly never happens with liberalism. Africa has never seen war since democracy and liberalism freed it obviously. And putin is the prime example of a communist I guess.

    • CluckN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      2 years ago

      Erm pushes up glasses that wasn’t real communism because real communism works.

      • loutr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Well it’s the same for the free market really. On paper it’s a nice idea, but in practice it makes the world miserable because people are, in general, fucking selfish assholes.

      • Album@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Lol ya right?!

        The NSDAP was a real socialist party.

        The Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea is actually democratic and governed by the people.

  • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    … apart from that it’s also most unlikely it’s 14 year old girls who are the people writing this in online discussions.

  • Pieresqi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Ah yes, “communism”. Op show me 1 country with communism. Dictatorship with ‘communism’ in their name don’t count.

    • Sami_Uso@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      Wait are you telling me the Democratic Republic of North Korea is neither Democratic or a Republic?? Like they’d just lie?

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      I can name several countries that tried to do a communism, and wound up being what communists insist doesn’t count.

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 years ago

          Such as the Russian revolution that modern communists have mixed praise for until a dictator emerged and so it doesn’t count.

          Or the Chinese revolution that modern communists have mixed praise for until a dictator emerged and so it doesn’t count.

          Or the Cuban revolution that be serious you know goddamn well what we’re talking about. I wasn’t being coy. People call these dictatorships communist because they’re the only countries that were ever called communist, and - generally speaking - they became dictatorships after genuinely attempting to implement communism.

          If you want to say it’s like shitting on democratic republics because of the French revolution, hey great sure, that’s an attempt gone terribly wrong. Revolutions are pluripotent and dictatorships can emerge from nearly anything. But advocates of secular democracy can point to examples that went right.

      • Murais@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Tell that to anarchocommunists.

        I’m sure it will be news to them that they will want to hear.

        • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          Communism, especially Marxist-Leninism, seems to require some sort of benevolent dictator who is willing to work towards destroying their own power, which obviously never seems to happen. ML theories state the need for a Vanguard state, which is a dictatorship that is supposed to be there to simply enforce the rule of the working class until a time when it is no longer needed.

          So the idea of dictatorship is built into the major form of communism that has been tried, basically. One of the main problems with this is that the steps a nation has to take before it gets to “true communism” in ML theory are ripe for abuse, and hard to get through without someone corrupt seizing power.

          I think there are some good theories in Marx writings, it’s just the methods for attempting to implement it definitely need to be reexamined because they don’t work.

          • bouh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            The vanguard state is a mean to reach communism, it is not communism itself. That’s a pretty big difference.

            The difference is the same with the gouvernement révolutionnaire in France during the revolution, and you can make parallels with US revolution too. I’m pretty sure the US government is very different from what it was during its war against UK.

          • Murais@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            This is where I tend to disagree with Marx as well.

            Capital is a fantastic book full of scathing and prophetic analyses of capitalism and its innate degradation of value and connection.

            The Communist Manifesto is a book with some good ideas but some implementation that I find flawed. And that’s not a knock on Marx-- critiquing problems is a significantly easier prospect than offering solutions.

            But a lot of Marx’s proposals for the implementation of Communism are rooted in authoritarianism, even if their end goal is the dissolution of the state and capital. Also, for an ideology versed in the formation and interdependence of worker communities, the Day of the Rope is kind of antithetical to establishing solidarity and mostly serves, I believe, as masturbatory schadenfreude.

            But hey, I’m willing to fix some of the stuff that doesn’t work instead of throwing more fuel into the machine that over-harvests people and our planet to the point of destruction.

            I really like this nuanced take, btw. Thanks for posting it.

  • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    The difference is that Hitler was after one specific group of people and wanted to eradicate them.

    Either you have no idea what you’re talking about, or you’re just a straight up nazi apologist.

    Which one are you?

  • Uniquitous@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 years ago

    LOL, I knew this sub was digging for old memes but bringing back actual red-baiting? chef’s kiss

  • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Hey, whoever told you those numbers is lying to you. The nazis killed 11 million people in the holocaust and 26-27 million soviet citizens. High estimates for people killed by the USSR outside of defeating nazism, failures, and sabotage is in the 100,000s, which is noticeably lower than capitalist oligarchies like the US and Britain. Also killing people based on them wanting to bring back old caste systems through violence is morally distinct from racism based mass killings.

    The difference is that Hitler was after one specific group of people and wanted to eradicate them.

    Also this isnt true, Jewish people, roma, nuerodivergent, disabled, trade unionists socialists, communists, gay people, trans people, the list goes on.

    Also you’re still equating the two after being told doing so is holocaust denial. You’re saying “well they killed equivalent amounts of people!”

    • TheFriendlyDickhead@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      How is saying Stalin wasn’t a great guy either denying the holocaust?

      Also this isnt true, Jewish people, Roma, nuerodivergent people, disabled people, trade unionists socialists, communists, gay people, trans people, the list goes on.

      Yes ofc, but a big percentage of the deportated people were Jewish. They killed two thirds of the European Jewish population.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

      High estimates for people killed by the USSR outside of defeating nazism, failures, and sabotage is in the 100,000s

      No: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin

      • dialectical_analysis_of_gock [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Stalin for example was a mass murderer just like Hitler. So why would anybody like him?

        Here is a mainstream Jewish holocaust survivor saying equating the communists and fascists is holocaust trivialization.

        You have compared communists and fascists, thus trivializing the Holocaust.

        Are you referring to famines caused by the Kulaks destroying grain exacerbating a natural famine cycle, something that was somewhat common before the modern era. If you are, would you also say that every death caused by starvation due to poverty in capitalist countries should count towards the leader’s “death count”?

        • TheFriendlyDickhead@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          This isn’t about communism and fascism. It’s about two asholes who killed millions. And I never trivialize the holocaust. I am just saying that Stalin killed a lot of people too. And more than just a few thousand. 20 million is a lot of dead people. So mb not as bad as Hitler but still realy not a great person. So the comparison to Hitler still stands.

      • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        How is saying Stalin wasn’t a great guy either denying the holocaust?

        You aren’t saying that though, you are saying that they killed an equivalent amount of people. You’re morally equating them. Also even the CIA didn’t consider stalin a dictator in their since declassified internal documents, treating him as one is another way you were taught to equate the USSR with nazi Germany.

        Yes ofc, but a big percentage of the deportated people were Jewish. They killed two thirds of the European Jewish population.

        I know, that isn’t the only group they targeted though. I was simply correcting an inaccuracy in what you said.

        No:

        Sorry, I thought it was high hundreds of thousands but it was actually a million. My mistake. Still, that is in no way similar to killing upwards of 35 million people in the name of bigotry.

        • TheFriendlyDickhead@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          some historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin’s regime were 20 million or higher. (Same link as before: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin)

          It’s more that a million.

          I don’t know why you made this discussion about if he was as bad as Hitler. I never said so. I’m just saying that those numbers are not that far apart from each other. Thus making Stalin a murderer of millions. This discussion originated in a guy basicly saying that Stalin was indeed a great leader and personality. Which he is not.

          And he willingly allied with Hitler. So moral he was OK with the crimes Hitler committed. At the same Time he deported a lot of people himself. Not as many and not as organized as Hitler, but still in the millions.

          Stalin was a bad guy and Hitler was way worse. Happy? Just because that other guy was worse they can still play in the same category. “People who killed millions and deported a lot of people”