providing an essential academic counter-narrative to the rampant demonization of one of fascism’s most ardent enemies.
That seems awfully generous for a man that signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and only became an ardent enemy of the Nazi’s after they backstabbed him. I don’t have the time to energy to dive deeper before saying this sounds like one hell of an apologist for one of history’s most evil authoritarians and I have no desire to engage with it further. This man did not care for his comrades and anyone that equates him with any form of socialism is just poisoning socialism in the general public.
DigitalAudio@sopuli.xyz 5 days ago
What is the reasoning behind that conclusion? I can see how comparing the two simply because they’re totalitarian would be superficial (there are many structural differences between both). And to me, what the Nazis did, the rhetoric they used and their rise to power has always felt much more ominous and foreboding than even Stalin’s.
But I can’t put it into words and I see no real reason why Stalin’s crimes and death camps would in any way be less evil than the Nazis’. To me it feels like Nazis went beyond just political power straight into core beliefs and ideology, whereas Stalin’s crimes were just your typical tyrant authoritarian maneuvering, but I don’t know if that really makes an ethical difference.
mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
Here is a larger context of the quote, run it through some translator if you don’t know german
from “Thomas Mann Essays - Band 2 Politik” published by Hermann Kurzke pg 310-312
DigitalAudio@sopuli.xyz 5 days ago
Yeah, I think that managed to put my feeling into more concise words. Russian socialism cost many many lives, but at its core the principles it was trying to champion seem correct: it proposes fairness and dignity through the active improvement of people’s education and lives. Whereas fascist movements (Hitler, Mussolini, Trump) are actively destructive. They thrive off of people’s hatred and fear of “the other”.
I guess my main question would be… If the Soviet Union was truly raising thinking, critical workers that would one day not become slaves, then how is it possible that immediately after its collapse, Russia became almost immediately a fascist state that indeed allowed only slaves and never masters to exist beyond its oligarchy?
Something seems amiss in the proposition there. It seems to me like fascism is almost an unavoidable illness that comes to all societies sooner or later, and the only thing we can do is find ways to weaken it before it leads to catastrophic results.
MAGA will be a good example of how fascism comes to its end within societies that cannot be militarily opposed.
mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
The soviet union was an absolute academic powerhouse, for instance they won every space-race except the first walk on the moon. Women were particularly empowered this video essay is really really good www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnTlejH-WzQ
The collapse of the USSR was a betrayal from the top orchestrated with western companies that gutted the former socialist republics. Women with PhD’s were suddenly not being hired anymore and many were forced into sex work in order to survive. They even held a referendum in the months prior to legitimize the dissolution but the vast majority of the population voted in favor of keeping communism en.wikipedia.org/…/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum .