Comment on Why is lemmygrad not a banned instance anymore?

• AnarchoYeasty@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Tell me you know nothing about communism and nazism. Wanna know the craziest shit? Throughout the world since the end of world war 2 a pattern has emerged. Communists would launch a revolution to overthrow western backed dictators and the US would support fascists to keep them under control. Even before WW2 the Nazis got most of their ideas from the US, a liberal democracy. Curious. So if we have the communists, the Nazis who are fascists, and the US who support fascists which two sound more alike to you…

  Now if you want to argue the bolshevism is authoritarian as fuck then sure yeah it is. But that was only the dominant strain of communist beliefs because the libs betrayed Rosa Luxemburg to (surprise surprise) the fascists causing the revolution in Germany to fail and passing the torch to Russia, land of oppression and the Tsars. Is anyone shocked that the people in one of the most backwater oppressed parts of Europe turned out to be authoritarian as fuck? And once they became the only state pushing for communism every other revolution had to enact their brand of communism or be left to fight the US on their own.

  The ideal of Nazism is to oppress and destroy the other while building up the “tribe” and maintaining traditional power structures.

  The ideal of Communism is to liberate the masses and achieve equality.

  They are not the same.

  source

  • Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The ideal of Communism is to liberate the masses and achieve equality.

    So far we’ve seen dictatorships that killed the masses ._.

    source

    • AnarchoYeasty@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Same thing with the West that you are so opposed to critiquing. And I know you know how to read so I know you know WHY it is like that. But it’s not the only way. The free territory of Ukraine and Anarchist Barcelona were both communist and neither of them were authoritarian in their “rule”. They were the only real attempt at actual communism vs what the Bolshevists did, which was create a strong vanguard state until such a time as communism was ready to come forth. And they were both effective at doing it. They only disappeared because of the wars they were in (Russian/Soviet civil war and Spanish civil war respectively)

      source

      • rocketeer8015@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I wonder how korea fits into that view, overthrowing the western backed dictators sure didn’t work out that well for the North Koreans. And what are your thoughts on the Khmer Rouge, chinas mao etc… I don’t think any of those regimes would have turned out any nicer even if there had been a successful communist enclave in Europe.

        It looks to me as if communism in practice is little more than a thinly veiled ploy to fool uneducated masses into accepting a authoritarian government. Personally I think that it’s a fragile system that’s extremely vulnerable to be taken over by authoritarians “in the name of the people”. It‘s an idealistic system, and idealism is similar to religion in the sense that it’s prone to radicalisation because it’s members consider themselves to be right and just by default. It’s also prone to sacrifice individuals(even lots and lots of individuals) for the sake of the “whole”, which tends to be the 1% at the top in practice.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • reedbend@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    please debate this somewhere else, this is not the place

    source