• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          28·
          6 days ago

          The vast majority believe they are worse off now than under Socialism, which makes sense because the reintroduction of Capitalism resulted in skyrocketing rates of poverty, prostitution, drug abuse, homelessness, and an estimated 7 million excess deaths around the world.

              • cotlovan@lemm.ee
                1·
                6 days ago

                Oh my fing god, I thought lemmy is only full of extreme liberals, but it’s also full of wannabe comunists. Dude, have you ever asked yourself why USSR fell if everything was better than in the west? Why people risked their lives jumping over the Berlin wall? Why there was a whole black market of importing goods from the west into ussr? Why people didn’t enjoy being sent to Siberia by the millions to die of hunger and of forced labor?

                Or was Cuba a success?

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  9·
                  6 days ago

                  Lemmy is developed by Communists, the Communists were here first.

                  Secondly, the dissolution of the USSR was driven instead by numerous complex factors:

                  1. Liberal reforms that gave the Bourgeoisie power over key industries

                  2. A firm dedication to planning by hand even as the economy grew more complex and computers too slow to be adapted to the planning mechanisms

                  3. A huge portion of resources were spent on maintaining millitary parity with the US in order to dissuade US invasion

                  4. 80% of the combat done in World War II was on the Eastern Front, and 20 million Soviets lost their lives, with no real economic support from the West in rebuilding despite taking the largest cost of war

                  5. An enclosed, heavily sanctioned economy relied on internal resource gathering, closed off from the world market

                  Countries like the PRC have taken to heart what happened in the USSR. As an example, the PRC shifted to a more classically Marxist economy, focusing on public ownership of only the large firms and key industries, and relying on markets to develop out of private ownership. This keeps them in touch with the global economy without giving the bourgeoisie control of key industries, and thus the bourgeoisie has no power over the economy or the state.

                  People left the DDR after getting good educations for free, and higher wages in West Germany. They got the best of both worlds.

                  Millions were not sent to Siberia.

                  Cuba is a resilliant success story given its brutal embargo and sanctions, yes. It has astounding metrics in areas like life expectancy despite being intentionally impoverished by the US Empire.

              • SugaredScoundrel@sh.itjust.worksBanned from community
                1·
                6 days ago

                Private interests do align, but rarely. Meaning you have more chance at opposing narratives forming. Public is monovoiced. Without an opposing voice its data becomes suspect.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  13·
                  6 days ago

                  Private is controlled by large corporations, and often gets state funding. All press has bias. Really, you don’t have anything against the data other than you feel like it could be wrong.

          • lost_screwdriver@thelemmy.clubEnglish
            3·
            6 days ago

            I guess you can say Ukraine is now worse off than in the USSR, Back then they weren’t at war. The current situation isn’t exactly the fault of capitalism (or Ukranie for that matter)

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          10·
          6 days ago

          I’d say all AES states have broadly managed to achieve their goals. There have been troubles and struggles faced internally and externally, none have been dreamlike utopian wonderlands, but seemingly only non-Marxists are the ones that require that of Marxist movements.

          • Ibuthyr@lemmy.wtfBanned from community
            2·
            6 days ago

            I had to google that first. Had no idea what the sahel states had to do with socialism or communism.

            Those AES states are mostly highly corrupt though. I wouldn’t refer to north Korea as a livable place, plus the leaders are bathing in money while the populace dies from hunger. In Vietnam, if you know someone in politics, you can get whatever you want. I know this (nearly) first-hand. Laos, lol. And why the hell is China on that list? They’re way too deep in the capitalist game to be on that list, no? People also don’t mean shit to the ones in charge. Their people are executed by the thousands every year and they like to keep minorities in concentration camps. I’m sorry, those states are failed states in my opinion.

            And as long as there is corruption, communism is not going to work. It’s a nice theory, but it just takes one black sheep to fuck it up for everyone. I wish it weren’t that way. It’d be nice to live in a world where people work for a purpose and everyone gets the same and no one has to suffer. Not going to happen.

            Capitalism is plain evil though, I’ll give you that.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              9·
              6 days ago

              AES as in “Actually Existing Socialism.” The Sahel States are a quasi-Socialist national liberatory alliance. Burkina Faso was briefly Socialist under Sankara, but that time has passed.

              The struggles faced in the DPRK are more due to sanctions and embargo than anything else, kinda like Cuba. Unlike Cuba, the US slaughtered 20% of their population and destroyed 80% of their buildings, yet they were economically ahead of South Korea until the 80s. The leadership is not “bathing in money” either.

              Vietnam is rising rapidly. It isn’t a Utopia, but is dramatically improving. Same with Laos.

              The PRC is more classically Marxist than they were under the late Mao period and Gang of Four, I elaborated on that, here. Further, you’re repeating state department propaganda about them, very silly.

              Further, China is democratic. It doesn’t have a western liberal democracy, but it does have a comprehensive Socialist democracy. You can read this article talking about why the Chinese democratic model is in place and why the people support it, or this article on how the Chinese model of democracy works in contrast to western democracy, or this short video on how it works, or this video on how elections work, or this article on the makeup of the NPC.

              By what metrics is China not democratic? What mechanically would they have to change for you to accept the opinions of the Chinese citizenry on their own system? I recommend this introduction to SWCC, it goes in-detail about how elections and the democratic model work in China. what mechanically would China have to change in order for you to accept the system that the Chinese have implemented by and for themselves, and approve of at rates exceeding 90%?

              Please explain how “one black sheep” would ruin Socialism/Communism. Given that you clearly aren’t familiar with Marxist theory nor how AES states function, this is a telltale sign that your critiques are of strawmen.

          • KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml
            3·
            5 days ago

            Russia is a shit hole and has failed in every type of government they’ve ever had.

            The soviets found themselves in a feudal shithole, and elevated it to a global super power.

            China was also doing no better before “communism”.

            Not sure who claims that China is communist, but it’s definitely not the chines. They have a market socialist system (or more accurately SWCC), which still has class society and its own contradictions.

            Educate yourself on basic facts before you speak on a topic and stfu until you do so shitlib

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          11·
          6 days ago

          That’s not how AES states function, in any capacity. Further, people get paid in Socialist states, so I really don’t know what strawman you’re fighting here.

  • oyzmo@lemmy.world
    38·
    6 days ago

    Socialism allows for both public and private ownership, individual freedoms, and democratic decision-making, while still aiming for social equality. Communism, in contrast, tends to involve total state control and often limits personal freedoms.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlBannedEnglish
      15·
      6 days ago

      Tell me you’ve never read anything about communism that wasn’t written by anti-communists without telling me you’ve never read anything about communism that wasn’t written by anti-communists.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      14·
      6 days ago

      Both Capitalism and Socialism have room for public and private ownership, the difference is which sector controls the state, large firms, and key industries. The Nordic Countries are dominated by Private Capital, ie it is Capitalist, while the PRC is dominated by Public Ownership, ie it is Socialist.

      Communism limits the personal freedoms of the bourgeoisie. All Communism is, is a more developed and global form of Socialism, where the small firms that once were private have all grown into the public sector or collapsed.

    • m532@lemmygrad.ml
      12·
      6 days ago

      Limits personal freedoms only for the owning class. If you’re not a landlord or ceo you have nothing to fear.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          11·
          6 days ago

          The Black Book of Communism was debunked long ago, from including Nazis killed during World War II as “victims of Communism” to literally making up numbers to get to 100 million dead to being outright disproven once the Soviet Archives were opened up.

          There were excess deaths, but Communist leaders weren’t mindless butchers, either. And with the introduction of Socialism came numerous benefits for the working class, like a doubling of life expectancy, tripling of literacy rates to 99.9%, free and high quality education, healthcare, and childcare, an expansion in women’s rights, a democratization of the economy, and much more.

          Anarchism is a beautiful idea, and I used to be one. However, I am more convinced of Marxism, namely because we have more data that shows the success of Marxism, and because hierarchy and centralization are requirements for expansive infrastructure projects like high speed rail and for complex production, such as for smartphones.

          I have an introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List you can check out, if you’d like to learn more.

        • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlBannedEnglish
          10·
          6 days ago

          How are you going to secure your commune from external enemies without invoking authority?

        • m532@lemmygrad.ml
          5·
          6 days ago

          Yeah I didn’t consider the nazis but they are just lackeys for the landlords and ceos so I mentally put them in there. Ofc nazis have to fear communism too.

  • eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    50·
    6 days ago

    Maaaaaaybe the USSR isn’t the best example of a better society we want to be building.

    I’m watching the whole ideological-purge thing happen in the US and it kinda sucks.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlBannedEnglish
      15·
      6 days ago

      Either build something better or shutup, I say. Unless you’re a big fan of Tsarist Russia

      • rational_lib@lemmy.world
        9·
        6 days ago

        I’ve played civilization and I’m pretty sure there’s other forms of government besides Communism and Monarchy that have low corruption, albeit lacking the ability to force the citizens into war on the leader’s whim.

        • m532@lemmygrad.ml
          11·
          6 days ago

          Isnt civilization the game where “democracy” has 0 corruption? I think its kinda biased and not exactly based on reality

        • CalipherJones@lemmy.worldBanned from communityEnglish
          1·
          6 days ago

          Corruption is a matter of individuals rather than the form of government. Any human system is bound to be corruptible since it involves humans.

          I think a strong anti corruption culture is the best defense against it.

          • Lightor@lemmy.world
            1·
            5 days ago

            Yeah, it wasn’t one guy on Reddit lol. Why haven’t you started the revolution?

            And y’all wonder why people rag on .ml.

            • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlBannedEnglish
              1·
              3 days ago

              The whole point was that I don’t reject successful revolutions while not having achieved anything myself. That’s you dog.

              • Lightor@lemmy.world
                1·
                2 days ago

                I never rejected anything, maybe try reading again and this time not just seeing what you want. And what was successful before doesn’t mean it will be successful today. People just don’t understand context or nuance. That’s you dog.

    • ptee@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      6 days ago

      Both extremes on display those examples, seems like they both end up in the same place in the end. Maybe it would be reasonable to use any system that is a mix of things, instead of focusing on pure capitalism or communism.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        12·
        6 days ago

        There’s really no such thing as a pure system, any mix is still going to have either the public sector as principle or private, ie which controls the state, large firms, and key industries. There’s no way to keep them “balanced,” one will have power over the other, and its best for it to be the public sector.

  • Mark12870@lemmy.world
    4·
    4 days ago

    It is terrible to see so many comments here celebrating communism. Communists were ruining our country (Czechia) for over 40 years and led it to economical collapse. When we tried to reform the regime in 1968, the Russians invaded to stop it. Communism doesn’t really work, and it has already been proven.

    Also, I have to say the country worked in a bizzare way. The government robbed everyone of their property, so in return, people were stealing from public supplies.

    So please try to study something first about communism in Eastern Europe before you start to celebrare this regime.

  • Grimel@lemm.eeEnglish
    20·
    6 days ago

    Ah yes, get rid of extremism with different extremism. I think we’ve been there already. Spoiler: Didnt work.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      12·
      6 days ago

      First, a societal organization outside the Western norm has no bearing on if it will be successful or not. The “middle” has no superior intrinsic characteristics.

      Second, we know Socialism works, the PRC is now becoming the de facto world power as the US falls, all while providing dramatic improvements for its people and increasing levels of satisfaction.

      What, specifically, doesn’t work?

      • Grimel@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        6 days ago

        Extremism is “the quality or state of being extreme” or “the advocacy of extreme measures or views”.

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

        Or as i know it with these regimes both left or right: those that oppose and do not belive in our thing must be gotten rid of. I would say that is the extreme here to me. Thats what both communists and nazis did in Europe, in my country, in my city. And i want none of it to come back. Iam honestly terrified where is this world headding again.

        But if you want to take a deeper look, this seems interesting if you have access:

        https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-83336-7_2

        https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-political-extremist-1857297

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          9·
          6 days ago

          The portrayal of the Communists and Nazis as “twin evils” exaggerates the sins of the Communists in quantity and quality, while minimizing the sins of the Nazis in quantity and quality, in order to show them as relatively equal problems. In other words, its Nazi apologia, and historical revisionism. Read Blackshirts and Reds.

          The Nazis executed the Communists, Socialists, gay people, trans people, disabled people, Jewish people, Slavic people, and many, many more. It wasn’t simple opposition, it was a racially supremacist ideology.

          The Communists executed Tsarists, fascists, and terrorists to the state. They did not create a systematic industrialized murder machine like the Nazis did in order to keep up with how many people they needed to kill.

          • Grimel@lemm.eeEnglish
            0·
            6 days ago

            I can agree with you in some parts. They did not have any industrialized murder machine. But they mass murdered Polish by bullet, Ukrainians by starvation for example.

            Communists imprisoned and/or sent to forced labor people for being gay, religious (not only jews) and yes “terrorists to the state” which in most of the time meant someone just spoke against regime. And well being a prisoner in Communist countries meant you were treated almost like jew in a nazi camp just without killing part sometimes.

            All that said by my opinion communism wasnt racially supremacist ideology. It was just supremacist ideology. All they cared about was how great the state is and everything else is not.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              7·
              6 days ago

              They did not mass murder the Polish, nor did they intentionally starve Ukrainians. Both of those claims are highly inaccurate, the Nazis exterminated the Polish and the 1930s famine was unintended and tragic.

              Further, your claims about the prison system are highly distorted in quantity and quality, they in no way compared to the industrial mass murder machines in Nazi Germany. Read Russian Justice.

              Communism is about uplifting the working class, not worship of the state.

        • m532@lemmygrad.ml
          6·
          6 days ago

          Ah so you’re an imperialist

          I myself consider imperialists to be extremists, their global oppression is certainly very extreme

          Communists just want to have the fruits of their labor not be stolen, very normal

  • void_turtle@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    28·
    7 days ago

    The desire to dominate and the willingness to act on it has existed in a fraction of the population since before humans were human. This is the root of all evil, capitalism is a specific manifestation of this impulse that has only existed for some 400 years. If your analysis starts and ends at “capitalism bad” you miss the vast majority of oppression that has existed or will exist.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlBannedEnglish
      9·
      6 days ago

      What’s your evidence for your the root of evil is that some people just have an “evil” gene theory?

      • void_turtle@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        5·
        6 days ago

        I never mentioned genetics, strange that you would bring it up. Sex isn’t even fully determined by genetics, something as complex and fragile as your personal values certainly can never be reduced to genetics.

        Humans brains are stochastic and the values we eventually settle on depend both on our environment and on somewhat random walks through possible values. Some people will land on violent domination as a social strategy just through randomness. I believe an environment where everyone is cared for and has the ability to flourish will minimize the people who randomly end up on violent domination, but it is not possible through environmental changes to completely prevent this. Thus we cannot allow any positions of power, since those will attract and eventually be captured by people who have chosen domination as their preferred strategy.

  • Letsdothisagain@lemmy.world
    12·
    6 days ago

    Workers of the world unite!

    Edit: not that I’m into that sort of thing… I’ve taken history classes, I’ve read about, I’ve watched documentaries, I understand that communism is not to be desired or

  • sarah ash (They/Them)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    5·
    5 days ago

    Not quite. Dont get me wrong capitalism sucks and we should get rid of it, but for example colonialism is older than capitalism and part of its cause. So is colonialsim the root cause of evil? not quite again before colonialism there where still a lot of repressive and very hierarchical societies so again to frame capitalism as the root of all evil is ignoring a whole bunch of other repressive systems that are older but are certainly strengthend by it.

    So if you want to simplisticly frame something as the root cause of evil then it would be “opressive hierarchies are the root cause of evil”. but maybe im biased here since im an anarchist

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      21·
      7 days ago

      Soviet propaganda is a good thing, and it’s on the mark here. Socialism is necessary and Capitalism is clearly on the downhill.

      • Anarcho-Bolshevik@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
        4·
        5 days ago

        Hardly anybody in this thread seems to have arrived at the conclusion that maybe some lower-class people have an interest in and nostalgia for the Eastern Bloc because capitalism is becoming increasingly intolerable.

        It reminds me of the chumps who condescendingly explained to feminists that misandry is a serious problem on par with white supremacy and that not all men are awful. What a way to miss the point. Telling a lower-class person that communism is actually horrible doesn’t fix anything and neither does reminding an unhappy feminist that there are some good men in the world.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          4·
          5 days ago

          Yep, plus we need to factor in the fact that in these studies, there are non-working class people polled. Ie, bourgeoisie that enjoy new luxuries and privledges they did not have before. Of course they will say Capitalism is better.

          Polling just the working class majority, we can expect even more definitive results pointing to a longing for the stability and safety of the Soviet system.

        • Nemo's public admirer@lemmy.sdf.org
          9·
          6 days ago

          I think so, relatively.
          Weren’t they better than the Tsarist rule?

          Like, public healthcare, education and other policies leading to high literacy rates, longer lifespans, low infant and mother mortality etc.

          And if we compare them to the other major powers at the time, aren’t they better than those since they made progress without colonies?

          • pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyz
            2·
            6 days ago

            What if you were one of the unfortunate ones who simply got starved? If you criticised the government, or if someone simply accused you of being against the system? What if you weren’t even against the system but simply had a higher position (for example in the military, or as a politician) before your country was made part of the USSR? What about the huge lanes in front of grocery stores when they got new food?

            Why were there such huge protests, and why did they have to be bloodily shut down? All owning class people?

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              9·
              6 days ago

              Lets examine these.

              1. Food security got much better in the Soviet Union over Tsarist Russia, which is a huge part of why life expectancy over doubled from the start of the Soviet Union gradually as they focused on agriculture, housing, and healthcare for the working class.

              2. Criticism of government wasn’t an executable offense unless you were forming terrorist cells or causing legitimate political instability, such as Trotsky, who did both.

              3. The millitary was not purged of everyone in it, those found to be Tsarist collaborators or part of the Tsarist White Army were punished for their crimes against the people. Not all of them were executed, imprisonment was also quite common.

              4. It is better to feed the people than let them starve. World War II and the years right after it were especially brutal, as the Nazis took Ukraine, the USSR’s breadbasket, causing mass food shortages. 20 million Soviet people lost their lives to the Nazis, but thankfully the Red Army beat the Nazis.

              There, generally, were not huge protests. I’d like to know which ones in particular you are talking about, but protest wasn’t that common as until the later years, government approval was fairly high.

              • pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyz
                1·
                6 days ago

                ad 1.: much worse than in western counterparts

                ad 2.: my great grandfather was sent to a gulag for criticising the DDR’s government

                ad 3.: another great grandfather didn’t do anything except being an officer in the Hungarian military, so he got killed in the communist revolution (1956)

                DDR 1953

                Hungary 1956 (fighting for democracy and freedom), peaceful student protest was shot at, police and Hungarian army supported the protesters, they got a new president who promised multiple parties and free elections, as well as leaving the Warsaw pact. The USSR sent tanks to end the revolution by killing protesters, the new president was killed too, many people in the military (doesn’t matter if they supported joining the movement for freedom and democracy or wanted to stay in the USSR) got killed.

                Prague 1968 peaceful movement for human rights and basic freedoms -> USSR sent troops to end it

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  8·
                  6 days ago

                  1. Wrong, actually, if you trust internal CIA reports.

                  2. Anecdotes, especially familial ones, are not a replacement for expansive data taking. I have no idea what your great-grandfather was sent to prison for, nor is a single case like that representative of the entire USSR.

                  3. The Hungarian revolt in 1956 was infested with anti-semetic pograms. MI6 funded, supplied, and trained the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries. These counter-revolutionaries were allied with fascists who were lynching Jewish people and Communists.

                  "The special correspondent of the Yugoslav paper, Politika, (Nov. 13, 1956) describing the events of those days, said that the homes of Communists were marked with a white cross and those of Jews with a black cross, to serve as signs for the extermination squads. “There is no longer any room for doubt,” said the Yugoslav reporter, “it is an example of classic Hungarian fascism and of White Terror. The information,” continued this writer, “coming from the provinces tells how in certain places Communists were having their eyes put out, their ears cut off, and that they were being killed in the most terrible ways.”

                  “But the forces of reaction were rapidly consolidating their power and pushing forward on the top levels, while in the streets the blood of scores of massacred Communists, Jews, and progressives was flowing.”

                  “Some of the reports reaching Warsaw from Budapest today caused considerable concern. These reports told of massacres of Communists and Jews by what were described as 'Fascist elements’ …” (N.Y. Times, Nov. 1. 1956)

                  “The evidence is conclusive that the entry of Soviet troops into Budapest stopped the execution of scores, perhaps thousands of Jews, for by the end of October and early November, anti-Semtic pogroms - hallmark of unbridled fascistic terror - were making their appearance, after an absence of some ten years, within Hungary.”

                  "A correspondent of the Israeli newspaper Maariv (Tel Aviv) reported:

                  During the uprising a number of former Nazis were released from prison and other former Nazis came to Hungary from Salzburg . . . I met them at the border . . . I saw anti-Semitic posters in Budapest . . . On the walls, street lights, streetcars, you saw inscriptions reading: “Down with Jew Gero!” “Down with Jew Rakosi!” or just simply “down with the Jews!”

                  Leading rabbinical circles in New York received a cable early in November from corresponding circles in Vienna that “Jewish blood is being shed by the rebels in Hungary.” Very much later-in February, 1957-the World Jewish Congress reported that “anti-Semitic excesses occurred in more than twenty villages and smaller provincial towns during the October-November revolt.” This occurred, according to this very conservative body, because “fascist and anti-Semitic groups had apparently seized the opportunity, presented by the absence of a central authority, to come to the surface.” Many among the Jewish refugees from Hungary, the report continued, had fled from this anti-Semitic pogrom-like atmosphere (N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1957). This confirmed the earlier report made by the British Rabbi, R. Pozner, who, after touring refugee camps, declared that “the majority of Jews who left Hungary did so for fear of the Hungarians and not the Russians.” The Paris Jewish newspaper, Naye Presse, asserted that Jewish refugees in France claimed quite generally that Soviet soldiers had saved their lives."

                  Further, the CIA also backed Hungarian resistance forces:

                  Prague in 1968 was a similar fascist uprising in both cases there were some elements of progressive protest, but these were greatly overshadowed by the fascist movements.

                  I’m not making any accusations here, I want you to elaborate more, but legitimately it sounds like you’re saying your family members were fascists or fascist sympathizers. I want you to clear their names, because Hungary absolutely fought on the side of the Axis in World War II, and the 1956 counter-revolt was against the Communists.

            • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlBannedEnglish
              7·
              6 days ago

              People like you really should be forced to live under the conditions of pre-Soviet Russia. If literal feudalism and a life expectancy of thirty is so great to you, you should have to live it yourself

              • pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyz
                1·
                6 days ago

                I’m not saying that was good either, but middle European countries started with a similar situation and got much farther. I recognise the USSR as a lesser evil than tsarist Russia, but that doesn’t mean it’s good. More like an upgrade from 2/10 to 4/10 while other countries went paths that lead to 8/10

                • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlBannedEnglish
                  8·
                  6 days ago

                  I’m not saying that was good either, but middle European countries started with a similar situation and got much farther.

                  No they didn’t.

                  but that doesn’t mean it’s good.

                  K. Your line for what counts as “good” is completely arbitrary and vibes based.

                  while other countries went paths that lead to 8/10

                  No they didn’t

        • culprit@lemmy.ml
          5·
          6 days ago

          According to American ethnographer and Professor of Russian and East European Studies at the University of Pennsylvania Kristen Ghodsee, efforts to institutionalize the “double genocide thesis”, or the moral equivalence between the Nazi Holocaust (race murder) and the victims of communism (class murder), in particular the push at the beginning of the 2007–2008 financial crisis for commemoration of the latter in Europe, can be seen as the response by economic and political elites to fears of a leftist resurgence in the face of devastated economies and extreme social inequalities in both the Eastern and Western worlds as the result of the excesses of neoliberal capitalism. She says that any discussion of the achievements by Communist states, including literacy, education, women’s rights, and social security is usually silenced, and any discourse on the subject of communism is focused almost exclusively on Joseph Stalin’s crimes and the “double genocide thesis”, an intellectual paradigm summed up as such: “1) any move towards redistribution and away from a completely free market is seen as communist; 2) anything communist inevitably leads to class murder; and 3) class murder is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust.” By linking all leftist and socialist ideals to the excesses of Stalinism, Ghodsee posits that the elites hope to discredit and marginalize all political ideologies that could “threaten the primacy of private property and free markets”.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_genocide_theory#Memory_politics_and_the_Holocaust_in_Eastern_Europe

          • storm@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            1·
            6 days ago

            I should have clarified that I’m not against socialism, just the hierarchy of states. We should instead pursue more egalitarian socialist expressions like social ecology or kinds of anarchy.

            • culprit@lemmy.ml
              3·
              6 days ago

              making the perfect the enemy of the good

              this is you rn

              socialism >> communism is a evolving process, but every time it starts growing and developing, capital asserts itself to dominate and destroy it

              the only Actually Existing Socialisms today have nuclear deterrents to avoid this fate, they also have to develop counter-intelligence defenses because just nuclear weapons are not enough to protect from all the myriad threats that capital engages in towards anti-socialist >> anti-communist goals

              if you can not understand this material reality of history, and use it to analyze the struggle for liberation in this world, you are lost

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        4·
        6 days ago

        The portrayal of the Communists and Nazis as “twin evils” exaggerates the sins of the Communists in quantity and quality, while minimizing the sins of the Nazis in quantity and quality, in order to show them as relatively equal problems. In other words, its Nazi apologia, and historical revisionism. Read Blackshirts and Reds.

        The Nazis executed the Communists, Socialists, gay people, trans people, disabled people, Jewish people, Slavic people, and many, many more. It wasn’t simple opposition, it was a racially supremacist ideology.

        The Communists executed Tsarists, fascists, and terrorists to the state. They did not create a systematic industrialized murder machine like the Nazis did in order to keep up with how many people they needed to kill.