• peanuts4life@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

      • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        65
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

          • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            48
            ·
            2 years ago

            I’m not obsessed with Stalin. I’m also not a Holocaust denier. You really seem keen on saying inflammatory things about me without any preceding context.

            I will observe that I think Stalin was an awful person who tarnished the reputation of socialism for a century. I don’t have anything against socialist, being one myself.

            I have a beef with apologist for failed communist states like the soviet onion. I feel they deeply misrepresent socialism.

              • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                26
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                It’s a semantic argument, then. To me a fascist is a Donald Trump. To me, Facisim is a broad set of characteristics which can be attributed to people outside of the context of Nazi Germany. For example, I might call an ancient emperor a fascist.

                Facisim to you is a political movement linked only to the Nazis and thier allies.

                That’s not unfair. It’s a different definition of the word.

                  • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    28
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    Either you have a misunderstanding of what a tankie is in common vernacular, or I do.

                    My definition of a tankie is as follows: A “tankie” is a term that originated in British politics, referring to individuals who unconditionally supported actions of the Soviet Union, including the use of military force to suppress dissent. Today, it’s often used more broadly to describe those who uncritically support or defend perceived socialist or communist authoritarian regimes, sometimes even in the face of human rights abuses. The term is typically used pejoratively within leftist circles.

                    I don’t believe a communist is necessarily a tankie, but a tankie would call themselves a communist.

                    Personally, as an American, I would never fly an American flag. To me, it represents the violence of the state, the genocide of the indigenous people, and capitalism.

                    I believe that the Soviet union, as well as some modern communist states, have largely failed to represent the Marxist vision, and I am extremely critical of people who are embrace the theater of certain communist states.

          • SuddenDownpour@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            2 years ago

            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.

          • Quereller@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            2 years ago

            Do you deny the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact and the illegal attack on Poland by the Soviet union under its leader Josef Stalin?

              • Quereller@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                19
                ·
                2 years ago

                No why should I ? A non aggression pact is not the same than occupying another country. The Jews which were deported to other parts of the Union were in deed saved from the Nazis.

                  • JasBC@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    The only evil person here is you. How can you not only defend but celebrate a regime that during its reign of terror during the occupation of Poland put over 500-thousand Poles in prison, committed the Katyn Massacre, deported 1.7-million Poles to Siberia, raped over a 100-thousand women, and murdered over 150-thousand additonal Poles in cold blood, and then robbed Poland of the independence it had achieved after WW1, after 200-years of attempted cultural genocide by the Russian Empire?

                    I am half-Polish, my father was born in Communist Poland - tell me how your crackhead ideology justifies your abhorrent views. Tell me how the Soviets rounding up innocent Poles and murdering them in cold blood, like happened to the families and friends of my grandparents, is to be celebrated as the Soviets “saving” anyone; how subjugating the Polish people and state for the next 40-years was something good.

                    You’re simply a disgusting PoS, a certified A-grade fucking tankie.

      • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        2 years ago

        I am of the strong opinion that fascism doesn’t care if you call yourself a communist, a capitalist, or a Democrat. If someone promotes a state which strips the power of local and individual labor for it’s own use; cultivates violence as a means of domestic control; supports expansionism; and finally the consolidation of power under a personality; I oppose it, and call it what it is.

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        2 years ago

        And then they killed millions of people to enforce Stalin’s autocracy. How, exactly, is that better than Hitler?

      • Fizz@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 years ago

        Because they were attacked. Otherwise they would have happily sat out of ww2.

        • yuritopia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 years ago

          Nazism as an ideology set out to eradicate those seen as impure, and two of the most prominent of those targeted groups were communists and Slavic people. Hitler literally wanted to kill everyone who identified as a socialist. To think that the USSR was unaware or tolerant of this fact is a truly awful take.

          • Fizz@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 years ago

            Wow a commie who doesnt know history, not surprising. Firstly I never said USSR didnt know what Germany was doing, I said they didnt care. This is backed up by history. Yes Hitler hated the soviets and they probably disliked him to but they tolerated him and his crimes against humanity enough to form an alliance and work together. A little timeline of events to refresh your memory: 1939 USSR signs a non aggression pact with Germany. This pact includes plans to divide eastern europe between USSR and Germany, a clause that prevents the USSR from allying or aiding enemies of Germany. Shortly after Germany and the USSR double team Poland and split it up between them. After Stalin used the attack to capture a few eastern european countries he asked to join the Axis powers treaty. Stalin was warned multiple times that Germany was preparing to backstab him but rejected the warnings as he thought they were so allies. After it was confirm that Hitler had betrayed him he spent several days sulking in his holiday house refusing to communicate with his generals.

            There is no way you can reasonably say that USSR disapproved of Hitlers action and Ideology. The only thing he would have had an issue with is that Hitler hated slavic people. He was even willing to put that aside because they both had authoritarianism in common.

          • Fizz@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 years ago

            Did you finish your book halfway through? Hitler and Stalin formed an alliance shortly after the Spanish civil war. Even though Hitler referred to Slavic people as untermench Stalin still signed treaties because they were at the end of the day both Fascist Authoritarian dictators and dont give a single fuck about committing crimes against humanity.