Why is being a communist socially acceptable when nazism is not?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

It's not, but let's make something absolutely crystal clear:

One is inherently totalitarian, the other had totalitarian leaders.

And if you can't guess which is which, get your history book straight.

[Felya]

Alright, I get your point of one needing to understand the circumstances that led to the development of these ideologies. Nevertheless, that does not excuse their poor application, and that's an understatement.
To use your Lenin example, I don't recall the exact passage, but in reference to Lenin, Solzhenitsyn said that had remarked they would need to imprison (or kill?) a considerable amount of people in order for the intended system to flourish. I forget, it's been a while since I read (half) the book.

The point is, if you require considerable harm in whatever shape or form to implement your ideas, then that diminishes its importance, and isn't that what has happened with the most notorious communist examples?

Why would I excuse poor implementation, when poor implementation is an excuse it self?

[kaelleria]

Doesn't communist manifest call a violent revolt where the bourgeoisie are brought down be the proletariat? Call me crazy, but both Nazism and Communism seem awful and shouldn't be acceptable.

[Endus]

Doesn't communist manifest call a violent revolt where the bourgeoisie are brought down be the proletariat? Call me crazy, but both Nazism and Communism seem awful and shouldn't be acceptable.

Less "calls for" and more that Marx couldn't foresee any other means by which such change could occur. You also need to recall he's writing in an era when the French and American Revolutions were recent history and represented the same kind of "violent revolt" he was talking about.

[Deleted]

Stalin was a worse human being than Hitler. I mean, its simply an objective fact, he killed more people. I wished the Nazis had destroyed the Soviet Union for good before the Allies rightfully crushed them.

[Endus]

Stalin was a worse human being than Hitler. I mean, its simply an objective fact, he killed more people. I wished the Nazis had destroyed the Soviet Union for good before the Allies rightfully crushed them.

If that had happened, Hitler probably would have won the war. WWII wasn't winnable without Stalin on the side of the Allies.

Not that that's a defense of Stalin. Just a recognition of the terrible realities of WWII.

[Deleted]

If that had happened, Hitler probably would have won the war. WWII wasn't winnable without Stalin on the side of the Allies.

Not very likely. A victory on the eastern front should have bleed out the Wehrmacht enough to for the Allies to win. I still don't think that the Third Reich even without a eastern front would have stood a chance against the US and Britain.

But the world would have been better if the Soviet Union already had disappeared in the 40s. All it created was a bunch of murderous and pisspoor dictatorships all around the world.

[Mayhem]

Not very likely. A victory on the eastern front should have bleed out the Wehrmacht enough to for the Allies to win. I still don't think that the Third Reich even without a eastern front would have stood a chance against the US and Britain.

But the world would have been better if the Soviet Union already had disappeared in the 40s. All it created was a bunch of murderous and pisspoor dictatorships all around the world.

2/3 of german casualties happened on the eastern front.

[Deleted]

Because revolution works, it has been proven to be effective over and over whereas reform has never really worked.

They are effective in changing the status quo.
Nothing else.
The new eras they spawn are not decidedly better. Particularly not for the under-privileged.

I suppose we'll get it right at some point. But the track record is abysmal. Starting with the poster-child: the French revolution. Of which we remember the good ideas, and how it culturally shaped Europe, but often forget to mention how it was a massive failure that got quickly replaced by an empire, no less. Revolutionaries were excessively revolutionary; looking at you, Robespierre.

[NED funded]

Less "calls for" and more that Marx couldn't foresee any other means by which such change could occur. You also need to recall he's writing in an era when the French and American Revolutions were recent history and represented the same kind of "violent revolt" he was talking about.

I'm not sure how can anyone see the French Revolution as a model to aspire. The following period was literally called the reign of terror.

[Endus]

I'm not sure how can anyone see the French Revolution as a model to aspire. The following period was literally called the reign of terror.

Looking at the longer term. The French Revolution was the spiritual predecessor of the American Revolution and various other pushes for democratization throughout Europe. Marx was well aware that a period of horrendous acts may be the price needed to pay for long-term social improvement. He deemed it a price worth paying. As did, for instance, the Founding Fathers of the USA.

Which is why I find it so bloody silly when Americans are so eager to condemn violent revolution when it's in Marx's name, but in the names of the Founding Fathers? HOO-RAH! USA! USA! USA!

[Deleted]

Bullshit.
Do you have any idea how many people died because of WW2? Stalin wasn't even close.
And let's not forget that the USSR was fine once Stalin died. No reason to destroy it.

But why are we talking about the USSR? We're talking about Communism/Socialism, not Stalin.

First, Hitler and Stalin basically started WWII together. They had a deal of conquering Poland and splitting it up. All Hitler did to the Soviet Union, who were just as big conquering, murdering and raping barbarians thanthe Nazis, were to attack before Stalin could attack him first. And no, Hitler didn't killed more. 30 Million on Hitlers List, Stalin is responsible for the death of 40 million. Afterwards, the Soviet Union supported helping establishing other communist dictatorships were the people remained piss poor, oppressed and abused by the party. In the Soviet Union people as well remained piss poor, oppressed and abused by their dictators. It would have been better if the Soviet Union would have been destroyed and the russian people would have got earlier the opportunity to try building a proper society. Like western democratic capitalism. Wherever we have this one, people flourish. I mean, in western capitalist countries, even the poor can get fat and at least buy some basic smartphone and computer, which is luxury.

Because revolution works, it has been proven to be effective over and over whereas reform has never really worked.
The problem with reforms is that you work 20 years to change something, just to have the establishment cause a little crisis and set you back another 40 years.

The proletariat has no problem with the bourgeoisie that gives up their profit.
History shows up that most aren't willing to and will try to use violence to keep the power. It's like how Kings used to lash out hard when people tried to get rid of them.

If we talk about what works, like I said, western capitalism. Its great, everybody has their basic needs fullfilled and all that is left open are luxuries like better computers, better cars, more traveling and shit.

[JohnBrown1917]

First, Hitler and Stalin basically started WWII together.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, pretending the USSR was not very important in Hitler's defeat.

If we talk about what works, like I said, western capitalism. Its great, everybody has their basic needs fullfilled and all that is left open are luxuries like better computers, better cars, more traveling and shit.

That is bullshit.

[Deleted]

Whatever helps you sleep at night, pretending the USSR was not very important in Hitler's defeat.

Yeah, it was not. And it should not have been. All the USSR did afterwards was slaughtering and raping german citizens, stealing everything they possess and turn eastern germany into a socialist shithole that is to this day poor as fuck compared to the west.

That is bullshit.

We have even example how well capitalism does compared to communism. Look at western and eastern germany Post WWII. The West adopted Western Democracy and Capitalism and became immediately rich. Only 10 years after the war that devestated the country the people had one of the highest living standarts in europe, people where buying stuff, they were buying cars and TVs and shit. The East on the other hand became socialist and became a piss poor, oppressed and were under constant observation. Fuck, people died trying to get over that Berlin Wall because of how awesome and rich and free the west was. Or South Korea and North Korea. South Korea is basically like Japan, an hypermodern western country. North Korea on the other hand is an piss poor shithole where the people are starving.

And you could say that about every other countries as well. All the rich and free and socially progressive countries are western capitalist. There you get all the awesome stuff and can do whatever you want. In socialism on the other hand, everyone outside of the Party Elites and Generals are poor.

And what is bullshit about my comment? I mean, sure there are some homeless people and thats sad. But other than that, everybody gets food and a home. In Capitalism, even the poor people get fat. And everyone is able to buy themselves some luxury. Books, Music, A TV, A Computer, a Smartphone, visit the Cinema.
There is no other system where the poor get this kind of luxury. Western Capitalist Countries even do socialism better than socialist countries. Look at many european countries with social programs. This is why everyone tries to get from shithole countries to europe, because Capitalism made europe so rich that they can even give free stuff and free money to the poor.

[NED funded]

Looking at the longer term. The French Revolution was the spiritual predecessor of the American Revolution and various other pushes for democratization throughout Europe. Marx was well aware that a period of horrendous acts may be the price needed to pay for long-term social improvement. He deemed it a price worth paying. As did, for instance, the Founding Fathers of the USA.

Which is why I find it so bloody silly when Americans are so eager to condemn violent revolution when it's in Marx's name, but in the names of the Founding Fathers? HOO-RAH! USA! USA! USA!

So the idea behind the socialist revolution is behead enough people for a chance to improve long term situations? Gee and I wonder why people don't want socialism.

And for what its worth the American revolution is the exception more than the rule, for example, South American countries had to go for decades of rule by caudillos and instability that made them lag behind America despite being considerably richer (looking at you Peru). Or what happened in Africa.

[Endus]

So the idea behind the socialist revolution is behead enough people for a chance to improve long term situations? Gee and I wonder why people don't want socialism.

No. It isn't even the idea behind Marxist communism. Marx felt that bloodbath was coming regardless. He was trying to produce a framework to give the proletariat something to build towards when they did rise up. Because the alternative, as in so many other past rebellions, was a lot of dying followed by a quick return to the status quo, starting the cycle over again.

I don't even think Marx was right about all this, either. But this was what he thought was coming.

[JohnBrown1917]

We have even example how well capitalism does compared to communism. .

Where was I comparing it too communism? You said everybody has his needs met, and that is bullshit, and part of it is done by fucking over the poorer countries.



But what the USSR did afterwards is irrelevant, it just reeks of ignorance if you want to deny how much damage the USSR did to rhe nazi war machine.
Did you even take WWII classes on history? Or is the US system that fucked up they just teach you all that bullshit?

[Deleted]

So the idea behind the socialist revolution is behead enough people for a chance to improve long term situations? Gee and I wonder why people don't want socialism.

The point, at the time, was that rebellions were gonna happen anyway. And they thought how to make it better for the underclass.

[Forogil]

No. It isn't even the idea behind Marxist communism. Marx felt that bloodbath was coming regardless. He was trying to produce a framework to give the proletariat something to build towards when they did rise up.

If that was his plan he made a bad job at planning that, nothing about avoiding another reign of terror, and his "feeling" that bloodbath was coming was plain wrong.

[NED funded]

No. It isn't even the idea behind Marxist communism. Marx felt that bloodbath was coming regardless. He was trying to produce a framework to give the proletariat something to build towards when they did rise up. Because the alternative, as in so many other past rebellions, was a lot of dying followed by a quick return to the status quo, starting the cycle over again.

I don't even think Marx was right about all this, either. But this was what he thought was coming.

The point, at the time, was that rebellions were gonna happen anyway. And they thought how to make it better for the underclass.

I have my doubts that was the idea when he explicitly called for global revolution an idea Lenin took further to imply that it meant that communist countries should export the revolution. But I do know marx believed that capitalism was doomed to fail and rent extraction.