Are we communists?!

Recommended Videos

orangeban

New member
Nov 27, 2009
1,442
0
0
Well, it's probably because nazism is seen as wrong, and supporting nazism basically makes you a bit of a douche. However, communism is not seen as inherently evil (well, some people do, but not as many as those who regard nazism as evil).
So basically: Swastika = Nazism = Evil
Hammer and Sickle = Communism = Not necesarrily evil
 

Staskala

New member
Sep 28, 2010
537
0
0
AnarchistFish said:
Yeah, that's the point. It kinda represents the whole movement, although tbh I don't see many communists using it cos it still has that taboo.

Anyway, the hammer and sickle represents what the USSR was meant to be- a socialist utopia. The swastika represents Nazi beliefs, i.e. anti-semitism. So the hammer and sickle doesn't really represent the USSR's genocides like the swastika does with Nazi Germany.
In Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, etc. it does, hence why the hammer-and-sickle are just as illegal there as the swastika is elsewhere.
I've never heard about the hammer-and-sickle being associated with anything but Marxism-Leninism. Are you talking about serious movements or snotty brats who never even read Marx here? Or are you implying that Leninism is the way to go? I'd very much disagree with that.
 

OmniscientOstrich

New member
Jan 6, 2011
2,879
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Probably because the swastika is pretty much a symbol for antisemitism.

Stalin killed millions of Russians, but I don't think their race/religion had anything to do with it (correct me if I'm wrong).
Actually, during the Great Purges Stalin set out to eliminate Religion in Russia, like Lennin and Marx before him he believed it to be an Opiate and thus sought to unite the people under Atheism, though he had a much more forceful way of going about this. Levelling/closing off churches, persecuting and slaughtering thousands of priests and nuns in the process making it very dangerous to be assoicated with religion in the mid-late 30's. But in regard to OP, that isn't really the point. The point is that Nazism was an ideology forged by Hitler with the intention of slaughtering all those he felt to be unpure in effort of creating his master race, it was a product of evil from it's very inception. Communism/Socialism on the other hand were ideologies invisioned to create an egalitarian utopia for the downtrodden proletariat, a party for the people, whose altruistic origins were abused by a tyrant. The point is, Stalin and his successor's were to blame for the decades of oppression in the USSR, not the political ideology which they twisted and abused. Whereas Nazism was forged by the very person who committed the atrocities of the Holocaust, the party itself having it's foundations in genocide, bigotry and indoctrination. As for people wearing clothes for that sort of thing...


...Let's just say the irony's lost on them.
 

Pat8u

New member
Apr 7, 2011
767
0
0
One thing communisim isn't evil its just always done badly

Because hitler actually affected people it the west unlike the ussr(correct me if Im wrong) which the West has never had a full on war with (cold war was pratically a espionage only war if I remember correctly)
 

funguy2121

New member
Oct 20, 2009
3,407
0
0
Grab-bag said:
Right, before I start I want to make it clear that I don't support any of the things mentioned in this thread, I just thought about it and wanted to see what others thought. Now then, everyone in the world knows the swastika as the sign of the Nazi Party and many know the hammer and sickle as a sign of the USSR. The communist USSR, under Stalin killed at least 17 million Russians, or Russian speakers. Hitler, though still crazy, killed about 10 million at least. (This isn't counting the death toll of the war, I see that as every nation involved.) Anyway, my point is, how come, though the leaders of the USSR are responsible for many more deaths, why is it acceptable for people to wear T-shirts, hoodies, accessories etc with the hammer and sickle on, but if someone was to walk around with a Swastika T-shirt, they would get so much more hate and disapproval talks. Is this just because the Nazis were seen as the bad guys because they were the main enemy or is it something more of a cult thing that spread? I just want to know what you guys think. (This is just a brief overview, without going into the Nazi-soviet pact, the hammer and sickle in modern communist parties etc.)
This is a conversation about which you should really be better informed going in. I think your numbers are way off there. I believe that the Holocaust claimed over 6 million Jews and that Stalin murdered about 11 million of his own people. That's Stalin, one guy. Not Kruschev, not Gorby or Yeltsin. Putin and his puppet Medvidev are murderiffic, but not to the tune of "seventeen gajillion bazillion." And any way, why is mass murder to the tune of 17 million that much more horrifying than 6 million? "They were also communists." Has the death toll tied to your good ol' apple pie capitalism tax dollars not ever occurred to you?

And they "get away with it" because communists are some of the precious few people who know that we're fucked.
 

AnarchistFish

New member
Jul 25, 2011
1,500
0
0
Staskala said:
AnarchistFish said:
Yeah, that's the point. It kinda represents the whole movement, although tbh I don't see many communists using it cos it still has that taboo.

Anyway, the hammer and sickle represents what the USSR was meant to be- a socialist utopia. The swastika represents Nazi beliefs, i.e. anti-semitism. So the hammer and sickle doesn't really represent the USSR's genocides like the swastika does with Nazi Germany.
In Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, etc. it does
Not everywhere though. And that's because they suffered under the USSR so it's more personal.

Staskala said:
I've never heard about the hammer-and-sickle being associated with anything but Marxism-Leninism. Are you talking about serious movements or snotty brats who never even read Marx here?
Well I see communists who despise Stalinism and the USSR using it sometimes. I'm talking about serious movements.

Staskala said:
Or are you implying that Leninism is the way to go? I'd very much disagree with that.
No I'm not a Leninist. And are you talking about Leninism or Stalinism now?

IlluminatiSoldier said:
That said though some people in America take offense to the hammer and sickle (I was almost suspended for having a schoolbag that happened to have a hammer and sickle on it, it was a relative's bag not mine)
Yeah but that's America and most people there who'd get offended but it don't actually know what Communism is and are just following prejudices they've been taught by society.
 

Daaaah Whoosh

New member
Jun 23, 2010
1,041
0
0
In my experiences reading Animal Farm, I understand that communism was never meant to kill people. It was just a way to empower the poor and opressed that turned into something the complete opposite.
 

cl20

New member
Nov 12, 2009
85
0
0
In war it dosent matter who's right, only who's left. So the victor will always be the "good guy"
 

shrimpcel

New member
Sep 5, 2011
234
0
0
Why does everyone focus on Stalin? It's not like he's the only leader of a communist state in history.
 

Michael Hirst

New member
May 18, 2011
552
0
0
Hitler stood for something alot worse than Stalins COmmunism, while both were extremely damaging and just plain wrong it was Hitler and the Nazi's who represented the greatest intolerance. Stalins killings were a cruel act but they were indiscriminate of race unlike Hitler whose goal was complete ehtnic cleansing.

It's also worth noting that Stalin is just one leader of Communism who abused his power and twisted the ideologies on which Communism was formed (see Lenin or even look over to Cuba for other examples of communist leaders who weren't as abusive in their power) whereas the Nazi's ideals were never twisted by the leader but set out straight to put the "Aryan master race" back in it's "rightful place" (I put those in quotations because they're obviously not MY beliefs)

I live in England and I consider myself a Socialist (NOT A COMMUNIST THERE IS A DIFFERENCE) But I'm also smart enough to know that the switch to a fairer more balanced system can't happen overnight. My main cocnerns at the end of the day are that all people who can work should be able to find work (no lack of jobs) everyone who works should have food, shelter and all the other necessities of life. Basic Education should be provided for everyone and advanced education (universities) for anyone with ability and not just the money and finally healthcare should be available to anyone who needs it. Simple goals really but hard to reach all of them it seems.
 

funguy2121

New member
Oct 20, 2009
3,407
0
0
steevee said:
Istvan said:
The Nazis went out with an intention of killing 90-98% (Estimate, anyone outside of Germany and Scandinavia without blue eyes and blonde hair was to be killed) of the world's population because they favored certain aesthetic traits. They fully embraced slavery and mass extermination as completely sensible policies, and they believed that might makes right.

The Communists, although in practice differing little from the Nazis, at least had their morality and goals in order. Their ideals aren't repulsive to the western mind, the majority simply accepts that we cannot create a utopia yet.

Also worth noting is that the communists had many decades in peace to let their corruption and incompetence vanquish millions, whereas the facists went into it with disturbing enthusiasm even as the whole world was working to destroy them, butchering innocent men women and children of conquered populations. If we had seen their places reversed, with Nazis in power for decades across large parts of the world, we would have seen death tolls on the less comfortable side of the billions.

TL;DR

Communist told people he didn't have food.
Nazi went out of his way to heard them into gas chambers.

The first is an idiot, the second is pure evil.
Ok, I'm sorry but I have to jump on this. The claim that the NAzi's wanted to kill 98% of the worlds population is totally false. The Nazi party didn't even want world domination. They were happy with mainland Europe. They had no plans to come into conflict with America or Britain, we threw ourselves in there. They wanted a German Empire where the Arian rase was perfection, but the genocide was resitricted to ethnic minorities and those that did not fit with the Germanic ideal. Even then, extermination was not their first port of call, death camps only came into being in the 40's when it was not feasible to move on the problem of ethnic minorities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Nazi and I think what they did was horrific, but don;t try and paint them as some Super Viliians, because they patently were not.
Aristotle would like a word with you. All of the things you just defined above =s super villains. Maybe not Super Vilililians, but definitely super villains. I particularly enjoyed "they only wanted Mainland Europe" and "They just wanted to kill niggers, is that so wrong" (paraphrased, and yes, it is).
 

AnarchistFish

New member
Jul 25, 2011
1,500
0
0
shrimpcel said:
Why does everyone focus on Stalin? It's not like he's the only leader of a communist state in history.
It was under him that the mass killings occured. Most of the Soviet leaders after him were much less extreme than him.
 

dickywebster

New member
Jul 11, 2011
497
0
0
I could point out we've never had a communist society, but id probably get yelled at.

And mao did worse than Stalin and hitler combined and no one seems to care much. And i think communism is so widely accepted to varying extents cause its been around like 150 years and unlike the nazis there a wide range of views and opinions within the communist movement itself.
Heck stalin and even lenin split international communism down the middle more than a few times.

Oh and according to some americans most of europes communist anyway (joke about the national healthcare system obama wanted, no yelling please) =P
 

Beliyal

Big Stupid Jellyfish
Jun 7, 2010
503
0
0
Besides things already said in the thread, I'd also argue that the Soviets, despite being dicks after (and before), they did help defeat the Nazis and were the ones who marched into Berlin and took it over, and I'd say that their involvement in the war with the Allies was essential to Germany's defeat. Sure, if the Nazis never attacked them, they probably wouldn't help, but once they were pissed, the Allies were lucky to have such a force on their side. So, hammer and sickle sign is also, in a way, an anti-fascist sign (despite the fact that the USSR later on turned out to be ... close to fascism).

Also, communism in itself is not a bad or evil concept; it's actually too good to be true and it often twists into something else. In our sociology class, we learned that the main reasons for the fail of communism was the fact that it started in the wrong place and in the wrong time. But still, as an idea (as proposed by Marx and Engels), it's not an "evil" concept that proposes killing and oppressing people; it's good in theory, but it cannot be done in real life (at least not yet). However, Nazism is a form of Fascism and there's little to no positive things in it, at least for the majority who don't "fit" in. There's no "good on paper, mostly wrong in reality" in it, and Nazism is also keen on militaristic expansion and forcing its ways onto weaker countries, while communism is pretty much making countries closed and does not really effect others who don't want it (well, some of the Eastern European countries would probably disagree here). That's not better necessarily, as it oppresses people from the inside so people are less likely to turn on it, as they would if someone invaded them.

Since the end of the Second World War and up until 20 years ago, my country was a part of Yugoslavia, which was a socialist state. There are still debates over whether it was good or bad; some people are proud of it and say that it was the best we could have at the time and that it saved us (Yugoslavia was a pretty powerful country), while some people say that it was the worst thing that ever happened and still, to this day, rage on about "communism". We'll have elections soon and it's common to insult left leaning parties by calling them "communist". Of course, Yugoslavia's "communism" was not really communism at all, and while there were things like political killings and exiles, it was nowhere near like in the USSR. As a matter of fact, Yugoslavia's leader, Tito, officially declined to ally with the USSR and to condone to their policies (we had our own variant of communism/socialism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titoism]). To this day, some people recall some of the socialist laws and solutions to many problems that we have today (for example, there was free college education, while we today have to spit out ridiculous amounts of money that are in no way adjusted to the average pay). Personally, I don't think our socialist country was extremely bad, especially for that time, but I also cannot agree with how many things were done. Over here, we somehow avoided the worst aspects of communism and I believe there's a hammer and sickle sign on some of the anti-fascist monuments (along with, more usually, a read star), so we don't really see it as something to be banned, and certainly not comparable to a Nazi swastika.
 

AnarchistFish

New member
Jul 25, 2011
1,500
0
0
dickywebster said:
I could point out we've never had a communist society, but id probably get yelled at.
But you'd be correct. You could argue there have been small pockets of actual communist societies around the world but never as an entire country.
 

direkiller

New member
Dec 4, 2008
1,655
0
0
i think it comes falls down to ignorance
http://tinyplanetblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/che2.jpg
people still walk around with Guevara images pasted on there shirts but have no idea what he stood for they just think its a cool picture
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,173
0
0
There's a great section of Crime and Punishment describing how the losers in war history are painted as villains, while the winners are seen as heroes, even though they killed just as many if not more. In the case you're describing, the swastika gets more of a reaction than the hammer and sickle because Nazism is so heavily associated with racism. The Soviet killed their own citizens possibly because of politics or maybe because they weren't meeting production quotas. Nazis invaded other countries and murdered Jews, gypsies, and gay people because they believed they were detrimental to the human race and enemies of the state.

I think the Soviets also murdered Jews from time to time, but it was not the organized Final Solution that Germany created (Note: Just did a little research - the Soviets persecuted Jews because they attempted to set up their own independent states and communities under the Soviet regime.) The other reason is that the hammer and sickle is not limited to just Stalin and there were Soviet leaders before him and after him. Still, I don't think the average person sees a person in a hammer and sickle T shirt and thinks to themselves "Boy, that looks like an intelligent intellectual."
 

AnarchistFish

New member
Jul 25, 2011
1,500
0
0
Guevara stood for freedom and worker's rights. He was killed and martyred before he could be associated with the authoritarian regime that came in afterwards.
 

dickywebster

New member
Jul 11, 2011
497
0
0
AnarchistFish said:
dickywebster said:
I could point out we've never had a communist society, but id probably get yelled at.
But you'd be correct. You could argue there have been small pockets of actual communist society's around the world but never as an entire country.
I know im right, but ive got into so many fights with people who believe that because someone slapped a communism label on, it is communism.
I know that small scale communism communities have been tried to varying success, but country wide its never been done really.