Are we communists?!

[AlloAllo]

Same reason you can wear Che Guevara shirts. That guy basically ruined Cuba, was involved in countless bloody revolutions, yet he's seen by many as a hero, a goddamn freedom fighter.

He was a freedom fighter. The regimes he fought were authoritarian ones that suppressed their people so it'd be hard to argue that the fundamental aim of the revolutions was wrong.

Ah yes, a man who executed civilians, soldiers and police officers alike without giving them any form of trial. Yup, sounds like a good guy to me.

It matters not wether or not he was fighting for a right cause or not. It's like saying, well. Hitler did well making Germany a fascist nation cause he put Germany back on the map. But hey, the end justifies the means, right?

One guy's hero is another one's villain. No one can really live 'til the end of his days as a pure saint- unless somebody doesn't kill him before he can do anything else, of course.

In other words: leave it.

Ghandi did manage to contribute to a "revolution" without any use of force and he definately did not execute people... Yet, you don't see people wearing his face on their shirts.

TBH he's probably a better role model than Guevara.

As I said to answer to him, it's all about the point of view. You can't force your idea upon somebody else just because you think it's right, and, besides, no one will change what they think no matter how much you keep insisting.

People do stuff, he thinks that's wrong, the other one thinks that's right, another one thinks it was a necessary evil and yadda yadda, useless war upon something that won't change no matter what.

Just... leave it. For the love of God. Don't go out of topic because your idea was challenged by a stranger on a forum.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Also this was the guy that the US propped up

Yeah I know, the USA was a bunch of assholes back then. The Anti-communist attitude is still present among the majority of it's people too, albeit not as much as 60 years ago. It certainly isn't as violent either.

I'd say that the US still hold sentiments like that, when you look at places like Israel.

In the UK the news showed a clip of a guy at some rally in the US shouting at the journalist asking if he was a communist. I think it was some tea party thing though.

at least the Soviets fought the nazis.

The Soviets fought the Nazis cos they were attacked by them. Originally they were willing to let the Nazis invade all of Europe so they don't exactly have the moral high ground.

also we cannnot create a utopia EVER! human nature would not let it happen.

It's beliefs like that that make it impossible in the first place.

 

[SonicKoala]

For the most part, it didn't. Gypsy and Jews were targeted on occasions, but it had less to do with the race and more to do with the life style (Both were, at the time, highly secular. Not really in line with the 'Party First' ideal).

Secular means separate from religion, which is exactly what the Communists wanted. I think you mean both groups were religious.

 

[Kair]

So many people talk about things they know so little about. It is nice that you ask though.

 

[peruvianskys]

So many people talk about things they know so little about. It is nice that you ask though.

If you are a Marxist, please give me three examples of successful communist states. Or one, maybe.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Nazism and the Swastika:
Antisemitism and state headed prejudiced.

Communism and the Hammer and Sickle:
Everyone is equal, ect ect

The symbol does not stand for the person... it stands for the political ideology.
On its own, without Hitler, nazis are still evil.
Where as without Stalin, Communism is just stupid.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I'd say that the US still hold sentiments like that, when you look at places like Israel.

In the UK the news showed a clip of a guy at some rally in the US shouting at the journalist asking if he was a communist. I think it was some tea party thing though.

Yeah, you'll see that every now and again. I find the more absurd ones to typify US anti-communism more than any others though. In almost every pirate thread you'll see a couple Americans saying how they're communists for wanting everything for free. It isn't something every American hates, but there is definitely more hatred than love for communism.

also we cannnot create a utopia EVER! human nature would not let it happen.

It's beliefs like that that make it impossible in the first place.

You'd need a true communist to take up the position and a protégé that they'd pass on their ideals to before you attain a perfect communist state. Any slight deviation would throw the entire country into another Stalinist state, a horrific monstrosity of a once wonderful idea with so much potential.

 

[Kair]

So many people talk about things they know so little about. It is nice that you ask though.

If you are a Marxist, please give me three examples of successful communist states. Or one, maybe.

You know very little about this subject, and the question you ask is rhetorical.
Most likely I can't tell you anything that you have not already insisted on ignoring.

 

[Kair]

Double post because of server problems.

 

[AnarchistFish]

So many people talk about things they know so little about. It is nice that you ask though.

If you are a Marxist, please give me three examples of successful communist states. Or one, maybe.

So much lol

When you say you're an anarchist, what do you actually believe in specifically?

 

[peruvianskys]

You know very little about this subject, and the question you ask is rhetorical.
Most likely I can't tell you anything that you have not already insisted on ignoring.

Hardly! You are advocating a political philosophy and I am asking you to show me an example of it not failing terribly. What's so wrong with that? I've read the classics, I'm not ignorant of communism's sociopolitical tenants, I'm just asking you to explain why Marxism has always failed.

When you say you're an anarchist, what do you actually believe in specifically?

I lean towards Mutualism or market anarchism, a la Benjamin Tucker or Proudon. I'm a heavy individualist anarchist but not an anarcho-capitalist.

 

[Harrowdown]

Part of it will just be that the USSR was on the side that won, and thus the side that wrote the history. That, and the crimes committed by the nazi party, whilst less numerous than those of Stalin, were significantly more grotesque in nature. Stalin killed dissenters and political enemies, but Hitler instigated the systematic eradication of an entire race.

 

[Kair]

You know very little about this subject, and the question you ask is rhetorical.
Most likely I can't tell you anything that you have not already insisted on ignoring.

Hardly! You are advocating a political philosophy and I am asking you to show me an example of it not failing terribly. What's so wrong with that? I've read the classics, I'm not ignorant of communism's sociopolitical tenants, I'm just asking you to explain why Marxism has always failed.

When you say you're an anarchist, what do you actually believe in specifically?

I lean towards Mutualism or market anarchism, a la Benjamin Tucker or Proudon. I'm a heavy individualist anarchist but not an anarcho-capitalist.

"Marxism has always failed" - To give credit to Karl Marx: Marxism never tried.
Also, a Communist is not a Marxist.

The only conflict here is between you and the common misconception of what Communism is. I told you that you know very little about this subject, and I told you that very few people know much about this subject.
If I try to teach you, it would be as if I was trying to teach you what an apple is while you had already insisted to yourself that you knew that an apple is a banana.

 

[TiloXofXTanto]

The USSR were closer to fascism than communism, they weren't a properly socialist society. The hammer and sickle represents communism, not the USSR, whereas the swastika specifically represents the Nazis (in this context).

It's a 100% Russian symbol; they invented it, they used it. It was only later adopted by other communist nations.

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.

Actually, the Swastika was an ancient symbol of purity and peace, the Nazi party took it as their symbol in order to symbolize that they were pure.
They never intended it to be the antisemitism symbol, that's just how people took it afterward. They didn't even really mean to use it to represent their beliefs or justify their genocide, they just wanted something to inspire and rally their soldiers and followers.

The hammer and sickle though was used simply to show that the USSR was supposed to be a utopian communist society, (they didn't do that very well) so I can see your point to that end.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

This is appropriate:

 

[peruvianskys]

"Marxism has always failed" - To give credit to Karl Marx: Marxism never tried.
Also, a Communist is not a Marxist.

The only conflict here is between you and the common misconception of what Communism is. I told you that you know very little about this subject, and I told you that very few people know much about this subject.
If I try to teach you, it would be as if I was trying to teach you what an apple is while you had already insisted to yourself that you knew that an apple is a banana.

That is a No True Scotsman argument in perfect form; you're looking at all these examples of people who openly identified as Marxist, supported by the vast majority of Marxists at the time, following principles based in the writings of Marx (and Engels) and saying "No, that wasn't Marxism!" It's like the capitalists today who argue that the shitstorm that currently plagues the world is not capitalism's fault because we didn't adhere to every comma and period in The Wealth of Nations. Maybe Marx never ran a country and maybe you can point out vague discrepancies between orthodox Marxist political economy and the basis of every communist regime in history, but again, it's hardly convincing proof that while every government and social movement proclaiming to be Marxist has failed, you can point out that it wasn't "really Marxism" and go on your way. It reminds me of the Christians who look at the crusades and pogroms and bloodshed throughout history and say, "Well those people weren't really Christians."

I hate to pull out the "I'm well-read" defense but you should know that I've read the Communist Manifesto, The Conquest of Bread, Lenin and Trotsky and all the "authentic Marxists" as well. So yes, if you want to get semantic, "communism" can never be state-run as defined by Marx. I get that. It doesn't change the fact that Marxism and the theories espoused by Marx have been the motivation behind dozens of terrible atrocities in the last hundred years.

In short, yes, pure Marxist "communism" is not the USSR or Pol Pot. But that doesn't mean that A) those people were not clearly motivated and often self-identified as ardent Marxists, and B) that Marxism in its pure form is even viable apart from those atrocities. If Marxism has never been tried, as you claim, then why?

 

[CrystalShadow]

That being said, I have never, in my life, seen ANYONE wear either symbols. I have only seen the swastika displayed in public in South Korea, but it was used by Buddhist (Scared the shit out of me the first time I saw it, though).

Yeah... That's what you get when some genocidal lunatics co-opt a religious symbol that's thousands of years old.

There are actually two versions of the swastika, which point in opposite directions. They mean, life, and death respectively. (And guess which one the Nazis were using?)

Still, both symbols are now completely ruined as far as their original purpose goes. I doubt anyone would give any thought to why it would be back to front for the other version.
And in general, only those who have some knowledge of buddhist history (or those like me that know this particular anecdote) would even realise this symbol has any meaning outside of it's use as the Nazi symbol.

Figures.

 

[Racecarlock]

No form of government is inherently evil. Even dictatorships. It's the people who run them that tend to be jackasses. And this is true of every form of government. Remember when bush lead our capitalist society? Yeah, that sucked. That said, most people, including you and I, are quick to make a stereotype out of it and judge ideologies based on the idiots that ran them, excluding the smart people that also might have ran them. Fear sucks, paranoia sucks. But neither are escapable.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Swasticas are associated with Nazis which are associated with evil, The Hammer and Sickle is largely associated with Russia, more specifically communist Russia. It's not directly associated with Stalin or evil things just with communism in a country. Therefore it is generally more acceptable.