ManyOpinionsNotSane t1_ixqxs55 wrote
Reply to comment by MSTRMN_ in German foreign minister welcomes efforts to declare Holodomor genocide - spokesperson by hieronymusanonymous
Isn't it like the main piece of red scare propaganda out there? I swear it's part of the reason people flinch in the west when they hear the word communism. It's great that under communism we blame policy failures of autocrats on the ideology. But under capitalism we blame policy failures of our governments on the politicians. That way autocratic capitalist states don't harm capitalisms image, and "democratic" states can maintain the illusion of democracy and capitalism not being fundamentally opposed.
Edit. Even in the wiki page they still can't decide on the direct cause of it. I feel they should sort that part out first. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
[deleted] t1_ixrzxfz wrote
Imagine defending a genocide just to push your ideology.
You're a nazbol.
ManyOpinionsNotSane t1_ixt4wo6 wrote
I'm not at all, I am a leftist but I'm not "defending the Holodomor". Nor do I expect people to be rational about this at this current time given the fact that Ukraine is under siege from a fascist authoritarian nation. I didn't say anything in defense of the Holodomor other than *historians* don't really know if it was Stalin being a cunt, or a broader policy failure. Nowhere in the work of Marx does it say "starve the Ukrainian people." In fact, the word "violence" isn't even in his work. But that was my earlier point. "communism" can't kill people any more than "capitalism" can. Leaders are responsible for policy, regardless of the marketplace ideology they prefer. So why do we only blame the leaders under capitalism, but blame the ideology under communism? Could it be that Stalin was just not a good person?
coelogyne_pandurata t1_ixsd27e wrote
It’s amazing how often the words "commie" and "Jew" are strung together in the same attack on leftists but the same people get completely bent about this "Soviet holocaust". Make up your mind yall!
[deleted] t1_ixsdgda wrote
[deleted]
kes31337 t1_ixu0dpa wrote
If you're equating communism with nazism on a fundamental level, you have to be making some weird mental gymnastics. Historically speaking commies have mostly been the ones fighting nazis on the domestic and foreign front.
ManyOpinionsNotSane t1_ixt3gae wrote
I didn't go to communism, it came to me. Marx is an intelligent human being that was highly aware of the exploitation and degradation of working class people. I'm not sure what it is about communism that people are so intellectually incurious about. You'd think if it was the nightmare ideology people say, people wouldn't be listening so hard to what it has to say about capitalism. The far right and far left are not the same, not even a little.
I mean, lets look at it this way, on my ballot in Canada, I can vote for Liberal, conservative, NDP, and the marxist-leninist party. The ML's are a legal, legitimate entity. There is no nazi party of canada because even the proud boys have been labeled a terror group. You may get some smashed windows from leftist rage, but you know what you don't get? People going into grocery stores to murder black people. People getting into vans and running down protestors. People going into mosques and blowing people away. People posting up on rooftops and shooting moms and dads at a parade.
This is why historical materialism is SO important. A nations culture and history plays a much bigger roll in who they are, then what market place ideology they have. Vietnam and China are examples of communist, authoritarian nations. But even if china *wasn't* communist, it would *still* probably be authoritarian because of "legalism". They have a very "fuck you obey the law mentality." What about all the despots that rule over capitalist nations? where resource extraction wealth goes to a lucky few and it's crumbs for everyone else? Market place ideologies are not inherently democratic or authoritarian. But, communism via socialism is an attempt to democratize the work place.
Why doesn't it work out? I'm glad you asked. So many reasons, not limited to outside influence. Hard to grow an economy under constant embargo. But mostly because the nations that gave it an honest try had very dire material conditions at the outset and communism is better suited to countries that have developed infrastructure. Communism is a utopian ideal, people say. So why did it have to work on the first try? When we invented the airplane, did we start with Boeing 747's and stealth bombers? No, prototype after prototype after prototype. Ok this is a wall of text now, I hope you made it through, but I also get it if you didn't.
Wealthy landowner private property based nations potentially lying about a system that holds the working class in high esteem? Why on earth would they do this?
coelogyne_pandurata t1_ixtci7f wrote
>So why did it have to work on the first try?
The Soviet system brought a backwards agrarian society of 9% literacy to putting Russians in space (before Americans) in 30 years. For all of the mistakes, there was so much success. Absolutely something to learn and adopt there..
ManyOpinionsNotSane t1_ixthq7i wrote
This is also true. History is so much more complex than most people realize. No black and white anywhere.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments