russian propoganda is widespread in France it seems
if communism = facism then facism = communism. Does that sound even remotely sane? Dumb monument. Though frankly i cant even understand how anyone would get something like that from a wireframe guy telling about huge fish it almost caught.
For most morons in the world, the fact that the English translation of the Nazi’s name has “socialist” in it was proof enough for them.
God forbid we want to prevent the Elon musks and the Peter Thiels and even the John D Rockefellers of the world from just wrenching control from the rest of us entirely using their massively outsized wealth. You can still get a good wage and live in your bigger house running your hvac installer company or whatever, it doesn’t mean being paid in bread rations and it doesn’t mean putting people in camps, assholes.’it means The Koch brothers have no incentive to fight off solar energy so they can keep seeking you poison sludge that gives you cancer
On a historical aspect, it does sound a bit sane. Both were used to justify similar regimes that strangled the people.
Communism can be seen as fascism by lucky liberals who dont understand we share this earth and have responsibilities to our neighbor. Communism ‘removes’ autonomy by making it a group effort and reducing the power of money which lets people have a degree of separation from the work and people.
Not that I agree, but people see communism as the real world attempts and not the philosophy. This is very apparent when you realize those anti communism in America tend to be Christian.
Jesus being a dude who provided free health care, food, and assistance to his neighbor. Just communist philosophy to the max. However they prefer the philosophy that he died so that we can keep sinning and would rather kill their brother than share the bread.
its just that i cant see how fasicm can be considered communism. Communist regime can also be facist but its crazy to just make them mean the same thing. Its like saying nazi germany was communist.
You say you can’t see how and then explain exactly how.
They definitely do not mean the same thing that’s the same thing that happened to Nazis. They just were the biggest example of fascists on the world stage. A concept older than the Nazis. When Nazi is really more an ideology of hate wearing a façade.
The same party that is used to chastise ‘socialist’ beliefs when it wasn’t truly socialist. Words evolve and change, it’s why spreading a message is better than spreading a term. Whether or not you are right mattrrs very little when the person listening understands something different.
Help your neighbor and let them not go hungry - least we can do is spread our beliefs through our acts. I wish to raise the bottom line, and this will come at the detriment of my time, labor, and whatnot. This is why those with means would rather not sacrifice their comfort. Even when it’s just money.
This thread feels like i just sat down for some coffee and a cigarette at a corner cafe on a cool April morning in Paris, 1871…
Authoritarian gouvernements that claim to be for a certain group of people but then only enrich themselves while terrorizing the enemies of the state as well as those that they claim to represent.
The difference lies in the economic systems, the political ones are eerily similar for two ideologies supposed to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.
I’ll always prefer ideologies that aim to do well but end up misused for power over ideologies that directly aim to do evil.
Nazism aims to end the “oppression” of the straight Aryan man by destroying Jews, queers and so on.
Communism aims to end the oppression of the worker by ending private property and seizing the means of production.
Even if many or all communist systems end up in violent autocratic tyranny, I’ll never equate the two ideologies or their followers.
Exactly. Striving for egalitarianism is objectively more ethical than whatever fascism is.
Listen, people from the former Soviet bloc, we get it, you were traumatized. But you can’t just blanketly force your bad experience on the rest of us. In much of the world, the polarity of your experience was reversed. Communists were (and are) the people arguing for democracy for human rights and for liberty. And they were the people persecuted and jailed and tortured for this. Joke all you like, but it’s just simply historical fact in places ranging from Spain and Greece to like Indonesia and Nepal. And in those places, the conflation of communism and Nazism as “totalitarianism” is just obscene.
In France in particular, I mean look at the tricolour: socialist ideas are part of what being French is. And this fascist mayor is doing something obscene, essentially lumping the collaborationists and the pétainistes together with the people who fought against them for a free french people.
Yes, your experiences are valid, but they are not the only ones that are valid.
Listen, people from the former Soviet bloc,
I’m confused who you’re addressing your comment to. The article is about a French town. That’s not the former soviet bloc.
That’s entirely where the perspective comes from, even if it’s second-hand, since most other people don’t have direct experience living in a communist society.
Or Nazi society for that matter, but got the most part we have consensus on that one being universally awful.
That’s just a flat lie. Communists have never championed Democracy and human rights. PRC, North Korea, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, none promoting either democracy or human rights in practice. What possible state falls into your arguments here, I struggle to think of a single one.
I mean Cambodia under Pol Pot!? Human rights, what a joke.
Cuba seems to be pretty good with respect to human rights (especially considering their situation). Don’t they have like the best (and most per capita maybe?) doctors in the world?
Certainly not democratic since all opposition was abolished, and the press was censored.
Communists never championed democracy and rights?
What do you know of modern Greek history?
Here is what I wrote:
Communists were (and are) the people arguing for democracy for human rights and for liberty. And they were the people persecuted and jailed and tortured for this.
Do you want me to list names of Greek communists who did exactly that and suffered exactly thar? I even have a great-uncle who did several years hard time.
You say what state falls under this description? I dunno, Chile under Allende? Kerala under several decades of communist government? Uruguay under Mujica? Burkina under Sankara? Or do you want a recent European example, like Cyprus under Christofias? Or do you want examples of countless communist mayors from around the world? I could expand to Chiapas under the Zapatistas or Republican Spain or even Rojava under the SDF but let’s keep revolutionary governments out of the picture.
Cyprus, Chile and Uruguay? You’ve got to be kidding… these failed states have horrendous human rights records
At this point in the thread I’m not sure if you’re ignorant or just trolling.
Could say the same so maybe just leave it
There was never one Communism, but many different ones.
Communism in Italy, for example, was only slightly related to the experience in the CCCP.Communists in Italy never held state power…
Who stopped Pol Pot?
For that matter, who colonized Cambodia and Vietnam?
Where are the memorials for the victims of French imperialism?
Great whataboutism, but irrelevant to the question at hand
The question at hand is “why are these French fascists pointing morons at communism when they’re trying to bring back empire” and the answer is “because dumbasses like you buy it and talk about whattaboutism when people point out their hypocrisy.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Might want to read that btw. You might find the “Defense” section interesting if you’re actually interested in honest rhetoric.
No. The question at hand is, of course, my comment to which you replied; to exemplify these, Communist states that so champions Democracy and Human Rights. And I’m just waiting…
If your definition of democracy is going out and vote every 4/5 yr (that fundamentally wont change anything) and then be suppressed by state, then sure you are enjoying democracy
k
Ok and was the USSR democratic?
It had democratic aspects, but overall it wasn’t really democratic.
You educated and do not praise us straight to gulag!
For like 10 minutes in the beginning.
No, it also wasn’t communist so not sure what’s your point.
Nah bro we lernd in skool that they called themselves communist; they wrote CCCP on everything there’s gotta be at least one communism in there
Nazism and communism are completely different concepts.
Nazism and communism are completely different concepts.
In theory only, you are right.
But Fascism and Communism share a lot in practice though. Both use absolute rule and an authoritarian state as a mean to control populace. No democracy, rule of law, human rights.
Communism is not, by definition, authoritarian rule. Sure, a lot of examples exist where that’s the case, but that’s only because anything less couldn’t withstand the CIA starting a coup. It isn’t required, but you need something strong to resist anti-leftist governments doing everything they can to overthrow you.
The USSR did exist “in spite of the CIA” and look how well that went.
Yeah, after WWII they had to maintain a strict authoritarian rule to root out traitors and espionage and even still it eventually got beaten.
You do realize that the argument you are making is “rich bullies will always ruin attempts at socialism so we should just let those rich bullies have all the power because at least we’re not being oppressed by a government”
All the other countries faced similar challenges, and despite that they didn’t all turn violent dictatorships. You just try to blame all the horrors of communism in the twentieth century on others.
Which is really fun because in creating the authoritarian state you’ve undermined communism in ideology and remain as such in name only.
Communism, by definition, cannot have a state.
Well, the CCP by definition does. They call it China .
You do acknowledge that Engels & Marx ideas have never successfully been realised anywhere at any time in History?
The CCP is a (well, not really anymore) socialist party with the intention of building communism.
I KNOW what communism should be according to the manifest. I also know that socialism is intented as a phase according to the theory.
Now, back to Praxis; The CPC calls itself communism as in Communist Party of China (CPC) . So yeah. Also in older days many countries have used socialist or communist as synonymous. But, and I agree! in theory, communism was never reached.
Hence the differences in my ealier answer: In theory they are Nothing alike. But what is known and proclamated about communism& socialist does in fact share a common authoritarian kind of Government. Like, China, USSR, Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba etc.
The CPC calls itself communism as in Communist Party of China (CPC). So yeah.
I know it’s a tired comparison, but the Democratic Republic of Congo calls itself democratic, but is authoritarian.
North Korea is also officially called the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.
What does that mean for the praxis of democracy?
What does that mean for the praxis of democracy?
Not very much, as they are always exceptions.
The whole discussion, or so I believe, if about the use and meaning of Communism. Without any explicit context it will always be about the Praxis and not the Marx & Engels theory.
But, I’ll hop along on your boat and repeat again, what I’ve said before. In theory, communism ( Marx & Engels) is not authoritarian. It’s an ideal, which was never reached and there is no existing example of anything near to that ideal afaik. Usually , existing examples have failed.
The only other existing examples are those pol parties & countries which have called themselves communist / socialist and ALL if not Most of all those parties, were ,or almost directly ended up authoritarian.
When we, the world use a word, its usually a reference to the most known & propaganidised meanings in that political context( Europe), and thats Communism as in like USSR, CPC etc.
Normally, in any book,speech, or reference, were people use the word democratic, it entails some form of freedom, citizens participation and elections.
Is that perfect? No. Does it always work out? No. But everyone knows that usually, democracies should bring more freedom to citizens, than for example, Fascism
Many people tend to forget that Hitler’s political party used to be called National Socialist Party. Here again that word " Socialist", was used by a Gvment in a negative way.
Is Socialism bad perse? No ofcourse not. Most if not all countries in Europe have or used to have a strong Socialist dimension. And, I would like to see more of that, when possible. That word is not negative.
To be social is to care about others, but it does get a different meaning when used as synonymous to Communism. Especially when used without context, explanation whatsoever.
… different totalitarian concepts.
Wrong. While a large number of communist labelled regimes were in fact totalitarian regimes (whether they actually were communist is another debate), totalitarianism is not inherent to communism (and it can be argued that a democratic foundation is necessary for communism or that communism is the democratisation of labour). However, fascism is characterised by (among others) an extreme form of authoritarianism (i.e. totalitarianism) that is structured after the Führerprinzip.
Lots of things can be argued in academics. The largest communist experiments have been totalitarian. The idea that democracy is a core component to a communist society is now more commonly referred to as democratic socialism.
Democratic socialism isn’t socialism, except with democracy lmao.
Great argument, once again. By the virtue of simply disagreeing with me, you’ve proven yourself smarter. Wonderful job.
Instead of doubling down, why don’t you do some research on Venezuela to understand what context democratic socialism applies to, or literally just look up the structure of any communist party (Hint: its democratic)
Looks at the CCP…
Wow, it’s so Democratic, I say nervously.
@Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz @alcoholicorn@hexbear.net
the structure of any communist party (Hint: its democratic)
Which communist party is or was democratic?
So, just “you’re wrong” again. Great discourse we’re having.
Is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea a democracy then by your logic?
You’re doing the same both sides shit as the fascist mayor.
Total control by the working class is not the same as total control by the bourgeois we live under or the total control by fascist weirdos the bourgeois settle for when their system is in crisis.
Looking at the Soviet take in the topic: both were totalitarian, though. I wouldn’t call them “two sides of the same coin” as that mayor, but each on their own used a totalitarian approach to achieve their goals.
In the end it won’t matter much to you if you’re locked up because you have the wrong religion or because you are the wrong social class.
If I was a rich landowner in Soviet Russia or Mao’s China, and I didn’t want to go to jail or be made to wear a silly hat and paraded around town, I would simply not burn my crops and instead support the workers. But maybe I’m just built different.
Hm, but you wouldn’t say that everyone persecuted in China or the Soviet Union deserved said persecution, would you?
No, there were definitely mistakes made, which are worth studying. I don’t believe the solution is less worker control, which nearly every western perspective on any such cases aims to make.
Edit: Life and terror in Stalin’s Russia is a pretty good book on the subject.
That sounds like although you see some errors, you overall agree with their approach of totalitarianism?
I don’t believe the solution is less worker control
Was/is there actual worker control in these systems, though? Are the migrant workers from rural areas in China actually in control of the country? How much influence did the ordinary workers actually have on the party elites running the countries in the Soviet Bloc? In the end, the ordinary workers didn’t seem to be so happy with their control, when they opposed and toppled the system.
You are acknowledging total control in both systems, but are arguing against the word totalitarian to describe them. What is your actual argument?
That totalitarian and authoritarian are dumb words because they equate the working class being in control with the bourgeois being in control. Its as silly as saying we need a healthy balance between tyranny and democracy.
Do you think that you specifically, as a worker, would have more power under totalitarian communism? Your voice and your opinions would be taken into account by the unaccountable leaders? Do you really think you would even be allowed to critique party policy?
unaccountable leaders
I would simply not vote for a leader who I didn’t like.
Your voice and your opinions would be taken into account
The average Chinese or Cuban feels more represented than the average American, in Vietnam it seems like the more rural areas feel strongly represented, while the urban residents are more likely to feel they have no power and the whole system has become rotten.
A few years ago, Cuba had a referendum on a new constitution. After years of local discussions, revisions, and more discussion, they came up with a document that most everyone agreed with, it passed with over 90% support.
The average Chinese or Cuban feels more represented than the average American
Could you please cite a source? How much of that is toeing the party line so they don’t get asked out for tea?
That’s a great statistic, >90%. Shows up all over the place in communist literature. I’m sure it’s a sign of a well functioning democracy with diverse opinions represented.
There are plenty of systems under the umbrella term of “communism,” not all of which are totalitarian. If you’re specifically talking about Marxist-Leninism (the Soviet and Chinese implementation) then yeah fair that sucks, but when you just say “communists” you’re also including folks like council communists.
From my perspective as a radical social liberal, it seems to me that totalitarian and authoritarian outcomes are inherent to any form of socialism which embrace revolution, or the complete replacement of societal institutions, and communism is of course the poster child. This seems to happen whether or not totalitarian traits existed in the ideology, before coming to power.
When you go back in history, and read letters written by the losers of party power struggles, before they lost, or read accounts of things they said, you will often find their sheer naivety to be striking, I find.
My personal theory is that several of the methods used to come to power, many of the power structures that emerge, and the eventual new institutions that are created, are strong tools for exercising power, while they often only have weak guards to prevent abuses of power. The most cynical members of a party will use and abuse them, they will come to dominate, and they will not get rid of these weaknesses in the system, thereby removing their own advantage in wielding, maintaining and grabbing for more power.
It’s interesting how socialism is an ideology that is very focused on power relations and dynamics (employer vs. employee for instance), presents itself as an equaliser or a liberator of people being subject to others, and has a lot of political theory at its foundation, and yet, it seemingly has such a glaring blind spot of falling victim to itself.
I think everyone on the far left would benefit immensely, from going back and reading a whole lot of early liberal thought about power and the state. From back when it was more just a strand of political theory, than an ideology as such. And when I say they would benefit, I mean it genuinely, in that it would help them ensure that whatever political change they might become a part in bringing about, will be able to serve it’s original goals, rather than quickly become corrupted.
I am struggling to think of much there that would be inherently incompatible with even far-left socialism. Except, perhaps, if your view is that the state is, and should be total and absolute, then that is of course incompatible with putting restrictions on its power, or dividing it into separate parts that must check each other.
This seems to happen whether or not totalitarian traits existed in the ideology, before coming to power.
“Whether or not” examples on the “not” part?
I am struggling to think of much there that would be inherently incompatible with even far-left socialism.
The right to private property and wealth accumulation. Aka the so-called “free” market. Property rights as a core part of liberty (meaning that when you violate someone’s private property you violate their liberty) is an idea at the core of liberal thought. Meanwhile socialist ideologies are all built on the idea of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. This is a fundamental, irreconcilable contradiction.
Here’s another dumbass. Capitalism IS an extension of totalitarianism.
The two most murderous political movements of the twentieth century? Yeah they can both burn in hell.
Capitalism: hold my beer, I’ll wipe em all out!
That’s for the 21 century!
“…two sides of the same tragic coin.”
Well that’s just a bad metaphor. Now I dislike this mayor for two reasons.
Despite strong opposition from left-wing representatives, Frédéric Masquelier, the mayor of Saint-Raphaël on the French Riviera, unveiled France’s first monument to the “victims of communism” on Saturday, August 23. Masquelier, a member of the right-wing party Les Républicains, said, “Nazism and communism (…) are two sides of the same tragic coin.” The monument depicts a man pushing back two massive blocks and was placed next to a memorial dedicated to the martyrs of the Resistance, many of whom were communists.
Other than the obvious “mayor is a fascist” part, why the fuck does a French town need a monument for “victims of communism”? Communist Russia and China were very brutal, but what exactly did they do that directly affected France? Surely the monument is not for the handful of French communists who lived in the USSR and were victims of various purges.
I disagree with the monument itself, but to also remember the victims of the socialist dictatorships (Holodomor, big leap forward, red Khmer, and many others) is not a bad thing. And why there? Because the places where it happened might not want to remember them, e.g. look at Russia and how it handles it Soviet Union past.
While it’s on the fascist side instead of the socialist, Berlin for example has a monument to the forced prostitution during Japanese colonialism. And Germany was not involved there either, but it’s still worthwhile to remember it, since Japan tries to hide it.
Knowing these types, there’s more than a few Nazis on that monument.
So they should not stand up against Israel (for example)?
Empathy. That’s why.
Big difference between standing up against oppression and erecting monuments. I guarantee that this town doesn’t have a growing collection of monuments dedicated to victims of oppression around the world and doesn’t plan to, either.
