Saint-Raphaël's right-wing mayor, no stranger to media stunts, has vowed to 'put an end to the lies about the reality of communist totalitarianism.' In response, the French Communist Party and other left-wing groups denounced the 'revisionism of history.'
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.