You've been looking in the wrong direction, the dangers are coming from the right.
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Sounds like a convoluted means of saying "the good bits were socialist and the bad bits were fascist".
I didn't say this.
Nobody achieved textbook Communism so we can now absolve left wing radicals of any misdeeds because they were, ahem, taking cues from fascism.
I didn't say this either.
The USSR didn't adhere to the Communist manifesto therefore we can say they were acting like fascists rather than proper communists.
Nor did I say this.
You asked "Would you agree that the USSR wasn't a fascist state?"
I answered that it observed elements of Fascism. If we look at definitions of Fascism, the USSR fits the bill. Below is the Encyclopedia Britannica definition of "Fascism"
Whether you like it or not, Stalinist USSR ticks that box.
The International Encyclopaedia of Political Science also states that "Fascism is...opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, liberalism, socialism and Marxism". apart from the last two entries, the USSR aligns with that pretty closely. And it could be questioned just how much Marxist theory it adhered to after the 1930's.
Whilst Fascism is usually deemed as a hard right system, there's no doubt that the likes of the USSR employed Fascist methods in its practice.
What's odd is that the mass killings by what you might characterise as aspirationally communist regimes weren't an occasional blip here and there but a constant in the majority of Communist regimes.
It's a characteristic of most totalitarian dictatorships, even ones that they themselves claimed to be or are claimed as "Communist".
Fascists deserve to be held accountable for the horrors of their actions and so should Communists. Only one group of people here are trying to absolve one group of the responsibility for their actions.
No one's trying to "absolve" anybody, don't be stupid. What's really happening here, however, is that certain posters want to minimise the conversation to ahistorical nonsense, because they don't like the OP's proposition and cannot come up with a decent or convincing argument against it. So they have to employ non-sequiturs, falsehoods, obfuscation and distraction instead. 😉
We ignore history at our peril and rewriting it to suit a modern narrative is potentially disasterous.
Out of the pair of us, the only one "ignoring" history is you.
As I said to another poster, put your petty politics aside and crack open a few books on the matter. It isn't as simplistic as you would like it to be.
1 -
-
-
-
Twice loser of popular vote, Twice impeached, responsible for 25-30% increase in US debt during his Presidency, harmed climate protection efforts, alienated the US internationally, laughing stock of the UN, criminally mismanaged Covid response, attempted an insurrection and pressured election officials to help him overturn the result of the last election.
And this is what is left of GOP as Lyndsey Graham rolls over completely.
Irrespective to whether he makes it to the ballot or not, or how the election goes, this is a sign of how America has fallen.
And 'center' people, who look at this and Johnson (who might replace Zahawi as Tory chair) and put their efforts in both sidesing the argument are a big part of why this festering mess is still hanging around.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The central conceit of your argument is that the USSR "employed fascist overtones", you then state that because Communism as per the Communist manifesto was never achieved we should not view the multitude of Communist regimes in history and in the present as Communist.
The Fascist overtones you cited are also hallmarks of Totalitarianism which gives a greater breath of traits that better describe Communist regimes. As you cited Encyclopedia Britanica re Fascism let's do the same for Totalitarianism ;
Examples...
The above illustrates the amount of commonality there is between Fascist regimes and Communist regimes.
You shared a set of definitions of Fascism and insisted the reader accept your opinion that the USSR was "employing Fascist overtones" on foot of that. Which of course was untrue.
You openly insulted me three times in the above post. You suggested you were unable to "dumb down" your point any further accused me wasting peoples time and then told me I was making a fool of myself. You did all this whilst arguing a point that has no basis in fact. I tip my hat to you.
Glazers Out!
4 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
The central conceit of your argument is that the USSR "employed fascist overtones", you then state that because Communism as per the Communist manifesto was never achieved we should not view the multitude of Communist regimes in history and in the present as Communist.
The Fascist overtones you cited are also hallmarks of Totalitarianism which gives a greater breath of traits that better describe Communist regimes. As you cited Encyclopedia Britanica re Fascism let's do the same for Totalitarianism
I've never argued that Stalin's USSR wasn't a totalitarian state. The fact of the matter still remains that the USSR never managed to actually achieve a state of Communism. That's indisputable. You can call states whatever you wish and they can call themselves what they want too, hello the DPRK. But it won't change the fact that Communism was beyond each of them. At best they got to some semblance of Socialism. Per the History Channel...
Today, communism and socialism exist in China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos and Vietnam—although in reality, a purely communist state has never existed. Such countries can be classified as communist because in all of them, the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. But none of them have achieved the elimination of personal property, money or class systems that the communist ideology requires.
You shared a set of definitions of Fascism and insisted the reader accept your opinion that the USSR was "employing Fascist overtones" on foot of that. Which of course was untrue.
It's not "untrue" at all. It's actually a very easy point to understand. You can understand what "overtones" means yes? Seriously, I am beginning to question if English is your first language.
Call the USSR whatever you want, if it makes you feel better. But it's as obvious as the nose of your face that under Stalin the USSR morphed into a state that was a "centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader". It also cracked down on dissent and enforced strict economic controls. All of which are traits of fascism.
Here's another "reputable source" citation for you...
Apart from the exaltation of nation and race, which is not always part of Fascist regimes as George Orwell pointed out, Stalin's USSR pretty much fit the criteria here.
I simply cannot believe that you're struggling with this. It's quite amazing.
0
