• Traister101@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      I mean the big ones people like to point at (Rushia and fucking Nazi Germany) sure as shit weren’t doing communism or socialism

        • TxzK@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          9 months ago

          I don’t think anyone points at Nazi Germany as an example of a leftist system

          I’ve seen many idiots do that unfortunately

        • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Both Crowder and Shapiro have claimed this. They point out that the Nazi party was the ‘National Socialist German workers’ party’ and claim that’s enough for it to be socialist, and then also claim Russia is a communist country.

          • Klear
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            9 months ago

            Crowder and Shapiro are complete idiots.

          • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            9 months ago

            The USSR was a communist country. A normal use of that term is that a country communist is one that’s run by a communist party.

            If you mean it didn’t achieve communism, well duh communism is a hypothesized society achieved through socialism where the state ceases to exist. No socialists, including the people of the USSR, would think that their nation-state has achieved communism as that’s oxymoronic. They would think of it as a transitional socialist state.

        • DoctorSpocktopus@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          There are definitely some folks that see “National Socialism” as the party name and look no further. Fortunately, I don’t think it’s a strong majority, but they pop up online.

        • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Correct. They are both idiots who pointed at Nazi Germany as an example of a leftist system.

        • Traister101@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s always as a “See!! Socialism bad!!” but yep they were literally fascist, Rushia too and yet here we are with people still thinking communist Rushia was communist.

              • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                20
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                Fascism is when you oppose fascism.

                Do you even understand what the words you’re using mean?

                • Traister101@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Incredibly I don’t think that the USSR is “as bad as the Nazis” nor did I say anything like that. Is that why you morons are calling me a Nazi? Do you guys need a paragraph explaining that yes I do think the Nazis are bad?

                  I’m not trying to win fuckn internet points I’d still be on reddit if I got turned on by that kinda shit. You people are.

              • Gabu@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                9 months ago

                The USSR was a dictatorship, but not a fascist dictatorship.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  21
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Stalin tried to resign 3 times and wasn’t allowed to. Weird thing for a dictator to not be allowed to do.

                  • Gabu@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Ignoring everything else wrong about your one sentence, a dictatorship needn’t be helmed by a single person. Brazil was a dictatorship from the 60s to the 90s, and had 6 different presidents during that time.

                • duderium [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Dictatorships are when almost the entire population supports the government. Democracy is when corporations own all candidates and the electoral college designed by slaveowners almost 300 years ago decides all presidential elections. I am a critical thinker.

                • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  The USSR was a dictatorship

                  No it wasn’t. This is propaganda. Even the CIA admits that it is propaganda in this document:

                  Democracy under socialism is simply structured differently. You need to study it properly.

                  Several countries that you support today still use a system very much like this. Cuba and Vietnam for example. A solid video on Cuban democracy is here: https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds

                  All the socialist countries built on this system.

          • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Have you considered that you seem to know almost nothing about this and therefore shouldn’t share your opinion like it’s some kind of fact?

      • darvit@lemmy.darvit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Not sure if alternative spelling or if your autocorrect really likes controversial vtuber Uruha Rushia.

      • ohitsbreadley@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Even the DDR wasn’t doing socialism. The public had to be all-in the idea, or they were discredited or arrested. It was an authoritarian autocracy acting in the name of socialism.

        • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          That is indeed what your capitalist NGOs tell you with unlimited funds.

          Consider that socialism is about control over the means of production, of deposing the capitalist system, and that your dismissal of the DDR as socialist didn’t address that at all. Do you think it’s possible you’ve been lied to?

          • ohitsbreadley@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            No, I think I’m far enough on the left to be aware of capitalist propaganda. In all fairness to you, my statement did not treat the subject with the appropriate nuance the subject should require.

            The DDR was socialist. However, it was state socialism, which in my opinion is not ideal and not something we should strive to replicate. Yes, the means of production were “owned by the people,” but the state tasks itself with protecting the people. And therein lies the problem with state socialism - the state is easily commandeered by a corrupt minority who then uses the governmental apparatus to run an authoritarian regime. Precisely what happened in the DDR and the USSR.

            We should be able to recognize the imperfections in prior socialist attempts, without immediately calling it “capitalist NGO propaganda.”

            • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              There was no issue re: nuance in your statements, they were just nonsensical and revealed a lack of understand the basic ideas of the topic. This trend has continued with this reply.

              The DDR was socialist. However, it was state socialism, which in my opinion is not ideal and not something we should strive to replicate.

              The framing of socialism as ownership of the means of production goes hand-in-hand with control over the state. It’s how it was originally formulated by Marx, Engels, etc. The term “dictatorship of the proletariat” is stated in the same breaths and texts and concepts. There is no such thing as non-state socialism in this conception, the only conception that is relevant to this discussion.

              This is something a person would know if they had ever read even a basic summary of this topic.

              Yes, the means of production were “owned by the people,” but the state tasks itself with protecting the people. And therein lies the problem with state socialism - the state is easily commandeered by a corrupt minority who then uses the governmental apparatus to run an authoritarian regime.

              You’re even using the liberal NGO lexicon for this description! Vague generalizations about authoritarianism and cute little stories with no grounding in reality.

              We should be able to recognize the imperfections in prior socialist attempts, without immediately calling it “capitalist NGO propaganda.”

              It’s not hard to identify a poor understanding when you have, you know, actually learned about these things. And interacted with thousands of people just like you and know why they parrot such nonsense. If you had an informed or valid criticism that would be something to talk about, but we are not in that situation. I think we are looking at a graduate of Reddit University, with all the intellectual humility that implies.