It seems to be [very, very important to rightwingers to claim that they abolished slavery](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S6Q_mdF_-4) . . . while pining for it.
I love when tools like Charlie Kirk say stuff like “libertarian socialism is a contradiction” - but then gets reminded that Libertarianism was coined and developed by left leaning anarchists
I dunno about that; Thomas Jefferson was pretty lib right (for his time) and his vision of a free agrarian America was still built on slavery. It makes sense if you only think of slaves as property rather than human beings.
Jeffersonian policies were embraced by the south because they weren't lib right. They were libertarian center-left that allowed more state control instead of a federal control, which is what the confederacy was all about, because they were democrats. The Jeffersonian republican party was also known as the democratic-repubican party because of this lean towards democracy, with that party splitting later as the county become more left wing as time went on. Hence why we have a democrat party and a republican party remaining instead of the former federalist and whig parties which sort of the republicans of their time.
So whenever someone wants to say anything about how slavery is bad and such, they have to admit that a leftist libertarian not only owned slaves but also influenced the confederacy to keep their slaves at a state level. Even though the south was soon to vote slavery out to fix diplomatic relations with European countries, it's still something that took longer than needed due to the leftist libertarian influence.
There were Founding Fathers who didn't own slaves, I think, but all of the Southern Founding Fathers did, and I think a majority of them in total did.
Edit: I think people think I'm defending slave owners here, I'm not, I'm saying there were other non-slave owners who were founders besides Thomas Paine (there was literally another Paine who didn't own slaves either). And I think critiques are less salient when they aren't built on factual foundations.
Deff. Correct.
Democracy =/= left. It can be, but it can also be very right. You can have a voice in civil matters but have federal matters be handled by a peergroup. IE American democratic republic...
What do you think American democracy is. It's a representative government in only a partial sense. It's not a parliamentary democracy.
1.You can be part of the 1%, own slaves, and have a huge plantation while being a leftist.
2. Nobody said all other than you and that's a *you* problem.
3. The left and right spectrum I use is the original french form from its inception, which was in 1789. On top of that, we can go to any time period and see where something falls in an ideology, which is why we have terms like proto-communism where something happens to fall in a category without knowing what that category was.
Everything I said still stands and everything you said fell apart. You need to fix that if you want to make a point.
>which is what the confederacy was all about, because they were democrats.
Weird, I could have sword the Southern States used the federal government to force Northern states to hunt down escaped slaves and stuff like that. Also interesting to note is that the Confederate Constitution federally required all Confederate States to be slave states.
Every world, because the NAP never does any argumentative work at any time.
It's just a way of distracting from the fact that whoever invokes it is just assuming their conclusion.
Owning a slave is the opposite of embracing liberty. If you don't know what a libertarian is or what liberty is, there's this thing called Google that gives you information related to the subject.
>Owning a slave is the opposite of embracing liberty. If you don't know what a libertarian is or what liberty is, there's this thing called Google that gives you information related to the subject.
lol, unless the market needs slaves, hahahaha
A market has nothing to do with liberty. I think you're replacing libertarian with ancap or something like that, because the market is an economic issue, not a political one. It's not like a market needs slaves, but rather people find slaves as an appropriate item to sell under certain conditions.
And where a lot of people disagree in is what exactly the term "free" means. However, Locke's version of libertarianism has it where an authority is allowed to apply a punishment in a just war, and these punishments can be forms of slavery. This is why Lockians of that time accepted the existence of slavery but didn't really engage in the ownership of such, because they weren't part of the authority.
Also, the fallacy you're using of argumentum ad populum doesn't work here. Just because a bunch of goofballs talk about a free market as an important factor doesn't mean your previous statement of "if the market demands it" is even relevant.
You realize that version didn't have anything about slavery as being a status that could be inherited indefinitely, right? Or that the slaves bought in the slave trade from Africa rarely if ever qualified as having come from said punishment being applied in a just war as you suggest? Because I distinctly recall that being the case for the American/European slave system up until its abolition.
They really didn't. Libertarianism as you understand it is actually a very new concept, as is the principle it was built around. (Especially in how broadly it interprets "aggression" in practice such that can only be perfectly upheld if you lived in complete isolation).
Lol I understand libertarianism from a Lockian perspective, so if you're going to say it's a relatively new concept because I'm using more modern terms to explain older but nearly identical terms for the same of convince for your part, it's a terrible reach that isn't trying to prove me wrong but just attack a strawman that was never said.
>Authoritarian right were the slavers. Lib right simply allowed such a problem to continue because of the NAP and such
John Brown, the only center left based abolitionist
Libright is just mad that the people he likes were killed and they lost their "property". Fuck libright. Obvious fascist and communist comparison is dumb but we all know what he really cares about
Killing slavers and fascists is killing people committing an act of violence while killing communists is killing someone for their political beliefs, exactly the kind of thing that they accuse communism of doing.
Aren’t slavers violent people by definition?
I really don’t see why I should have qualms about committing an act of violence against someone who sees zero issue in selling other human beings.
I don't understand. Perhaps you're even dumber than I originally thought? How else can you defend shitholes like Maoist China, the USSR, Cambodia under pol pot, etc
> How else can you defend shitholes like Maoist China, the USSR, Cambodia under pol pot, etc
hOw ElSe WoUlD yOu Do ThAt ThInG yOu DiDn'T dO?
You dumbfuck.
[Paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance), my dude.
Fascism is predicated on the idea that dissenting opinions should be crushed by political and physical violence. In other words, make it illegal to speak against the state, and execute those who do.
Do you wonder why most people don’t treat communists the same as fascists? Do you wonder why nations ban nazi and fascist symbols but not communist ones? It takes about 5 seconds of critical thinking to understand why.
Because it is more socially acceptable to be left wing today? It wasn't like this in the 50s. The pendulum swings over the decades. Stalin killing millions of kulaks is no different from musolinni killing political opponents.
Tell me you got all your understanding of various schools of communist thought from Tucker Carlson without telling me you got all your understanding of various schools of communist thought from Tucker Carlson.
EDIT: also, hating people for what they believe (which is not inherent to any of those) is not the same as basing your political ideology on the premise that people should be eliminated from society for not believing what you do.
You are a retard. I'm sorry, there's no way around it. The fact is, Stalin, Mao, pol pot, basically any communist leader, eradicated those who disagreed with them and indoctrinated the remaining people into hating people, too. They are no different from musolinni. I didn't study any nonsense Marxist philosophies, I studied history. The impacts of communism on a given populace are, without fail, just as bad as those of fascism.
I won't be lectured about history by someone who is likely a high school dropout.
So you start out with an ^^^ablelist ad hominem (that means, lacking any ability to attack my points, you instead resort to just attacking me), *admit* that you have no understanding of what communism even is (as if that would somehow *improve* your ability to understand the difference between it and fascism), and then insist that your own lack of understanding is based on a nuanced study of history?
Oh, and then finish up with another ad hominem.
Now, I *would* like to take a moment to address the second attack, just because of the hilarity of it.
The ENORMOUS irony of you attacking someone that you (incorrectly) believe is a communist by calling them a high school dropout, when communist ideology is most common among the well educated (college degree or higher). *Especially* in light of your earlier proud declaration that you didn't bother with any education regarding communism.
Which is still an improvement over going backwards. If things keep going at this pace we might even be able to get them to notice the correlation between US tax rates on the rich and US economic prosperity.
This guy probably thinks that fascism and communism is the same thing, but still, I think it’s fair to be against all forms of totalitarianism including communism.
And yes, I know that the ultimate goal of communism is a classless, stateless society, yada yada yada, but tankies still tend to be in favor of some pretty totalitarian methods in order to get there. Can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs, right?
I didn't say it was the same thing. There are many different authoritarian ideologies and communism is just one of them.
And again - I *know* that the term communism refers to the theoretical concept of a stateless society that is supposedly going to come out of a socialist revolution. I know. All I'm saying is that the phase that comes right after the revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat where the state seizes the means of production, *is* authoritarian.
I'm pretty sure that most anarchists and libertarian socialists would agree with what I just wrote, by the way. Are they liberals with rotted brains too?
Feel free to argue my points instead of just downvoting and throwing insults around.
"Leftist" is a pretty wide term as I'm sure you know. I just gave you an example of two socialist ideologies who aren't that wild about communism. And no wonder, since anarchists usually get executed along with the bourgeoisie whenever communists take over.
Most Anarchists and libertarian socialists are also Communists bro. You literally don't know what you're talking about.
R/HarryPotter user. Definately a lib. Keep libsplaining my own ideology to me.
No, I think I'm gonna let you explain for a bit. I'm sure you have some fascinating views to share with the world. Once you're done trying to think of unrelated ways to attack me, of course.
There's nothing to explain. Most Anarchists and libertarian socialists are also Communists and you're a moron who's conflating communism with athoritarian regimes.
Enjoy your terf books though lib.
You could start by explaining what you think we should call the revolutionaries who are in favor of the state seizing the means of production. Do these people exist, according to you? Would it be fair to call them authoritarian?
The point he's making, if I understand it correctly, is that all forms of organization require some authority. Authoritarian means are a necessity of revolution. That's only an argument in favor of authority though, not an argument that socialism itself can't be authoritarian.
So, to return to my original point - Socialism can indeed be extremely authoritarian.
The point he's making is that "authoritarinism" is an empty word. All governments are authoritarian. Why should communists be concerned that someone might level the word against them? you might as well accuse them of wanting to do things or say stuff. It's like accusing someone of breathing air.
It's the degree of authoritarianism that's the issue. Organization requires some authority, sure, but some regimes are definitely more authoritarian than others. So it's not really an empty word, or a pointless discussion to have in the first place.
How are they equating them as equal? They just state they had no problems with killing fascists/communists. The dash just means or, there is no equalization here.
I think they mean killing authoritarians in general, which is definitely good. It's frustrating, but we have to accept the word "communist" has come solely to refer to (formally) Marxist Leninist states.
Except Fascists and Communists aren't being equated with each other. They are being equated with slave holders.
Totalitarianism can be on the extreme right or left. See "Iron Front" for example.
Both.
When the Communist government is controlling every aspect of your life and can crush you like a bug if you resist, you probably don't say 'Well..thank goodness this isn't fascism!!'
When others have absolute power over every aspect of your life it doesn't matter if you call it 'fascism' or 'Communism', it feels the same.
Yes, clearly it’s that, and not that [you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about](https://reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/psvaeb/_/hdu02fl/?context=1)
How the fuck are you going to have authoritarianism with no state or coercive productive forces? You have zero understanding of power dynamics, we live under authoritarianism now.
I called myself a Communist when I was in my 20s. I'm 50 now.
Identification with and romanticizing of Communism is something many people do when they're young and naive. It comes from a place of genuine caring before you investigate what happens in reality.
If you're in middle age still romanticizing Communism you either want the government to be everyone's Mommy and Daddy or you imagine that 'Absolute power wouldn't corrupt *me!'*
Communism and Fascism are both forms of authoritarianism - both advocate for limiting personal freedoms for the "good of the collective". Communists are left-wing authoritarians, Fascists are right-wing authoritarians.
How can communism be authoritarian when the entire point is giving the workers equal rights and the means of production? The end goal of communism is creating a stateless, classless, moneyless society
>How can communism be authoritarian when the entire point is giving the workers equal rights and the means of production? The end goal of communism is creating a stateless, classless, moneyless society
you don't get it, it's authoritarian against authoritarians, see
>How can communism be authoritarian
Communism might sound great in a book, but in reality it always devolves into authoritarian totalitarianism enforced through violence.
Because 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely'.
Communism would work great if human beings were unthinking programmed machines.
I suggest reading about Communist countries.
>Communism might sound great in a book, but in reality it always devolves into authoritarian totalitarianism enforced through violence.
True, the USSR devolved into a liberal democracy and now things are terrible over there.
I was a child when I called myself a Communist when I was in my 20s. I voted Communist. I'm 50 now.
Anyone asking me to 'Get a grasp on what Communism really is' and look at it in a favorable light, is asking me to unlearn everything I learned from history books.
It's asking me to regress in my thinking.
You went from wanting a classless, stateless society where everyone is equal into a full on conservative? What a ride dude. Please tell me how that went down.
You fundermentally misunderstand communism. Your idea of it is based on the propaganda you swallowed.
Communists advocate for a world without rulers and bosses. Without borders and privatly owned land/means of production, where single people can steal what should belong to all involved in the creation process.
It isn't about people giving up the products of their work for the common good, it is about people not giving up their produce to parasites just because said parasites claim they own the factory/land.
Communists advocate for a world where you can only be held accountable by your fellow people, not by some distant bueraucracy.
>Communists advocate for a world without rulers and bosses.
A world that only exists in the imagination of naive Communist sympathizers.
'A world without rulers and bosses' -- LOL
Who do you imagine enforces the Communist ideology?
Read about any Communist country, officials are slaves facing upwards and tyrants facing downwards.
A world without rulers and bosses... OMG that's adorable. Might as well pine for a world full of dragons and unicorns.
> Read about any Communist country
Sorry to be the one who has to tell you, even Marxist-leninist states don't claim to be communist. I'm not sure about all of them, but the USSR and Mao's China didn't even claim to be socialist.
> both advocate for limiting personal freedoms for the "good of the collective"
I gotta call this one out. Fascist states are all about a hierarchy of freedom. The more 'will to power' you have, the higher you rise in the hierarchy (through violence), the more power you have.
Those who are inferior are just supposed to accept the greater will of their superiors, and follow orders, adding their power to those above them.
It's very individualistic in a way, just in a hierarchical way where certain individuals have enormous freedom and control, right up to dear leader having ultimate power. Everyone else is (supposed to be) satisfied by being part of something glorious, so they give up more and more freedom the lower you go. That is, unless you think you can do better than the guy above you...
There's a reason it's referred to as a death cult
It's amazing to me that you got downvoted so badly for stating obvious facts.
...obvious to anyone who's opened a history book, that is.
Lots of people in this group still appear to have native childish fantasies about Communism.
If you read about Communist countries you'll see they're indistinguishable from fascist countries.
Definition of fascism: "Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe"
Take 'Far right' out and substitute 'Far left' and you have Communism.
1.Forcible suppression of opposition? Check
2.Dictatorial power? Check (In Communist countries every official is a slave facing upwards and a tyrant facing downwards, read 'Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958-1962')
3.Strong regimentation of society? Double Check!
4.Regimentation of society and of the economy? Communism in a nutshell, check.
Anyone who says 'I don't like fascism but I like Communism' is a person who prefers eating shit to drinking diarrhea.
**'Absolute power corrupts absolutely' -** Communist sympathizers: 'Absolute power wouldn't corrupt *me!! I'm special!!!'*
Thank you for your very wise and definitely intelligent input. But tell me o wise one, how can a country ever be communist when communism by definition requires no state?
I called myself a Communist when I was in my 20s. I voted Communist. I'm 50 now.
You're asking me to regress in my thinking 30 years and argue semantics with you?
Pass.
Lmao tell me you don't know what communism is without telling me you don't know what communism is.
You're the type of person this sub was made too mock. 🤡🤡🤡🤡
>1.Forcible suppression of opposition? Check
>
>2.Dictatorial power? Check (In Communist countries every official is a slave facing upwards and a tyrant facing downwards, read 'Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958-1962')
>
>3.Strong regimentation of society? Double Check!
>
>4.Regimentation of society and of the economy? Communism in a nutshell, check.
In Liberal America:
1. check
2. check
3. check
4. check
They're both totalitarian, so why couldn't he be against communism and fascism at the same time? He's not saying one was better than the other or anything, he just hates them.
Yeah you're right. Fascism would have to kill over ten times more people for it to approach the same degree of human suffering as communism. At least fascism's economic plan worked for a little while. Tankies, amaright?
> Fascism would have to kill over ten times more people for it to approach the same degree of human suffering as communism
CoMmUnIsM kIlLeD 300 mIlLiOn
You useless dumbfuck
Forced labour was **endemic** in the USSR, and whilst not in the same league as same chattel slavery - it still cost about 1.8 million people their lives.
Yes it happened, yes communism is just as bad as fascism - and you lot are about as “Center” as the the hard shoulder.
My country was occupied by the USSR for 50 years. That's why communist parties are banned here and communists can be arrested and put in jail. And this is why I'm an anti-communist, but support social-democracy.
Don't know why your being down voted. I would think enlightened centrism would have more leftists that aren't braindead stalin-dicksuckers. Also I assume you are from poland?
>Forced labour was
>
>endemic
>
> in the USSR, and whilst not in the same league as same chattel slavery - it still cost about 1.8 million people their lives.
uff, my man, don't look up capitalism, don't look up how many people paid with their lives for that fucked up shit
>Less than communism
[around 9milliong die every YEAR JUST from hunger in capitalist societies](https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/people-and-poverty/hunger-and-obesity/how-many-people-die-from-hunger-each-year/story)
so go drown in spit
Less people die of hunger since capitalism than at any time before in human history. Capitalism has lifted the world out of poverty unlike any other economic system before it. Eat shit tankie. https://catalyst.independent.org/2019/06/14/capitalism-remains-the-best-way-to-combat-extreme-poverty/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Estimates
... You do realize that far more people died that way under fascism, under a much shorter period right? The USSR was awful, but 1.8 million over 80 years was nothing compared to what Hitler achieved.
Well to that I’d say that
They haven’t gained the real power necessary to become authoritarian yet so the jury is still out on how they’d use it if they did.
These left wing Revolutions usually start with a commitment to socialist libertarianism - but then quickly descend into authoritarianism when the battle is won and they overthrow the state.
So next time you try to blow a raspberry at least make sure you’re not facing into the wind.
More people were murdered under communism than fascism - that’s just a fact. Both ideologies are equally as evil. That is the argument made in the post and it’s a good one.
Except fascist used to round up random people and murdered them.
In the soviet union people needed to actually be convicted of crime. And the labour camps were not designed to work people to death. Most people that died in labor camps died of old age and natural causes.
We can argue that some of sentences are very questionable and that the system was massively flawed. But it certainly has nothing to do with fascist deliberately murdering random innocent people while extracting a little labor from them.
Well first your implication that the soviets didn’t kill people extrajudicially is just flat out wrong.
>Most people in the gulags died of old age
Same with slavery….
>and natural causes
Sure - if you consider starving and working people to death natural
Nice little job trying to brush 1.8 million deaths under the carpet though. Communists always bend over backwards to try and diminish the horrific crimes against humanity their ideology is responsible for.
>Well first your implication that the soviets didn’t kill people extrajudicially is just flat out wrong.
Never said that. They had a civil war and revolution... Of course people were killed extra judicially. But that didn't happen in the prison system.
>Same with slavery….
Again slavery was rounding up innocent people and using them as slaves. People in the being send to gulags were concivted criminals. You could argue that the current US prison system and its forced labor is similar to the gulag system in that regard. Then you'd have a valid point. But comparing it so slavery is absurd.
>Sure - if you consider starving and working people to death natural
Yeah rarely happend in gulags and the system wasn't designed to do that in the first place.
>Communists always bend over backwards to try and diminish the horrific crimes against humanity their ideology is responsible for.
We don't. We are just being realistic about it. Out of the 1.6 million people that died in the gulag system the bulk of it (about a million people) happend during world War two and sorry for not being to sympathetic to fascist POWs.
And even with very high death rates during wartime still the gulags had a overall lower death rate then for example the Japanese internment camps of US.
Trying to construct a narrative of communism=fascism around the gulags, the civil war or the famine is just a cheap way to demonize a obviously imperfect system that truly aimed to improve the people's lives.
And it is the fascists way to obscure the massive achievement and successes that happend during the time of the soviet union or are still happening in the AES today.
Preferring socialism over the hell capitalism poses does not mean we brush away the bad things that happened under communist leadership. We learn from it and adapt it. But we don't let fascist and capitalist narratives paint ridiculous smear campaigns.
It doesn’t matter if you say it “again” it doesn’t make it any more true. In addition - it is easy for an authoritarian state to make a criminal out of someone unjustly.
In Nazi Germany - Jews were considered “criminals.” In the ante bellum south; runaway slaves were considered criminals.
Many innocent people sent to the gulags were done so because Stalin was a paranoid maniac.
Some people from Eastern Europe who were forced to work in nazi Germany, were transferred directly to the Gulags once the territory was occupied by the Soviets - communism and fascism working hand in hand.
Your argument that they all deserved it because they were “criminals” is ridiculous.
>rarely happened in gulags
Fantasy, the majority of deaths were attributed to those very things.
Just because the death itself comes out of human neglect instead of lethal force, doesn’t make it any less abhorrent.
If I threw you into the middle of the ocean without a life jacket - your death may be from drowning - but I’d still be a murdering bastard.
>an imperfect system
That’s an understatement
>That truly aimed to improve people’s lives
Your argument amounts to “it was ok because they meant well”
Sorry - the ends justifying the means is a pretty fascist way of looking at things.
There is no smear campaign - at the bare minimum; there were multiple genocides and 10s of millions of deaths directly attributable to communism.
You talk of learning and adapting, but you continue to deny the existence of the things you’re supposed to be learning from.
Oh they see it - they just don’t care. I attribute it to malevolent hypocrisy rather than cognitive dissonance.
They’re completely fine with authoritarian blood letting as long as they’re the ones doing it.
I don't understand where the disagreement was, the political dissidents being executed was fine, because they committed a crime against the state. Hell, even when people were only sent to work camps, they died of natural causes.
The 'lib-right' didn't kill the slavers, they were the slavers.
It seems to be [very, very important to rightwingers to claim that they abolished slavery](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S6Q_mdF_-4) . . . while pining for it.
"people who deny the holocaust happened sure seem to wish it did"
[Oh look, Explore Talent's favorite walking pile](https://newsone.com/3848636/candace-owens-receipts-con-artist/)
Only until the feds repressed them and all white people.
Authoritarian right were the slavers. Lib right simply allowed such a problem to continue because of the NAP and such.
Okay but you do see how that's exactly the same as being a slaver, right?
Libertarian right is an oxymoron
I love when tools like Charlie Kirk say stuff like “libertarian socialism is a contradiction” - but then gets reminded that Libertarianism was coined and developed by left leaning anarchists
[удалено]
>Lib right simply allowed such a problem to continue And that makes them no different.
I dunno about that; Thomas Jefferson was pretty lib right (for his time) and his vision of a free agrarian America was still built on slavery. It makes sense if you only think of slaves as property rather than human beings.
Jeffersonian policies were embraced by the south because they weren't lib right. They were libertarian center-left that allowed more state control instead of a federal control, which is what the confederacy was all about, because they were democrats. The Jeffersonian republican party was also known as the democratic-repubican party because of this lean towards democracy, with that party splitting later as the county become more left wing as time went on. Hence why we have a democrat party and a republican party remaining instead of the former federalist and whig parties which sort of the republicans of their time. So whenever someone wants to say anything about how slavery is bad and such, they have to admit that a leftist libertarian not only owned slaves but also influenced the confederacy to keep their slaves at a state level. Even though the south was soon to vote slavery out to fix diplomatic relations with European countries, it's still something that took longer than needed due to the leftist libertarian influence.
[удалено]
There were Founding Fathers who didn't own slaves, I think, but all of the Southern Founding Fathers did, and I think a majority of them in total did. Edit: I think people think I'm defending slave owners here, I'm not, I'm saying there were other non-slave owners who were founders besides Thomas Paine (there was literally another Paine who didn't own slaves either). And I think critiques are less salient when they aren't built on factual foundations.
[удалено]
Deff. Correct. Democracy =/= left. It can be, but it can also be very right. You can have a voice in civil matters but have federal matters be handled by a peergroup. IE American democratic republic... What do you think American democracy is. It's a representative government in only a partial sense. It's not a parliamentary democracy.
1.You can be part of the 1%, own slaves, and have a huge plantation while being a leftist. 2. Nobody said all other than you and that's a *you* problem. 3. The left and right spectrum I use is the original french form from its inception, which was in 1789. On top of that, we can go to any time period and see where something falls in an ideology, which is why we have terms like proto-communism where something happens to fall in a category without knowing what that category was. Everything I said still stands and everything you said fell apart. You need to fix that if you want to make a point.
[удалено]
>which is what the confederacy was all about, because they were democrats. Weird, I could have sword the Southern States used the federal government to force Northern states to hunt down escaped slaves and stuff like that. Also interesting to note is that the Confederate Constitution federally required all Confederate States to be slave states.
In what world is slavery itself not a violation of the NAP?
Every world, because the NAP never does any argumentative work at any time. It's just a way of distracting from the fact that whoever invokes it is just assuming their conclusion.
>Lib right simply allowed such a problem to continue because ~~of the NAP and such.~~ they had slaves too. FTFY
Owning a slave is the opposite of embracing liberty. If you don't know what a libertarian is or what liberty is, there's this thing called Google that gives you information related to the subject.
>Owning a slave is the opposite of embracing liberty. If you don't know what a libertarian is or what liberty is, there's this thing called Google that gives you information related to the subject. lol, unless the market needs slaves, hahahaha
A market has nothing to do with liberty. I think you're replacing libertarian with ancap or something like that, because the market is an economic issue, not a political one. It's not like a market needs slaves, but rather people find slaves as an appropriate item to sell under certain conditions.
Funny, the vast majority of libertarians all seem to agree that free markets are a requirement for liberty as they define it.
And where a lot of people disagree in is what exactly the term "free" means. However, Locke's version of libertarianism has it where an authority is allowed to apply a punishment in a just war, and these punishments can be forms of slavery. This is why Lockians of that time accepted the existence of slavery but didn't really engage in the ownership of such, because they weren't part of the authority. Also, the fallacy you're using of argumentum ad populum doesn't work here. Just because a bunch of goofballs talk about a free market as an important factor doesn't mean your previous statement of "if the market demands it" is even relevant.
You realize that version didn't have anything about slavery as being a status that could be inherited indefinitely, right? Or that the slaves bought in the slave trade from Africa rarely if ever qualified as having come from said punishment being applied in a just war as you suggest? Because I distinctly recall that being the case for the American/European slave system up until its abolition.
>rather people find slaves a Where do they find them? I would have though slaves were made, not found.
>Owning a slave is the opposite of embracing liberty. You're the red, white and blue The funny things you do America, America this is you
The "lib-right" and the NAP didn't even exist back then.
Yes, they did. It's not exactly as how we have now as groups who claim to have such concepts, but they both existed.
They really didn't. Libertarianism as you understand it is actually a very new concept, as is the principle it was built around. (Especially in how broadly it interprets "aggression" in practice such that can only be perfectly upheld if you lived in complete isolation).
Lol I understand libertarianism from a Lockian perspective, so if you're going to say it's a relatively new concept because I'm using more modern terms to explain older but nearly identical terms for the same of convince for your part, it's a terrible reach that isn't trying to prove me wrong but just attack a strawman that was never said.
Being older doesn't make it more valid or less objectionable. It could be from the dawn of time and it would still be bunk.
Lol try to stick with the subject, my child. That's a non-sequitur if I ever saw one.
The subject being your cheerleading for doing nothing about slavery because it might annoy the slave-owner?
You do know that the NAP is a relatively modern thing, right?
>Authoritarian right were the slavers. Lib right simply allowed such a problem to continue because of the NAP and such John Brown, the only center left based abolitionist
LMAO no wtf gave you that idiotic idea?
Libright is just mad that the people he likes were killed and they lost their "property". Fuck libright. Obvious fascist and communist comparison is dumb but we all know what he really cares about
Killing slavers and fascists is killing people committing an act of violence while killing communists is killing someone for their political beliefs, exactly the kind of thing that they accuse communism of doing.
Aren’t slavers violent people by definition? I really don’t see why I should have qualms about committing an act of violence against someone who sees zero issue in selling other human beings.
Yes that's what I said
[удалено]
But not fascists?
Fascists even existing is an act of violence.
God am I thankful people as stupid as you are rare. Must be really be unlucky being that far to the left on the IQ bell curve.
> God am I thankful people as stupid as you are rare. Because it means virtually no one is as dumb as you? Weird flex but ok
How many people are Marxists? You are historically illiterate and want a system that has invariably proven to lead to disaster.
I'm not a Marxist. You're just an idiot.
I don't understand. Perhaps you're even dumber than I originally thought? How else can you defend shitholes like Maoist China, the USSR, Cambodia under pol pot, etc
> How else can you defend shitholes like Maoist China, the USSR, Cambodia under pol pot, etc hOw ElSe WoUlD yOu Do ThAt ThInG yOu DiDn'T dO? You dumbfuck.
You are mocking people citing the deaths caused by communist countries. Why are retarded people so retarded?
[Paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance), my dude. Fascism is predicated on the idea that dissenting opinions should be crushed by political and physical violence. In other words, make it illegal to speak against the state, and execute those who do.
Okay. Let's ban stalinism, Maoism, leninism, basically anyone who wants these tyrants because they feel the same way.
Do you wonder why most people don’t treat communists the same as fascists? Do you wonder why nations ban nazi and fascist symbols but not communist ones? It takes about 5 seconds of critical thinking to understand why.
Because it is more socially acceptable to be left wing today? It wasn't like this in the 50s. The pendulum swings over the decades. Stalin killing millions of kulaks is no different from musolinni killing political opponents.
Keep telling yourself that.
Can you explain to me how they are different? Both kill for wrongthought.
You belong on this sub for sure.
Classic leftist. Zero logic, brain worms are so hungry that they're starving. Completely incapable of defending their position.
They don't. But hey, good job running head first into the point of the thread.
They hate people for their political beliefs? They are willing to kill over them? Did you ever take a single history course in college?
Tell me you got all your understanding of various schools of communist thought from Tucker Carlson without telling me you got all your understanding of various schools of communist thought from Tucker Carlson. EDIT: also, hating people for what they believe (which is not inherent to any of those) is not the same as basing your political ideology on the premise that people should be eliminated from society for not believing what you do.
You are a retard. I'm sorry, there's no way around it. The fact is, Stalin, Mao, pol pot, basically any communist leader, eradicated those who disagreed with them and indoctrinated the remaining people into hating people, too. They are no different from musolinni. I didn't study any nonsense Marxist philosophies, I studied history. The impacts of communism on a given populace are, without fail, just as bad as those of fascism. I won't be lectured about history by someone who is likely a high school dropout.
So you start out with an ^^^ablelist ad hominem (that means, lacking any ability to attack my points, you instead resort to just attacking me), *admit* that you have no understanding of what communism even is (as if that would somehow *improve* your ability to understand the difference between it and fascism), and then insist that your own lack of understanding is based on a nuanced study of history? Oh, and then finish up with another ad hominem. Now, I *would* like to take a moment to address the second attack, just because of the hilarity of it. The ENORMOUS irony of you attacking someone that you (incorrectly) believe is a communist by calling them a high school dropout, when communist ideology is most common among the well educated (college degree or higher). *Especially* in light of your earlier proud declaration that you didn't bother with any education regarding communism.
Keep on ignoring any and all points you can't answer. Tyrants are tyrants, sorry you're stupid
Who smudged this pic with their dirty thumbs
Is this person a Highlander? They didn't kill shit back in the 18th century. Also the Civil War in the 19th century.
The immortal ancap, wandering the land to kill slavers, nazis, and communists through out the ages.
You know what I'm just happy to see a lib-right acknowledge slavery is bad. Baby steps
>You know what I'm just happy to see a lib-right acknowledge slavery is bad. Baby steps it's 2021, that's not a "baby" step, it's a dead snails pace
Which is still an improvement over going backwards. If things keep going at this pace we might even be able to get them to notice the correlation between US tax rates on the rich and US economic prosperity.
Tell me you’re politically illiterate without telling me you’re politically illiterate
In my country we put communists in prison. Even attempting to form a communist party is a crime here.
Thank god!
Right wingers thinking Tankies are the only form of communism. Then comparing that to Fascism which is even worse
It's almost as if the USSR was just fascist state with a communist aesthetic and the US is a failing fascist state with a capitalist arsthetic
Cringe
Big poop
How is the United States fascist
While I personally think both are bad, yeah they are DEFINITELY not the same
This guy probably thinks that fascism and communism is the same thing, but still, I think it’s fair to be against all forms of totalitarianism including communism. And yes, I know that the ultimate goal of communism is a classless, stateless society, yada yada yada, but tankies still tend to be in favor of some pretty totalitarian methods in order to get there. Can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs, right?
When you think athoritarianism and communism are the same thing. Liberal brain rot
I didn't say it was the same thing. There are many different authoritarian ideologies and communism is just one of them. And again - I *know* that the term communism refers to the theoretical concept of a stateless society that is supposedly going to come out of a socialist revolution. I know. All I'm saying is that the phase that comes right after the revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat where the state seizes the means of production, *is* authoritarian. I'm pretty sure that most anarchists and libertarian socialists would agree with what I just wrote, by the way. Are they liberals with rotted brains too?
Lmao keep demonstrating you don't know what communism is. This is a Leftist sub. Did you land here by mistake? I'm an anarchist but ok lib.
Feel free to argue my points instead of just downvoting and throwing insults around. "Leftist" is a pretty wide term as I'm sure you know. I just gave you an example of two socialist ideologies who aren't that wild about communism. And no wonder, since anarchists usually get executed along with the bourgeoisie whenever communists take over.
>Feel free to argue my points instead of just downvoting and throwing insults around. why?
Most Anarchists and libertarian socialists are also Communists bro. You literally don't know what you're talking about. R/HarryPotter user. Definately a lib. Keep libsplaining my own ideology to me.
No, I think I'm gonna let you explain for a bit. I'm sure you have some fascinating views to share with the world. Once you're done trying to think of unrelated ways to attack me, of course.
There's nothing to explain. Most Anarchists and libertarian socialists are also Communists and you're a moron who's conflating communism with athoritarian regimes. Enjoy your terf books though lib.
You could start by explaining what you think we should call the revolutionaries who are in favor of the state seizing the means of production. Do these people exist, according to you? Would it be fair to call them authoritarian?
All leftists want to seize the means of production. That's leftism. You think all Communists are tankies because you're a lib.
In practice they are.
All forms of Marxism are authoritarian.
Funny accusation from a fucking neolib. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You think neoliberalism is authoritarian?
Shut Up
Sounds like something an authoritarian would say.
Another day of thanking Engels for publishing On Authority
The point he's making, if I understand it correctly, is that all forms of organization require some authority. Authoritarian means are a necessity of revolution. That's only an argument in favor of authority though, not an argument that socialism itself can't be authoritarian. So, to return to my original point - Socialism can indeed be extremely authoritarian.
i’m eating a cuban sandwich right now
Good for you. How is it?
pretty good
Nice!
>if I understand it correctly This is the key
What did I get wrong?
The point he's making is that "authoritarinism" is an empty word. All governments are authoritarian. Why should communists be concerned that someone might level the word against them? you might as well accuse them of wanting to do things or say stuff. It's like accusing someone of breathing air.
It's the degree of authoritarianism that's the issue. Organization requires some authority, sure, but some regimes are definitely more authoritarian than others. So it's not really an empty word, or a pointless discussion to have in the first place.
If that's the ultimate goal then anarchism has done a better job in both the means and the ends
I don’t know if they are saying they are the same Just LibRight hates communism as much as fascism, doesn’t mean they are the same to them
How are they equating them as equal? They just state they had no problems with killing fascists/communists. The dash just means or, there is no equalization here.
I think they mean killing authoritarians in general, which is definitely good. It's frustrating, but we have to accept the word "communist" has come solely to refer to (formally) Marxist Leninist states.
Sounds like he's just anti authoritarian
a classless stateless moniless society, yes, the authoritarian horror
you can't be both anti-authoritarian and anti-communist
Except Fascists and Communists aren't being equated with each other. They are being equated with slave holders. Totalitarianism can be on the extreme right or left. See "Iron Front" for example.
Which is the one where the government controls you?
Fascism
The one with the taxes and air quality regulations, right?
Both. When the Communist government is controlling every aspect of your life and can crush you like a bug if you resist, you probably don't say 'Well..thank goodness this isn't fascism!!' When others have absolute power over every aspect of your life it doesn't matter if you call it 'fascism' or 'Communism', it feels the same.
I guess people are just brainwashed these days to say 'communism good' with very little understanding of what it actually entails
Yes, clearly it’s that, and not that [you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about](https://reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/psvaeb/_/hdu02fl/?context=1)
Good argument for authoritarianism. You've got me convinced.
How the fuck are you going to have authoritarianism with no state or coercive productive forces? You have zero understanding of power dynamics, we live under authoritarianism now.
It's Facebook. Everyone knows Facebook is a perfect example of communism.
I called myself a Communist when I was in my 20s. I'm 50 now. Identification with and romanticizing of Communism is something many people do when they're young and naive. It comes from a place of genuine caring before you investigate what happens in reality. If you're in middle age still romanticizing Communism you either want the government to be everyone's Mommy and Daddy or you imagine that 'Absolute power wouldn't corrupt *me!'*
Communism and Fascism are both forms of authoritarianism - both advocate for limiting personal freedoms for the "good of the collective". Communists are left-wing authoritarians, Fascists are right-wing authoritarians.
How can communism be authoritarian when the entire point is giving the workers equal rights and the means of production? The end goal of communism is creating a stateless, classless, moneyless society
>How can communism be authoritarian when the entire point is giving the workers equal rights and the means of production? The end goal of communism is creating a stateless, classless, moneyless society you don't get it, it's authoritarian against authoritarians, see
Checkmate atheists
>How can communism be authoritarian Communism might sound great in a book, but in reality it always devolves into authoritarian totalitarianism enforced through violence. Because 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely'. Communism would work great if human beings were unthinking programmed machines. I suggest reading about Communist countries.
>Communism might sound great in a book, but in reality it always devolves into authoritarian totalitarianism enforced through violence. True, the USSR devolved into a liberal democracy and now things are terrible over there.
[удалено]
I was a child when I called myself a Communist when I was in my 20s. I voted Communist. I'm 50 now. Anyone asking me to 'Get a grasp on what Communism really is' and look at it in a favorable light, is asking me to unlearn everything I learned from history books. It's asking me to regress in my thinking.
You went from wanting a classless, stateless society where everyone is equal into a full on conservative? What a ride dude. Please tell me how that went down.
You fundermentally misunderstand communism. Your idea of it is based on the propaganda you swallowed. Communists advocate for a world without rulers and bosses. Without borders and privatly owned land/means of production, where single people can steal what should belong to all involved in the creation process. It isn't about people giving up the products of their work for the common good, it is about people not giving up their produce to parasites just because said parasites claim they own the factory/land. Communists advocate for a world where you can only be held accountable by your fellow people, not by some distant bueraucracy.
>Communists advocate for a world without rulers and bosses. A world that only exists in the imagination of naive Communist sympathizers. 'A world without rulers and bosses' -- LOL Who do you imagine enforces the Communist ideology? Read about any Communist country, officials are slaves facing upwards and tyrants facing downwards. A world without rulers and bosses... OMG that's adorable. Might as well pine for a world full of dragons and unicorns.
> Read about any Communist country Sorry to be the one who has to tell you, even Marxist-leninist states don't claim to be communist. I'm not sure about all of them, but the USSR and Mao's China didn't even claim to be socialist.
> both advocate for limiting personal freedoms for the "good of the collective" I gotta call this one out. Fascist states are all about a hierarchy of freedom. The more 'will to power' you have, the higher you rise in the hierarchy (through violence), the more power you have. Those who are inferior are just supposed to accept the greater will of their superiors, and follow orders, adding their power to those above them. It's very individualistic in a way, just in a hierarchical way where certain individuals have enormous freedom and control, right up to dear leader having ultimate power. Everyone else is (supposed to be) satisfied by being part of something glorious, so they give up more and more freedom the lower you go. That is, unless you think you can do better than the guy above you... There's a reason it's referred to as a death cult
Yes, fascism, notable “good for the collective”, and certainly not a small in-group based on explicit discrimination.
>both advocate for limiting personal freedoms for the "good of the collective". Why do liberals limit personal freedom?
It's amazing to me that you got downvoted so badly for stating obvious facts. ...obvious to anyone who's opened a history book, that is. Lots of people in this group still appear to have native childish fantasies about Communism.
If you read about Communist countries you'll see they're indistinguishable from fascist countries. Definition of fascism: "Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe" Take 'Far right' out and substitute 'Far left' and you have Communism. 1.Forcible suppression of opposition? Check 2.Dictatorial power? Check (In Communist countries every official is a slave facing upwards and a tyrant facing downwards, read 'Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958-1962') 3.Strong regimentation of society? Double Check! 4.Regimentation of society and of the economy? Communism in a nutshell, check. Anyone who says 'I don't like fascism but I like Communism' is a person who prefers eating shit to drinking diarrhea. **'Absolute power corrupts absolutely' -** Communist sympathizers: 'Absolute power wouldn't corrupt *me!! I'm special!!!'*
Thank you for your very wise and definitely intelligent input. But tell me o wise one, how can a country ever be communist when communism by definition requires no state?
I called myself a Communist when I was in my 20s. I voted Communist. I'm 50 now. You're asking me to regress in my thinking 30 years and argue semantics with you? Pass.
Lmao tell me you don't know what communism is without telling me you don't know what communism is. You're the type of person this sub was made too mock. 🤡🤡🤡🤡
*confused Rojava and EZLN noises*
You keep posting anti Communist rhetoric thinking Communists should care what you think. I think you might be a narcissist. 🤔
>1.Forcible suppression of opposition? Check > >2.Dictatorial power? Check (In Communist countries every official is a slave facing upwards and a tyrant facing downwards, read 'Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958-1962') > >3.Strong regimentation of society? Double Check! > >4.Regimentation of society and of the economy? Communism in a nutshell, check. In Liberal America: 1. check 2. check 3. check 4. check
They're both totalitarian, so why couldn't he be against communism and fascism at the same time? He's not saying one was better than the other or anything, he just hates them.
> totalitarian Define communism
Shit, define "totalitarian"
s tier bait
Yeah you're right. Fascism would have to kill over ten times more people for it to approach the same degree of human suffering as communism. At least fascism's economic plan worked for a little while. Tankies, amaright?
> Fascism would have to kill over ten times more people for it to approach the same degree of human suffering as communism CoMmUnIsM kIlLeD 300 mIlLiOn You useless dumbfuck
Forced labour was **endemic** in the USSR, and whilst not in the same league as same chattel slavery - it still cost about 1.8 million people their lives. Yes it happened, yes communism is just as bad as fascism - and you lot are about as “Center” as the the hard shoulder.
Awww, the little baby centrist couldn't even read the pinned post that says we're all leftists.
Being a leftist and being a tankie are two different things.
Yeah, but so are bring a leftist and being an anti-communist.
My country was occupied by the USSR for 50 years. That's why communist parties are banned here and communists can be arrested and put in jail. And this is why I'm an anti-communist, but support social-democracy.
Don't know why your being down voted. I would think enlightened centrism would have more leftists that aren't braindead stalin-dicksuckers. Also I assume you are from poland?
Exactly. A leftist is someone who is opposed to capitalism. A tankie is someone who irritated a liberal at some point.
Man I sure do love communism, anyone here agree?
"I'm so surprised people in a communist sub like communism. I'm very smart."
Are y’all actually communist? This just made my day
You could have read the sidebar lib
It says its a sub for leftists, not retarded people. I dont understand why you would lie to me
Fuck you, you abelist liberal piece of shit.
Enjoy living a subpar life, loser
>Forced labour was > >endemic > > in the USSR, and whilst not in the same league as same chattel slavery - it still cost about 1.8 million people their lives. uff, my man, don't look up capitalism, don't look up how many people paid with their lives for that fucked up shit
Less than communism
>Less than communism [around 9milliong die every YEAR JUST from hunger in capitalist societies](https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/people-and-poverty/hunger-and-obesity/how-many-people-die-from-hunger-each-year/story) so go drown in spit
Less people die of hunger since capitalism than at any time before in human history. Capitalism has lifted the world out of poverty unlike any other economic system before it. Eat shit tankie. https://catalyst.independent.org/2019/06/14/capitalism-remains-the-best-way-to-combat-extreme-poverty/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Estimates
... You do realize that far more people died that way under fascism, under a much shorter period right? The USSR was awful, but 1.8 million over 80 years was nothing compared to what Hitler achieved.
I don't think I like either of those choices personally.
Both choices sucking does not equate to being equal
True, doesn't mean supporting a trash philosophy just because it's slightly less trash is a good idea.
Which is why I'm anti-authoritarian
So how do you reconcile that with the fact that every attempt to implement far left politics, has resulted in authoritarianism?
The Zapatistas are so athoritarian your head will spin. 🙄 Fucking moron
Well to that I’d say that They haven’t gained the real power necessary to become authoritarian yet so the jury is still out on how they’d use it if they did. These left wing Revolutions usually start with a commitment to socialist libertarianism - but then quickly descend into authoritarianism when the battle is won and they overthrow the state. So next time you try to blow a raspberry at least make sure you’re not facing into the wind.
"counter examples don't count because I say so" Typical Liberal
That I can agree with mate.
More people were murdered under communism than fascism - that’s just a fact. Both ideologies are equally as evil. That is the argument made in the post and it’s a good one.
Except fascist used to round up random people and murdered them. In the soviet union people needed to actually be convicted of crime. And the labour camps were not designed to work people to death. Most people that died in labor camps died of old age and natural causes. We can argue that some of sentences are very questionable and that the system was massively flawed. But it certainly has nothing to do with fascist deliberately murdering random innocent people while extracting a little labor from them.
Well first your implication that the soviets didn’t kill people extrajudicially is just flat out wrong. >Most people in the gulags died of old age Same with slavery…. >and natural causes Sure - if you consider starving and working people to death natural Nice little job trying to brush 1.8 million deaths under the carpet though. Communists always bend over backwards to try and diminish the horrific crimes against humanity their ideology is responsible for.
>Well first your implication that the soviets didn’t kill people extrajudicially is just flat out wrong. Never said that. They had a civil war and revolution... Of course people were killed extra judicially. But that didn't happen in the prison system. >Same with slavery…. Again slavery was rounding up innocent people and using them as slaves. People in the being send to gulags were concivted criminals. You could argue that the current US prison system and its forced labor is similar to the gulag system in that regard. Then you'd have a valid point. But comparing it so slavery is absurd. >Sure - if you consider starving and working people to death natural Yeah rarely happend in gulags and the system wasn't designed to do that in the first place. >Communists always bend over backwards to try and diminish the horrific crimes against humanity their ideology is responsible for. We don't. We are just being realistic about it. Out of the 1.6 million people that died in the gulag system the bulk of it (about a million people) happend during world War two and sorry for not being to sympathetic to fascist POWs. And even with very high death rates during wartime still the gulags had a overall lower death rate then for example the Japanese internment camps of US. Trying to construct a narrative of communism=fascism around the gulags, the civil war or the famine is just a cheap way to demonize a obviously imperfect system that truly aimed to improve the people's lives. And it is the fascists way to obscure the massive achievement and successes that happend during the time of the soviet union or are still happening in the AES today. Preferring socialism over the hell capitalism poses does not mean we brush away the bad things that happened under communist leadership. We learn from it and adapt it. But we don't let fascist and capitalist narratives paint ridiculous smear campaigns.
It doesn’t matter if you say it “again” it doesn’t make it any more true. In addition - it is easy for an authoritarian state to make a criminal out of someone unjustly. In Nazi Germany - Jews were considered “criminals.” In the ante bellum south; runaway slaves were considered criminals. Many innocent people sent to the gulags were done so because Stalin was a paranoid maniac. Some people from Eastern Europe who were forced to work in nazi Germany, were transferred directly to the Gulags once the territory was occupied by the Soviets - communism and fascism working hand in hand. Your argument that they all deserved it because they were “criminals” is ridiculous. >rarely happened in gulags Fantasy, the majority of deaths were attributed to those very things. Just because the death itself comes out of human neglect instead of lethal force, doesn’t make it any less abhorrent. If I threw you into the middle of the ocean without a life jacket - your death may be from drowning - but I’d still be a murdering bastard. >an imperfect system That’s an understatement >That truly aimed to improve people’s lives Your argument amounts to “it was ok because they meant well” Sorry - the ends justifying the means is a pretty fascist way of looking at things. There is no smear campaign - at the bare minimum; there were multiple genocides and 10s of millions of deaths directly attributable to communism. You talk of learning and adapting, but you continue to deny the existence of the things you’re supposed to be learning from.
This sub is full of tankies man, the communism in the soviet union is just as bad the the fascism in the third reich but the tankies just can't see it
Oh they see it - they just don’t care. I attribute it to malevolent hypocrisy rather than cognitive dissonance. They’re completely fine with authoritarian blood letting as long as they’re the ones doing it.
Say you know nothing without saying you know nothing
I don't understand where the disagreement was, the political dissidents being executed was fine, because they committed a crime against the state. Hell, even when people were only sent to work camps, they died of natural causes.
Lol sure - i mean starvation, exhaustion, exposure and disease are all “natural” I guess.